Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Tue, 24 May 2016 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5311A12D586 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DbF_t_JKhdMa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D557812D175 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 15:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 99E1EA2; Wed, 25 May 2016 00:19:20 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1464128360; bh=jOPYC6fvhGkFrtS/XtSZo61QWZj84eTzgaJCKR7sUvE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=zenn0G50dxNVu0qF181cNTdIsK2JC/9z8AhFecCycfpQNB/70gsnBctpbFkJiK/ki z4IC+ikuJ5YaHbqat33jRRq7n3KonU4u9lKBT4UG5NoyyvSO7z280o+UA1ziylGpyv lQQilaGjM0C/OFi7rzV7fTtKds1FimDNYiMcdacA=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A7BA1; Wed, 25 May 2016 00:19:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:19:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdC2SBC6F4-8MJGsJBt7kbJ+kRA5MKC5ZVUyhjCUJLkCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605250000470.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CABcZeBMPAFdLwZTr7TCJC-tZ+X=CKGzQ7Jp0zqDO86PdPn6YvQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D82EA4F-1275-436C-8030-1E799F5D7F59@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBOCtk6JK_3w2_L87oyze+dfgy7fFyU7QrGmGgEtta1oZA@mail.gmail.com> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <E51DA1A2-AB3E-42F7-BC0A-308BE6B58580@gmail.com> <2270ea7c-cd6d-c3d5-e768-6d1f0ae15605@nostrum.com> <216D2B11-5E07-4DBE-BCC4-0A8ABCCB15B7@gmail.com> <cf9ad015-ef7d-6e11-44e8-6a0fb5a78b91@gmail.com> <EBBFC64A-C730-47D8-8F66-E4C7773A0344@gmail.com> <D5E06CF1-9C2D-41BE-8635-1F73321986EC@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com> <F2144741-4441-4F6E-B91E-6AEB52BCA7CF@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rdC2SBC6F4-8MJGsJBt7kbJ+kRA5MKC5ZVUyhjCUJLkCg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SEfkDZlEGNUYHeVVv8p59XL2hjI>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:19:25 -0000

On Tue, 24 May 2016, Alia Atlas wrote:

> I am concerned that we are pulling apart based on nuanced opinions of a
> rather complex situation with insufficient information.

It would be interesting to understand how many people we would enable to 
come to Singapore that would not make it to an alternative location (I 
don't know which one this might be).

Sometimes there are hard choices to be made, potentially there might be 30 
people that would be able to attend the meeting in Singapore who could not 
make it to Japan or Australia (just guessing here, and making up 
locations).

>From reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Japan it 
seems the same problems regarding next-of-kin exists in Japan.

So do we stay out of most of Asia because of LGBT rights issues? I checked 
for instance Thailand as well 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Thailand) and they have the 
same next-of-kin problem (from what I understood). We can't go to India, 
Malaysia or Indonesia either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea seems to indicate 
same next-of-kin problem. So if next-of-kin protection for LGBT couples is 
a hard requirement, then we'd better find a new place for IETF97. Doesn't 
leave much time.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se