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

Ole Jacobsen <> Wed, 25 May 2016 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F036312D500 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.127
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.127 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8LJVh_Gd5amq for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 001D312D1E1 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) id <> for; Wed, 25 May 2016 06:17:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Sep 8 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 06:17:36 +0000 (GMT)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-05-25_03:,, signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1510270003 definitions=main-1605250080
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:17:35 -0700
From: Ole Jacobsen <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-reply-to: <>
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=4d515a; t=1464157056; bh=LLNEmEzlPZU4OqPvyYkqRj6SFjMiKbSnXR8nwX5IOuY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-id:MIME-version:Content-type; b=ITjtAPKcYvK18Va1+OD+UqayVaGI7nHrIk8+S1An0usPKZRfLBd8TG3pmxWwdgQp5 lESlBB335WlEuzWp57AJSTmyTVmHD4QEn2tnRPMPZPbmKS+4N3V5+JvZm4oZBq3ZYD OhXuZM1JNNKOPEA/Nbc+oeShWdUfKjof+IJKjmNe9pN62RxbSOXOmPXxJFCvTQ39EP mtbSlnyF2G5uIWnNuzG/lrngH2CR4KowHgVerzzYiLJAGju5fW3CuLi6XjhNmDmBJT F42D/7YdXv3wgblVL0OozrZmSlroxltjPxzMet4v1ZJ5QjHteuVYmWL+EKpNx+juMN gIngK0p1SzxUw==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John Levine <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:17:38 -0000

On Tue, 24 May 2016, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 5/24/16 1:03 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > The answer to your question still seems to be we don't know, with a
> > great deal of variability based on the situation.  It's the same
> > answer I'd give in parts of the U.S., too.
> I would not - in the US, there's recourse.
> Melinda

Perhaps, but "recourse" might be just as painful and time consuming 
whether you are stuck in legal wranglings in Alabama or featured in 
the next episode of "Locked up Abroad". The pertinent question is 
still: Will the familial and parental rights of people in same-sex 
relationships be respected in Singapore?

Everything we have been told from folks in Singapore and frequent 
travelers thereto says "yes". With respect to any medical situation, 
it might be prudent to carry paperwork which documents the 
relationship. Singapore is a *major* medical destination for all of 
Asia and the IETF is by no means the first group that has had to deal 
with this issue.

Extra paperwork does indeed result in unequal treatment, but we 
already accept such inequality (which varies by destination) with 
respect to visas.

This does not mean that I am trying to change Ted's mind nor does
it mean that Singapore should or shouldn't be on our list of future
destinations. That is for the community to ultimately decide. For
now we're focused on what to do about IETF 100 specifically.