Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ole Troan <> Thu, 26 May 2016 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7935B12D575; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.948 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DXhGyHm0bwcv; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D21A12D0DB; Thu, 26 May 2016 02:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3042; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464254486; x=1465464086; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=rRUzvoWayDAzWm4pETUfEAKis6339Rq2a1ZK8Vphg4c=; b=iw5tGOMO/b77uQpLmqUKBVbzQkzjX8XTRBVqtKOqcadDnWp2Lbb1XHKw j9rCjhIqy0Xz/YYh7VxeAnUIRkaj1whVA1ELYYUBLGst81+20RchQXQeF KsczA3pikpicuywOtVAb4QaQyjL+o0z3IwwLRPN+yIbL46A3JCbbeJTUB I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 842
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B8AgBbv0ZX/xbLJq1cgw2BAn23bYIPD?= =?us-ascii?q?oF4JoVrAoFpFAEBAQEBAQFlJ4REAQEDASNOAQMEBQsLQgICVwYnBogNCAENsVS?= =?us-ascii?q?DB45AAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDg6GJ4F2CIJOgTmGByuCLgEEmDeDK?= =?us-ascii?q?4p1jxyPTB4BQ4ITgVxsAYoUAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,367,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="677386504"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 May 2016 09:21:24 +0000
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4Q9LNSP020937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 May 2016 09:21:24 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F96171B1CA; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA386ACF-0472-4EC7-BCC2-A797BBAEF93D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Ole Troan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:21:23 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Margaret Cullen <>, IETF Announcement List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:21:28 -0000

> I understand that this is a very difficult situation, but I think you have left something important out of your list of pros and cons.  If we cancel the Singapore meeting, we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come there:
>> “    Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
>>   preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
>>   difficulties for same-sex partners and their children; these have
>>   discouraged affected members of our community from participating
>>   at the IETF meeting in November of 2017 and have also influenced
>>   others to decline to attend in principled solidarity with them.
>>   Accordingly, the IETF has decided to postpone indefinitely the meeting
>>   in Singapore and is pursuing alternative venues.”
> If, instead, we hold this milestone meeting in Singapore despite the fact that these issues have been raised, we are sending the message that we consider basic human rights violations to be no more of a disincentive to visiting a particular venue than visa issues, cost considerations, or other items that have been raised in this discussion as examples of why “no venue is perfect”.

If we were to go down this path, principled as it might be, is there anywhere we can meet physically at all?

I can't think of many countries that aren't violating basic human rights in some way or the other...