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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Thu, 26 May 2016 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3955012D141 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qmKsvpDm6GON for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE9612B058 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c127so63545365ywb.1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kioc41epp0fxuQ2Tr/IiFF2NrQszNqKUEUjNmlQ2w9Y=; b=XizxuqJABFIcGZ0ALp+UrE576bX40cQ8ZTUI41oCAs9X0nw6CPTnvFfAn6ecU1CvEa nrUFnvd4M79ptLu7RpT86V//hYR5UznLWmM0/VRDOpQOQ0VhvaCRyHtlDTuD1Tx6BMU/ eXLXqWQ5cHMw52QmLm8WSAoFvRRluagu5Ks5Kp9tw8qJXBsqs3i4C6e2yb9ANAeLLMrB TMxYY3niS/bJ6LXWsv0F9kzMHgm6I7UEKnU0MfLs9FTqz9UPbmbgksVJBgbRXYdV6rbq 6mwE2YJMgv3DcUvVw6XvZT9464B5K1HjdQoUnEqQ7jkENUPTzV+OYuw5NeWHpp2XknRT ZVBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kioc41epp0fxuQ2Tr/IiFF2NrQszNqKUEUjNmlQ2w9Y=; b=CY4J114MqY1qYlbl86V9PGYSxmPlyKcGxZ/KXd1BmOnmHdy7YPkBInYdw5y1HkH9GD u11np8HdGNtB9pVfWdZ/g8qmiSHzuZTaCKqniKgbcO1cTFCGouZmgnW4GH3yXTWlp8uD +5Bd88PVTqIFi38niHA+ttmEE4Lw4KmkYyB0OIyNtMDGp8jENdaEX+pDpDmRL5SH4ESD RyukHLa7/MXP30lhsFXHgScdZQzFXY8hELvam8IsvLV/oOLOvqp7nLn+C6R1/yqoazhx OvkjGkzAWsZTdD+kqNrEPcYtTCeaebwtX/jasYIOTWiyhq2n6uGPUbk+8EkqFV4E7A7h 7mSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLMzuvf96Mv6zD3zmsWHNoQKCRVTIjduCRw0Tl+ui6AIywmjeD1Y3WaJXwFR3eRLCa6iuHVOpFbkfYO6gbR
X-Received: by with SMTP id g205mr4683169ywb.66.1464226642399; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 18:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:37:02 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114dc694e48d260533b4d465
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF Discussion <>
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 01:37:25 -0000

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Margaret Cullen <>

> 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

Where was this discussion held? I don't recall it here on the IETF list.

In addition to the obvious impact on future venue selection, which I assume
has already been debated (Are we going to have to stop holding IETFs in
Asia for a few years? What does that mean for IETF participants who live in
Asia? etc.) I would assume there are other local practices such as free
speech or unfettered Internet access that the IETF might want to take a
stand on. How do we decide which ones those are?

As a community-driven organization, we make most decisions via community
process (e.g., we make technical decisions via rough consensus). Should we
be working on putting together such a process to make this sort of decision?

It seems bad to make this sort of decision on an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis
as appears to be happening here.