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

Randall Gellens <> Tue, 24 May 2016 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDC812D161; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <k6uGka7U2l5E>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k6uGka7U2l5E; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CBD12DC2B; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Mon, 23 May 2016 18:45:05 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240603d3693d84924a@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 18:40:54 -0700
To: Ted Hardie <>, Adam Roach <>
From: Randall Gellens <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF 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: Tue, 24 May 2016 01:45:08 -0000

At 12:32 PM -0400 5/21/16, Ted Hardie wrote:

>      It's not only hard for those who are not in the affected class, 
> it's difficult for any member of that class to speak for anyone 
> else.  That suggests that trying to have this discussion based on 
> the expressions of individuals of their own comfort is the wrong 
> way to have it.  There are, after all, too many cases in which it 
> is not easy for the most affected to make their concerns known.
>      I think the other possible (and better) way to have that 
> discussion is to start from a set of community agreed principles, 
> and then to ask whether a particular venue meets those principles 
> or not.

A very good point.  I completely agree.

At 8:14 PM +0200 5/21/16, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>  Despite my full respect, sympathize and understanding of the 
> situation and my disagreement with the Singapore rules, I don't 
> think we should put on top priority having family in the meetings, 
> because there is the option of not bringing the family and do the 
> work.

This ignores the difference between a personal preference/choice and 
a legal requirement.  To me, this is a big difference.

At 8:14 PM +0200 5/21/16, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>  What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever circumstances?

I think this trivializes the issue.

At 10:29 AM -0800 5/21/16, Melinda Shore wrote:
>  Also, understand that you're asking that GLBT people accept
>  different conditions for participating in an IETF meeting.  I
>  strongly agree that our top priority is, and has to remain,
>  getting work done.  But, for better or for worse, a lot of
>  participants bring their family members, and there are some
>  basic questions here about equal and unequal treatment, aside
>  from the potential safety issues.


At 11:48 AM -0800 5/21/16, Melinda Shore wrote:
>  I think if you look through past posts, you'd be hard-pressed
>  to find anybody who's been more of an advocate for venue selection
>  based on ability to support work than I have been.  I've also been
>  very clear that I don't think that under our current set of
>  conditions there's really anything to prevent us meeting in
>  Singapore, which is truly unfortunate because there is absolutely
>  no question that Singapore criminalizes relationships between men.
>  Laws establishing this have been upheld by their highest court less
>  than two years ago.

I agree.  Melinda is not a member of the "IETF as junket" crowd. 
Singapore is a special case.

At 4:13 PM -0400 5/21/16, John C Klensin wrote:
>  Let me turn that around, in part because you included "people
>  who want to bring their families" on your list of priorities.
>  From my perspective, it is important to consider, not only
>  "fully respecting" individual situations, but to set the
>  priorities in meeting site selection carefully, make sure those
>  priorities have community consent (rather than being decided on
>  privately by the IAD, IAOC, or Meetings Committee), and then
>  follow them and their implications.

Indeed.  We need to stop making the same mistakes, and stop making 
ever more egregious versions of the same mistake.

At 4:13 PM -0400 5/21/16, John C Klensin wrote:
>  In particular, "nice place to bring family or companion(s)" is
>  either a selection criterion or it isn't.

I don't know if "nice" is the right word, but I agree with what I 
think John is saying.  To me, "nice" means something that excludes, 
say, Minneapolis in the winter, and I think the issue with Singapore 
is much more serious, since it's a violation of law.

At 11:43 PM +0200 5/21/16, Michal Krsek wrote:
>  I have a friend of mine who is in relationship with other man. They 
> went to Singapore for business reason about a year ago. They felt 
> safer than in Dallas (being there also for business about three 
> years ago) - I just verified this findings over e-mail.
>  All venues have their own issues (including those in the US).

Your friend chose to ignore the law in Singapore.  That's fine for 
him, but are we really prepared to force people to make this choice? 
Sure, all venues have their issues, but saying so is an excuse for 
ignoring fundamental issues of equality and national law; it 
trivializes the issue with Singapore, and sets us up to make the same 
error again and again.

At 12:04 AM -0400 5/22/16, Ted Hardie wrote:
>  I am sorry that this was not clear, but it is about participation. 
> If a child is of an age or in circumstances where both parents are 
> needed, then holding a meeting where both parents cannot be present 
> or cannot be recognized as parents excludes the IETFer(s) in the 
> group from participating.
>  This has been the circumstance for me in the past, and it is the 
> reason I missed one of the meetings when I was an AD.

This is a nice, specific example of the point that started this 
particular thread that it is hard for those who are not members of an 
affected class to understand the issues faced by members, and Ted's 
point that it is also hard for any member of the affected class to 
speak for all members.

At 12:04 AM -0400 5/22/16, Ted Hardie wrote:
>  I think the diversity principle is not "hold meetings in different 
> places", which would put a premium on novelty, but on "hold 
> meetings so that the disadvantages of travel are equally 
> distributed".  It may well be that only a small number of places 
> meet our bar for inclusiveness, and that we shuttle among them.  As 
> long as that shuttling still spreads the disadvantages of travel 
> equally, we meet the goal.

I agree.

At 12:30 AM -0400 5/22/16, Ted Hardie wrote:
>  To be blunt:  the availability of the right to assemble is no 
> evidence of a lack of animus by the state.

Indeed so.

Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Surstrommingspremier (SEUR-stomins-prem-ya; Swedish; noun): The
first day of the year when it is acceptable eat Surstromming,
extremely foul-smelling fermented herring (banned in some apartment
complexes, airplanes, etc.) -- literally, "sour fish premier."