Re: Concerns about Singapore

Melinda Shore <> Sat, 09 April 2016 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0556F12D10F for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 3KBchaSAYZt4 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E55C812D0FF for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f1so34994739igr.1 for <>; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sqdUZVykVdXX0erQ0S6G9GIIvNwYHjdb/qiCheTK1kc=; b=wEJjQ4I1ExeB3xPeO9wofk2X70fQgtrY6GxMjV8B1Drs0hXtqd1x4TBVU8jT7PLVwy MoQaPJSSIaw55ku4QdXuAoRIy5z0zAl2IqWpt1qiBUocd+L/J6JEX1HQSkWEM3RnEZYB nS59WeYl92iYBtF86WllHMbW4xjqztLdXVqpfuOleRkcK9Dp0UWro42X9Wvxt/sI/ITz B199/hQXjq5mPMIOOgeuYTDamTvr4VEfXjsQimpDx21K8saX0X+wi0vvxgt3npAaUxF3 QG2s2K57AHNQgsKqf7l9Q3LMX9t6N9VLTFAPz59OfUO2sVWtNYWXd6XKXb1ignWFINOe 4c0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sqdUZVykVdXX0erQ0S6G9GIIvNwYHjdb/qiCheTK1kc=; b=kyuFr1iV/pp9UzN4GkSuCIYgiMskfHhnhwJVMeObrnWgYCtN+SZ4FZdUEVu9p62TyZ 6j2Mq94Da0yPY/6yeqVJqSZJhPd8akElHZH0yDzbxvqFVpUYhFswTI9iCz8CwymrehIs f6f+SH0JnYHfkvy2lSNjZs31IE+AMp4OTGiCYM82Jc4uQBPpnhE3GdVztSmqW/vNT+/1 HGfy7OYyyBYaVv2WdxjvJEbd54mgMY0mLhj1ViqfQ3AMDrY/XSmjfEWXVnF/Ddu5o/mU jgU/dahGlSYMHR0kMrCvEj/KjMEF5Gmcj2LgzERnM1/5cphHHgK9fX6tT/FfFXETYXC9 Z1Dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJSMM16MRbb54ATRflwbOmm54RkynHzFMcmN+ZTT8Ziq0gitCehU7c0SuSl075jnA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id by1mr10861222igb.53.1460229465184; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id cl9sm6254122igc.10.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, joel jaeggli <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:20:03 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 19:17:47 -0000

On 4/9/16 11:01 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> One could mention sodomy laws in Texas; we have met in Houstaon and
> Dalls, I believe, there times.

That goes, I think, to the question of unenforceable laws
(Lawrence v. Texas).  I'm interested in the question of where
the line is between issues that the IETF needs to deal with
and matters of personal conscience, and I tend to think it
comes down to questions of whether or not meeting participants
will be treated equally when it comes to public accommodation,

As we're seeing, businesses are responding to the recent spate of
anti-gay legislation and transphobic potty laws by announcing that
they're not  opening planned facilities in those states, not allowing
their employees to take business travel there, and so on.  So, there's
an actual question about whether or not the IETF would be able to
meet in a place that's recently passed anti-gay legislation, given
some corporate travel restrictions.  As far as I know there are
no corporate bans on travel to Singapore, but civil liberties
organizations like Civil Rights Watch have identified Singapore as
a place where LGBT people still face active legal discrimination
and it seems clear that there's a legitimate question about what
sort of treatment some meeting participants can expect to receive.