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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860A612DD6F for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8E0Z84ugj0Ob for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CDD12D1E8 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BD6203B2; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AAC638BF; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <CAPt1N1m>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:49:33 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:49:35 -0000

Ted Lemon <> wrote:
    > We spent many years holding IETFs in a country, and in states in that
    > country, that did not recognize LGBT rights, and nobody at that time
    > ever proposed not holding IETFs in that country (the U.S.). We held
    > many, many IETFs in that country. What has changed from then to now?

US citizens from California who bring their same sex partner along to wrangle
the baby do not have to cross a border to enter Texas or Alabama or Utah or..
EU border guards don't care, and speak english well, and we believe that
their legal system isn't corrupt. (I can not speak to truth of it, just belief)

What has changed is:
a) US citizens now have LGBT rights in some places, and have new family
   (legal) arrangements as a result.

b) We are trying to go to more non-US places for reasons of US visa hassles
   and a number of other reasons.

c) Having encouraged more diversity, we have to deal with the actual needs of
   that diversity.

    > In my personal opinion, what has changed is that there are now many
    > fewer potential venues where LGBT families would have to worry. This is
    > a wonderful, positive change. The number of potential IETF venues where
    > such worries are an issue has substantially dropped. I get that because
    > of that Singapore now feels like a backslide, but I think we should all

I think it is more than just this.
As I wrote in another email, I think it's also a concern about the treatment
the legal system will give us.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-