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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 25 May 2016 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383E212D9B0 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkpOoNZRdP_c for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D4E512D1D4 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 01:21:36 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000549332.msg for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 01:21:36 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Thu, 26 May 2016 01:21:36 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 01:21:33 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
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 23:21:40 -0000

This discussion is public, I’m sure it has already been indexed by google, bing, etc.

We can start reviewing our ways to choose venues from now on for those that have no economical impact (no contracts signed yet) and at the same time we must not hide our opinion on any kind of discrimination.

We can have the meeting in Singapore and at the same time, have an explicit message to the authorities, press, etc., explaining what enforced to have this discussion and why we will not come back to Singapore and other countries if the laws aren’t changed. We can even have a press release explaining it during the meeting. It is a much better opportunity to create the noise, specially if authorities come to the meeting.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Recentattendees <> en nombre de Margaret Cullen <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016, 1:09
Para: <>
CC: <>rg>, IETF Announcement List <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

>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”.
>Recentattendees mailing list