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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 25 May 2016 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D7012D817 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dj4g5Sjv09tW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0B6312D7EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A5892A2; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:37:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1464215857; bh=lcTZXDo0nEIf/T50wc6I33B7e33toWo5R3UklEYXXrM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PW+f4NYyZUlOGiJNG01qAil5I88vBqQ70xJt4SMf9dRWqFS+NRFTl+s+G3zqQZ8P1 Vd4WdZ19fbR7+lqhuQXG6X0flAi+BrWw5B5bv3Ik+R1bG7Nd59C/e+tXk6ox4G5fvD FKvm9OkJ5ipcKcDo4qmngqT3gpck2IBOAuQX8SVQ=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9507EA1; Thu, 26 May 2016 00:37:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:37:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDVX_bpL9FtqSk5u=A_Pt8LWGQ476uh=E9dpB+bAcG8xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605260023370.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <bd1f61ef-3be2-1a16-804c-68548df0b789@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <da508fd5-307c-c61e-5b72-185238414a9c@gmail.com> <1936013436.371962.1464185835726.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <439c30dc-3d3c-e6e3-43f2-812a66496379@gmail.com> <270093544.407294.1464189518299.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605250826150.2005@rabdullah.local> <256739472.426341.1464191336969.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CA+9kkMDVX_bpL9FtqSk5u=A_Pt8LWGQ476uh=E9dpB+bAcG8xw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eXw2BMc5F7xzBHpM8tul2lGjPvA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:37:42 -0000

On Wed, 25 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:

> question.  That question is either:  are we willing to presume that 
> certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the 
> law to attend?

Yes, because we're already doing that and have been for a long time. The 
LGBT issue is one important issue, but there are a lot more of also 
important issues.

It's my firm opinion (as I have posted in multiple email) that if we 
disqualify Singapore on the basis of its on-the-books laws, then we must 
also disqualify USA and for a very long time (at least 5+ years before we 
might re-evaluate performance) and not have a meeting there in near time.

In a lot of aspects USA is an oppressive nation with a long string of 
human-rights violations and arbitrary incarceration (more examples than 
the ones Ted Lemon mentioned), with huge amount of gun violence and 1/4 of 
the worlds prison population. As mentioned before, stand-your-ground laws 
means I can get shot and the shooter go free because the person claimed he 
was scared of me.

Again, there are no perfect places to have our meetings. Some people can't 
attend some meetings because of $REASON. Skipping Singapore because of 
LGBT issues means we're as a consequence discqualifying a huge part of the 
world (including some parts of USA that still have opressive laws on its 
books (see earlier postings)). Singapore has the chance to be inclusive 
for people that have other problems than LGBT issues, that might not be 
able to attend meetings in USA because of $REASONS.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se