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

Harish Pillay <> Mon, 23 May 2016 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7682E12D662; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 DHeqW2mOenOm; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F1312D656; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ww4so29275824igb.1; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=r/9J3+Tom8nKR5jphfdPO7LqevPQImNXSLskCIvRHSU=; b=Vs/I0eV1VGVJIhdjkAUnpBckYWomt3MqHHkUN0FEkWJHfz0pSEOr5mVuzkzuszE++V ygL2bFeofy7nOr9htdHspkG7VkxvJSfKgmEl+77RFYnt6XsaeJtNC6nbKGMbqdTuUqWn oXO4uw2bdNvH+Vf0cbbaOGpSmDXCRZlHLCZLHe6m11JguOz7I0ewQ8mRvbGfPdSRy4Mm St82cucPYYgGMMww9JM5Ctbg6U9zbCrViI31aJG1rhjeDEOHyLv1G9uaI4o/akV6NZbW ADsI6XIutbd0hj9pUzngN1jKOmgBvh8wtCJ0L42tBPO/N//O3LpdOT1qP7w2HH6nz/Iv 6RBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=r/9J3+Tom8nKR5jphfdPO7LqevPQImNXSLskCIvRHSU=; b=IA1+YZjIfMcduOIfpcwMkIaNlMFa3GckSvnFTfdtRzBnS9DUJMfCqjW3As/fnxA6la VXS1FKs9FyY3ZNkOegaROCl6RsA+6Ndjvt7y1VkRhmcexukoSnQqtG2k+Quph+vgBK9J DoYB1wT+yfhsVinhHSbCn+RYHbZ+VpOWQa7SCfA8Dcb8RSf8C3UqcE19gNRA7MZcTVJA 1vCwk8rO0Yh+fVt95eNs0iscHJNjh+zKx8KlxJJIXwg8bO7ZTaxwS8zZwd+SPUeKUUOn gM2dmfmn1efPPox47RYeQLvQ6Vz1NNrOucOKzL9lTgo3gKv8UX7EtBA4WGKPWLRm70tc RfKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXDB0B+VVPzUP3IK0/AWY+8m0byKTXJN+HO7tpJ+s81uA24kbADYvMmcIylQb6qZgbl3e+EZYmd9Nqamg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id w9mr11915249igb.84.1463992394684; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 01:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:33:11 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Harish Pillay <>
To: Allison Mankin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 08:33:17 -0000

[ ... deleted ...]

> It's in the hands of an authoritarian government to prosecute and maybe
> imprison our colleagues for their normal lives, while others in the IETF do
> not face this risk. This isn't the same as inconvenience.
> It could result in imprisonment of individuals for travel plans that are
> exactly the same as other attendees

I would like to have specific references to any of those that you refer to
above that was done in Singapore. To the best of my knowledge (and I
live in Singapore), there has never been anyone prosecuted for what you
are saying. Do, please, provide references. I would want to know.

For that matter, and this is something I brought up previously as well,
if there is indeed active prosecution, how would you explain
happening in Singapore year in, year out? It is a very public event and
no one was prosecuted. Zilch.

Yes, there are people - almost all of them are with a religious agenda -
who make noise from their world view. See [1], [2]. There was a debate
in the Singapore parliament in 2011 abour repealing the section 377A of
the Penal Code (which we inherited from the British) which criminalises
sex between men. The Prime Minister's response is here [3]


There were concerns expressed by some that if their loved ones
visit Singapore and have some medical issue to be addressed,

Again, to the best of what I know, given the fact that Singapore touts
itself as a medical hub for Asia, if there is ever anyone was denied
access to their loved one just because they are part of a gay relationship,
it would be well know. I have not heard of a single instance of that.

So, please relook your objections to having IETF in Singapore. We are
not prefect. We are, just as most countries, a work-in-progress. But in
this particular issue, it is clear that you have nothing to fear or be concerned