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

<> Wed, 25 May 2016 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B6E12B011 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 Hwv7QPhsQj6z for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A928512D09C for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 07:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1464185999; bh=FOPQVVi+WLj4QN7Auh8a0VvnPQxsYWnLxyfhzwQNnOA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=Ohquwqk38YTGry8JCnBXwaluRshVFmPansvOHh9YtbKsZYVLJRwX++CjhTUttBZLHlU192csGbfYxLx6uG0WR0vr5NhciKhPsPrchIqPl3M/xykUySdmVKhkeKBoRAxSKlWuNEbpBVwXsRbayH6htwdHPslK8aFps0Mm4d4yZ5yKG0L32rfW76d7M+xR30n9ufDnXl4Jf3MG2q1Yq+Mhaadz7JMMjNZMI2bBBj6ZWA8hTzeY/agVdD+0wR+hjUji/pHs26TuNx5NHfLckuCdXoaIkUknKARsNrwiITLL0wk3fmZKMdcpBOFsWSI6x1jDLcr9D+HDQVsk0hvPfKLpLw==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 25 May 2016 14:19:59 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 25 May 2016 14:17:16 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 25 May 2016 14:17:16 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 25 May 2016 14:17:16 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-YMail-OSG: DDsdODUVM1ljTIUQmS3BwJ1SocIxz8sTJP7ISua_4QTQhcsnd_Xe0M_8oiqqW5M KeT0G3YRMeiVAxj0LUuq1gc9ZuH.5ddHrQl.uiOrdL5oFeFAzpqAvs100Ou9uJmVYPz1Lh9qYtSk oWeFkPnC_fWvFml_06uJeRvPXMc_ffT5UZ70w7U42h2eILGS20uXUBKpiQI9VKNBACbjX99Jyd.r 0PW1mx28txNzoaNZ2NqTLNCUM5k3dqUsogtWiza1snODX4TEd4zecKJkCOwSZFuA.zCZHx5ENDmq 96sqZYvSp2w6uspyC5MYjEab.gwXgfuFQJVdlkQcdy3mj2INR.MR3VBoGCdvqZU8riZoPxOWXvP8 41AROs1KD0azIczSfC1b9EXKD62D8QbbM7nguRFHsDme3KUFZ.C4FB3M7Q6hd6mcbL1T6q1p5LjX 7IqeCp1Lk0NYIJeX4C81dvzSu0RMS.LNN51oOnuZ_u3WEofs1CkqpdOW__TP7LlyUkzfqQ8OVKq1 O4IryOxMi2dpOxH99JXSqk_64seZvkaPaV.t66DScQsmHHgFAfnfKwIXOBc3G9w--
Received: from by; Wed, 25 May 2016 14:17:16 +0000; 1464185836.309
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:17:15 +0000
To: Melinda Shore <>, Ole Jacobsen <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John Levine <>, "" <>
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 14:20:02 -0000

>Indeed, it is.  However several people have made the unfounded
>assertion that because there are bigots in public office in the
>US things here are as oppressive as Singapore.  And that's what
>I was posting in response to.  They are not the same.  We have
>the law protecting glbt familial rights and those laws are being

>> Everything we have been told from folks in Singapore and frequent
>> travelers thereto says "yes". With respect to any medical situation,
>> it might be prudent to carry paperwork which documents the
>> relationship.

>Okay, so you're putting an additional burden (economic and
>otherwise) on people in same-sex relationships.  That's a
>problem.  A bigger problem is that there is no reason whatsoever
>to believe that anybody in Singapore is going to honor a contract
>drawn up in the United States by American lawyers.

So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?  IMO I think we all need to share the burden.  The world is changing and two of the biggest changes are GLBT acceptance and the end of the hegemony of the West.   In the future, more and more people will be coming to IETF from Asia, Africa and other places.

A few things I think have not been discussed have to do with facts (why let a few facts stand in the way of a good argument! (joke!)) and feelings:

First some facts:

1.  The probability of being hospitalized.  Certainly, people who sell travel insurance calculate the odds of being hospitalized, so from:


"In one article, a survey by the U.S. Travel and Tourism Agency was quoted as determining that “16 mil­lion adult Americans flew overseas in 1992.”  A second article quoted the State Department as reporting, “Each year, roughly 23,000 Americans are hospi­talized abroad.”  I divided 23,000 by 16 million and came up with the number .0014375."


So, even if the data is somewhat dated, the likelihood of this event is low.  Be that is it may, there are quite a few medical facilities in Singapore.

Maybe some of the people in Singapore can call the hospital administration and ask about this situation and report back.

Also, I assume that if the horrible case of a gay couple being denied rights at a hospital had occurred recently or frequently, both the Embassy in Singapore as well as one of the Asia desks at the State Department would know about it.   I am sure someone can talk to them.   I have a friend who recently retired from the Foreign Service (the U.S. diplomatic corps) and I can ask him if he knows someone over there also.

This would be the link for I believe the relevant Asia desk at State:

This is the link for the US Embassy in Singapore.  I am happy to call them.

2.  Now, feelings:  (probably more important)

I think that much of this discussion (IMHO) is because feelings are not being listened to.

I suspect Ted feels unsafe and vulnerable (please correct me if I am wrong) and those of us from Asia (speaking for myself only) feel that having venues only in Western liberal-ish countries is unfair.  Others, please let me know what you think.

I completely understand the feeling unsafe.  I remember (quite a few years ago!) when I took my toddler to Berkeley, all of a sudden, the "colorful characters" having conversations with themselves in doorways, etc. seemed quite dangerous to me.  Before I had a child in tow, I just took it as a part of the scenery.

It is a risky business this giving your heart to a child thing.   You've given a hostage to fortune and may never sleep well again.

my 2 cents.