Re: Concerns about Singapore

Yoav Nir <> Sat, 09 April 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0113312B009 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.799
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 g89maiweqZuY for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A5912B004 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n3so56207762wmn.0 for <>; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=OOF/tpTMd7oJGUagniu2xLNNI46Fa71redmAxQ/9hno=; b=r0X2j4oqo/p6iL2gtTJw/BGtNLmNqe54nrKmT1MdM4yEe3Es+to7OIl6zz+OWAmCdB o9xn6CLiYznv3p5FH6x0XaKuulzOffKQIcHBzi6FNZ563ShIbq/qGmeNceTwUUqO3CFy eLXYD98cR5uQD52l0wdF4P+k4fhnszosU4eZF87noTHWqh/4lMcLYmeEJFFF3TeA6/ZK pCfbM8rRV0advSBfdlOJ8E7YkUgai/WWSNO7jrAhcWIRwoKwGPdCFgBhQUoo19Y1uAxH +eXzQSje3foE27eXUEZjFqXI3GVKqbamve0pcItgJOncErN5PoXP6qYMcAE8W2svpBeJ fHYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=OOF/tpTMd7oJGUagniu2xLNNI46Fa71redmAxQ/9hno=; b=KllMp4Vm/e14aASkcu9ZI4KyFtD4BIxVoXslzZmaS50sv100ONSeAGOg1YsmRZfx/O OMDCopt+lY3fBZxyRFey+Sf/ZCsmh3fY73DIqtULRJqXRvCQ7wy0xy+565PfYxNax/FF KRZuOWOHBTBlqnoTP6/JTjdpkYimb6m777tmTulECmKced6PNzDqpUL9z0cBNRWEjtUD Cz3cFKOG6m1sSKYrf97PR5ptkxniIc0g3mT5baxkKMuAS8orKMXxhMn86badZDHXFc0r 9xVq2kw55LJPROjrgN19GduoFOs6M+ZNMO7vzW1LiURBiFui9mOY5wbLq7lTzuvqAQGm w3Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKhbRX0RzAsOIPmjSfIX9YdJoTYMB1DiwY35b7lNgdJ04wqQcXUlcSXoJVJRNoDRw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id hf10mr14836095wjc.134.1460222122982; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id d123sm8598287wmd.9.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DD194944-C96A-4ED4-A3F8-BFAB569BA831"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:15:21 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Andrew Allen <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " Discussion" <>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 17:15:26 -0000

Hi, Andrew

> I don't think the IETF should boycott locations just because the community doesn't like some of the laws of that country or aspects of that countries governments policies‎.  That is a very slippery slope that could significantly reduce the number of possible meeting locations and also distract from the IETF mission.

I generally agree with this. However:

> Having been to Singapore once before I am certain there are no room police patrolling the hotel corridors trying to ascertain what activities the guests are up to in their own rooms. There were also no personal questions asked at hotel registration as far as I recall ( I am sure I would have remembered that) so I don't see it as an especially hostile environment.‎ I think the IETF should confirm with the meeting hotels that there will be no issues in that regard and also a check with the Singapore authorities that there will be no threat to IETF participants because of their orientation or marital status would be a sensible measure.

I’m sure they didn’t ask *you* any questions. But you might have gotten some response if you tried to check in with another man into a room that had just one bed.  I’m not saying that you would. I don’t know, having never been in Singapore, but I can understand that it would be a concern.