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

"Jamie Baxter" <> Fri, 27 May 2016 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F96F12DC1E for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.176
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n37czk_NhU_B for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FCD712DC29 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with bizsmtp id zW7T1s0033LLKp101W7TaT; Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:27 -0700
X-SID: zW7T1s0033LLKp101
Received: (qmail 26466 invoked by uid 99); 27 May 2016 18:07:27 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.2.9
Message-Id: <>
From: "Jamie Baxter" <>
To: "Margaret Cullen" <>, "Keith Moore" <>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:07:26 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 18:07:37 -0000

Please forgive my abrupt intrusion and inaugural offering into this conversation.

I would first offer that it is extremely encouraging to see this portion of the Internet's technical community having this debate and I applaud it. I do believe ICANN could expand their understanding of the issues a great deal from what you are covering here as they continue to explore new meeting sites as well. Fingers crossed they begin to soon. 

In addition to just looking within the IETF membership, may I also suggest reaching out to Human Rights Watch or ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association) for further documentation of the real world implications facing members of the gay community in all countries around the world. Most especially if this becomes an issue you intend to track moving forward. I trust they can give you a local perspective based on their LGBTQI networks on the ground worldwide. Not only does ILGA produce an annual State Sponsored Homophobia Report, but they are also highly involved in LGBTQI matters within the Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR) taking place at the United Nations, which highlight many of the injustices occurring around the world.

Happy to share contacts for ILGA & HRW if it would be helpful.


Jamie Baxter
VP of Marketing
dotgay LLC
307 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1807
New York, NY 10001
212-235-5154" rel="nofollow">

Please join us on Facebook at" rel="nofollow">
and follow us at" rel="nofollow"> 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
From: Margaret Cullen <>
Date: Thu, May 26, 2016 4:21 pm
To: Keith Moore <>
Cc: "" <>, "Fred Baker
(fred)" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>

> On May 26, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Keith Moore <> wrote:
> Right, but should IETF need to hire lawyers in each country in order to get an expert opinion about whether members of each of an enumerated set of groups can legally be harassed when attending a meeting there, and about the likelihood of that happening?

What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone has any feedback on the idea? And then considering that feedback _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?

It seems to me that if this issue had been raised before the IAOC had made a non-refundable $80K deposit and had negotiated $150K in benefits from the Singapore government, there would have been a lot more latitude for choosing a different location.