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

James Seng <> Thu, 26 May 2016 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D4612D1BE; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, 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 5h2CDG2b14iS; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB4BF12B025; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b65so147382845oia.1; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:10 -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=VypTj/TePAtHcWTFva/C+vdVsggj2p7KcqdZFkYKx6w=; b=yBGq2dKGOgZLW9w6ZUGArdF/Yf82/AQmGYO65p5Jdg9OGHRxD8dkt/OMUPEi5lZpfR ve86ZnkNRPahJtU9sRABoLheG/wCz/1VL7jmZKq8ufDYWWKfJXCglLPQrbndXuALwiIQ pH0tIsqu2bI+L1sf6v1OzJ4liqPyffGv2HQCzm7JK4ttGgtlVTVAsrElVvgrbBo247Kb JnSjWo9jxWEvZcI7YeDQyS/eCJi72bBtonYNHalgLXBNPV11wBapRiNvTrVO1TcQ2URr z3MWv/dBXzUKjCZvOTnFVw00YLCuqlvU+8OhZt0Id/30O08FJeKAZxCL5AWxGx08I9i3 yc3g==
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=VypTj/TePAtHcWTFva/C+vdVsggj2p7KcqdZFkYKx6w=; b=YKdX7j/ot/bdQy1J2xiXesIwquxBYZS8ReLgDGt/RzKDXyro6Y7X5sTOdMRc3rVIH4 2UPYh8wNUEcEjUVXOZZzR1IZ5WLSsHK3Hw0osZHGcptYfqlPLZXkPkEjYAAcgAXOet7s qT8uh9shSV+8jqnd7/1kvNQ9zJiMiWzzX9xtoAB/8tn7ehOlr8XFvNJZqnCDUmDgEprX eg3Ubohfa8ED+UeaVwWPirAycXpJaMuVEhcp73DmvJJUsQetOzgFxZrvNEMNXpYU2pRS lhO3S1SYl2hEYQ+wbA4sanc/u8wRjRmdMZgKqNUK6IIKeVHmcdgonf8C8lfVpvrBMctA yU7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL1XaF6/KQQy7VkizswW8EfFfp0MiFLgYFReGgG5R0ChzMBTbd0Ril77FtnKpgdGKtVRMdtbHi/U+xiKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id n205mr7926289oia.104.1464302230104; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 15:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 06:37:09 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: James Seng <>
To: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d672c44f3930533c66e47
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:37:14 -0000

Section 377A of the law was heavily debated (and once again I stood on the
side for repealing it) but the Singapore government decided not to removed
it but stated clearly it will not be enforced. When question why bother
leaving a law that is not going to be enforced on the book, the government
gave some crap reason about matter of family principles.

Anyhow, There are many LGBT couples in Singapore and at one time Singapore
went all out courting "pink" talent. There are also many LGBT members that
has come out open and have no problem with the police.

I know Ted Hardie many years and I trust his judgement on many engineering
matters. But in this case, I would be surprise if he or anyone can find a
case where 377A was enforced in the last 10 years

I support your choice for pursuing social injustice. I am spending my time
doing pro bono work on world peace. But IETF does not seem to be a relevant
organization to pursue these agenda.


On Friday, 27 May 2016, Margaret Cullen <> wrote:

> Hi Fred,
> > On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> indicates that 12 states have anti-sodomy laws on the books, including
> Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North
> Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.  The
> fact that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does
> not mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable.
> As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.  According to
> videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered
> rescinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it.
> > We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in
> Utah. We have had no incident that I became aware of.
> Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn’t be
> safe for them to travel to those locations?
> >
> > Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information is
> dated.
> I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don’t always
> agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid.  Ted
> cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don’t believe he would
> raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstruct our work.  So, when
> Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his
> family, I believe that there are rational reasons for him to think so.
> > If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah,
> Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of
> Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda,
> and the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the
> issue has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional than
> fact-based. I'd like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in venue
> selection that focus on having successful meetings, and remote
> participation capabilities that will enable someone that chooses to attend
> that way to do so productively.
> I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the
> status of women in those countries.  I would not be willing to travel to a
> country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, etc.
> So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not attend.
> I would also think less of the IETF and it’s commitment to gender
> diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to abide by
> religious or cultural restrictions — I object to laws that require them to
> do so.)
> You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, while
> people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety or
> ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  While there might be some
> (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it would have
> the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in the
> world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only ones who
> are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.  Given that our
> leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, both as a way
> to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership positions,
> that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse
> organization across many lines.
> Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting
> in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this
> made it harder to get work done, IMO.  Attendance numbers (and therefore
> registration fees) were also down.  What are the benefits that offset those
> costs?  Does having one meeting in a country actually result in an increase
> in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that country?  Has
> anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given location send
> mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend future
> meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?  If so, could
> someone publish the results of these studies?
> This is obviously a very complicated issue.  The IETF has a choice to make
> about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are rational
> viewpoints on both sides of this issue.  I don’t think we will resolve this
> issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (like being unable to meet
> in Texas), instead of trying to understand the more subtle effects of the
> choices we are making in these situations.
> No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can’t claim to speak
> for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than you
> can.  Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully researched
> and highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC that
> is as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possible.  I
> will send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed.
> Margaret
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> <javascript:;>

-James Seng