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

Margaret Cullen <> Wed, 25 May 2016 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2613012D572 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MuOWbglJArVS for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87F3E12DE0F for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c189so81151017vkb.1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=mZVCxfg4FRUKuOpQ6TGnJoH3hSBxUMpGQm77/ZN9Dak=; b=S3h7hb4w4EJDec8eM8CATK86BaN/Doz8VPDZdCUd5zn60lc9lL/zgNbZ7iU+YWoAZ6 Dm6uoYTi5vTe2gP7RBK7xdCLgCF8lNVxQhq5HcRK0+Jixe/fqcYHN6dgkwqs2lAM0zb6 4jkNqKwXYVqpBL6+SzKOXwbacX4G4Bb3Qev3h7SnWfrmV2okARZbKEeSIvDvHWEGlMJW sUFn5OeGyp18N/1Sk0eVacSD09zBBYFG6BavHY+7FRZoLT3oOZVpCURcZGPiuBBclZnq SaAFbnjAhujL5oHPrl1EgwWOJMJ5mGkJZH6ov/bWylI/eODYKFwy+z6CWEmwBsk1d2Jt F73Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=mZVCxfg4FRUKuOpQ6TGnJoH3hSBxUMpGQm77/ZN9Dak=; b=Q6ZkX4KFYpgtIGHSbFgYWi4ph4geRilMa9qi7HSStK2Fxwgd/IRNGpBKstcYBHI+9P ErONTKX6Nne/E2/5U2xvHezeUNP4KfMb9cJL4NaF2CgDkoswdcCryjU1rTOKrAFs3Mek DZMzb+2CGafWQBCudTUliVo1wdsECLAffp7JPbwpkfj1Whv34oRbXynRf4Y2Cv/BZHj2 KnH+ppL8efeuidEexejiw8lt107JSpecrt0CPb2ocvG/BUo5QIYHWRZclkJr/VfmB/oQ Ljjbk7rkiaNxkcl5VJmJLpVLJRFzXGXrm2cextoo73i6w80l/DOg4RpVwVl4ReTY+2b6 6nbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJfa6KQzdGqJ13Hb+TehkCgTmAmiq2KxN6pYdPKCtMfkudVFSG87y2URL7++5Yy/A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u137mr3902055ywe.257.1464216948427; Wed, 25 May 2016 15:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from margarets-air-3.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g124sm717112ywa.11.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 May 2016 15:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E57A6182-226C-41BE-AD06-2ACB57D1681C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Margaret Cullen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:55:45 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Vinayak Hegde <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Paul Wouters <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
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 23:04:00 -0000


While I consider it highly unlikely to happen, if it became illegal for Muslims to travel to the U.S., or if there was a U.S. Federal or Illinois State law that included the possibility of a prison sentence for being Muslim, then I would ask the IETF to move that meeting to  a location that did not present the risk of incarceration for any of us based on our race, religion, gender, sexual preference or gender expression.

I think many of us are missing an important point here.   This is not an issue of Singapore requiring one group of people to fill out more paperwork to enter the country, or not allowing same-sex couples to marry or adopt.  As I understand it, this is a situation where a gay man is concerned that he could be _arrested_ for coming to the Singapore IETF meeting with his family.  This is an issue of human rights and personal safety, not an issue of convenience, paperwork, cost, etc.


> On May 25, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Vinayak Hegde <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Paul Wouters <> wrote:
>> I have been thinking about this. If we would meet in Dubai, then I would
>> not go because I'm an atheist which is a crime there and I don't feel
>> secure enough this is a "legacy law not enforced". However, I would not
>> be against the IETF meeting there because I do want us to try and be
>> inclusive of the Middle East, something we haven't done well so far.
>> However, I would hope we continue to strife to go to locations that are
>> as inclusive as possible. Which includes skipping the US if Mr. Trump
>> gets his no-Muslim rule enforced - as a practical statement, not a
>> political one.
> A thought experiment. Imagine a Trump-like figure in Indonesia
> targeting Christians/Atheists/Non-muslims with elections in November.
> Assume a meeting is scheduled there in March 2017. How many people
> would feel comfortable going there ?
> Now imagine the same situation in US if Trump gets elected (an actual
> possibility). I see we have a meeting upcoming in Chicago in March
> 2017. Made up your mind yet ?
> -- Vinayak