Re: Concerns about Singapore

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

+1

I am happy to see that LGBT inclusiveness taken seriously by the IETF. But
looking at the law on the books in black and white, would be doing a
disservice to a large region of the world (with a large number of Internet
users).

Dhruv (Impacted on 2 fronts)

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jari,
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:31:20PM -0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > I know that I am personally still in the education phase about the
> > situation. But I wanted to follow-up with two points from an IETF
> > perspective. First, the ability of our participants to enter our meetings
> > without concerns is of crucial importance for us.
>
> As I'm unclear whether I'll be free for mtgvenue, I'll make my statement
> here:
>
> The legal environments of the various countries we consider for venues
> obviously must be a general consideration for our selection criteria.  For
> most considerations, these are "here are thing you do not do - they are not
> legal".
>
> For this particular issue, the consideration is whether the people
> themselves
> are the thing that is illegal.
>
> While I am unclear on the full legal status of lgbt persons as "illegal
> people" within the proposed venue, the laws on the books are obviously
> unfriendly.  However, I'll note that even countries that contribute a large
> number of our participants have laws on their books that may be similarly
> negative and yet are generally known to not be enforced.  This includes the
> US and India.
>
> I am happy to see that this consideration is being given discussion.
>
> -- Jeff (one of the impacted parties)
>
>