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

From: Barry Raveendran Greene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:31:22 -0700

FYI - Someone just pinged me to ask me to pay attention to this conversation. I’m catching up on the threat and laugh at some of the “experts” who are putting forward how things work in Singapore. 

For those who don’t know, Singapore is my second home. I’ve been in/out since 1994. This conversation about LGBT laws in Singapore is interesting. I’ve got close personal friends who were “open” before 1994, are good colleagues now (we build the Internet together), lives with a partner, and has great success. Are there challenges? Yes. Just like there are challenges with gender bias, racism, class, clans (it is Asia),  etc. That is the human condition in the world. Does Singapore LAW get in their way? No! This individual is in Singapore National Service and has a security clearance. The government knows all about the person’s character. The Singapore way is to not have things like this get in the way of “business.” 

Singapore has hosted a whole range of meetings and activities over the year. There will be nothing that would get in the way of IETF work, people flavors of life bringing their families and having fun. It happens all the time. Singapore wants your $$$$. We’ve had ISOC, ICANN, APNIC, APRICOT, ITU, and many other international groups meet productive in Singapore. 

If people really want to know what is going on in Singapore, please ask people who where born, live, and know the country. All this other information is counter-productive (IMHO). 

Barry

PS - I’ll have a conversation with anyone to help them gain a better understanding of Singapore. Just ping and we can get on a call.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:41:29 -0800

On 5/24/16 9:31 AM, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
> FYI - Someone just pinged me to ask me to pay attention to this
> conversation. I’m catching up on the threat and laugh at some of the
> “experts” who are putting forward how things work in Singapore.

Can you speak directly to the question of familial legal rights?

Melinda

---

From: Barry Raveendran Greene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:56:27 -0700

> On May 24, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

In which context of “familial legal rights?" Remember, this issue is going to take a good decade to work through the US system. Other parts of the world will evolve based on the priorities each society deems necessary.

Perhaps a explicit concern?

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:01:49 -0800

On 5/24/16 11:56 AM, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
> In which context of “familial legal rights?" Remember, this issue is
> going to take a good decade to work through the US system.

No, it's not.  The Supreme Court has ruled on it.
Local jurisdictions that pass laws in contradiction
to the recognizing the full legal rights of same-sex
couples and their families are being slapped around
by higher courts.  Socially there are still issues,
but legally, same-sex family legal rights are settled
in the US, as they are in Canada and in many European
countries.

So, the question stands: will the familial and
parental rights of people in same-sex relationships
be respected in Singapore?

Carry on laughing now, if you wish.

Melinda

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 May 2016 21:03:44 -0000

>>In which context of �^@^\familial legal rights?" Remember, this issue is
>No, it's not.  The Supreme Court has ruled on it. ...

>be respected in Singapore?

This reiterates why this sort of question is such a can or worms.

You're right, the Federal law in the US on familial rights is quite
clear.  On the other hand, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on having
them respected in Alabama, where the chief justice of the state
supreme court apparently believes that states can nullify Federal law,
something most of us thought was settled in the 1860s.

Going the other way, Ted points out that as recently as 2014 the high
court in Singapore upheld their "gross indecency" law, but people have
told us that gays live openly in Singapore without being hassled.  The
2014 decision involved sex in a public toilet, something that's
illegal in a lot of places regardless of gender.

The answer to your question still seems to be we don't know, with a
great deal of variability based on the situation.  It's the same
answer I'd give in parts of the U.S., too.

R's,
John

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:06:45 -0800

> answer I'd give in parts of the U.S., too.

I would not - in the US, there's recourse.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:17:35 -0700 (PDT)

> I would not - in the US, there's recourse.

Perhaps, but "recourse" might be just as painful and time consuming 
whether you are stuck in legal wranglings in Alabama or featured in 
the next episode of "Locked up Abroad". The pertinent question is 
still: Will the familial and parental rights of people in same-sex 
relationships be respected in Singapore?

Everything we have been told from folks in Singapore and frequent 
travelers thereto says "yes". With respect to any medical situation, 
it might be prudent to carry paperwork which documents the 
relationship. Singapore is a *major* medical destination for all of 
Asia and the IETF is by no means the first group that has had to deal 
with this issue.

Extra paperwork does indeed result in unequal treatment, but we 
already accept such inequality (which varies by destination) with 
respect to visas.

This does not mean that I am trying to change Ted's mind nor does
it mean that Singapore should or shouldn't be on our list of future
destinations. That is for the community to ultimately decide. For
now we're focused on what to do about IETF 100 specifically.

Ole

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:31:36 -0800

On 5/24/16 10:17 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> the next episode of "Locked up Abroad".

Look ...  Those of us who live this stuff every day and who've
been living it for years might have an understanding of it
that's a little, well, *richer* than people for whom this
is all an abstraction, and who didn't even bother to think
about this particular issue with respect to meeting venues
until they were told that they'd made a mistake.  So, I would
be grateful if people making assertions on the basis of things
they think almost certainly must be true would either verify
those things before sending them out, or just ask.

If you take a look at the situation in the US, you'll find
that Judge Roy Moore was removed from the bench and that Kim
Davis went to jail for contempt of court.  The reason this is
relevant is because ...

 > The pertinent question is

Indeed, it is.  However several people have made the unfounded
assertion that because there are bigots in public office in the
US things here are as oppressive as Singapore.  And that's what
I was posting in response to.  They are not the same.  We have
the law protecting glbt familial rights and those laws are being
upheld.

> relationship.

Okay, so you're putting an additional burden (economic and
otherwise) on people in same-sex relationships.  That's a
problem.  A bigger problem is that there is no reason whatsoever
to believe that anybody in Singapore is going to honor a contract
drawn up in the United States by American lawyers.

It is certainly possible that you are able to come up with
a mechanism for dealing with this sort of problem that generations
of glbt people have somehow overlooked, but it seems implausible.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:46:51 -0700

On 5/24/2016 11:17 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> With respect to any medical situation,

A possible expedient is for the documentation to be in the form of a 
basic Medical Power of Attorney:

www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_hcdec_univhcpaform.authcheckdam.pdf

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/living-will-power-of-attorney-29595.html

and an Advanced Medical Directive:

http://www.webmd.com/palliative-care/advance-directives-medical-power-attorney

    http://www.caringinfo.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3289

rather than documents that have a broader scope about the relationship.

I've no idea what the handling of the treatment such documents will get 
in a different country, but they would at least establish a history of 
claimed authority.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:17:15 +0000 (UTC)

>drawn up in the United States by American lawyers.

So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?  IMO I think we all need to share the burden.  The world is changing and two of the biggest changes are GLBT acceptance and the end of the hegemony of the West.   In the future, more and more people will be coming to IETF from Asia, Africa and other places.

A few things I think have not been discussed have to do with facts (why let a few facts stand in the way of a good argument! (joke!)) and feelings:

First some facts:

1.  The probability of being hospitalized.  Certainly, people who sell travel insurance calculate the odds of being hospitalized, so from:

https://www.intltravelnews.com/1994/08/consider-odds-when-buying-travel-insurance

----

"In one article, a survey by the U.S. Travel and Tourism Agency was quoted as determining that “16 million adult Americans flew overseas in 1992.”  A second article quoted the State Department as reporting, “Each year, roughly 23,000 Americans are hospitalized abroad.”  I divided 23,000 by 16 million and came up with the number .0014375."

---

So, even if the data is somewhat dated, the likelihood of this event is low.  Be that is it may, there are quite a few medical facilities in Singapore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Singapore

Maybe some of the people in Singapore can call the hospital administration and ask about this situation and report back.

Also, I assume that if the horrible case of a gay couple being denied rights at a hospital had occurred recently or frequently, both the Embassy in Singapore as well as one of the Asia desks at the State Department would know about it.   I am sure someone can talk to them.   I have a friend who recently retired from the Foreign Service (the U.S. diplomatic corps) and I can ask him if he knows someone over there also.

This would be the link for I believe the relevant Asia desk at State:

http://www.state.gov/p/sca/

This is the link for the US Embassy in Singapore.  I am happy to call them.

http://singapore.usembassy.gov/

2.  Now, feelings:  (probably more important)

I think that much of this discussion (IMHO) is because feelings are not being listened to.

I suspect Ted feels unsafe and vulnerable (please correct me if I am wrong) and those of us from Asia (speaking for myself only) feel that having venues only in Western liberal-ish countries is unfair.  Others, please let me know what you think.

I completely understand the feeling unsafe.  I remember (quite a few years ago!) when I took my toddler to Berkeley, all of a sudden, the "colorful characters" having conversations with themselves in doorways, etc. seemed quite dangerous to me.  Before I had a child in tow, I just took it as a part of the scenery.

It is a risky business this giving your heart to a child thing.   You've given a hostage to fortune and may never sleep well again.

my 2 cents.

Nalini

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:06:12 -0800

On 5/25/16 6:17 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people
> but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and
> other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?

Perhaps we should regard this as an opportunity to talk
about which forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which
we won't.

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:18:38 +0000 (UTC)

>about which forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which
Well said.

Nalini

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)

> >about which forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which

In an ideal world, there would be no travel costs, no visa barriers,
no discrimination and no bureaucracies to deal with. We don't live
in such a world. Until we do, this isn't a matter of what type of
bigotry is worse or better IMO, it's about making practical choices 
about meeting locations (assuming we still want to have physical
meetings). Every meeting we hold excludes some number of people for
numerous reasons, hopefully it's not the same people every time.

(Yes, I know some people are not able to attend at all for economic 
reasons, but that's not a problem solved by the 1-1-1 model unless
by sheer luck we land a meeting in someone's "back yard")

Ole

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC)

>numerous reasons, hopefully it's not the same people every time.

Sure.  I am OK with that.  Share the burden of being inconvenienced and work together for the common goal.
I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word "bigotry".  But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was validating Melinda's feelings.  (Sorry, I am from Northern California and processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
Nalini

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:53:17 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 25 May 2016, Melinda Shore wrote:

> Perhaps we should regard this as an opportunity to talk about which 
> forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which we won't.

We're accomodating bigotry all the time.

Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Singapore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_States#Visa_exemption

Now tell me how many more participants enjoy a lot less hassle in order to 
attend Singapore compared to attending a meeting in USA? Notice also that 
this isn't theoretical or low risk hassle, this is actual hassle of having 
to go through a visa application process with all that means.

There is no perfect location. They all have downsides.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:58:45 -0400

> On May 25, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps we should regard this as an opportunity to talk about which forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which we won't.
> 
> Now tell me how many more participants enjoy a lot less hassle in order to attend Singapore compared to attending a meeting in USA? Notice also that this isn't theoretical or low risk hassle, this is actual hassle of having to go through a visa application process with all that means.

I went through a visa application process to attend the meeting in China, and there was no point in that process where I was concerned that I might be imprisoned for my race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression…  

Is that a real risk for IETF attendees who are applying for visas to attend U.S. meetings?  If so, in what way?  Or are you talking about annoying paperwork?

Margaret

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:09:04 -0400

> something most of us thought was settled in the 1860s.

Said Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme court got his head handed to 
him by the US Supreme Court on a matter of jurisdiction, "full faith and 
credit", and specifically with respect to adoption by two gay women. 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-648_d18e.pdf

The moral of the story is that there are idiots and bigots everywhere, 
but they appear not to be winning.  (Let's not yet open the discussion 
on the current Presidential contest in the US).

Mike

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:25:50 -0400

It's a real risk: http://boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

Peter was convicted and spent time in jail, and until recently was not
eligible for reentry to the US.   His crime?   When a border patrol officer
started searching his car without asking permission or even saying why, he
asked why, and was not properly submissive when the officer demanded it of
him.   Don't tell me there's nobody in the IETF who would behave similarly
in the similar circumstances.   This sort of thing happens to people of
color fairly frequently in the U.S.; the only thing unusual about Peter
Watts' case was that he is white and Canadian.   We have special prisons in
the U.S. for non-citizens who have run afoul of U.S. immigration.

The risk of being arrested for carrying Ritalin, asthma medicine or
Adderall into Japan is also real, and there have been arrests in the past
five years.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Now tell me how many more participants enjoy a lot less hassle in order
> to attend Singapore compared to attending a meeting in USA? Notice also
> that this isn't theoretical or low risk hassle, this is actual hassle of
> having to go through a visa application process with all that means.
>
> I went through a visa application process to attend the meeting in China,
> and there was no point in that process where I was concerned that I might
> be imprisoned for my race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender
> expression…
>
> Is that a real risk for IETF attendees who are applying for visas to
> attend U.S. meetings?  If so, in what way?  Or are you talking about
> annoying paperwork?
>
> Margaret
>
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:59:26 -0700

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:17 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people but
> it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and other people
> as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?

The second statement seems to me a strawman, as no one seems to have
asserted that it was okay.

If I have missed an opportunity to work against the impact of racism on
IETF participants contingent on the choice of our venues, I apologize, but
please do not assume that my raising this particular issue in any way means
that I am not willingness to work for fairness in other contexts.

Ted Hardie

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:10:40 -0700

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word
> "bigotry".  But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was
> validating Melinda's feelings.  (Sorry, I am from Northern California and
> processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
>
>
The choice of words here is important.  Inconvenience, for example, has the
connotation that the issue has no great important or long lasting effect.
Unfairness doesn't, and may be a better choice as a result.

A same sex male couple attending the IETF in Singapore will  break the law
to have a normal family life.  Suspending that life for a week may have no
great important or lasting impact to some; for others it may mean they
cannot attend except remotely.  That latter choice may have an impact on
what jobs they can do for the IETF and may have an impact on their
employers' view of their work.

As I said earlier when I suggested we work for principles rather than
anecdote, an individual's willingness to handle risk will be quite variable
depending on their circumstances, but that's not the organizational
question.  That question is either:  are we willing to presume that certain
classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the law to
attend?

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:39:54 -0700

Hi Nalini,
At 07:17 25-05-2016, [email-masked] wrote:
>I suspect Ted feels unsafe and vulnerable (please correct me if I am 
>wrong) and those of us from Asia (speaking for myself only) feel 
>that having venues only in Western liberal-ish countries is 
>unfair.  Others, please let me know what you think.

The existing IETF policy is to have continental rotations with one 
meeting in the United States of America or Canada, one meeting in 
Europe and one meeting in Eastern Asia.  The IETF Chair has the 
discretion to propose a meeting in a location outside one of those 
three regions.

Discussions about meetings are sometimes highly controversial.  There 
are very few messages on [email-masked] when the IETF holds a meeting 
in the United States or Canada.  There are relatively more messages 
(to [email-masked]) from IETF attendees with United States travel 
documents when the IETF Chair proposes having an IETF meeting outside 
the United States or Canada.  There are lifestyle questions, distance 
to travel questions, cost of travel questions, and safety questions.

Is it judicious for the IAOC to take a position against a 
country?  Is it fair to offer some IETF attendees less privileges?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:50:49 -0800

I find it necessary to note that, as always, our diversity
discussion is being diverted to talk about geography.  This
happens when we talk about gender issues and it's now
happening when we're talking about sexual orientation.  I
understand it's easier, and that everybody gets to feel
valorous by taking a stand in favor of having people of all
nations participate, but it does tend to interfere with
making progress on the somewhat more difficult issues of
how to make sure that the IETF is an inclusive organization
on all axes.

Unfortunately, this pretty much guarantees that the IETF
will continue to lag other technical communities on diversity
and inclusion.  It appears to be the case that we are
fully committed to having people rise and fall on their
technical merits, and that participation is open to everybody
who can meet some basic connectivity requirements, but
that commitment seems to disintegrate every time we run
into a situation that's less clear-cut than national participation,
or that requires work/concessions/whatever.  This strikes me
as an institutional problem and not one that's very likely
to be solved by bottom-up discussion (insert canonical reference
to three wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner).

Melinda

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:47:51 +0000 (UTC)

So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?  

>The second statement seems to me a strawman, as no one seems to have asserted that it was okay.

>If I have missed an opportunity to work against the impact of racism on IETF participants contingent on the choice of our venues, I apologize, but please do not assume that my raising this >particular issue in any way means that I am not willingness to work for fairness in other contexts.
 
Ted,  I raised this issue because unfortunately Asian and African cultures lag the West in their acceptance and awareness of LGBT rights.  If we consider LGBT rights to the exclusion of others, that leaves out much of the world in our venue consideration.  And, that puts an additional burden on Asian, African and other people.  
I totally feel for you and I think your child is very lucky to have the two fathers that he / she has.   I completely understand your family orientation.  Once I saw the little face of my daughter, that was it.  Everything else came second.
But having said that, I was born in India and want to support very strongly my fellow Asian IETFers.   The world is changing.   This debate will not go away.
I hope that all sides can validate each others feelings and points of view and work together.  I applaud you for having the courage to bring this issue to the forefront of our consciousness and thus initiate this very important discussion.
So, let me ask you - is there anything that would make Singapore / Asia feel safe for you to travel to with your family?   Should we talk to the American Embassy?  Hospitals?
What have you done when you traveled with your family elsewhere?
I realize that this is potentially only solving your particular problem but maybe it gives us a path to work together.
Nalini

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:56:42 -0500

On 5/25/16 1:39 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Is it judicious for the IAOC to take a position against a country?

Yes. I would offer up the DPRK as an existence proof of a place that the 
IAOC should unequivocally exclude from consideration. With that extreme 
example as an anchor, the question is where the line between 
"acceptable" and "unacceptable" is drawn.

It would be ridiculous to hold this conversation with an assumed 
principle that every country on the face of the planet is an acceptable 
destination.

/a

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:02:22 +0000 (UTC)

>discussion is being diverted to talk about geography. 

I think this is because the discussion is about WHERE to have meetings.  That is what brought in geography.
The question was not WHO to have at meetings.  (Although, WHERE often leads to WHO).
Nalini

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:08:17 -0800

> The question was not WHO to have at meetings.  (Although, WHERE often

At some point we really need to have a discussion of diversity and
inclusion that isn't sidetracked.  I'm hopeful that people who are
not interested in that will have the discipline not to try to
derail the discussion.

Melinda

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:38:25 -0700

Hi Adam,
At 11:56 25-05-2016, Adam Roach wrote:
>Yes. I would offer up the DPRK as an existence proof of a place that 
>the IAOC should unequivocally exclude from consideration. With that 
>extreme example as an anchor, the question is where the line between 
>principle that every country on the face of the planet is an 
>acceptable destination.

There is a meeting survey at 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Venue-Preference-Survey-2014.pdf  The 
country mentioned above is not listed as a venue preference.  There 
was a survey in 2010 ( 
https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/Meetings-Venue-Preference-Survey-Aug2010.pdf 
).  A comment on Page 36 is related to this thread.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:17 -0400

Melinda, could you be explicit about this?   Do you mean that you believe
that this current discussion we are having is a discussion about diversity,
and that it has been derailed?   Or do you mean that we ought to have that
discussion, and that you are concerned based on how this discussion has
gone that that discussion would be derailed?

The original topic of this thread was whether the IAOC's proposed path
forward of separating the question of principle, which they agree is a
valid question, from the question of what to do about IETF 100, for which
it would be most practical to not make a change.   The specific question
that was asked is, "is there anybody who believes that we could not have a
successful meeting in Singapore?"

There are three obvious ways to respond to this.   The first is to say
"no."   The second is to say "yes," and say what that reason would be.
The third is to say "that is not the right question," and say why.

It appears that you and Ted do not believe that that is the right question.
  I think it is plain why you think that it is not the right question.
However, by changing the topic, you are asserting that your belief about
what the right question is is more important than either the IAOC's beliefs
or the beliefs of other IETFers who believe that it was a reasonable
question.   You may be right.   I am certainly not convinced that you are
wrong.   But I think it would be helpful to say so directly, and say why.
Maybe you already have, and I didn't hear you, in which case I apologize
for being obtuse.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:13:22 -0800

On 5/25/16 11:39 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It appears that you and Ted do not believe that that is the right
> question.   I think it is plain why you think that it is not the right
> question.   However, by changing the topic, you are asserting that your
> belief about what the right question is is more important than either
> the IAOC's beliefs or the beliefs of other IETFers who believe that it
> was a reasonable question.

I absolutely don't think "Can we have a successful meeting in
Singapore" is the right question.  "We" can have a very
successful meeting, depending on the value of "we."

So, when we talk about "we," who's included?

Melinda

---

From: Michal Krsek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:35:14 +0200

Hi Melinda,

> So, when we talk about "we," who's included?

we, as a community. Successful meeting does not need personal presence 
of any particular person.

I wish we have ideal place where no participants have issues (with their 
orientation, budget, nationality, politics, work, children ...), but we 
do not have such a place.

                 Michal

P.S: There is also other view at the problem - there are cultures that 
do not allow people to express their opinions openly in the list (as 
they are losing credit while complaining). Do we forgive those people?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:36:23 -0400

> "We" can have a very

> So, when we talk about "we," who's included?
​
It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:

   - Clearly, anyone who is not willing either as a matter of principle or
   a matter of concern for safety to travel to a country where engaging in
   consensual sex with their partner is illegal would be excluded.   But in
   order to consider this a matter of personal safety, one would have to
   assume that something unusual would happen, because from that particular
   perspective, nobody has _in fact_ been arrested for such behavior since the
   1990s, and I wasn't able to find a single example of a foreigner being
   arrested (which doesn't mean it's never happened).   However, as a matter
   of principle, which you have expressed, this would exclude you, and that is
   definitely a bad outcome.   I think it's quite reasonable to refuse to
   attend as a matter of principle, so we have to take this seriously.   Of
   course you would be able to participate remotely, but we've had that
   discussion elsewhere, and it's not terribly comforting.
   - Other people who are excluded are anybody who can't afford to travel
   to Singapore for a week, whether they live the next town over or in Florida.
   - Other people who are excluded are anybody who is unable to get a visa.
     Vinayak Hegde spoke rather eloquently on this topic on the mtgvenue
   mailing list recently.
   - Anyone who believes that flying internationally three times a year is
   too heavy of a carbon burden is excluded (I know several people for whom
   this is the case).

There are two problems with looking at it this way.   First, from this
perspective all venues look alike: there is no destination where everyone
is welcomed equally.   This is a point several people have made.   The
other is that it treats a matter of intolerance as equivalent to a matter
of immigration policy.   If you have suffered from intolerance all your
life, this will seem unfair.   If you have been treated as a third-class
world citizen all your life, it will also seem unfair.   You and I have a
certain kind of privilege that people from countries like India and Mexico
don't have, and that has to feel unfair to them.   I have a kind of
privilege you don't have, and I'm sure that feels unfair to you (FWIW,
which isn't much, it also feels unfair to me).

In terms of the practical impacts of this, Singapore may well be less bad
than the U.S. for more IETF participants.   Or it may be more bad--I really
don't know.   But while the specific form of discrimination that we see
with Singapore is indeed different, and objectionable to folks like you and
me and Ted, the other kind of discrimination is completely invisible to us,
except in the sense that some IETFs we don't see people we were hoping to
see, who happen to come from those countries.

The point is, it is a perfectly valid position to say "as a matter of
principle, the IETF should not go to Singapore because of their intolerance
of LGBT people."   But it is also a perfectly valid position to say "as a
matter of principle, the IETF should go to Singapore, because it is an
easier destination for a lot of Asian people than any destination outside
of Asia."   It's possible to frame the statements so that one sounds more
acceptable than the other, but I think doing so is obfuscatory, not
illuminatory.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:44:27 -0800

> It's probably easier to enumerate who's excluded than who's included:

No, it's still not really working.

Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that
criminalizes Muslims or Jews or Hindus?  I sincerely hope not,
and I don't think that we would.

I suppose it would provide some small personal assurance if the IETF,
in fact, would meet in such a place and the issue here is not that
people here are comfortable excluding GLBT people as a class.  (I'd
skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).

Melinda

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:50:23 +0200

> and I don't think that we would.

Criminalizes?  Probably not.  Makes it difficult for them to adhere to
the precepts of their religion?  We've already done that (perhaps some
of it is unavoidable, by the way).

Eliot

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:57:09 -0400 (EDT)

> skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).

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.

Paul

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 02:31:51 +0530

Couple more data points

1. The US is lagging EU and Latin America in acceptance of gay
marriage (socially and by law). Other countries have accepted gay
marriage much earlier.  See
http://time.com/3937766/us-supreme-court-countries-same-sex-gay-marriage-legal/
for data.

There was never a discussion to exclude US from the list of acceptable
meeting venues AFAIK.

2. Politics and laws are lagging indicator of public opinion
generally. The following graph show the public acceptance of gay
marriage in the US over the years. Look at where the lines cross and
when laws are made. See link below for data
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Now the question I ask of the community is this ? Is it prudent to
exclude a lot more people who would benefit from holding a meeting in
a place closer to them (in Asia) or would you want to punish those
very people by holding meetings elsewhere (thereby piling additional
travel costs on them). Is this a regressive move or a progressive one
?

The answer is not an easy one.

-- Vinayak

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 02:39:08 +0530

> gets his no-Muslim rule enforced - as a practical statement, not a

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:21:25 -0700

> On May 25, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I’m do not want the “we” to depend on gender, race, color, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, or marital status.

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 21:25:57 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 4:50 PM
> To: Melinda Shore; Ted Lemon
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for
> input
> 
> 
> 
> > Would we, for example, be willing to meet in a place that criminalizes
> > Muslims or Jews or Hindus?  I sincerely hope not, and I don't think
> > that we would.
> 
> Criminalizes?  Probably not.  Makes it difficult for them to adhere to the
> precepts of their religion?  We've already done that (perhaps some of it is
> unavoidable, by the way).
> 
> Eliot
> 

I've been following the conversation with interest but haven't commented up to this point because I normally don't attend IETF meetings except through jabber. I normally only participate in the working groups dealing with email authentication and can't justify attending in person. 

I had been thinking that about the only venue that might be neutral would be Switzerland but then I read Melinda's  comment and coincidentally saw this article - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/25/swiss-authorities-overule-teacher-handshake-ban/84899900/.  With that I think I'll go back to lurking.

Mike

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:44:26 -0400

> and I don't think that we would.

I think you are right.   But we routinely have meetings in a country that
forces Sikhs to be humiliated in the process of entering.   I've never
heard anybody object to that.

> skip that meeting, too, for whatever it's worth).

To speak personally about my feelings on this, since you've brought up who
is comfortable with what, I am not comfortable with excluding LGBT
participants who can't attend because they are at risk of prosecution.
I'm not even comfortable with LGBT participants having to evaluate whether
to risk breaking the law should they attend.   I'm not arguing about this
because arguing about it is comfortable for me, nor because I would be
comfortable with an outcome where you would not feel comfortable coming to
a specific IETF meeting.

The reason I'm challenging you on this is that I don't think there are any
IETF attendees who would be at risk of prosecution, no matter what
consensual behavior they engage in in the privacy of their hotel rooms.
So if we were to decide not to go to Singapore, it would not be because
anybody was excluded as a matter of some practical risk that they would
face if they attended, but because of a matter of principle.   I think the
principle is important; I don't want to minimize that.   But let us be
clear: it really is a matter of principle.

And it's not easy for me to see how that specific matter of principle
trumps the actual hardship that will occur for numerous IETF attendees who
come to the U.S., and also those who are unable to do so, _in addition_ to
the rather egregious matter of principle that is our current border policy,
which has, as I mentioned earlier, resulted in actual people actually being
beaten and jailed fairly recently.   People who share our general level of
economic privilege, I might add, so that, despite having the degree of
privilege required merely to attend an IETF in person, they still would be
at risk.

Michael wrote:
> US citizens from California who bring their same sex partner along to
wrangle
> the baby do not have to cross a border to enter Texas or Alabama or Utah
or..

What about foreign citizens flying in to Dallas/Fort Worth, or into Atlanta?

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:37:37 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 25 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:

> question.  That question is either:  are we willing to presume that 
> certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the 
> law to attend?

Yes, because we're already doing that and have been for a long time. The 
LGBT issue is one important issue, but there are a lot more of also 
important issues.

It's my firm opinion (as I have posted in multiple email) that if we 
disqualify Singapore on the basis of its on-the-books laws, then we must 
also disqualify USA and for a very long time (at least 5+ years before we 
might re-evaluate performance) and not have a meeting there in near time.

In a lot of aspects USA is an oppressive nation with a long string of 
human-rights violations and arbitrary incarceration (more examples than 
the ones Ted Lemon mentioned), with huge amount of gun violence and 1/4 of 
the worlds prison population. As mentioned before, stand-your-ground laws 
means I can get shot and the shooter go free because the person claimed he 
was scared of me.

Again, there are no perfect places to have our meetings. Some people can't 
attend some meetings because of $REASON. Skipping Singapore because of 
LGBT issues means we're as a consequence discqualifying a huge part of the 
world (including some parts of USA that still have opressive laws on its 
books (see earlier postings)). Singapore has the chance to be inclusive 
for people that have other problems than LGBT issues, that might not be 
able to attend meetings in USA because of $REASONS.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 00:59:38 +0200

Fully agree and will add a couple of points after reading IAOC chair message on this issue:

1) If we decide not to go to Singapore, it seems the possible replacement is US.
2) US must be disqualified as a possible country for IETF venue because the same reasons as Singapore.
3) Depending on the US elections results this will be even more problematic for Muslims and others to get visas.
4) Shifting the dates will probably create clash for other people that will not be able to attend.

So we end up having no venue and incurring in a cost over 230.000 dollars (including the government funding, which in my opinion need to be added to the total cancellation cost).

I hope this doesn’t mean that sooner or later it impacts the registration fees, as this may mean some more participants can’t attend some meetings.

The big question here is then to the IAOC:

Can we have an idea of how many people could not attend Singapore vs how many people depending on the US elections results will not be able to attend the venue if relocated to US ?

Are we happy impacting one group or the other depending on our decision, and considering that most of the time, we have mainly impacted folks requiring visas to US?

I don’t think we have a way to have a perfect balance here, whatever is the decision that we take, so for sure, if I’m the one deciding, I will go for the lower impact to getting the work done. I’m sorry to come always to the same conclusion and appear as insensible to any specific group. Is not the case, believe it or not, is a question of being practical and try to get the best balance. At the end is a matter of “numbers”: how many people we lost with one choice vs the other.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Margaret Cullen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:55:45 -0400

Vinayak,

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.

Margaret

> On May 25, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 06:44:19 +0200

> I’m do not want the “we” to depend on gender, race, color, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, or marital status. 

What about nationality?

Eliot

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:33:23 -0700

> On May 25, 2016, at 9:44 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

Of course I am in favour of openness and would like many nations but I don’t think it is realistic to enable all nations. I deliberately did not add that to the list because I think the topic of duration to get visa for various countries is not the topic we are dealing with here. Nor is how much more Mark Watson need to spend to travel to IETF than me.  I do agree it is an issue and I have no problem deciding not to meet in the US or any other country if it is deemed unacceptable from that point of view.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:58:25 +0200

Cullen,

On 5/26/16 7:33 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Of course I am in favour of openness and would like many nations but I
> don’t think it is realistic to enable all nations. I deliberately did
> not add that to the list because I think the topic of duration to get
> visa for various countries is not the topic we are dealing with here.

Quite right for we would surely eliminate all of North America as a
venue selection, the seemingly only viable alternative.  However,
because at the end of the day some people of certain nationalities will
be excluded, I'm quite certain they would feel discriminated against,
should the venue be moved.  These issues are, therefore, linked.  And so
now it is a matter of who gets included and who gets excluded.  I like
something Ted wrote earlier, that a static approach to this can lead to
systemic exclusion.  I think it's safe to say that's happening.

Eliot

---

From: Sandoche Balakrichenan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:29:45 +0200

> and I don't think that we would.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Former-President-APJ-Abdul-Kalam-frisked-twice-in-US/articleshow/10714158.cms

If this is the case for the president, jsut imagine for the common
people attending the IETF.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 09:57:41 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 25 May 2016, Margaret Cullen wrote:

> 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.

I think you underestimate the risk of someone being denied entry to the US 
through this visa process, and the assesment some people might make on the 
risk of being arbitrarily detained in the US or even robbed/killed at 
gunpoint or being killed by a law enforcement officer who is scared for 
his life because of all the handguns carried by the US population. These 
are not inconvenience issues. Going to the US, especially while being 
non-white, looks to me as carrying real risk (and even while being white, 
I am still scared more while interacting with law enforcement in US than 
in almost any other country in the world).

If I were an LGBT person with the information I have, I'd rather go to 
Singapore than to the US. Others might make other assesment on the 
situation, but that is mine.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:52:14 +0200

I believe everyone knows this but just in case: Actually, even having a visa to US doesn’t mean that you will be allowed to enter, even can be arrested and sent to jail just for trying if they believe that you lied in the visa process.

I want to explain one of the situations I’ve been and how this was EXPLAINED to me in a very rude way by an US immigration officer. Some years ago, traveling via Miami to Curacao for some LACNIC events, I was asked at the Miami immigration desk to go to a separate room for some special questioning. This happened to me in several consecutive trips to Curacao and BACK to my home, no sense at all. In all those situations, I was about to lose my next flight, specially one of the times, going back to home, which will had mean waiting for 24 hours. The immigration officers told me that I’m in a kind of third security check level (don’t recall exact wording).

I must say that all those interrogations were lacking of any kind of respect and threatening me up to the point of getting really afraid, some times even destroying parts of my belongings in my carry-on/computer bag. By the way, my TSA lock has been destroyed also several times despite it is a TSA so they have the key to open it without the need to destroying it, no sense at all, and I never got paid for it, despite I claimed.

The last time I got this “special” nasty interview, the last official, the one stamping my passport, was Spanish speaking so I took the opportunity, considering it will be a more “relaxed” chat, to ask him, because I was traveling to/thru US so much, if it makes sense for me to obtain a multi-entry visa in the Madrid embassy, to avoid those situations, etc. He was crazy rude, increase his voice level, and told me “you’re a guest even if you obtain a visa, and we will be able to put you in the jail even having a visa, every time you try to come to US, because we will always find a reason for that, you always have something to hide and we will always find a lie in your entry form, even just for making this kind of questions, I’m seriously considering arresting you right now”. So nice!

By the way, my family name is not common and thus not related to any “possible” well-known terrorist, delinquent, narco or anything like that, so not any possible confusion (in fact I asked if that was the case).

Remember that I was not visiting US, just traveling to a third country, which in US requires being able to visit US, while in many other countries, if you don’t need to go into the country, you don’t need to clear immigration. This is per se, absolutely ridiculous, but this is another topic for debate.

Doing IPv6 trainings and consultancy, I’ve been already in over 110 countries, many of them several times. I can say that, without any doubt, my worst experiences at immigration time, have always been when traveling to US.

Many animals receive a much better treatment that humans in some countries immigration desks, only because they carry a gun.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:33:29 +0530

> I must say that all those interrogations were lacking of any kind of respect and threatening me up to the point of getting really afraid, some times even destroying parts of my belongings in my car…

This is not a uncommon experience. I experienced something similar in
LA on my first trip to the US several years back and almost missed my
connecting flight - reached there a minute or two before doors closed.
I was taken aside for special questioning. I had to justify why I was
there (with invite letter). I was badly jetlagged after flying almost
20 hrs.There was no access to water and officers were rude. Something
similar happened to a friend whose first port of entry was in Boston.
Thankfully further trips to the US were incident free. I hope things
have improved now.

-- Vinayak

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:12:17 +0200

I know similar situations it happened to many people. Just trying to make clear that even the country were we did more IETF meetings (up to now), is not respectful with many people, so taking decisions about banning specific venues must be very carefully considered. As it has been said, there is not a perfect venue, and we will find always reason for banning EVERY possible venue.

Do we want to follow that path?

Saludos,
Jordi

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:17:18 -0400

> people attending the IETF.
I was standing in line at Dulles Airport  TSA PreCheck about a 18 months 
ago when I noticed some discussion happening between the TSA guy and a 
United concierge who was escorting a VIP. Apparently, TSA *really* does 
random full checks and TSA *really* makes everyone go through them.  In 
this case, I caught our former Secretary of State Madeline Albright 
looking nonplussed and then just smiling and moving over to the "full 
monty" line.

To be honest, I prefer that occasionally even the most privileged of us 
have to occasionally deal with what the rest of us have to deal with - I 
consider it a strength and a reminder to those in power that there are 
somethings to which we are all required to submit.