Subject: [hrpc] Not everyone likes human rights

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:51:54 +0200

Beautiful rant against IETF. Encryption and LGBT rights, same
struggle?

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160526_ietf_descent_into_the_political_rabbit_hole/

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:56:25 +0200

Thanks for this.

With a lot of interest I have been following the discussion at
[email-masked] about the IETF100 location, for which the IAOC selected
Singapore, and which was strongly questioned by Ted Hardie at in Buenos
Aires at the plenary.

I do not want to replicate that discussion here, but at several points
it was brought up that the human rights situation in a specific country
might be reason to not have a meeting there.

I think this is something that deserves discussion here, and if we
manage to come to a approach, we could suggest integration of that in
this draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02

Curious to hear what you all think.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 05/26/2016 09:51 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: "Robert Guerra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 08:33:27 -0400

Niels,

Thanks for raising the issue.

In the last two years two ICANN meetings were held in Singapore (ICANN 
49&52). Was that an issue then? Would it be an issue in the future with 
“human rights” in the fundamental bylaws? As well, what where the 
considerations when ICANN 46 was being planned in Beijing?

Should the same criteria also be advanced at the RIR? For instance, 
LACNIC just held its latest meeting in Havana, Cuba. Given the country 
scores at the bottom of most rankings, should meetings in the future not 
be planned there until there’s a considerable improvement in human 
rights condition in the country?

Regards

Robert

--
Robert Guerra
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: [email-masked]
PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 08:51:20 -0400

Hi folks

Just that there is a controversy and that it's being written about is a
very good thing.

I'm not sure if this was intentional by either side, but narrowing the
options to address this clear political problem in Singapore to a single
tactic, namely to host or not to host, makes it really difficult to
leverage the discussion in other ways.

What if instead we were prepared to host in Singapore and deliver a
statement to the government? Host a press conference? Or on the action
side: for Ted Hardie and others with him and/or in solidarity with
him/them bring their partners in defiance of the laws (albeit as
privileged foreigners). Probably there are other tactics. So the logic
is that pulling out of the event hurts them economically, then perhaps
we can think of that money as buying an audience in Singapore.

I agree that we should join the discussion with an approach.

-Mallory

On 27/05/16 08:33 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> 49&52). Was that an issue then? Would it be an issue in the future
> with “human rights” in the fundamental bylaws? As well, what where the
> scores at the bottom of most rankings, should meetings in the future
> not be planned there until there’s a considerable improvement in human

-- 
Mallory Knodel
Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org <https://apc.org>
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: Robert Guerra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 08:56:21 -0400

Is hosting a meeting a meeting in Singapore , how about the UAE?

ICANN 60 will be held in Abu Dhabi . Does this group and others wish
to raise any human rights concerns in regards to having the meeting
held in the UAE

Regards

Robert

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 27, 2016, at 7:56 AM, Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this.
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:00:17 +0100

Hiya,

> Curious to hear what you all think.

I think some calm, considered discussion here would be good if
we have folks on this list with HR expertise, which I hope we do.
One of the issues with such discussions on [email-masked] is that a
lot of us think we know a lot about stuff when we might not (me
included;-) Improving on that would be good. As you say though,
just repeating what's already been a pretty verbose discussion
is unlikely to be helpful, so I really hope we don't do that.

I'd not worry for now about what document might end up with
what text - it's too early to say IMO.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:00:40 +0200

Hi Robert,

Let's not come to rapid conclusions. Let's first see what different
criteria there are (having meetings in different parts of the world also
being one as clearly outlined here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02
) and when we have different criteria that are important we can
prioritize them and develop a method of weighing them.

And let's first keep this to the IETF, and when we work it out here, we
can think of other fora.

Best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:12:35 -0400

Hi,

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 01:56:25PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:

> I think this is something that deserves discussion here

Why does it deserve discussion _here_?  This RG is supposed to be
about protocol considerations, not meetings and not human rights in
general.

There is a list where people are discussing the venue selection, and I
think that if people want human rights considerations to be brought to
bear on that discussion they should go join that list and try to make
sure those considerations are in fact brought to bear.  But if we have
this discussion in every list that the IETF or IRTF hosts where the
venue selection could possibly be relevant to the list (i.e. all of
them), it will never converge.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]