+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 <jhaas(_at_)pfrc(_dot_)org> 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)