My few pesos worth on this topic.
The website link provided also identifies 13 US states where such laws still
exists on the books and although due to a 2003 Supreme Court decision people
are no longer prosecuted for violations there have according to the site still
been arrests under these laws.
Two of the state's listed (Florida and Texas) were locations for 2 of the last
3 IETF meetings hosted in the USA.
Are we now saying that these13 US States are also now off the list of possible
locations even though we have had several meetings in some of these states
without any issues?
I think as a basic principle we should ensure that meeting locations are
accessible to all the community and no one should be denied attendance because
of who they are, their race, orientation, religion, politics or where they
are from etc.
It is however a little different if the location's laws bar certain personal
activities including for example what substances you ingest that may be legal
in some places and not others or different laws regarding the public use of
tobacco as well as other more personal activities, including what age you need
to be to do so legally. I don't think it is entirely unreasonable for people
to abstain for 6 days from personal activities legal in their own country that
may be against local laws in order to attend an IETF meeting regardless of how
unreasonable or obnoxious those laws may be to us.
I think we need to accept that different places in the world have different
cultures and different laws and so long as those laws don't actually prevent
you entering the country or obtaining suitable accommodation or cause you to
have to lie in order to do so or significantly affect your personal safety
these shouldn't completely rule out a location although they may be a
consideration when evaluating between locations .
Having been to Singapore once before I am certain there are no room police
patrolling the hotel corridors trying to ascertain what activities the guests
are up to in their own rooms. There were also no personal questions asked at
hotel registration as far as I recall ( I am sure I would have remembered that)
so I don't see it as an especially hostile environment. I think the IETF
should confirm with the meeting hotels that there will be no issues in that
regard and also a check with the Singapore authorities that there will be no
threat to IETF participants because of their orientation or marital status
would be a sensible measure.
I understand that certain laws and cultural attitudes in some places may make
some feel uncomfortable. As a British citizen seeing Malvinas Son Arentinas
posters all over Buenos Aires was not the most welcome sight to me and to a
degree offends some of my particular sensibilities and if I walked around Plaza
de Mayo wearing a union jack t- shirt I think I might get a hostile reaction
but that doesn't mean Argentina should be off limits to IETF. When visiting
another country you are a guest there and you need to be willing to conform
your public behavior in order to not offend the hosts and not violate local
laws and that you may have to accept that you may not always have the same
freedoms you enjoy at home. When in Rome.....
I don't think the IETF should boycott locations just because the community
doesn't like some of the laws of that country or aspects of that countries
governments policies. That is a very slippery slope that could significantly
reduce the number of possible meeting locations and also distract from the IETF
mission.
I think the hard and fast criteria should be is the location in practice open
for everybody to attend and will the attendees be reasonably safe there.
Andrew
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: David Conrad
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 17:20
To: Dhruv Dhody
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Discussion
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
No, I meant that IETF would be doing a disservice to a large part of the world
(that has on its books these laws).
For reference:
http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/
(haven't verified, but I read it on the Internet so it must be true)
Regards,
-drc