Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and r

My point, Adam, is that the choice is really who draws the short straw,
for surely it will be drawn.


On 5/24/16 7:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 5/24/16 11:37, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > On 5/24/16 6:18 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> > > This shouldn't be that hard to think about. Would you have a greater
> > > objection to the IETF selecting (1) a locale that allows private
> > > citizen ownership of guns or (2) a country that refuses to recognize
> > > Israeli passports?
> > False choice.
> The question on the table in this sub-thread is: considering
> governmental policies that some subset of participants find
> objectionable (but which don't otherwise preclude meeting there),
> whether nondiscriminatory ones pose a greater or lesser issue for IETF
> venue selection than discriminatory ones. All I've done above is shift
> the class being targeted.
>
> If you want to take this logic at a slower pace, start with Jordi's
> original message listing six issues, except replace "LGBT Rights" with
> "Recognition of Israeli passports"; follow it with my response
> pointing out that #5 is different than the others; and then ask Yoav's
> question. How do you respond?
>
> /a

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature