ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

2016-05-26 16:13:12
Without suggesting that anecdotal evidence is not data, I'll assert that I 
personally traveled to Singapore at least a dozen times in the 90s with long 
hair, an unruly beard, and a relaxed attitude about how to behave---always 
without incident. The only bad experience I can claim involved an attempt to 
transport durian on the subway, in which I was in the wrong but had no idea it 
was illegal. 


jms
---
Joel M Snyder - Opus One - jms(_at_)Opus1(_dot_)COM
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse style, grammar, and typos. 
Brevity is not intended to be brusque. 

On May 26, 2016, at 23:01, Lloyd Wood 
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:

this was still a concern for students visiting singapore in the early 90s.


Lloyd Wood
lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk

On Friday, May 27, 2016, 6:07 AM, Christer Holmberg 
<christer(_dot_)holmberg(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hi,

It's a serious question, and I don't know the answer.  Several years ago a 
friend of mine was told by a >member of a country's embassy staff that it 
would not be a good idea for him to visit there - because >of his 
appearance.  He wore his hair long and had a lot of facial hair. 

A long time ago, it was not allowed for men with long hair to enter 
Singapore. But, that law was removed in the 70's (if I remember correctly), 
as the hippie movement was fading away.

Regards,

Christer




On May 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Margaret Cullen 
<margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hi Fred,

On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/
 indicates that 12 states have anti-sodomy laws on the books, including 
Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.  The 
fact that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does 
not mean that they are currently enforced or enforceable.

As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force.  According to 
videos sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered 
rescinding the law bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it.  

We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in 
Utah. We have had no incident that I became aware of.

Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn’t be 
safe for them to travel to those locations?

Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information is 
dated.


I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don’t always 
agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid.  Ted 
cares deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don’t believe he would 
raise an issue like this to gain attention or obstruct our work.  So, when 
Ted says that it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his 
family, I believe that there are rational reasons for him to think so.

If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, 
Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much 
of Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, 
Melinda, and the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. 
However, the issue has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional 
than fact-based. I'd like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in 
venue selection that focus on having successful meetings, and remote 
participation capabilities that will enable someone that chooses to attend 
that way to do so productively.

I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the 
status of women in those countries.  I would not be willing to travel to a 
country where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, etc.  
So, if the IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not attend.  
I would also think less of the IETF and it’s commitment to gender 
diversity. (BTW, I think it is fine for women to _choose_ to abide by 
religious or cultural restrictions — I object to laws that require them to 
do so.)

You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, while 
people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety or 
ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  While there might be some 
(as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it would have 
the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in the 
world (rich, white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only ones who 
are willing/able to attend every meeting in person.  Given that our 
leadership selection process depends on in-person attendance, both as a way 
to select nomcom members and as a requirement for leadership positions, 
that would run counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse 
organization across many lines.

Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting in 
Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this made 
it harder to get work done, IMO.  Attendance numbers (and therefore 
registration fees) were also down.  What are the benefits that offset those 
costs?  Does having one meeting in a country actually result in an increase 
in meaningful, ongoing participation from people in that country?  Has 
anyone checked how many first-time attendees from a given location send 
mail to our mailing lists more than six months later, attend future 
meetings (in person or remotely) and/or author documents?  If so, could 
someone publish the results of these studies?

This is obviously a very complicated issue.  The IETF has a choice to make 
about what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are rational 
viewpoints on both sides of this issue.  I don’t think we will resolve this 
issue, though, if we keep throwing up strawmen (like being unable to meet 
in Texas), instead of trying to understand the more subtle effects of the 
choices we are making in these situations.

No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can’t claim to speak 
for everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than you can. 
 Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully researched and 
highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC that is 
as diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possible.  I will 
send that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed.

Margaret




_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees

_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>