> The situation in Singapore goes well beyond being vaguely > homophobic, to actively criminalizing the families of some > IETF participants. And e.g. Papua New Guinea is the same. If you have a work trip there, don't take your family there. Not least because it's rather more violent than Singapore. But do go to Singapore for the shopping. If members of your family have a tendency towards shoplifting, I suspect shopping in Singapore may be a bad idea for them. (While the shopping in Port Moresby is _terrible_. Really limited selections. And you need armed guards. And, oh, the food. Locals have a sweet tooth. The diabetic and gluten-intolerant members of your family will have problems.) Really, just don't take your family on work trips. It's simply more trouble than it's worth. Either they're bored, thrown in jail for shoplifting because they're bored, or complaining incessantly that Minnesota is too cold once they run out of boring interconnected malls to shoplift from. (While in Port Moresby, the knives come out early, and the shoplifter never gets bored. Or reaches jail. Or a hospital. Which is perhaps just as well.) On a related note, nuclear weapons exist to endanger the lives of most IETF participants. And their families. I believe that the IETF should be actively boycotting all countries with nuclear weapons. Singapore, to my knowledge, does not have a nuclear arsenal and hasn't invaded any other countries to endanger families' lives recently, so I'm okay with Singapore. I really want to know exactly what the IETF's declared stances are on nuclear weapons, on armed proliferation, and on state belligerency on the international stage by warriors that endanger families. The IETF should be showing we care by boycotting those countries that do not meet our exacting standards in this regard. They won't get our money or suffer our complaints about their poor hotel and wifi service, and their revenue and funding of their military-industrial complexes will suffer greatly while their hotel services fail to improve at all as a result of not receiving the enlightened supportive criticism that comes from our high expectations. Jari, can we get a workgroup set up with a list of RFC position statements as target deliverables to get this started? (Also, if we can get something out repudiating IS-IS's existence as a routing protocol and denying that we endorse it or its spread, that would no doubt be well-received by everyone who has never heard of or used IS-IS, and quite a few who have.) thanks L. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood