On Thu, 26 May 2016, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 11:10 25-05-2016, Ted Hardie wrote:
A same sex male couple attending the IETF in Singapore will break the law
to have a normal family life. Suspending that life for a week may have no
great important or lasting impact to some; for others it may mean they
cannot attend except remotely. That latter choice may have an impact on
what jobs they can do for the IETF and may have an impact on their
employers' view of their work.
I understand that giving a person a choice about whether to break the law or
not is a problematic choice.
There is a message at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg14921.html
from the IAB about a volunteer to serve on the ICANN
Technical Liaison Group with the following requirement: "The ICANN TLG is
expected to meet in person at or around the three ICANN meetings held each
year". Would the inability to attend, for example, an ICANN meeting for the
reason I mentioned above be a disqualifying factor?
Note: I am one of the two ICANN TLG members sent by the IETF to ICANN.
The TLG meetings at ICANN are an important part of the role of liaison.
So yes, I do think attending ICANN meeting is essential for that role.
I've attended ICANN meetings in Singapore (LGBT rights issues), Dublin
(abortion rights issues), Marrakesh (various human rights issues) and
Buenos Aires. It planned meetings in Puerto Rico (LGBT rights issues)
and Panama (LGBT rights issues) but these were moved to Helsinki and
Hyderabad (LGBT rights issues)
ICANN meetings are much more geographically diverse compared to IETF
meetings. But as a result, they do suffer from visiting countries
which are not as inclusive with respect to various human rights.
Paul