Re: [Gendispatch] IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries

Keith Moore <> Wed, 03 March 2021 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A103A1BA1; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:44:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPUMSM6rxHhX; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A38E3A1B9D; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252AD5C0131; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:44:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 16:44:03 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=bMZbVi43vnwHEaxcaKCtNlCkOGSsd8N+lXeq4GBBP Q8=; b=Pj2H18be07Jowimrl81s89VOn7hrBz9vOyB6/WLkCp4HWXCFBfX0cDQSw CGb25fm96PNw2AQnS5NWTD12zLIFALNYkeJT8OVv3Q4pPGIP9tVwJNj9h+ZVUm0k K9MC4pMsM01UubDetVpi/fav1A+QifKQQT3TPn0PRvhlRjf+H6PRm1nhcw1oyBYo +KHz5yhuDICxC6O+daj35cPdkXmNFuAGADEYVc+wokag79JjA24E86zo8nwojWVc Y/KVGMrUABsftmwY0Anbqu2pyKdElYsA0w7QmhyFPp1EMhJU0ELMPmFDGbju+/A5 VhgeR4NvGQjBZ6oW+ZNhtccXue7aA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:IQNAYCsyjBi0TUbQWVW7iqT9n7JP6OUx2IShSqQ1vwqFeD1nXTDTdA> <xme:IQNAYHZ_3VqIlHwABZWODcVQGd7XlXaAgP857Lqbi_wuWCEJcMe5PbvkX6Ln5bEdQ 1ly0AuM2NsHUg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddtvddgudegfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enfghrlhcuvffnffculddqiedmnecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredt tdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorh hkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffeutdetheegfeeu heefveegueefteekkeeffeegleegfeehieeitdethfdvleegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivg htfhdrohhrghdpthhrvggrshhurhihrdhgohhvnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedt rdduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:IQNAYKo-wCZlYf1-8KrcnUfQ6E0IVPzPlp-AuQisYG6f8JsaKF2dyQ> <xmx:IQNAYE9Xiiq37Jbho-1X_AmA9uzelPlKYXMGNOG0F8opRL8g5SvdFQ> <xmx:IQNAYB8wK3X6yaL7dpEBQRjZRKPZodflquLOhCa613k3ETFEpUhUIw> <xmx:IwNAYJfqqYNjuzv-QVlX0W3_TPAY8cUjcgv6sWn-H_F7bmTTyK4pZw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 47D5D108005C; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:44:01 -0500 (EST)
To: Fernando Gont <>, "''" <>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <>, Jay Daley <>
References: <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:43:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 21:44:07 -0000

In addition to the clarification that Fernando asked for, I guess I'd 
like to know (vaguely) whether this has been a problem in the past, 
maybe how many people have been turned away.

I'm guessing that there are other barriers in a similar category: do we 
have any  idea how many people haven't been able to attend meetings in 
person because of visa issues?

And perhaps also: do we have any idea how many people have been unable 
to participate remotely due to internet censorship in the countries 
where they were located?

(note: we don't need to try to address these problems at the moment, 
just trying to make the list of issues that limit participation 
reasonably complete.)

On 3/3/21 4:32 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
> While studying the topic of diversity and inclusiveness in the IETF, 
> the question arouse about what are the implications of the IETF LLC 
> being registered in the USA.
> In particular, I'm concerned about the possible implications for 
> participants from USA-sanctioned countries or organizations.
> I asked a few people here and there, and was referred to this 
> document: 
> That document contains text such as:
> ---- cut here ----
> Meeting Registrations
> The current automated meeting registration system can continue, but at 
> regular intervals, and no later than 30 days before the meeting 
> begins, the list of registered participants and financial institutions 
> associated with payment of registration fees must be checked (both for 
> individual names and country of domicile and residence).
> ---- cut here ----
> and
> ---- cut here ----
> Action
> The IETF Executive Director will work with IETF LLC counsel to 
> determine what action to take in each individual case. This may 
> include not pursuing the contractual relationship, revoking the 
> meeting registration, cancelling any existing contract or other action.
> ---- cut here ----
> I'm certainly not a lawyer, and hence I'd like an authoritative and 
> clear explanation about what are the possible outcomes of this "OFAC 
> Compliance Policy".
> For example, could it result in participants from Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, 
> North Korea, Sudan or Syria being rejected their registration, and 
> hence being prevented to participate in IETF meetings?
> If that were the case, I'm sure that we'd all agree that that would be 
> inappropriate, discriminatory, oppressive, and ultimately 
> unacceptable. I hope that that's not even a possibility.
> Could anyone please clarify this?
> P.S.: Besides sanctions on countries such as the above, there also 
> seems to be a whole list of people and organizations that are 
> sanctioned/banned: 
> Thanks,