Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sat, 28 January 2017 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25032129DD3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sBgMN1cYtxoA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29C2129DD2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id c206so193524876wme.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=V67BbXD/DcTARcjaxEDu+2/egEDHa5XvhuKf34YEsN4=; b=SXvm4XpV38uPTa8F6EBg/P1w0h7UlDn0HnR6qxZhhDwW8EjXuX+BefOBykadWAtFBm sOd40z2811NqGEm5a3csnZ/vCWqQWLVg10WgB7xze4hTr09IDiTsMYCkpaZZaWl6xjMY CCb21p+Iv/zw4oWcwDRc1IYsnzcrFoaLCu6cp1bpCLB8GYz+E3Wx0e+hw2bKc/KijWt/ BCvX+NB6BBRXlUCPKrm5Iz+TyBX0evWz20Q7qLHQdMpgVD/Em21i2FJ8/XWPcxJqT465 4kdUfxP/QiUPqCI0a6XDiUgmD4qErRFrmDz4emjfLhuy8OjK9O+6aJBu41ZENGJNrAHm kIwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V67BbXD/DcTARcjaxEDu+2/egEDHa5XvhuKf34YEsN4=; b=SHO3y06dvW96lB24ZJcTk5fWmTO/KRdCxlvPNkNwv4bCi4oFn+ALnqK8UBqJ3rza3A mWz80w5NNiM7RARb/f5Hh5LLYClWkrro8l7/RyeDUIRovSU+h3qGK6ThIScZKN3qZzQF qvU6kouSvVfFvjFmGUUVqd/8sVpr5feeBe8dQRJxZNUtiedvI2rENhrdcv0x//g350zy LreStlU++Wn2eFACNLfOsfhp2bGocyGNbpWn0WQi6sfJOYkm58IA0q/I6nhgbZRXXcFo PjIYejHfWjFcf3sI69E47CEKmY7p9X+IGXQnJjivH7oh/QmAje7L/gPgUO5W5xUVYOEX Dyrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLz9dciMGQd/oyjsN17OGP92PgIv39aI6aoEK55JyCGE95YtdDJLAiu+8jwuOV2Uao0XSgAiLnbPLp4NA==
X-Received: by 10.28.226.67 with SMTP id z64mr7580061wmg.137.1485639261315; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.221.6 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:34:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:34:20 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: duocZ7djZ67uQIr2cAX54nOHZGA
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b0d086f6e0105472e58be
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-c0roxf2pAzteEyo1FjKsTS7eMU>
Cc: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Disgust" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 21:34:25 -0000

No, I don't think this is a meeting venue issue. It is a policy issue and
thus a question for the whole IETF.

There are many questions that are completely outside our normal concerns.
There are quite a few countries that I am advised I cannot or should not
visit for various reasons, including some where IETF meetings have been
held in the recent past and I certainly could not visit Iran after some of
the things I have said. But those are just politics as usual.

The current Trump administration orders are implementation of campaign
pledges that were racist in intent and form. And that makes them very
different.

* Can non-US citizens attend the venue?

* Can US Citizens not attend the venue due to retaliation against
discriminatory policies?

* Can US permanent residents return to the US after attending the venue?

We could discuss these at great length. Or maybe we could produce a
verifiably end to end secure email, chat and document management protocol
that is as easy to use as Signal but is not a walled garden model.



On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

> If only we had some sort of a list or working group where things like
> meeting venues could be discussed.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mtgvenue/documents/
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/maillist.html
>
> W
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com> wrote:
> > Folks
> >
> > The IETF has generally steered clear of political entanglements, which I
> > think wise. Nonetheless, I raise the question of whether we should
> respond
> > to the proposed U.S. ban on nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
> Sudan,
> > Syria, Yemen.
> >
> > Scott Aaronson reports one of his MIT students will probably have to
> leave
> > if he can't get his visa removed. We all know how many Iranians are
> > world-class technologists, including in computer science and electrical
> > engineering.
> >
> > I hope many from outside the United States speak up. The issues around
> Trump
> > make it hard to be objective here.
> >
> > Should we take a stand?
> >
> > If so, should it be symbolic or substantive?
> >
> > Symbolic actions could include:
> >
> > A resolution
> > Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the Arabic
> > speaking countries. ISOC has funded remote hubs.
> > Outreach in Farsi and Arabic to show that whatever actions the government
> > takes, the IETF welcomes participation. This could be as simple as Jari
> > Arkko writing a letter to the editor of the leading newspapers with an
> > invitation for all to join our work.
> >
> > Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from San
> > Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to
> Mexico
> > or Canada.
> > ------------
> >
> > As we discuss this, I urge everyone to avoid distracting comments about
> U.S.
> > politics. We're not going to change many minds here pro or con the new
> U.S.
> > President.
> >
> > Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to a
> major
> > nation refusing visas to so many of our members.
> >
> > Dave Burstein
> >
> >
> > --
> > Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
> > Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> > Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
>
>