Re: IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 A6A493A1C24 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:14:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=O5xiyh+T; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=cDudQlX0
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 6bAPIhU8blyu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.yitter.info (mx5.yitter.info [159.203.31.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFEAB3A1C20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF9BBD530 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1614809676; bh=fMy/9qMM0uwmXn1l5cexURxSEuLJ10s8ipnI4z55Z2g=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=O5xiyh+TPJkRTtBy55g8GwRZDEF8FJNSDaVcXwqZJ0IvZfR7vMWqkSt2UrLEpMTj0 d0axOSJE4ujiPw7A7G+2FqyvHf56g1eR9y6ZXOCm9qVWqbNagW2kHjA9YZ59Wy7Nwp Hy7s//EEKpJG1t1wzlgyu3nVhp5vxOFeXrJQQvCk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx5.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sD_JY3-eL0ws for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:14:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:14:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1614809674; bh=fMy/9qMM0uwmXn1l5cexURxSEuLJ10s8ipnI4z55Z2g=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cDudQlX0pXE1oZqxIe1btqzfytuvBnZOTJnQO0NS56Vz6+f9POx1xNMfyQn+c6tY0 8cgGXpMwI8uM7mbVeORipNtdm6MbxFTw2Y2CgN5ynsNunqjTN1rp/Aod77gwsKIw/x XQAyKaD0Wv5v8/fKxYuheNS5m/LUjiRxl67fnd5c=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries
Message-ID: <20210303221433.ufsitioimata4dtg@crankycanuck.ca>
Mail-Followup-To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <4619acc8-1ed4-52e8-849b-bfda9de61bb0@gont.com.ar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4619acc8-1ed4-52e8-849b-bfda9de61bb0@gont.com.ar>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1FX6p1BLYhi8p86sydop6dYYNtQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 22:14:41 -0000

Hi,

ObDisclaimer: I work for the Internet Society (as its CEO) and I'm replying with that background in mind, but this is not an official position of the Internet Society or me speaking with my hat on.  If the IETF in general or IETF LLC wants an official legal opinion, I think it's probably necessary for IETF Counsel to reply, and _maybe_ to talk to ISOC Counsel as well.

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 06:32:22PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:

>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?

Depending on precisely how one interprets the relevant statutes, one might not even be able to answer that question completely, because (depending on the country or the individual) one might not be allowed to acknowledge that the application to attend was received because even that would be transacting with a person under sanction.  It is certainly possible that such things could happen, though I am definitely not now in a position to say whether they have during the IETF LLC period.  I have good reason to believe that there have been IANA protocol parameters that have had this problem, for what it's worth.

>inappropriate, discriminatory, oppressive, and ultimately 
>unacceptable. I hope that that's not even a possibility.

The problem is that there isn't an alternative to living with OFAC, because the Internet Society is incorporated in the United States and the IETF LLC is (a disregarded entity that is in some sense) a ypart of the Internet Society.  There are structural reasons why incorporating the Internet Society outside that United States is not a practical possibility either, but the reasons for this are probably best discussed on a list about the Internet Society rather than the IETF.

>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: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/specially-designated-nationals-and-blocked-persons-list-sdn-human-readable-lists
>

Yes, it is not just countries.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com