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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Thu, 09 February 2017 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F0B129965 for <>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:26:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUAuKVih1APj for <>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6B5129963 for <>; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:26:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 iface id 1cblvS-0006NT-Mt; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:26:06 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81350B0021B; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:26:06 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Jari Arkko <>, IETF <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:26:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1486635966.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 10:26:11 -0000

Hi Jari,

see comments below...

Am 30.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Jari Arkko:
> I wanted to update people a bit on effects and numbers.
> Adam had given earlier in this thread a list of affected
> people from past meetings. I run my own script on the
> attendee data though, and (I think) took into account
> who was actually on site. Out of the seven countries
> on the list, we’ve not had a single attendee on site from
> the beginning of the full records at IETF #80.
> Obviously, that doesn’t make it right. Also,
> the registration data is still based on the country or
> region that people given when they register. And
> you can only enter one value.
> I’m aware of at least two people (Kaveh and Naeem)
> who have dual citizenships for instance, and they are
> sadly affected. There’s likely some more. If you are
> affected and planning to attend future IETF meetings,
> drop me an e-mail.

The collateral damage and impact of current US policy on
immigration is probably broader than just counting the people
who are obviously affected by any ban.
I originally planned to attend the meeting in Chicago
and normally I'm always looking forward to visit the US.
Though I'm not affected by my citizenship (yet), I'm
refraining from attending this time. Why?
I'm deeply concerned about the current practices during

"We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do,
what do you say?" he [John Kelly] told the House Homeland Security
Committee. "If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in."

So just flying several hours across the ocean and then get denied on
entry, because one of your friends probably posted some US politics
criticism that the immigration officer didn't like is a risk that I
don't need this time.
Moreover, if someone gets full control over a social media account
he/she can also *write* - this is ridiculous. [*]
I refuse this highly privacy invading practice.

More stuff like this:

I really like to support the IETF by also physically attending the
meetings if possible, but under these circumstances I refrain from
doing so.


[*] it's clear that some "agencies" already have that access,
but this is even another dimension now...