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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 0F7E9129A96 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 OpncCSUNMZeR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00267129A95 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vBz525qytz39h; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:51:34 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1485802294; bh=QxQCn5rW4CYaJ+eQrVfLpVlD3LflaMjG5shCuDYUVTg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=g6T+QyWHlKMR10xMwEtXZxDpyCDw4bwFgIuh10Cco6+/5HEUJBMg0rqkbdySsogmR PHL2onjY9cEQz7Unixg7h8b3laYFBeNFpmGhvH57Y+PTbx2LdJ6QsvbeCdGTxr3nMY 762EbZquvb79Ug5mhx5K5BJGT3at4LtoBWcb91cw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVOaGLi_45c7; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:51:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:51:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [25.19.246.107] (unknown [24.114.55.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1FD83F284F; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:51:26 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca C1FD83F284F
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-62CE421E-E48E-42C7-B744-82C127C3579A
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27)
In-Reply-To: <20170130183846.21994.qmail@server322.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:51:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <AB7E9EDD-C313-4821-8BEC-D0AF57D80DA2@nohats.ca>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170130183846.21994.qmail@server322.com>
To: Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@strikr.in>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2iQzxkLdvglW-Kmn_WAhGYUniYQ>
Cc: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, 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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:51:39 -0000




Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 13:38, Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@strikr.in> wrote:
> 
> No !
> 
> The IETF and its members must stay focussed on what the IETF is for and what it's goals are.

That is getting harder?

https://m.facebook.com/kakooch/posts/10157996268225018?pnref=story

One of the ICANN board members misses both an ICANN and IETF meeting due to the ban.

There will be more.