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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 30 January 2017 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A332129480 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 RdsoixRdbfvl for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA225120727 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 194so97554178pgd.2 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U2LEVpGQOkxpjVB7wG53V7qIJnALBBA4+5SSrBvRXQY=; b=vIZ0ghRbCSIe5jZX0dMOsWZDhVa+g0YEddxrN0CqUWBhidXk2ieD7+6cj+gjAGyDOk X1rZz8XjRbFhO70FiPesjBw6cF3m8p9njzt+gBNCD4IN0pfB8sHeDlP3mvFkux1CQtjv g7UcWRejPpFjgdJobe5PHKNuQ8xmyvMXXPyU7/rYSP3vgVGBDHt9WDTVITcVgmnN9GFu nMkUALXLoJY7Imn8eZY3WEI5fzpT3KTxujQ2ZZmsBi0NQEV8+seNG4sO5rWYPNTF8w1R +XYVNca52lJQtWOmIJtGZ7EberScaBYgj4VAqeze5SvOZwCpQmBDnp0s4xZbMoXIcRRu Nvqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U2LEVpGQOkxpjVB7wG53V7qIJnALBBA4+5SSrBvRXQY=; b=f0d7UidAM8T46HV3Tk47/fIys/02R1rg6pvRFaK0cKBIxsTI5M6QrbuKFbC6H8DuZo bhaSgPSQqQGBs35zBZvsns1U9cegrFHK6vbeaPMAIvVF0WzH1gauP69pLKzYCPtKCnJu 9fCgPu996/6755T7YWRElwY8t3AiK9xN4RFoTmLLY7hAMQF7GgzleKd9GXUw/Ju4y0/H UWH5ZFyeW4J0+XQX9wOnoXWOm22yKH7qxwdeJie9OsoaJ7Tdd3cL28pYG4cqb8fzyfP4 3Uuj8Y3tHiotNxnQT6ikN/p1W9vMe5Imc+iHGaiBqG6bsRF7GpW3exeqH6fWFWNKEkv+ 68SQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIC9fJjYZWedDKBIi4UYqG8LeT/okMQ5qfSunbfnVXXhbVXTpthhRnPTr2X0XOFxw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w63mr20821563pfw.179.1485749701022; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id j7sm27684736pfe.84.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:14:56 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:15:03 -0000

On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> The IETF is an international organization whose members...

Not actually. The IETF is not an international organization
(I know, because I used to work for one) and it doesn't have members.
Legally, it's unclear that it's an organization at all, or in which
country it might be based.

I also suspect that for some days or weeks, getting a straight answer
about the impact on IETF98 attendees may be impossible, but I agree
that the IASA should ask.


On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> Actually, I think there is something for the I* bodies to do.
> They should be contacting the State Department, the Dept of Homeland
> Security, and the relevant Congressional representatives to make them
> aware of the upcoming meeting and request clarification of the impact
> the Executive Action of the POTUS will have on the meeting.  This should
> be done for same reasons that the sports leagues are inquiring.  The
> IETF is an international organization whose members could find
> themselves in legal jeopardy by attempting to travel as a participant.
> Jeffrey Altman
> On 1/28/2017 5:35 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing
>> documents that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection,
>> typically years in advance of the actual meetings) and the
>> practicalities about what happens if the facts on the ground change
>> non-trivially in the interim.
>> For example; from the reporting I'm reading [1], the United States will,
>> at the time of the upcoming Chicago meeting, still have in effect an
>> executive order that precludes entry of any kind for nationals of seven
>> named countries. Looking back over the past several IETF meetings, I see
>> at least 18 distinct attendees (12 from Iran, 2 from Libya, 2 from
>> Somalia, 1 from Yemen, and 1 from Sudan) who would be barred from
>> attending the Chicago meeting in person.
>> I think the broader question that Dave is asking -- and this lies way
>> outside the mtgvenue charter -- is: when this happens, is there any
>> specific action that any I* body should take? It's not clear to me that
>> there are any practical actions to take: it's obviously impractical to
>> cancel or move the meeting with this much notice.
>> Which is to say: I don't think there's anything to do, but I think it's
>> a valid question to ask, and I think the general IETF list is as
>> appropriate a venue as any other.
>> /a
>> ____
>> [1] e.g.,
>> On 1/27/17 13:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>> If only we had some sort of a list or working group where things like
>>> meeting venues could be discussed.
>>> W
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Dave Burstein <>
>>> 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)