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

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.

Regards
   Brian

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.,
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>
> 