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

Jeffrey Altman <> Mon, 30 January 2017 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1709D1293EE for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:50:01 -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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9WmE-0zS3R0z for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3E11293EC for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:49:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1485748175; x=1486352975;; q=dns/txt; h=VBR-Info:Subject:To: References:From:Openpgp:Organization:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; bh=qsWDOmnkzchU9kaiu6YhH+ EKvhke5y8HNIeP8jrXQ4g=; b=sRnwD7ux50p4B7v8CJaWTZOJxL1gDj72cPYgq6 nORpjM/rFQFhhp4RrFYEQ1tos5TEtN4zRxNHLuiCNO2hTUf729/NM5SH96enyFX6 aywXpbB9mJEnB3N8rAPWCaKYytMIL0Qw+xl4qsN0bxRPYsZtmH1EtOcqwfhluB5Q 0y9zE=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed:, Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:35 -0500
X-Spam-Processed:, Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:34 -0500
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:f77:4d41:fd57:f575:5e05] by (Cipher TLSv1:AES-SHA:256) (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPSA id md50001255434.msg for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:34 -0500
VBR-Info:; mc=all;;
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f07:f77:4d41:fd57:f575:5e05
X-MDHelo: [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:f77:4d41:fd57:f575:5e05]
X-MDArrival-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:34 -0500
X-CAV-Result: clean
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
References: <> <> <>
From: Jeffrey Altman <>
Openpgp: id=FA444AF197F449B24CF3E699F77A735592B69A04; url=
Organization: Secure Endpoints Inc.
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:32 -0500
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: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010503040203010000020808"
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 03:50:01 -0000

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)