Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 A190D1289C4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:57:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 awwbUsfj6jEK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535A0120725 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1cY7mI-0001Pa-VB; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:57:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:57:29 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <649728F5964CE764D9E82B81@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <83add474-9949-2406-89d5-a753231166c9@gmail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.c om> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <4D233FE8-6E84-446F-A8ED-604E4F7EAB99@piuha.net> <0d60ed80-2183-e329-05ad-e0cd7ab77ac1@cs.tcd.ie> <ebc650e4-3e42-5472-5c5f-ac5c0e5fc09f@dcrocker.net> <83add474-9949-2406-89d5-a753231166c9@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/87NyFSoRiju4rQ_mmx7AWBF4PSY>
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 08:57:37 -0000

+ <many>

Three additional comments:

-- Part of the problem with this set of moves is that they are
sudden and, at least in detail, unanticipated.  There is little
or nothing a meeting site selection process that is designed
around working three or five years out can do about countries
(or their leadership) that suddenly go nuts (including canceling
existing valid visa and forbidding legal residents from
returning), acts of war, or even natural disasters that occur,
effectively, overnight.     For those types of situations, our
only useful and practical remedies are making remote
participation work well and smoothly even if forced to scale up
considerably and thinking through, as a set of contingency
options, questions of the conditions under which we would cancel
a meeting entirely and/or convert it to "everyone is remote".
Even remote hubs are irrelevant unless they have, well in
advance, arrangements to scale up to accommodate all
participants from a particular country or category.

-- For those of us who live and vote in the US, especially in
so-called "red states", contacting legislative representatives
and making it clear that damage to US values, companies, and
ability to do business will cost them votes in the next election
if they don't take effective action.  That doesn't make
organizational statements less useful, but, as Dave points out,
those most responsible seem extremely unlikely to listen.  

-- I'm sympathetic to efforts in other countries to, e.g., ban
or severely constrain contacts and state visits.  Unfortunately,
if the mentality that seems to pervade the new US administration
continues, their likely response will be stick their fingers in
their virtual ears and chant "America First".  This stupid,
shameful, action really needs to be dealt with on this side of
what ponds and planned virtual or physical walls can be
identified.

    john


--On Sunday, January 29, 2017 18:37 -0900 Melinda Shore
<melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/29/17 4:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The folk at the head of the current administration don't care
>> about such statements.  But perhaps others who can effect
>> change might.
> 
> Right, including our congressional representatives.  There is
> likely to be a legislative response to what the administration
> is trying to do, and if industry bodies speak up that can
> provide them additional support and cover, I think.
> 
> I do think that issuing both IETF-only and joint statements
> with other organizations would be a good thing.
> 
> Melinda
> 
>