Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me> Mon, 30 January 2017 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
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 B24251295D1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:41:04 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 RJp6FQ-Jx_Rr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.emilyshepherd.me (emilyshepherd.me [139.162.172.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57BDA1295D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix, from userid 114) id 6E58F218D9; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:41:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from emily-tablet (unknown [IPv6:2a01:7e01:e001:42:383c:8b64:1f56:379c]) by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1530D2100A; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:40:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:39:52 +0000
From: Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170130203952.5x43fojisedrvjrs@emily-tablet>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com> <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet> <CAMm+Lwj9GnLFOjBfvkUhiHdW-V7yft7gfDNhwquKZmfuL_7d+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zedyqaohbnfwcpnl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwj9GnLFOjBfvkUhiHdW-V7yft7gfDNhwquKZmfuL_7d+A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9uwtgXnCc0lc_EGMYXQRNVhuHL4>
Cc: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>, ietf <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 20:41:04 -0000
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:05:37PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >To make such a statement is to overlook the fact that the >development of >communications technology is inevitably a political activity. Of course it is, but just because communications technology can and is sometimes political doesn't give us a licence to comment on all political things. We are a technological organisation (or non-organisation, whatever the consensus on that may be) and we should focus on technical matters. Sometimes those matters will have political side effects yes, but the focus of our work should be technological in my humble opinion. >No matter how any of us may feel about any US policy it would be wildly >> inappropriate to confuse the IETF's mission with such discussions. If you >> want to object to them, that is fine but it should be done outside of the >> IETF. In fact, every single IETF contributor could protest, or indeed >> support, any political policy in unison if they wanted, as long as they >> don't do it in the IETF's name. >> > >Take a look at the IETF mission statement and you will find that it is >entirely circular in form. The IETF built the Internet and the Internet is >what the IETF builds. Yes the mission statement is vague but it's clearly about the Internet, not international travel policy. >The reason that the meeting venue list isn't the appropriate venue is that >we may well get into the part of the story where it is no longer possible >to do business the old way. Fine, that may happen and if it does that *will* indeed require a discussion on how to mitigate that, but there's a massive difference between a problem arising, be it political in nature or otherwise, and it being addressed, and "making a formal statement" for no reason other than to make it. I understand that many people are upset about what seems like an extreme stance but foreign policy is a complex subject, one that deserves more than just blanket statements from unrelated organisations. If any of us truly care about this issue why not take it to a forum that can actually do some good? Keep in mind that as far as many politicians are concerned, the IETF is the same as the IAB is the same as ICANN who supposedly stole the Internet from the US Department of Commerce last October. Politics doesn't know about the IETF and the IETF doesn't know about politics, the two simply don't go well. Any overtly political statement from us won't help any political cause whatsoever, all it will do is harm our credibility as an objective technological body. Look at it this way: when you want to make a new law you go to the Parliament of your country, when you want to want to uphold the law you go to the courts of your country. If you go to Parliament to report a crime, you won't get a result, if you go to the courts to try to make new legislation, you won't get a result. The same logic applies here: if you want to make a political change, go to a political organisation, don't turn to the IETF. Many Thanks, Emily -- Emily Shepherd Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons) W: https://emilyshepherd.me/ M: +44(0)7575 721 231
- If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IE… Dave Burstein
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Warren Kumari
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Hosnieh Rafiee
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Melinda Shore
- Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], sh… S Moonesamy
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Clint Chaplin
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Emily Shepherd
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Adam Roach
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Paul Wouters
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Melinda Shore
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… nalini.elkins
- Re: If [removed] are blocked by the [removed], sh… S Moonesamy
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… John Leslie
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jari Arkko
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Stephen Farrell
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Dave Crocker
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… George Michaelson
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Melinda Shore
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jeffrey Altman
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… nalini.elkins
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Roni Even
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Melinda Shore
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… John C Klensin
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Randy Bush
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Naeem Khademi
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Naeem Khademi
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Leif Johansson
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Leif Johansson
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Stewart Bryant
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Dave Cridland
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Leif Johansson
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Christer Holmberg
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Niels ten Oever
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… David Farmer
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… nalini.elkins
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Walid AL-SAQAF
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Randy Bush
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Niels ten Oever
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Melinda Shore
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Michael StJohns
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Alia Atlas
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… John C Klensin
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Melinda Shore
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Saifi Khan
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Paul Wouters
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jari Arkko
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jari Arkko
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Emily Shepherd
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Dan Harkins
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Emily Shepherd
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Randy Bush
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Alejandro Acosta
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Dan Harkins
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Randy Bush
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Arturo Servin
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Dan Harkins
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jari Arkko
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Naeem Khademi
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Jari Arkko
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… S Moonesamy
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Stephen Farrell
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Tim Chown
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… Jari Arkko
- Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.… nalini.elkins
- Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should th… Bless, Roland (TM)