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

Emily Shepherd <emily@emilyshepherd.me> Sat, 28 January 2017 22:15 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 A15D7129983 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:15:55 -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 DVZ9Qn4eVwRR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.emilyshepherd.me (emilyshepherd.me [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fe2c:eebb]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE09129973 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix, from userid 114) id C5601218D5; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:15:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from emily-tablet (unknown [IPv6:2a01:7e01:e001:42:6788:f5c9:796a:a61a]) by mail.emilyshepherd.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8FB02100A; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:15:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:14:45 +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: <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vza654z4tbrtj2pd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/B-o2PXyXFnULMjsAv7rhb3J36tY>
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: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:15:55 -0000

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 04:34:20PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>No, I don't think this is a meeting venue issue. It is a policy issue and
>thus a question for the whole IETF.

The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. This is not an Internet 
Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.

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.

MTGVENUE is the appropriate place to discuss the practicalities of any 
venues.

Emily

-- 
Emily Shepherd
Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons)
W: https://emilyshepherd.me/
M: +44(0)7575 721 231