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

Tim Chown <> Wed, 01 February 2017 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338451293F3; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 ZKHTip4Gt8Xn; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E676129494; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v11FS3pX005308; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:28:03 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 v11FS3pX005308
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1485962884; bh=y9QgCJtIJ2iyhdaNDNR8/U2/u38=; h=From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=DyDRbeqcX3Ts3HeNv23K9lQx4b1KVb6WwZTYmkPK9QPOZxDzEJ9i4uhIsgsffnBN7 P5iDkR0avrTLNXY9pfSclAKLlTyVInNWnWJOrOgnAKNldpeitoLeKzVmPtkkdVP9Hq D6HXFXOTyOwntKut96Zyt3GWBnW0yq4D4MGiwnpI=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id y10FS31512310152ea ret-id none; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:28:04 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v11FRt1H030393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:27:55 GMT
From: Tim Chown <>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|69b53897f034d9304337eb0b89dfca8fy10FS303tjc||>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_36BFD371-6251-4780-A014-CDD44BAE0E74"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:27:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=y10FS3151231015200; tid=y10FS31512310152ea; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: v11FS3pX005308
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, S Moonesamy <>,
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:28:25 -0000


On 1 Feb 2017, at 13:44, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 01/02/17 13:12, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> I scanned the list quickly and I only found two IESG members, the IETF
>> Chair and you, commenting on the issue.  Do the other IESG members have
>> an opinion about the topic?  I'll Cc them to find out.
> I can help you there. The IESG and IAB (and I'm told the IAOC
> and meetings ctte) have been actively discussing all of this.
> I'm on one thread between IAB and IESG that has 84 messages in
> total (though a good few of those are duplicates in my crappy
> foldering scheme;-). And I think this topic may be on the agenda
> for an upcoming IAB call and it is on the agenda for an IESG
> call tomorrow. If something concrete results from those calls
> it'll likely take at least a few days to be visible to the
> community. Or maybe we'll need a bit longer. (That's another
> reason why it was good that Jari/Andrew/Leslie posted that
> blog, and yes they'd gotten some feedback from I* folks
> before doing so.)
> So while of course I* folks may respond to you if they've
> stuff to say, I don't think there's much need for a slew of
> "yeah we're aware of that" mails. But it is the case that quite
> a few IESG/IAB folks have been actively engaged on this.

It seems the person who is being officially appointed as IAB’s liaison the the IAOC will now not be able to attend the Chicago IETF: <>

(apologies if this has been mentioned already - so many emails on this important topic - but I also saw this directly on Facebook from the volume of shares on the post by people I trust, so I assume it’s genuine)