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

Alejandro Acosta <> Tue, 31 January 2017 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372DF129789 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aN97Qyhi-aMa for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FB0412973E for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k127so226968314vke.0 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=xphX5WfBm2d/qM6/T0wX7KrOAdttRK3zE7ZZW2L5oGw=; b=oT6vzdBv5QnYc7R40oViZr2EHjf6X+GbVdesVZMnscVufu++Rl5BllehQ3YBosPmMu 8F76t7S+GDtl1YS+BSWVxahOZ1oVWCZUEho1ipW6AC7QfCOiZNb010Y0opkIX15Tec16 MNtGc1TsObYOXAK07BcI3grERB4yK6HQDgKj/MFtQ5L/LT4iTkzA0aj5xP3BzrTfPqku 7pTiabihpKdPpFag4NcUxkitGcHWVHSt5wsOAOQ0RTQBGug+HMjRmu7jvFPRLPvpQviT gzzQ1CM0plu+X1bNccx7UWUfcUp2Dp3+7B8SRqQ8vLpCnarCIUVWwilxw2tIyaalptcr 00TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=xphX5WfBm2d/qM6/T0wX7KrOAdttRK3zE7ZZW2L5oGw=; b=IGu21/gt8xQhQnTmYH2urDJng0w0LFQykdVdGwoH0r90Qjv2JD+TJIk5CP4fGhmFc6 mfwQClty2d1mc7Mnm9W4VgGEQI2g+Wrut/5qZLQKvM8w9AANiM5ocgU9NKJudvKsI8/Y 8kMJW+P+4LL+FhenOc61N7CJdHkCtOC0VsdUGVm+0jIozO49zbPKSPnOuJlV31EtxRHj OUiiuFx7WQTlI1OQHmlSZnd4FdQhIb7i90V5Gzx+4vaIvbdUqP2PALDEEqfAduDQ/v3j TqT5CmqrAbUt208tH40jhvoDLycnhIPBjVpYPBjgHvyhAvNPx+ALkG9ytI+Lq4yKccWS 7TEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ0Jx4EOqghbSaZ+S+0H0Avv32i+MtRQRISwXvDIwtn8Z1v7e9lwieNkiFc/gZ0PA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g123mr11998159vkd.94.1485823256509; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro-de-admin-alejandro.local ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b19sm5605922uaf.5.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alejandro Acosta <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:40:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7FD0ED5DB68857D16A2F4142"
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:40:59 -0000


   I just want to say something very short: I don´t believe IETF should
take a political position but at the same time I believe that IETF
should express something in this matter (not necessarily is political).

  The worst thing we can do is do not say anything.

  I fully agree with Kathy Brown post and IACR statement.



El 30/1/17 a las 1:44 p.m., Alia Atlas escribió:
> There is already an ISOC blog.
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns
> < <>> wrote:
>     On 1/30/2017 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>         On 1/30/17 7:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>             but sadly, i do not think the ietf has the guts and the
>             vision to even
>             do what an organization such as the iacr, crypto assn
>             which has long
>             experience with real politik etc. has done, [ ... ]
>         Over the years it has become clear that being a consensus-oriented
>         organization with a diverse participation makes it impossible for
>         the IETF to make statements like this.  It would need to come
>         from the
>         chair, the IAB chair, or the I*.  (Yes, I think this is a problem)
>         Melinda
>     To be fair, the IACR, ACM etc are professional organizations; we
>     the IETF are not.  Professional organizations (cf your state bar
>     association, the American Medical Association and the like) are
>     all about standardizing people, not things.  As such, they are
>     more able to come up with a consistent public message.
>     To expect us to be able to behave like one of them without a
>     restructuring to become one of them is probably wishful thinking.
>     Becoming one of them would probably be detrimental to our main
>     mission of improving the internet.
>     We are associated with two organizations that are, by charter,
>     mostly outward facing: the IAB and the ISOC.  The latter
>     organization is probably the right one to take point on statements
>     of mostly political content related to issues that affect our
>     mission.   I would like to suggest that we (the IAB and IESG and
>     IETF Chair) request the ISOC draft a message along the lines of
>     what the ACM and IACR and others have already written.  This would
>     include such details as the affect on the IETF's meetings and the
>     ISOC's outreach program and would ask them to incorporate
>     suggestions from the IETF community on content (but leaving the
>     wording to ISOC).  I'd also suggest they provide a signature page
>     where IETF community members may endorse the ISOC message.
>     I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is
>     better than the alternative.
>     Mike