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

Walid AL-SAQAF <walid@al-saqaf.se> Fri, 27 January 2017 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <walid@al-saqaf.se>
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 3FAD8129859 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:55:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] 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 mu6gcXj_Lu37 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A15E01296D5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:55:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw4 (cmgw5 [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9291782C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box701.bluehost.com ([66.147.244.201]) by cmgw4 with id dXnd1u00h4MSLEy01XngRw; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:42 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=JsBi8qIC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=n0uxFpYKchJ7sRGLwIC9lg==:117 a=n0uxFpYKchJ7sRGLwIC9lg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=IgFoBzBjUZAA:10 a=ZIfIPE93AAAA:8 a=Ym_AprzMegFN8BQ9Tj4A:9 a=PznaS4ISJ0WiziIg:21 a=700nLk5QeYsbaERc:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Y9TzCiX-CgrJQ1Ef1VUA:9 a=L5vEnZRV-TnDOniP:21 a=ZB_xBfh_etYYUgpx:21 a=DJDoOOmrLM1KAe5A:21 a=sVEFyTaXLaFrL26CpXxI:22
Received: from mail-ot0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]:34482) by box701.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <walid@al-saqaf.se>) id 1cXCUj-0001FR-Io for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:37 -0700
Received: by mail-ot0-f181.google.com with SMTP id f9so205035404otd.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:47:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK7Pwm7MjyABgomEHlJRuJtrft9xcrXLrTvlwVoZolCumNWmFl0SYf7G4TOhgG7XMUBrhrBuvRcO9Qb6g==
X-Received: by 10.157.16.88 with SMTP id o24mr5281188oto.24.1485546456852; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:47:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.230.201 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.230.201 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:47:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <45a502a816fb4324996b568189270b8c@ebox-prod-srv07.win.su.se>
References: <45a502a816fb4324996b568189270b8c@ebox-prod-srv07.win.su.se>
From: Walid AL-SAQAF <walid@al-saqaf.se>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:36 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAKJSUizLQ8d2ttMGBT2Rn=Oz=sTuuirHr2o=oU7UJC6Njz-sYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUizLQ8d2ttMGBT2Rn=Oz=sTuuirHr2o=oU7UJC6Njz-sYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141c538dbb227054718bc0f
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box701.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - al-saqaf.se
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 74.125.82.181
X-Exim-ID: 1cXCUj-0001FR-Io
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: mail-ot0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]:34482
X-Source-Auth: bot@al-saqaf.se
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: YWxvc3JhbmU7YWxvc3JhbmU7Ym94NzAxLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H17WmD8ys_tLSpPgM-ROTKSmsw0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:26:58 -0800
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:56:56 -0000

Thank you Dave for suggesting taking a stand on this issue.

As you may know, I for one am a Yemeni national and as an ISOC Trustee, I
may end up not being able to participate in upcoming ISOC Board and other
meetings in the US if such a ban is enforced.

That being said, I don't want this to be about me but about the many ISOC,
IETF and in fact millions who will be affected.

I shall work with other ISOC Trustees to make sure we do something about it.

Walid Al-Saqaf
ISOC Trustee

On Jan 27, 2017 20:29, "Dave Burstein" <daveb@dslprime.com>; wrote:

> Folks
>
> The IETF has generally steered clear of political entanglements, which I
> think wise. Nonetheless, I raise the question of whether we should
> respond to the proposed U.S. ban on nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya,
> Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.
>
> Scott Aaronson reports one of his MIT students will probably have to leave
> if he can't get his visa removed. We all know how many Iranians are
> world-class technologists, including in computer science and electrical
> engineering.
>
> I hope many from outside the United States speak up. The issues around
> Trump make it hard to be objective here.
>
> Should we take a stand?
>
> If so, should it be symbolic or substantive?
>
> Symbolic actions could include:
>
>    - A resolution
>    - Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the
>    Arabic speaking countries. ISOC has funded remote hubs.
>    - Outreach in Farsi and Arabic to show that whatever actions the
>    government takes, the IETF welcomes participation. This could be as simple
>    as Jari Arkko writing a letter to the editor of the leading newspapers with
>    an invitation for all to join our work.
>
> Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from San
> Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to
> Mexico or Canada.
> ------------
>
> As we discuss this, I urge everyone to avoid distracting comments about
> U.S. politics. We're not going to change many minds here pro or con the new
> U.S. President.
>
> Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to a
> major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.
>
> Dave Burstein
>
>
> --
> Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
> Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
> Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
>