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

<> Sun, 29 January 2017 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE4B12955F for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:56:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.055
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4G4-5BSsfcb for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF3F1294D1 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 07:56:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1485705386; bh=cBgqu0skhpN1xbaj0ZqXmx7Wxq/yWKlzcK0mvCZESkg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=HS7s275eMqdZ2NLrf+3uImtUWF7P0ey3VKAd/fKGFFrQHIF3aC8A+2m5ZhAU1cY0JRY6n1wwSYhz/dHveS0tsJ0areTM7NzSIXOjdY0gutfXgIGhpGSPSjjNMYJW+bVmbaZX7sOgwlfV1Hdeq8M+7q17jBrXfbU9ZnKYYetT1JNyQrsh7W7cJ8kG80CO5+ql70uRBG+4yvj1HPYgam2uGY/oZfkXWgnBGfTNW28a5Gtzx3vBWSNrvJC4wbBJ08SwQRguCFwm3VgKnSRDSp6JS7hbKViI4+w5fKAGq5kcCOCUjZ+v3O7hbXJy3epJtNO8ivO+AvhKyFcWWIUgNyT7uw==
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2017 15:56:26 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2017 15:56:26 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2017 15:56:26 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: tQsUpb8VM1kAymDYV0K55YTQEqROX3DnPua20iqv_Pg.OBKHqoTe34dCJpR60Cv kX1Ye2whhCrW26xJlaP2rheShQdEqyXwDED6wgFwXnklwsJs80bCSe_UREb1c3ag3N3DlYEwc2HR BJh.3DbW1tVcC4ZwTADj7xNIbg4TtLXohLX6Yc4TAARYs5l8udcLaYKzhn83Js7OgSpa1U4sGocy Ri3uQH2sKfAMjYAS_v7SB4KrRwNDutrJwftq4wEsgQh9bvUlr_rCUuukolMbgjqPgTiSm8jc2LPu i0a2YGsOCNt_lXXxxYzEzRPhX20zofRDr7PB1WtJnUgx3FdlRcPReexWk8xGzXMDlMYJYLlo0RLc XrEpxgL9XB6kkDej1PwN5DGoizcgBjDJPLByXpyMMkXxqR3dp8b2TytV0baocR.KVcIcav21.S8T K6GbcajLWtwTx9njDvULq20LRHhcXgBDFgRYPOL2bnDAHPVBOZ0wOsIib6cWOW1FbQlMx09EQY7W tXuYjD06PmMrqHj_AIuw8ZUmqOJbUtJxVqp0-
Received: from by; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:56:25 +0000; 1485705385.897
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: <>
To: Rich Kulawiec <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3765568_1021449368.1485705385708"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Dawit Bekele <>
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:56:29 -0000

>Note also that the executive order affects US-based people: if they leave

>the country (for a meeting or otherwise) they may be barred from re-entry.
>So it's not just US-based meetings that raise issues.

It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.    I think that is an urgent topic.   Have I missed messages regarding that?
I know that Dawit Bekele runs an IETF-Africa list.   Should we bring up the topic of remote hubs for those countries on that list?
To address the point that Rich brought up, we may also want to start more remote hubs in the United States.   I believe the one in Boston has meetups all year.   We may want to start more of those in other areas.   I have a feeling that we may very well need to be working with each other closely in the next few years.