Re: IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2021 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 0EB363A1579 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:03:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CpfI2t4JYd-1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE9F3A156C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id h13so1348337pjt.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hsOCn5+bJMnNaDQ/8fGfXIvsqpSqCrwQob0pbvPRBH0=; b=VOPCG7csuNX/kFQ1l2J3M52xXj4G0HFzWdvhbEcDV3NxF1NNrbXC/PUsM1DjX3l+d7 hYK2iKWn/zDUDhB3LLfoCmJxsbUu2dBQVn5cDfncSZ8vW6ds4ZrIUgmiYomukk1Lx2sp acNG/dXxc+1kB2IunMReKutoHagoSFa9+JQbol9tZ82AmsvkS6/wUIqFQTZi3wXWhGQg J6G50k4/9PnV3eebZu3cgowhrjGQT20sKG/tLxFSvkOTMmWT/bok3qmFaRHSwXyBovs/ Ewj897CLwjF4rakbRjBFySMwekA1PNvGrc1wJnavHmqHdWh75w+rc2/aQGKAVi6OnyQw aTyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hsOCn5+bJMnNaDQ/8fGfXIvsqpSqCrwQob0pbvPRBH0=; b=BXUNkJNSRifnRjXnv60EA612Ozhz9Hxcd7XJO2DVMB4e0QNptXfsyh28c5SZI+zVxB Pa5uMPlAztaiF7+2gdJuiasT4fJHGplJvMmB0Sc0hG81LK8U/cdRj6H57jXbX4zQNb2I 4XzvAqGDVCB+IaXQ3zgaOldcCmTCyCbS4lsjmQ7SdKEOeCDykM4fwuuSDkrOo1kM2URu Ewq25h+Y1UIeAEfxEMjqHjxqD70bn+jg3MixyXXV2zMU3RnhLo7ZyH2w7NR2N44fLFvV Ma4HUC6+Sa7Z312fL+Ee1k8ej+jWBrehiEybV+Rhy+tE0oA6/NOMSfPL2okaP7nK7TpR nROQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5332nCNHMAngUHmIyy9WYU//mNj22lVd7kFYY86YmloQo6+nG/fQ K7chJcmmdMV4UhlTa51/DR7ji+dxecjpc/l7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGspB9yqFCz19tHMxcqX90ao4dF1JW3DxR5qXTIjBg9fsqPhrxz3WoXtqLz7tR64gvzRFYVg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7249:b029:e4:358a:1d47 with SMTP id c9-20020a1709027249b02900e4358a1d47mr5767622pll.8.1614888189317; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 12:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d7sm210605pfh.73.2021.03.04.12.03.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Mar 2021 12:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: IETF LLC & IETF Participation from USA-sanctioned countries
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
References: <4619acc8-1ed4-52e8-849b-bfda9de61bb0@gont.com.ar> <20210303221433.ufsitioimata4dtg@crankycanuck.ca> <4739AA0B-95BA-48C8-A17D-730EAF547F55@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87b9e2e5-c1db-bbfe-3db9-d0a0ec95c69d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 09:03:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4739AA0B-95BA-48C8-A17D-730EAF547F55@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LsW4NJiEdjBUNkC6nVKEDlfmeaw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 20:03:13 -0000

On 05-Mar-21 00:44, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 3 Mar 2021, at 22:14, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that there isn't an alternative to living with OFAC, because the Internet Society is incorporated in the United States and the IETF LLC is (a disregarded entity that is in some sense) a ypart of the Internet Society.  There are structural reasons why incorporating the Internet Society outside that United States is not a practical possibility either, but the reasons for this are probably best discussed on a list about the Internet Society rather than the IETF.
> 
> Incorporation in Switzerland, or running under the umbrella of the UN 

Those are two very, very different things. And you wouldn't "incorporate" in Switzerland, you would create some other kind of entity (most likely called a "fondation" in Geneva or a "Stiftung" in Zurich) and negotiate NGO status with the Swiss authorities, because being an NGO is not a binary issue at all; it's a very broad umbrella. Not being a Swiss lawyer, I don't pretend to understand it, although I was the first President of the former Geneva chapter of the Internet Society, which I seem to remember was a "fondation" under Geneva law but (since its activities were local) never attempted to get formal NGO status. So yes, this would be an option IMHO, but with many financial implications as others have noted.

As for "under the UN" there is zero chance politically; the ITU would win that one. The members of the UN are national governments and an out-of-control rabble like the IETF would be laughed out of the room.

> seems to be the approach that most truly neutral global players  take, and I wonder if IETF needs to seriously consider that.

It was seriously considered during the IETF2.0 process, and rejected. (I was in the rough. Most IETF participants simply ignored the discussion.)

> The IETF are the technical custodians of a global utility, where access is now pretty much a human right, and yet we still seem to be subjected to a lot of control and constraints by the USG.

I hope you don't prefer a lot of control and constraints by the UN.

   Brian