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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 1/29/17 5:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/29/2017 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I think the ACM text could be quite close to something
>> on which we could garner IETF consensus as it mostly
>> says just the above.
>
>
> The folk at the head of the current administration don't care about 
> such statements.  But perhaps others who can effect change might.
>
> And yes, the ACM text is quite reasonable.
>
> I suggest trying to get a /collection/ of related organizations to 
> issue a joint text, with the goal of suggesting the aggregate damage 
> that will accrue if "freedom of movement, association, expression and 
> communication for scientists" is not permitted.

   Statements just make the speakers feel good. It's a form of
virtue signalling and it does not actually change anything
tangible.

   So instead of virtue signalling, how about we just don't meet
in the US for the foreseeable future, just like we won't meet in
Saudi Arabia (treats women like chattel, punishes victims of rape,
prohibits free practice or non-practice of religion), or Iran
(executes gay men, makes women walk around in sacks), ... or any
other country that would not treat all IETFers equally and where
we won't feel safe to have a fully-inclusive meeting? When facts
on the ground change in these countries they can be reevaluated
as potential meeting sights.

   I personally would welcome a meeting in Mexico for IETF 102.

   Dan.

> That is, build on the ACM effort, getting ISOC, W3C, IEEE, and more to 
> sign it jointly.
>
> d/
>
>