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

Dan Harkins <> Mon, 30 January 2017 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1F91295F2 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bVtFGzq5lzk for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB111295C0 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thinny.local ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1ED60A888004 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dan Harkins <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:01:53 -0000

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

   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.


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