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

Roni Even <> Mon, 30 January 2017 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7611212996E for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:03:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.42
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x4A-fvCe9-_N for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8F81289B0 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DFL46294; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:03:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:03:19 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:03:15 +0800
From: Roni Even <>
To: Jari Arkko <>, IETF <>
Subject: RE: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Thread-Topic: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Thread-Index: AQHSejXUYyrqWUoBakCmryGoc27OpqFPqS6AgADc9kA=
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:03:15 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.588ED728.00A3, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: cefe7253f5c0704432dee54b56866201
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 06:03:24 -0000

If we change the topic to "If Israeli's are blocked by Malaysia, should the IETF respond", this already happened.

The IETF did not meet there but there was no "IETF response", so why should the IETF respond in this case.  

draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process talks about selecting venues not about voicing opinion on any country policies.

We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be a meeting location based on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: יום ב 30 ינואר 2017 02:43
> To: IETF
> Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
> Responding to the original question:
> Indeed, MTGVENUE is the place to discuss the impacts of this and other
> potential issues to how we select future meeting locations.
> Now would be a great time to read the documents and participate the
> discussion. For what it is worth, the IAOC and its meetings committee are
> also tracking the situation, including understanding specific impacts. And
> obviously this is a developing situation and the long term is more interesting
> than this week’s particular issue.
> As for possible other reactions — maybe, but it isn’t as obvious. Clearly, I
> think we all are unhappy about this development.  And I have not met
> anybody at the IETF who wouldn’t stand for open participation. SM posted
> ACM’s statement.
> But, if I look again at the crystal ball of obvious predictions, I wouldn’t be
> surprised if recent trends would at some point also generate some Internet-
> related bad policy suggestions.
> This is just my 0.02μBTC but I personally would want to prioritise putting my
> time to dealing with those situations, be it about making statements or
> developing some tech to help the situation. As we have done in the case of
> pervasive monitoring, for instance. But again, just my personal opinion.
> Jari