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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 17502129859 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:43:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 W5xTNDT25hBP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CF7129858 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EF411604 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:43:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PQDlS937K3G4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:43:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (192-0-220-231.cpe.teksavvy.com [192.0.220.231]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED828103BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:43:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:43:24 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170127194324.GB38766@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VwtGRTwao-rmdiMtJMTaV95sirE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:43:29 -0000

Dear colleagues,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:29:01PM -0500, Dave Burstein wrote:
> Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from San
> Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to
> Mexico or Canada.

I note that there is a WG, MTGVENUE, that is working on criteria for
meeting venues.  It seems to me that discussing the overall question
of specific exclusions at a venue for individuals on the basis of some
set of class properties (whether it be nationality, religion, choices
in emotional relationships, or whatever) would be appropriate in that
WG.  Moreover, since the WG hasn't finished its work perhaps the WG
list would be better to explore the issue than the IETF list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com