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

George Michaelson <> Mon, 30 January 2017 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAB3127078 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZRhhjzjuXlZ for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892D6127058 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r136so207880218vke.1 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J7z8R25ee1kMnMR/fBUJc+FJQW5yxoaKHWOYMHiwr2w=; b=v7m6MYmbyqu3Zvt4rVFDXA32J/2B5G5iWqEqBDQF/rIm9nFGGLO+4+BbTEJ3uGjWHh 4+s3EP3CFZSwHevxqEHqHuxuNI65oQ/MD+hPbOHAb5aHf0YKQXXaJMaAvXY7S9wi5hPB AQBft4s+UTWmGYH1K8kXNAYGXdOO1rWunNKFF3UjxEr2axYlbVV+wEjBbM8lk+LPAWeM jJaxNuYAcqUkuhKqiXS9zBoTr9s/1tXuTy5bNTjcp45CNAEjYbS2aWSI8xu8TUkUHD9G DHTfunWrS7JRA091VVOZXogVVM7XFPFXrsHiC9zw1uprv0e0ob/pqqzZpT57UcJuc+rg yWeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J7z8R25ee1kMnMR/fBUJc+FJQW5yxoaKHWOYMHiwr2w=; b=PTuns9p3vAvgrjV1tgZkF4ntNy63Puz7IbjqWljKwnQnMNh5DUrgDFDWZIDNSFknaT AhCl/9fRcz9319FxMrOwf9gx7/IZb2PsMfnEIsuOsOH5Q4NzP6gewWyG1e+Y0LbAHqqZ sjoy63f/Zw+HVnW8y5MeR+FyTOKryf5Bebge72OQ3DinbXF5jIyj7ZV9X6bGdQPIFJOM KKNui+nIoFtjmOKpRLXVXQxPZFcFro9onR+Hr1QTuxMfm/9im8D3obe/oOzX19jOaOxx 4q0pjVGQOpFAYWySnt5/tgomz2EW+XZgsv1r12FX4wc78+ZTe1taCakoJcZ3eiUDT8gC GA/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI9jeE8waBqS34ftl1pJLPPH5qAhQkGNN3fFI2HNRKtPvRd/noYHML/jHTre+p+NUswwFR9WJhr+CAgvg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q65mr9385346vkd.83.1485742148582; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:a4c1:79d6:4390:76f4]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:09:08 +1000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Dave Crocker <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
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 02:09:11 -0000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, 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.
> That is, build on the ACM effort, getting ISOC, W3C, IEEE, and more to sign
> it jointly.
> d/


We should say so singly, *and* collectively. We should say so as the
IETF, and we should encourage our peer bodies and sister bodies to say
so individually and collectively.

I think the principle that we should say *something* is strong, and I
would like us to say it. I don't think the detail of what we say
matters as much as the act of standing up and being counted, so I hope
we can avoid racionating into 'but how do we decide when consensus has
been reached' activity.

If Andrew and Jari issue a statement as themselves in role, I won't
feel excluded from the decision to speak and I care more about them
being seen to voice a concern, than I care about what they say in
detail. That we have identified plausible participants both sides of
the US immigration processes in- and outbound who will materially
suffer, and our process suffer as a result of this, appears to me to
be direct evidence of effect we should speak to, quite aside from the
moral question.