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

Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <arturo.servin@gmail.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 0C96B129C74 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:32:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 hF_8p_-fVP39 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 563B8129C72 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id w20so153178915qtb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:32:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bBbTtRGdE7913HkkoExMu5EpddfdlxKulB1DVEBxgC4=; b=XSxbEW4gxxU9MF0ugTkDQdG10gQVLvmZGhbbHUdfBE7bo0/DBi3U9ABwy1O2KQh8Jt 0xu/VpGp+MyydJYW6F7KQx77b/L4iGGsKYdq/Y/q5KC1cVDByB+PbBY68DFkCEUfLqcL FsprgdVpRZpfOiPvL1H7xDoxuGY6IcGq/uwiEito9tEvVeZjpluLsUgR7ldfwZFG6Kjc 8Tdt9x/sxfR6b1F4PfTaYkHez+nl/LExc4PoU8OiDgIZWfvWgUkCWdin3vfFkNJYgE3g vWswUk300pEUlLH05HLxquiqeoKlr9ZrcwDdN5+tKfmrGlrwq73x4H4hOo08vzWtgVsV mdfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=bBbTtRGdE7913HkkoExMu5EpddfdlxKulB1DVEBxgC4=; b=NMJG/5eKn545T1QuD5shrM04Epn0ap+QG8m43Vx+BlMMyOPJlFGDU58CRjB/OK4k8U GbDqThrBcRA2UJ8boaOWuF52EKfcR5NbSGsonbDqnfTGKct2qJ4cVv6cB1M3ymjH62j0 LCPiyZ0RbV60znojaReDgnAK+4DtQclYrr7bE1te1kukwcaUM+wYx1ZeDwp8qsR+4Gpk ju0rRDXeh+B6O3wnsDAh0CsLbU06WpLGWDW8K+1FooDpWxWzGVdjBxucPk5IlfTs5e84 NBdQ9H5lwxfcy1FaidN8GsoiKoyZA0fevgZZ5x7nWAVqnT48tdWrdK1/sKfLT2eTID0F 8S5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ6Rz0dvEdwjMkVUB4FmnU+TZIKO0AmkKTqUFAuCm9ifS8df0DVn0h3VgyzAKhYIAXP8s4Dz8Ojr2jEPA==
X-Received: by 10.200.41.73 with SMTP id z9mr23024756qtz.137.1485829968438; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:32:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <4D233FE8-6E84-446F-A8ED-604E4F7EAB99@piuha.net> <m2lgtseuhu.wl-randy@psg.com> <m28tpsecj0.wl-randy@psg.com> <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com> <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net> <CAG4d1reX0kNsH5=1JizzyxNLswWmDMypq5AUhUFyr=JWCz+AyQ@mail.gmail.com> <0f7c155c-fb5a-bc9b-5e76-870d026b063f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0f7c155c-fb5a-bc9b-5e76-870d026b063f@gmail.com>
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:32:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CALo9H1a+-ig3x9piNO8_JrY-W08Mt+HZssUE-rvqAFonayuTpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114048a6772b2b05475abfd7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XOXzvn2v8JLU9zLwoaZkJ3wpbsg>
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:32:51 -0000

I agree with Alejandro, we do not need to go all the political road but at
least the IETF should say something about this and express its concern.

Regards
as

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 at 16:41 Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>    I just want to say something very short: I don´t believe IETF should
> take a political position but at the same time I believe that IETF should
> express something in this matter (not necessarily is political).
>
>   The worst thing we can do is do not say anything.
>
>   I fully agree with Kathy Brown post and IACR statement.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alejandro,
>
>
> El 30/1/17 a las 1:44 p.m., Alia Atlas escribió:
>
> There is already an ISOC blog.
>
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2017/01/message-internet-society-president-and-ceo-kathy-brown
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2017 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> On 1/30/17 7:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> but sadly, i do not think the ietf has the guts and the vision to even
> do what an organization such as the iacr, crypto assn which has long
> experience with real politik etc. has done, [ ... ]
>
> Over the years it has become clear that being a consensus-oriented
> organization with a diverse participation makes it impossible for
> the IETF to make statements like this.  It would need to come from the
> chair, the IAB chair, or the I*.  (Yes, I think this is a problem)
>
> Melinda
>
>
>
>
> To be fair, the IACR, ACM etc are professional organizations; we the IETF
> are not.  Professional organizations (cf your state bar association, the
> American Medical Association and the like) are all about standardizing
> people, not things.  As such, they are more able to come up with a
> consistent public message.
>
> To expect us to be able to behave like one of them without a restructuring
> to become one of them is probably wishful thinking. Becoming one of them
> would probably be detrimental to our main mission of improving the internet.
>
> We are associated with two organizations that are, by charter, mostly
> outward facing: the IAB and the ISOC.  The latter organization is probably
> the right one to take point on statements of mostly political content
> related to issues that affect our mission.   I would like to suggest that
> we (the IAB and IESG and IETF Chair) request the ISOC draft a message along
> the lines of what the ACM and IACR and others have already written.  This
> would include such details as the affect on the IETF's meetings and the
> ISOC's outreach program and would ask them to incorporate suggestions from
> the IETF community on content (but leaving the wording to ISOC).  I'd also
> suggest they provide a signature page where IETF community members may
> endorse the ISOC message.
>
> I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better than
> the alternative.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>