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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@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 D93A31288B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:38:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 Tu8A78QIJBPO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x235.google.com (mail-pg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::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 BEAE2127735 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 3so38706643pgj.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:37:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=DnP+pySxUHPlEWNb5Oot2a4U1O6nnwvjEbpf9kVdZWQ=; b=G7xnub6JM4ORFQR5Von0DlNq8pLhPUkAEzoajwh5O1pJ87kTbi85aPUh1x5mMkvL3H QYkw5VE4MpX6A7KUOeTp4QXEygCOfMvU1mSWFGB1S71DAmZzIOUbT1MAunRiWLYz/SVc 9J999TQQ7QeViwSp1VapAcQ6v/8hPpApWWJ8MHYtn63OGmHlAlEvrmxVUvAwXMrcGOeK 9E08GvNMPFxr4cbV7Hba84/vGD65Pa2hjg9LXErIccAqiFPD0A2U2tnsuKmLV11siOmT ke+42/T4HEQcxAGO13kMFQNLigaRd/mqh2oEb0aKtFiI+K3z/QdWfrEM1loQHFeK9nSc UCPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=DnP+pySxUHPlEWNb5Oot2a4U1O6nnwvjEbpf9kVdZWQ=; b=YqqNwaHm4pbuj6MnJtdJK04/tZgOI1MxU0Jn30zOYuHsVZs6D9GYXyHTI483QkVXca 5fDFnRCLE0H6dxMJM28b7fJkUZQvmMaSzLl6TTjuC1SJa+yg4wDOmUdfrOpLlmMLwKEo SRwIppSXf6H2MdSR3dLePx92USGXgcsbYfb4e8yr6ASdRdD94omzD+k1ZI850i5XHqIg ec1ep8Y8fqgGdNq/6B9HGibe+RTSVFvSSGWs4pIrumy930bFKPcN04Zh6FVpphXfBjhZ 1m2ShqRQwjHCcaHujzxc1zMhnCT2I6aXu+RG6MCUJCucDJgKizJeV6p+Hv2y7V1dD5rb 21Uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKwYoDYi3cWUfZjZ+UK2f92sT7+VIOgB9IIJda8vSO+XaNwoO0+JEqWvJiiYXQmrQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.98.193 with SMTP id w184mr21930223pgb.223.1485747478509; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (69-161-16-146-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [69.161.16.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b66sm27567727pgc.20.2017.01.29.19.37.55 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
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> <0d60ed80-2183-e329-05ad-e0cd7ab77ac1@cs.tcd.ie> <ebc650e4-3e42-5472-5c5f-ac5c0e5fc09f@dcrocker.net>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83add474-9949-2406-89d5-a753231166c9@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:37:47 -0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ebc650e4-3e42-5472-5c5f-ac5c0e5fc09f@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kA6JKnjUcLu4T4KudhI9C8gFNVELte5B9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xvf6PxANgloVqxswVFrBEKOESFw>
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:38:01 -0000

On 1/29/17 4:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The folk at the head of the current administration don't care about such
> statements.  But perhaps others who can effect change might.

Right, including our congressional representatives.  There is
likely to be a legislative response to what the administration
is trying to do, and if industry bodies speak up that can
provide them additional support and cover, I think.

I do think that issuing both IETF-only and joint statements
with other organizations would be a good thing.

Melinda