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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 20:08 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 8D1931296ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_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 aD8XtIDIV-SK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 1EB7B129602 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id y143so75502991pfb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:08:00 -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=N1ggFNIO7ucJwHeyEwVNQ/ezosYifuGaDYIUpSdHgf0=; b=nYVx2iq0paOlHcxclZUHBICkw5C8lADPAB9uFULeMo/3YFzsDWYIqhpnxca0IIDCrS YMuZFXhrsUWeTXakWGv3BGrfTtFHX18lcuxbahkVTyApHhyi5LGj8ntMQzbKJTWx0J1t KIKRB/IaJuarNwFMfVBviSKW1eN0T7TemkZBxaSa3Js8TGThkgSaYTx5VLV5mRuYbz2u ZxwUTmH62scy62ZLlaC5EdpmIM2ZdicnXmIODliH9qtaZEOVC2y/s3qo+ReGRBOU2fsb J4Z967SxWBpFKNyVi2bwezDhvBSqAmWOueow/Qrt+tWT82tNxNAJocSwBArmj2pOrjnL fGyA==
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=N1ggFNIO7ucJwHeyEwVNQ/ezosYifuGaDYIUpSdHgf0=; b=Y9S0Kw/xfvklIzhPZdz9kc19CMhiA0dHnT8SgVg3YbCxvCA3TxtvBBNNeQW67q0h2I Kd2rNDQ591HY9FrYCYqFZuh657tby2gjdKYIf1V8X5iO8YvZn4QfU/Ko6SnFeIxPYz14 pnPKvyjUMFU86VL164ob8HB576WZ7KJxr5/ylXJRSbHo/DBuA46ov9uAV3y3Vz91tlK8 1jHtypYhaMYrgtO/8hMfX2dTjyjY4coJVHg916fqSad4TW9VicFLfS43XA1I8WY9Z2m+ 6kZZfUKffLhjlxIUiZ0OZ9EuvCHl6FfW3e15wRcxPDOq2YEHwy/wcleaCDcqKSrAXNdL ud1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIarDGnJda9gOJ63vXQv+llxb6dLpjZIWUkmMXD48E78fDtvB6UNUulCudQXeSi6A==
X-Received: by 10.84.239.16 with SMTP id w16mr14721909plk.73.1485547679177; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-80-108-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.80.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t133sm13365014pgc.24.2017.01.27.12.07.57 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <20170127194324.GB38766@mx2.yitter.info>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ac8a2b9-a631-26c3-3126-9147152c381e@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:07:56 -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: <20170127194324.GB38766@mx2.yitter.info>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sLdeIuQE1H2fKLFh6nqD2TXjbMxAS1nj8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xx4_Qy7e_8IHmAQM9t-svsyDyeY>
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 20:08:01 -0000

On 1/27/17 10:43 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, and the question of whether what's currently in the draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/?include_text=1)
on that question is sufficient is currently under discussion.  Note
that the goal is to provide guidance from the IETF to the IAOC on
questions like this.

Melinda