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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 28 January 2017 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 4D709129886 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:29:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 bubIyTysvfmC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89FB5129875 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 15:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3v9sLJ4V9yz38h for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:29:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1485646152; bh=k3Mg2woFu8wFQZGOOyZVSgg1Pa9FW3zDt6EnHtm+WZo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=IuDypJJorxl6FViU7G2JNu9gnCRV7pI0DjhVAFyO9Wk/MfUkgcOtTksOeuTGPyISS OhlsQS+14rpstHx9WSU8tCO9quvEYxN4fY8IgNtXVTc5oUVdMSjASlM6ridww8v+sT iReRv0SD/t2m9n1lEh0By1iyOY054eB4Wx3K2s/A=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R6LK-yJ9s1vL for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:29:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:29:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 044593F2851; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:29:04 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 044593F2851
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E534A40D6EB5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701281811210.9710@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwi5Lq0zJUT_yeuinik=KBkNhELJ4z1JoG4FXn_1KL7USw@mail.gmail.com> <20170128221445.3ib4vuqzlvetsv2f@emily-tablet>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z-_2P4P61Y-9g6Ot7qeGqd7_c3c>
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: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 23:29:18 -0000

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Emily Shepherd wrote:

> The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. This is not an Internet 
> Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.

Seeing how we had a pretty big discussion about Singapore, I do think
this is a very appropriate discussion. Not only is it important that
future venues still comply with our requirements, which are discussed at
mtgvenue, but there is also a direct financial link with the attendance
number. If people cannot come, or refuse to come out of solidarity,
it will simply cost the IETF money when the meeting runs at a larger loss.

And while most will agree there is nothing to be done for Chicago,
I think it would be prudent for the IAOC to look into alternatives for
IETF-102 next year which is currently scheduled to be in San Francisco,
as well as take this new information into consideration when deciding
venues for 2019-2020.

Personally, I will not attend IETF-98 if there are any race or religious
restrictions in place regardless of whether these apply to me personally.

Paul