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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 EC930129B49 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=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 LrJZcG85SrZv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 14B2A129B37 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id c85so230170232wmi.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=xapEoJI/pLDi9VV/tUA5+4ay0llsy00YTL0RdOLiPzI=; b=TzESKTePRNSmGOjTQcxVR5V2qWVwUUy90JvK57mjfPWhQBogYZcLlsfoTbB4JOWebl HlqrbRzmxXaNKWZp58yfibhcp2KyCTK0htC5d74uEohrNo09YlMScIdDHqHZDa5437YT hZA2F3Q0ich3JHcRJEoSENoOOPMzF5AXfquQp6K6HeT6QTCJ1JPs562HZInZjdR3W+B9 CE1itPbe23meZ0leL8aTofPV5bbUmfzXOoofCpqIHOPtD39/RmdBvruu0jjCZ/IqF8ao gqPzXPaQfCDz9pfq1yRR7Ch+qwTc+0P3DuLu6X1+D7jnZm1tCLzlEq3UfUbbRHBzqe+c 4RxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xapEoJI/pLDi9VV/tUA5+4ay0llsy00YTL0RdOLiPzI=; b=l3iCATYIuJufR0GKUTsTMLgPoX4coJWLo34+sPeRonikLoYFyz3DltLP9m/C+2x/JB 7JQq6K7SPisKEhjZyQqu+WaJ7O0np+Uwsbx+IaMeZApoch8Pb7U8Qh6LjoTmQ32rMpnw LPmXNtpDIXDMEvqxvwDTTKhl14nV8e179acQ0g1S4OKRvi6rKGY5RqbhAnIZw4kYZTLo k3YTdAA8r1RmlIWPzRc/10I56xN5L8TpdRD6fSLXcJfNnovV3KUu0AEQeQ77Bmxe35mM X1+kecGn7yAko26JzIWl2WdocLD1YtSHbGfTrcHaxwOVCxylnSrG5QKKLLpfazoxuTM8 1x0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKSwVcxq8qV8Z0xzBWnMIa2EbExD4RyO4YGLEU4utH9InmcqGOo2RHF5PEWy+fQyL01R0942eRfVfc8yQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.210.65 with SMTP id j62mr15134359wmg.9.1485806530487; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.221.6 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:02:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <e0dc8991-8766-e12e-784b-67536f087293@gmail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <1316f6a4-535d-0805-0e01-57eb3ef2a8d6@secure-endpoints.com> <e0dc8991-8766-e12e-784b-67536f087293@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:02:09 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: D6C4s4ReQeRcouujRHcbfUR0Cf8
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwimAJHxuXdTEMpevkGDvOR7gt_4-TgcufLOyd0wztavnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145baa2746a480547554a8c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_rfaE1Wc3o41KLDdJW5Wuq8GCMs>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
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 20:02:14 -0000

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> ...
> > The IETF is an international organization whose members...
>
> Not actually. The IETF is not an international organization
> (I know, because I used to work for one) and it doesn't have members.
> Legally, it's unclear that it's an organization at all, or in which
> country it might be based.
>
> I also suspect that for some days or weeks, getting a straight answer
> about the impact on IETF98 attendees may be impossible, but I agree
> that the IASA should ask.
>

​I have worked at several international organizations, including CERN and I
have also read quite a bit on law.​

CERN is an international treaty organization established on the same bnasis
as the ITU and other intergovernmental bodies. It is an 'International
organization' the same way that WalMart is a retailer. Just as there are
many retailers that are smaller than Walmart, there are many international
organizations that are smaller than Walmart.

The World Croquet Federation is also an international organization. It is
not a treaty organization. Nor does it have diplomatic status.

​As for the IETF not being an organization, ​the only opinion on the matter
that would matter is the courts. And if the question ever came up in court,
I can guarantee that the first question to follow the statement 'we are not
an organization' would be 'then what are you'. Remember that in common law,
a contract that explicitly states it isn't a contract is still a binding
contract if it meets the requirements.

The fiction that the IETF is not an organization would not last five
minutes. Nor are its arrangements particularly complex. The only real
impact of not incorporating IETF as a separate organization subordinate to
ISOC is that ISOC is not insulated from any litigation against IETF.


​The aspect of the current situation that I think people should focus on is
that the primary design goal of the current arrangements was to prevent
capture of the IETF process by what were considered to be hostile foreign
powers. What appears to have been overlooked is the possibility of attack
by hostile domestic powers.​