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

Dave Cridland <> Mon, 30 January 2017 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0EA129478 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UC49KMEoKaxQ for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8176612942F for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v23so201740040qtb.0 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0CGPN7K5uuOvwvtfZiGRqcm1CQNK3v5S31I5qC3YmqQ=; b=DEqGehh1LYWJ2RUWkSw1iSRCUohr6P3nEd9N7m/r+BKeLNsqwMZdRdsa5W1U3oLozg B48vEX7l3LmTyeHHUB34b4dNCM/NaM2HP6bBBkn+kynu+3pmVcEqbHSxBUhpQ9NQLBPd vEGfT6SM/xERKlnAKko9Zu9QGkPrBGOpvKafA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0CGPN7K5uuOvwvtfZiGRqcm1CQNK3v5S31I5qC3YmqQ=; b=XjFmlAaJSFsuRJOrElpbWBPGYnSwMOlq/V73PjgiGUsd0FJcG91OTvQrGC5xI0fLa5 +2AD+L1MeZCx1tVOVmEW3pUyOF/qZeh+ggRTaahLT0gd0j3AgCAoSA+rV2HDYABUDdTC jCpHqNETTIygTbnsRq+YRzPRyKg5CBZehEQCAjDMHYzPvNYW2DVZ2G9fnGABLNgkMWWs ZscQWHugLBIihEfKgQAD77r0nFPypA1pJhRajpgBwAbEmwGcTP4NT25TaGRJ2qpUAElP 1Qmiwnn8eQJAPkW1Vdyl81U0KjVXsDcAIbVN0js+2UiYTdaKjdYcLoZA2c21fATWutyQ Rp5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJddVRgja5ObFDklOfJE851n889FbIsEnMYmjS3pF9Mz/nVywgLvH/1PyccMkDN9LUEmEcMKbVHbZ5bE0a8
X-Received: by with SMTP id 46mr18841352qtr.167.1485780045575; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:40:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Dave Cridland <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:40:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Leif Johansson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:40:50 -0000

On 30 January 2017 at 10:50, Leif Johansson <> wrote:
>> See you all in beautiful Prague,
> I agree with RB - lets just stop meeting in the US.
> US companies who still want to play will figure it out and
> will apply pressure accordingly.
> Feels like a no-brainer to me.

While I'm hugely sympathetic - my mother would probably be banned from
the US if Trump thought her country of birth had ever existed - the
logistics work both ways.

Holding meetings exclusively outside the US means that anyone living
in the US under a green card or similar may well not be able to return
from such a meeting.

I feel the appropriate response from the IETF is probably to consider
advancing virtual meeting and remote participation.

As for public statements, while I would not want the IETF to make any
political statement, I think it's entirely reasonable to note that
sudden impositions of travel bans for selected minorities do make
organization of global technical meetings much harder. The IETF can,
and should, make a statement specifically regarding Chicago, and
noting that some participants who have already paid may need to change
their plans. Such statements are not expressing any view on the
legitimacy of the current US position, merely its effect on the IETF.