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

Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <naeem.khademi@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 AD43F12998E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 mxXbqYcpenGO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (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 2E14A12998B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j18so104022201ioe.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1ev9yY+sC0GfwaOMCavItzk/ykzNyN+gRrTQUuct7LE=; b=FTWZmppfsMHgPcGEnpBlb9YP++jgmL/JG1Ccq/M1qkUxlmEemey49FOUnTQBASM61u HQik+9LDup31K4LsYhz1j6Na/QbLEzDO8txNL1OsfbyBgobN3dWGP6xsGpldnmJN+Teh yNodaI7d5s/JLqbv2skyPYYF28H/BJg7neNY9FSo5kSprc7Lfa8YoPz9c+VzIf8RklKJ lW1TWYUPrLsX3eo4qxyFdyLkDDPYRuAa5gUOtED1MqOzS8KQJV1j2yZu2Uvh8DKeYbLo Myy2pZU7EAX4Aps3zTwziLgKX3LHaEqNzXYCjVcLbMczAslfECV3Vtzq8YFjxyG2nf66 LdAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1ev9yY+sC0GfwaOMCavItzk/ykzNyN+gRrTQUuct7LE=; b=kYVHpCPbOWuoebwbwN9ldlYVNJJSOQ2tVbXqgwavo65ue7TcOKDQlX+PhvnIb3GRHz ecYZXqbo/QFTJ37gA5ZweISS2N1XdAU6X9VaqzcRl0bwUTt4zsp24GKSNXHgpOTWtjIQ JKilhrkPu4CEvHtUFrXbot6NwVUCh5YF3zsWwVpntHZbo6uiSWTaikH0ekCqdaHEKKki 062eW6CiB/95J5IPS3ei2PB0fLXXbFoW5I4TUHDJ2P3NtFWqGBrF7nNo9EZRiGyq4ofO GMAF0lpT4PZxAKoeDjZIgzZb7HMbXC4YL04fSnv/8i2eoFCrxElz9m1nrhyguoFOR4yV mPyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJtySNo5fbdwPA6/JzQD5AtMmQN1IbCy++8CzqfSSuRslJMLwZorPnbGQIrLdVZF/elkIIMrrHbFn7MSQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.148.141 with SMTP id w135mr20477700iod.229.1485773448561; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.178.210 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 02:50:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <649728F5964CE764D9E82B81@PSB>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@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> <83add474-9949-2406-89d5-a753231166c9@gmail.com> <649728F5964CE764D9E82B81@PSB>
From: Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEjQQ5VsTkQ-SdE98DarFSBMacUReTEQs8j1X4RL0CJ3ttS7kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f9fe29e663605474d96e7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bcR2Hca9bP2N40LGNlQe4uMQ5Yg>
Cc: IETF <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 10:50:50 -0000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:57 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
> + <many>
>
> Three additional comments:
>
> -- Part of the problem with this set of moves is that they are
> sudden and, at least in detail, unanticipated.  There is little
> or nothing a meeting site selection process that is designed
> around working three or five years out can do about countries
> (or their leadership) that suddenly go nuts (including canceling
> existing valid visa and forbidding legal residents from
> returning), acts of war, or even natural disasters that occur,
> effectively, overnight.     For those types of situations, our
> only useful and practical remedies are making remote
> participation work well and smoothly even if forced to scale up
> considerably and thinking through, as a set of contingency
> options, questions of the conditions under which we would cancel
> a meeting entirely and/or convert it to "everyone is remote".
> Even remote hubs are irrelevant unless they have, well in
> advance, arrangements to scale up to accommodate all
> participants from a particular country or category.
>

Just answering this specific additional comment: for the very same reason
IETF will perhaps NEVER hold any meeting in certain countries due to their
unpredictable behavior or sudden policy shifts or unstable political
situation, we could argue that planning of further meetings in the US can
potentially be re-considered by the IETF and the currently-planned meetings
(except Chicago which is too imminent) can be relocated to Europe or
elsewhere (at least for the next 8 years "until we know what's going on
there" ;-).

Naeem


>
> -- For those of us who live and vote in the US, especially in
> so-called "red states", contacting legislative representatives
> and making it clear that damage to US values, companies, and
> ability to do business will cost them votes in the next election
> if they don't take effective action.  That doesn't make
> organizational statements less useful, but, as Dave points out,
> those most responsible seem extremely unlikely to listen.
>
> -- I'm sympathetic to efforts in other countries to, e.g., ban
> or severely constrain contacts and state visits.  Unfortunately,
> if the mentality that seems to pervade the new US administration
> continues, their likely response will be stick their fingers in
> their virtual ears and chant "America First".  This stupid,
> shameful, action really needs to be dealt with on this side of
> what ponds and planned virtual or physical walls can be
> identified.
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Sunday, January 29, 2017 18:37 -0900 Melinda Shore
> <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>