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

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Sun, 29 January 2017 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 C85281294C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 05:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aMOaCCcUns_u for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 05:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (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 9A3021294BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 05:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id v0TDiA8e022203 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:44:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:44:10 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dCCNXQHb_AjZvgweE8j1MgX2h5o>
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:44:15 -0000

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 04:35:02PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
> I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing documents
> that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection, typically years
> in advance of the actual meetings) and the practicalities about what happens
> if the facts on the ground change non-trivially in the interim.

The facts on the ground are undergoing non-trivial change even as this
discussion takes place.  Last night, several separate court rulings were
issued that impose stays/TROs on this executive order.  (One in Brooklyn, NY;
one in Alexandria, VA; one in Massachusetts; one in Seattle, WA.  There
may be more than I'm not aware of yet.)

There are likely to be more legal challenges.  And based on real-time
reports from airports, there is clearly, at his moment, a very serious
disconnect between what the executive order says, what the courts are
saying, and what's being done to people.

Note also that the executive order affects US-based people: if they leave
the country (for a meeting or otherwise) they may be barred from re-entry.
So it's not just US-based meetings that raise issues.

---rsk