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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

There is already an ISOC blog.

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2017/01/message-internet-society-president-and-ceo-kathy-brown


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 1/30/2017 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/17 7:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>>> but sadly, i do not think the ietf has the guts and the vision to even
>>> do what an organization such as the iacr, crypto assn which has long
>>> experience with real politik etc. has done, [ ... ]
>>>
>> Over the years it has become clear that being a consensus-oriented
>> organization with a diverse participation makes it impossible for
>> the IETF to make statements like this.  It would need to come from the
>> chair, the IAB chair, or the I*.  (Yes, I think this is a problem)
>>
>> Melinda
>>
>>
>>
>>
> To be fair, the IACR, ACM etc are professional organizations; we the IETF
> are not.  Professional organizations (cf your state bar association, the
> American Medical Association and the like) are all about standardizing
> people, not things.  As such, they are more able to come up with a
> consistent public message.
>
> To expect us to be able to behave like one of them without a restructuring
> to become one of them is probably wishful thinking. Becoming one of them
> would probably be detrimental to our main mission of improving the internet.
>
> We are associated with two organizations that are, by charter, mostly
> outward facing: the IAB and the ISOC.  The latter organization is probably
> the right one to take point on statements of mostly political content
> related to issues that affect our mission.   I would like to suggest that
> we (the IAB and IESG and IETF Chair) request the ISOC draft a message along
> the lines of what the ACM and IACR and others have already written.  This
> would include such details as the affect on the IETF's meetings and the
> ISOC's outreach program and would ask them to incorporate suggestions from
> the IETF community on content (but leaving the wording to ISOC).  I'd also
> suggest they provide a signature page where IETF community members may
> endorse the ISOC message.
>
> I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better than
> the alternative.
>
> Mike
>
>
>