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

Alia Atlas <> Mon, 30 January 2017 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F77129A37 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WfyUYpifmmEE for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9178129A2F for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 123so98714584ybe.3 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h49jqYS4nHWDYBOmGZqLLKukjubaoDbItgJ/TFPZHyA=; b=dtGDt8NFvokI8puz391Ty1BEO963F3DBsy6oHGOH+Vjak0JNrx6sLwWv8mG48Wlk0e 1jYnaIeNQCv4iC2KaTur/MUyGGX52T4uVCcttQoEExUuLTsFyT7k3D+/lMRfBJT36Ohw Lvm8RmUGRErUGlDvxStQU6Eoc+vqaDnMTNCIkbyTw1IYQyvTV1jo5Z1q/iGOpMBnn9JP QM9MH932IpBYRVBwm+O/hJXLMr4oX78OQeYFQ0iMMrbHfAv7VSptOG4UzoTH/pKvPYBP pTloAVh1Uu+S7gzttIg48j+Xwckjlu4c57W6sY5JXUHOHu7jv2l8j0tnvvs2Jah7opnV +oRw==
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=h49jqYS4nHWDYBOmGZqLLKukjubaoDbItgJ/TFPZHyA=; b=YjNuQA/aLtbpkti19uXoUoD7WI7ZdE4Z/RFagG9pFEaWvKM0zQLspVwzm6BEFMf+Ch Wk7sj3UpP98R+nFu6qFztrIUCZ59PKYZcgMll5GJyxdV7C5I+uWK8OdWHQhw5O0rTZhS kuXXsxME45rl5QJ4q0x1UZfpiEyaw6A1uWpYJlaKP5KQmfjJTws6LvUMj5BM8Bext2tB N7gEZjtppsVtkFydS3DiEFJMykhNJEHaYXbpLGE/Val6l/WcPAq8+TgplqqqDveHDWu6 k6wqpTkPMXaKkIu+aOXoSwbTXUpAOOn+hrIgN9kkLr6FtMEaZTZhX5pioCX4iYJ/c4rR Z6iQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLWMBzWeDCy0gHNvHBsccIe9ODR0qEYtEisUxRB5cWe4jvB5d8TFfxbkiQIsrOdcbMa1EdNDoEFPP2p4A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x81mr17215972ywc.224.1485798249188; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:44:08 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Michael StJohns <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11494168d9f86e0547535cf8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
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 17:44:15 -0000

There is already an ISOC blog.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <>

> 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