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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 A1F77129A37 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 WfyUYpifmmEE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22c.google.com (mail-yb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22c]) (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 E9178129A2F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 123so98714584ybe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -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=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; d=1e100.net; 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 10.129.124.84 with SMTP id x81mr17215972ywc.224.1485798249188; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.50.2 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:44:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.com> <8f5ef9ac-b62b-863a-0a0e-f5d2b329de09@nostrum.com> <20170129134410.GA14422@gsp.org> <4D233FE8-6E84-446F-A8ED-604E4F7EAB99@piuha.net> <m2lgtseuhu.wl-randy@psg.com> <m28tpsecj0.wl-randy@psg.com> <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com> <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:44:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reX0kNsH5=1JizzyxNLswWmDMypq5AUhUFyr=JWCz+AyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11494168d9f86e0547535cf8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j3VE4ibp1AAemTWojmbQm2XWpE4>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <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 17:44:15 -0000

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 <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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
>
>
>