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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@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 0C86212996E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 ZsEWhLGfi1AG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 C74F81289B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id y143so88054743pfb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=UB5OvAJsTwJFFghjGJybX+GL5T2hNbcPUJrIMKb/aig=; b=L9EdzjuDJn7tF+zdRXIjVWLQIyClS3LejKI80Ds7iaOjoFN2WkcXQL6RelwKi9kGxp tmZTsHtq7DVTyXqPeaCNYJDooZ+CvT+q0lpwRT0/eBEJyxLA2rhY0VHcRS+JDzxHjFKc vw4+gJ1NJ3J0RUsUW7OeC4S8+HAS0x6JH5G8IFLLdRq5loisgbu1qUynaR0tHJh162ex XeNp0HE5Fu1a4j6xHz0mydTJrpM6Kt2NV5XMKMod0Pyt8/74CxScHheH/7BjTDBePftM yGG6HMTC00BTssKugxn8KkJqCD8QwNg5nBL4NXNk4yqR5ud2lpJ6E38Z8dIOYxq07ogX mW3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UB5OvAJsTwJFFghjGJybX+GL5T2hNbcPUJrIMKb/aig=; b=EF+VKlKrzE8fE3DB03NzUz2Bdy2DUECl6SYVe+xT8bOvPU/o5gT9snK94N1wMTirDY 5VYVg2rwF8nDFedl9PxCIHEXRtZWm6yOaSVleBayHyotH4FdqXZjGGI/hXOimx0MEP6l v9f5eE+/etJgw3qJyUQA+z+uqW2pKhbJAyYb+IQqIE+GxVgc7G68w4B41OoPij1MxkUc ZXtsnVS1d/lHMA0jRRjYjdTSMcGAIDjHnyz8VnQVYWRN47lvwDhtthAMV18OGzL8yI3H gZo8VXxpMpSf6/iBZyOLtGLouFS1DEVnx56T7NFVI2mrcqDPbLHrkoHMGxxuMBRAndcT OXBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLoY9x9AAQD5rFve7cPPRENiWYj/CEd3yLopol1j1NO6A7kjEn+ZoO7smh8kj8fzg==
X-Received: by 10.99.133.65 with SMTP id u62mr22556820pgd.70.1485757188063; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-102-137-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.102.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l3sm28868929pgn.10.2017.01.29.22.19.45 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:19:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
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> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD76F98A@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0dbbec0f-4956-12b6-a068-f674e03a3406@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:19:41 -0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD76F98A@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1Sm8pDfASwN9pnQ6Uq5DhEsDi6vWbANK0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kwbLfqFQM7l2x0rvN3Ch1WOokNM>
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 06:19:50 -0000

On 1/29/17 9:03 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are
> banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be
> a meeting location based on
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

One thing that came out of the discussions about IETF 100 is that
it may be the case that the IAOC meeting committee members may
simply not be aware of local issues excluding different IETF
demographics.  This is a serious problem, so one of the goals is to
make sure that there's a process in place that allows for IETF
participants to know ahead of time which venues are under
consideration and to provide feedback to the meetings
committee.  I believe the situation is not that it's okay
with the meetings committee to exclude GLBT people, or Israelis,
or any other group, but that they (for whatever reason) simply
aren't aware of some of these problems.

Personally, I think we need to reduce our dependence on
in-person participation and do a better job on remote meetings
and remote participation.  But that's another topic for another
mailing list.

Melinda