Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 01 February 2017 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E53129DD6; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.988
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=fFNyo988; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=J8GHS9Wj
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trGYGTdamGAB; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67938129DD4; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v11DDYmj019702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 05:13:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1485954817; x=1486041217; bh=OjtWcBUzulZNtQ8L4e3lyoR4wezI3rc1sfrsR7LRymk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=fFNyo988rU73dVUMvteDguZ+JnhVMYUHQD1XZrst6k91tBhcr/B1C5N3ABNT+lX+v zjY4rhfwq362t5hqH1BUpffyuvZD1SjMKEtgNviVJFTOkI/sAiI59n1td8BA3W0HxF dz5AVybMrnMiiUYWqmEd5k/5yNczZuQWrmUPztfg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1485954817; x=1486041217;; bh=OjtWcBUzulZNtQ8L4e3lyoR4wezI3rc1sfrsR7LRymk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=J8GHS9Wj5EzKyqdHkUMMOankKDD+TmEiKGeFl8MN0n3JHqdgyef4VMCwNaxL5QMxk plWA3bCWlGFnzOH9YT5n89+iSmvZ9KA8hhZocI//mJIQ4Fgj+RfYbwl4iBVScP9uzZ LHW4AYv2KXAViA5eS9/HEZQjd657VdSbPPz3cecQ=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 05:12:11 -0800
To: Stephen Farrell <>,,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:13:47 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 05:31 PM 1/29/2017, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>In this case, and as mentioned previously, there is at
>least one aspect that goes beyond mtgvenue, in that those
>leaving from one place to come to a meeting might be
>restricted in returning home. That seems to me to be an
>order of magnitude more problematic than not being allowed
>entry. The "order of magnitude" aspect of that is maybe
>not relevant for IETF discussion, but the "not able to
>contribute since not able to return home" aspect would
>surely be, as would the "not able to travel to *any*
>'foreign' f2f meetings since not able to return home."

At the lower end, it is a visa problem.  The difference between this 
discussion and the one about Singapore is that the latter was not 
related to entry of IETF attendees.  Jari went through the statistics 
to see whether there were IETF attendees from the affected 
countries.  In terms of attendance, the impact is not 
significant.  The IAB appointed a person from RIPE NCC on the 
IAOC.  Based on the message which the person posted to Facebook, I 
guess that the person may not be able to attend the next IETF meeting 
in the U.S.  It is up to the IESG to assess whether the impact should 
be raised from not significant to something else.

>Anyway, and also speaking personally, I do think there
>may be a valid public IETF reaction here, in addition to
>mtgvenue considerations, which is that we, as with any
>scientific or technical organisation with participants
>welcome from all over the globe, depend on the rule of
>law as it relates to travel being somewhat rational and
>relatively stable. (*)
>I think the ACM text could be quite close to something
>on which we could garner IETF consensus as it mostly
>says just the above.

My preference is for the public IETF reaction to be based on open 
discussion instead of a discussion behind closed doors.  I don't 
think that IETF Consensus should be a matter of convenience.

>And yes, you may well be right that there will be more
>pressing matters on which we may need to consider comment
>in future. Personally, I think I'd argue that even if that's
>the case (which we all hope won't turn out true but fear
>might) then we'll be better off having had some discussion
>ahead of time as to where we do or do not have IETF consensus
>for relevant comment being within our scope.

I scanned the list quickly and I only found two IESG members, the 
IETF Chair and you, commenting on the issue.  Do the other IESG 
members have an opinion about the topic?  I'll Cc them to find out.

There was a comment a word which is fashionable nowadays [1].  That 
word sounds hollow given the silence of the persons who have been 
using that word.

S. Moonesamy