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

John C Klensin <> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1771E129A71 for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxYZmQIduJSB for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B08129A2A for <>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1cYGXw-000264-5L; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:19:20 -0500
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:19:14 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <7B341AEB153CEC252C87AE9F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> < om> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:19:23 -0000

--On Monday, January 30, 2017 12:14 -0500 Michael StJohns
<> wrote:

> 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.

Concur.  I must say that, even without such formal requests, I
hope ISOC is working on such a statement and am somewhat
disappointed to have not seen it already.

To the degree possible without getting into our own version of
"alternate facts", I think it would be worthwhile to identify,
not only effects on IETF meetings but potential negative effects
on the Internet if we can't get our work done in a way that is
consistent with international consensus.

> I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is
> better than the alternative.