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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 1771E129A71 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxYZmQIduJSB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B08129A2A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) 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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
Message-ID: <7B341AEB153CEC252C87AE9F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJ78ECZ5x8LsR53KhRFnbhi3gV7n8yzG07e1wbN-SG14Q@mail.gmail.c om> <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>
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-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pWxLHQ_QAwJKtUAoYbUwcZhEGj8>
Cc: 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 18:19:23 -0000


--On Monday, January 30, 2017 12:14 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@comcast.net> 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.

Yes.

best,
    john