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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 30 January 2017 16:53 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 9D3A2129551 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:28 -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 NPZsZb75UPaQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com (mail-pf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]) (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 970B9129554 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 189so91720827pfu.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:24 -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=9WDFHHENJgSk8MQ6z6ktVbDXROv+zlHCtEAVVC/EsMc=; b=S0mOrnG4iZbO759qQk3ue8lfzaqHRkjymWxi6uHK7IiBcQ3pVGKHV10MVk8df+aDGc w6Im/ZMQ4qQq8JEGOuCrDn90ehl2a2lbuQubO51jA4NNRPTFlviZycJ5wqUc8PMVOUAm pxauarzfImoNSTA1xJo14r8Ncxo63v1X6eBNgqUnMoRCYVtSETmL2EI2e0k08g//MejW s3dgMxUb0cYs4GZlHA30uMKTEv771mYgM5jBDictGtk6oRHTJl/ZZJlNAmTGc9eGLkCL t21zJWRJgKtklCGI4U5we22hgqBzDp0fFJKBUYjegE4UdLPBx02mgxK4YpyVCOFidDRL h/Zw==
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=9WDFHHENJgSk8MQ6z6ktVbDXROv+zlHCtEAVVC/EsMc=; b=q9xrEb5DznU4MtDvvk+9XaOdjwgH4T4eh1BeGm+RWt0QwfBqP7PAQ00j5x55kwzh7e 0mIylUS5IjxaNNiFEgjXNl/5++v0Y7pjLzhbt8EFh0+n1ZtKD4k7Rf+ASl/OrNu6wbET W3TWwMWRl4BSB4juK/7a2z+vkWnqt3dY0BSeYt/NEfzYjoanV8r09o6hsXwMI8VeuFKW kXXcWXs//Ao6qpCpHngNt7SUKHlK1o6cXdwSKqk3aUXL0KCeFzWmvLn0oVQ87bkXRiHu uTHIX0uoLsN+h6sCN0fdSxtM8axn96Z63hwi7LO2zIWu9utSNwv7JnJMnQLh7qT6sXwy p4cA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJA4wwJQ+ImlH2w4osWSYieyc1bEZKG3iO1jurmuvzlOFXFyZBhBTRkw3bsK5HH8A==
X-Received: by 10.84.216.30 with SMTP id m30mr32681274pli.72.1485795203583; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-10-189-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.10.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q22sm34008203pfj.77.2017.01.30.08.53.22 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:53:22 -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> <m2lgtseuhu.wl-randy@psg.com> <m28tpsecj0.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:53:20 -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: <m28tpsecj0.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nRV2PFb45BAEWKUKqOTm2UKwBsSKMtq36"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q80gGwmvwiFXsw1HCHr8w4p4N6c>
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 16:53:28 -0000

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