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

" Saifi Khan " <saifi.khan@strikr.in> Mon, 30 January 2017 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <saifi.khan@strikr.in>
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 E3AD7129A92 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 5RY2We_S6qQq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:38:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server322.com (server322.com [192.252.151.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55BCC129574 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:38:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21995 invoked by uid 2006); 30 Jan 2017 18:38:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20170130183846.21994.qmail@server322.com>
From: "=?utf-8?Q?Saifi=20Khan?=" <saifi.khan@strikr.in>
To: =?utf-8?B?RGF2ZSBCdXJzdGVpbg==?= <daveb@dslprime.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IElmIE11c2xpbXMgYXJlIGJsb2NrZWQgYnkgdGhlIFUuUy4sIHNob3VsZCB0aGUgSUVURiByZXNwb25kPw==?=
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:08:45 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: WebMail 2.55.13.14
X-Suremail-Sender: 117_194_60_22
X-Originating-Email: saifi.khan@strikr.in
In-Reply-To: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qTnORMCg8BypRfP7nJ9Me6QGqj4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: =?utf-8?Q?Saifi=20Khan?= <saifi.khan@strikr.in>
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 18:38:49 -0000

No !

The IETF and its members must stay focussed on what the IETF is for and what it's goals are.


warm regards
Saifi.

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>
>  To: ietf@ietf.org
>  Subject: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
>  Sent: Jan 28 '17 01:00
>  
>  Folks
>  
>  The IETF has generally steered clear of political entanglements, which
>  I think wise. Nonetheless, I raise the question of whether we should
>  respond to the proposed U.S. ban on nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya,
>  Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.
>  
>  Scott Aaronson reports one of his MIT students will probably have to
>  leave if he can't get his visa removed. We all know how many Iranians
>  are world-class technologists, including in computer science and
>  electrical engineering.
>  
>  I hope many from outside the United States speak up. The issues around
>  Trump make it hard to be objective here.
>  
>  Should we take a stand?
>  
>  If so, should it be symbolic or substantive?
>  
>  Symbolic actions could include:
>  
>  * A resolution
>  
>  * Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the
>  Arabic speaking countries. ISOC has funded remote hubs.
>  * Outreach in Farsi and Arabic to show that whatever actions the
>  government takes, the IETF welcomes participation. This could be as
>  simple as Jari Arkko writing a letter to the editor of the leading
>  newspapers with an invitation for all to join our work.
>  
>  Some might also think that we should move the July 2018 meeting from
>  San Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps
>  to Mexico or Canada.
>  ------------
>  
>  As we discuss this, I urge everyone to avoid distracting comments
>  about U.S. politics. We're not going to change many minds here pro or
>  con the new U.S. President.
>  
>  Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to a
>  major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.
>  
>  Dave Burstein
>  
>  --
>  
>  Editor, Fast Net News, 5GW News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
>  Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
>  Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)