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

Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <daveburstein2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501A21297FE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.347
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xOS2FUCZrqBI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 A40261297F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id x75so181856230vke.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=q2ZgM+c3Z8tdj34xCLmsAH+oO08Z9XIYPZazSNQiTqA=; b=PR0u3eLkprm2B4PuaHDHoXp5wT6T/MSHRdUIYfoJg9Qb7gxipE4sVXbqBhTlFnkAvJ 4LRW4sVKpCtWUO06ickQrcmthCoSmWbMEhwSkeAzfC3o7Be3/HIlECYVpnZS3S/rloqx LndVJ5R6ir3W7iPASr5W25FDsRU1yfXPXECtCKDXkois0qVPGvDFj2K8h9ezlvTqpBRl Wq/yNh52IRgq0RkaxLDsfkDooj5eEveK1Mk5OCL1VPhEzrYz+mBKgsrAwP+HG7kqEkjK 4MNABWXI2b/4ufUwahZvXV2C6yjUU7zDZAhtovhkSJzPQfW0z0sWO+APY8fEOEHh8QvN 3WVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=q2ZgM+c3Z8tdj34xCLmsAH+oO08Z9XIYPZazSNQiTqA=; b=cgn0Bke9TwlEkUOFvcm/s5HnLG1ykWMV8eSWGilnH192hawhxcL5Tdw6BDKdx/i/Qd WM8WBYe4A3pqlKn7STV/ETXjg8IgnFRc5J0nxyPWCBnmMxjnZGGeaSVpd80QU780XDpt nD1xRKHu7YHmvO9/Y3qL096IYhVaPwweGXNdS/CH4hJWt1vPOhRpmzViZ5/cHsJFy8J9 gPXKTViPbaWXwXc3uCoGRMz2MpcNMeeuC58r7kaUETQ6j9OZZMLtB5tVoP2EKL+1aAX0 hZnTDDYr9d9OXwlEF/T7ddfcF+kUiCl7acEtD5fWEJR7tcBWyoYHQz172dWvks2AVpx1 fiZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKh+a/cQBuU7sBqzPLpH/cDFzNL2pHFZozfquqDHFTv7zTM2JSGAHUwdqJhC1yTVDkFf8lCDVOzZcAcTg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e135mr4930593vkf.47.1485545372313; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: daveburstein2@gmail.com
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:29:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Burstein <daveb@dslprime.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:29:01 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KggoL_-Mj4uyTZL2F5dg01DuJaA
Message-ID: <CAAUuzMQwk5v+3HA+KFrsCZfbNSXFpgBE0XdKfJWHgDss9-VkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11439e3e36f16d0547187c17"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ucK0NHEhR-2QRT7wTnNNlTmsJCs>
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:29:35 -0000


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

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)