Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 30 January 2017 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB341298D5 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKhLdS338fr9 for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF201298CF for <>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v0U1fOXr022413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:41:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1485740485; bh=XlIAncmrhVn3i9Ukxeb3kgH4nk+zK8C4vyaSWCfwX9Y=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=AUCWdhwOcQPXYDc55UD3iLJegZp3dRJvX6XawiIulOF209+sIv+Kg+Vgf6Bq4kft5 JY6ir0ZBgZUiMfDJemhec5vYK9qwITXG5/5q6Q/Em/saf7CRGOACZKE+nfNkOI4v8I ZB6LuUfKeUzrex2JvZ1nRxCF/A6JaN2kEsSrP8Cw=
Subject: Re: If categories of people are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
To: Stephen Farrell <>, Jari Arkko <>, IETF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 01:39:54 -0000

On 1/29/2017 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I think the ACM text could be quite close to something
> on which we could garner IETF consensus as it mostly
> says just the above.

The folk at the head of the current administration don't care about such 
statements.  But perhaps others who can effect change might.

And yes, the ACM text is quite reasonable.

I suggest trying to get a /collection/ of related organizations to issue 
a joint text, with the goal of suggesting the aggregate damage that will 
accrue if "freedom of movement, association, expression and 
communication for scientists" is not permitted.

That is, build on the ACM effort, getting ISOC, W3C, IEEE, and more to 
sign it jointly.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking