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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Mon, 30 January 2017 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 E8B6A1299DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:14:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.899 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 JkQfzNnguD3r for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:14:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (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 A8F66129513 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:14:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.99]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id YFX4cXZW6Tsn6YFX4cEkL4; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:14:22 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1485796462; bh=+kfqGuJWvDFyhPyiq9x5ohlz5gWyh27I+uW6aHu7xWE=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=LNlHFwDNbvTQ/hGzlTfR8zfyglPRdje53fKhhbjU4xSPrtuathrmKOLdG5ZugK47t j4byIini87CouAX6oZn5b5QvL8y4h3iJENNk4aPWK9LTW9YkJxIsOIo2o/j1pdI03b MT+gOzyu8VsaKJ7sE+MZOPV/B1xVTDqXAAE3Xn4RrNAHntOaYaTPBLOZVU5TST814D lf741HrmiTEklYw9qcMTES/9Tk95pyPkFAdi9mFNFjse4WK5G4ILRH1j4fl4JddMx8 KMTIYJ0x3omNk0aCzCZ4DC4uJZyQ81p4a88vEidFW1V6mI3GOCyAuzQEN9T0CQtEIj DZ7WzhI54xGGQ==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:9b5f:c8f0:67e5:88b1:2975] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:9b5f:c8f0:67e5:88b1:2975]) by resomta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id YFX2cqCPHY3ghYFX3c1lIv; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:14:21 +0000
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> <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3758f87a-7dcb-c11f-d215-2da15ca8fd1d@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:14:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ddd07b90-60c6-20fb-f972-9036c0c06bbb@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJf3n105TIMslwgLz77MSru/WR7EydLiM2rnhInhyUnNjAoHLhN973oY+1Yg9DF6NqKEjdtfnqFFqcRCTNffpV8K28o1Kcalc6IyNJR0UW7sFvXLYqbs a5LEAN85/zUYHL2i1DZB9wuNcgSo+qIDq6dKkttW5GalvfgdkOMWqKTQlE2MyRXTvO7L8m1bZ4DiMg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xQeI3P7q1zZQXi5GV0T__ezCzEg>
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 17:14:24 -0000

On 1/30/2017 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

To be fair, the IACR, ACM etc are professional organizations; we the 
IETF are not.  Professional organizations (cf your state bar 
association, the American Medical Association and the like) are all 
about standardizing people, not things.  As such, they are more able to 
come up with a consistent public message.

To expect us to be able to behave like one of them without a 
restructuring to become one of them is probably wishful thinking. 
Becoming one of them would probably be detrimental to our main mission 
of improving the internet.

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.

I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better 
than the alternative.

Mike