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

From: Naeem Khademi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:39:06 +0100

Hi all

I have attended ten IETF meetings since IETF 87 including Dallas 92 and
Honolulu 91. I am an atheist living in Norway, who happens to have an
Iranian passport (and haven't been to Iran in the last 7 years). Based on
the current so-called Muslim ban, despite having planned to attend the IETF
in Chicago and having applied for the visa, already being interviewed at
the US embassy in Oslo, going through the "administrative processing"
(security background checks), all prior to Trump's inauguration, I now
won't be able to make it to the meeting in Chicago.

While it might already be too late for this specific meeting in Chicago, I
believe as a general principle, IETF should avoid holding meetings in the
states that have introduced blanket visa bans on various nationalities (or
minorities) indiscriminately, specially if there is an interest within the
IETF to have a better participation from such under-represented countries
(e.g., Middle East or Africa). It is also important to highlight that the
current blanket ban does not only affect the people who directly come from
these 7 countries in the Middle East and Africa, but also hundreds of
university researchers and industry employees in Europe, Australia, Canada,
and East Asia (who happen to posses the passports of these banned
countries) who attend various academic conferences, and/or IETF meetings in
the US from time to time.

See you all in beautiful Prague,

Cheers,
Naeem

Naeem Khademi
Postdoctorate Researcher
Department of Informatics
University of Oslo, Norway
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/naeemk/

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> let me spin jari's point a bit differently.
>
> if the outrageous actions out of washington are less than one a week, i
> for one will be surprised.  and i strongly encourage protest, funding
> the aclu, etc etc.  [ and i have been pushing back against stateside
> meetings for a looooong time ]
>
> but there will soon be violations of rights and sanity which are not so
> obvious to the general public, but will be in the internet community's
> domain.  the internet community will need all the energy and resources
> we can muster to deal with those directly on our turf.
>
> expect years of outrageous fascist hateful acts and plan your resource
> expenditures accordingly.
>
> randy
>
>

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:48 +0100

> See you all in beautiful Prague, 

I agree with RB - lets just stop meeting in the US.

US companies who still want to play will figure it out and
will apply pressure accordingly.

Feels like a no-brainer to me.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:40:45 +0000

> Feels like a no-brainer to me.

While I'm hugely sympathetic - my mother would probably be banned from
the US if Trump thought her country of birth had ever existed - the
logistics work both ways.

Holding meetings exclusively outside the US means that anyone living
in the US under a green card or similar may well not be able to return
from such a meeting.

I feel the appropriate response from the IETF is probably to consider
advancing virtual meeting and remote participation.

As for public statements, while I would not want the IETF to make any
political statement, I think it's entirely reasonable to note that
sudden impositions of travel bans for selected minorities do make
organization of global technical meetings much harder. The IETF can,
and should, make a statement specifically regarding Chicago, and
noting that some participants who have already paid may need to change
their plans. Such statements are not expressing any view on the
legitimacy of the current US position, merely its effect on the IETF.

Dave.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:42:48 +0100

> in the US under a green card or similar may well not be able to return

Those people work for companies in whose self-interest it is to allow
them to participate (presumably). $ talks.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:46:40 +0000

>in the US under a green card or similar may well not be able to return

It has been announced that the ban does not apply to green card holders.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:53:31 +0100

Dear all,

Perhaps we could refrain from making a political statement, but do make
a statement of facts (similar approach to RFC7258):

'The current US government ban from people from seven predominantly
Muslim nations from entering the United States is hampering the IETF
from effectively doing its work and holding its meetings (both inside
and outside the US because of the severe travel resistrictions). This is
true for both American and non-American engineers participating in
Internet standard development.'

Hope this helps.

Best,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:12:08 -0500

> It has been announced that the ban does not apply to green card holders.

What has been announced and what is happening are very different.  Example:

	"I was born in Baltimore MD in 1951.  That automatically makes
	me an American.  Interesting and creepy experience checking into
	Houston International Airport this morning.  I was detained for
	almost an hour by the TSA with questions about my travels to
	North Africa (1970s), my current social media communications
	with friends in Taiwan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Morocco to
	name a few, where I have had friends for years and decades.
	These communications consist mainly of flowers, children, dogs,
	recipes and understanding of our different cultures.  I was
	asked if I was Christian, and I said yes I am.	My passport was
	taken, and was told it would be returned by mail in 14 business
	days. [...]"

Citizen.  Detained.  Interrogated.  Passport confiscated.

---rsk