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

From: Dave Burstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:29:01 -0500

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)

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:40:57 -0500

If only we had some sort of a list or working group where things like
meeting venues could be discussed.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mtgvenue/documents/
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/maillist.html

W

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Dave Burstein <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:43:24 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> Francisco to a location accessible to more of our members, perhaps to

I note that there is a WG, MTGVENUE, that is working on criteria for
meeting venues.  It seems to me that discussing the overall question
of specific exclusions at a venue for individuals on the basis of some
set of class properties (whether it be nationality, religion, choices
in emotional relationships, or whatever) would be appropriate in that
WG.  Moreover, since the WG hasn't finished its work perhaps the WG
list would be better to explore the issue than the IETF list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Hosnieh Rafiee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:53:02 +0100

> list would be better to explore the issue than the IETF list.
It appears, it is not just the problem with Muslims, it is also
nationality as well :)
Best,
Hosnieh

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:07:56 -0900

> list would be better to explore the issue than the IETF list.

Indeed, and the question of whether what's currently in the draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/?include_text=1)
on that question is sufficient is currently under discussion.  Note
that the goal is to provide guidance from the IETF to the IAOC on
questions like this.

Melinda

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:51:09 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 11:29 27-01-2017, Dave Burstein wrote:
>Instead, let's keep the discussion here to how we should respond to 
>a major nation refusing visas to so many of our members.

There is a thread at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00695.html 
which is related to the above.  The appropriate venue to discuss 
about the topic is https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 10:21:09 -0800

The other thing to think about is the issue of people from the US
travelling to non-US venues and then being refused re-entry into the US.
Works both ways....

-- 
Clint Chaplin
Principal Standards Engineer
Samsung Research America

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:34:20 -0500

No, I don't think this is a meeting venue issue. It is a policy issue and
thus a question for the whole IETF.

There are many questions that are completely outside our normal concerns.
There are quite a few countries that I am advised I cannot or should not
visit for various reasons, including some where IETF meetings have been
held in the recent past and I certainly could not visit Iran after some of
the things I have said. But those are just politics as usual.

The current Trump administration orders are implementation of campaign
pledges that were racist in intent and form. And that makes them very
different.

* Can non-US citizens attend the venue?

* Can US Citizens not attend the venue due to retaliation against
discriminatory policies?

* Can US permanent residents return to the US after attending the venue?

We could discuss these at great length. Or maybe we could produce a
verifiably end to end secure email, chat and document management protocol
that is as easy to use as Signal but is not a walled garden model.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Mexico
> U.S.

---

From: Emily Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:14:45 +0000

>thus a question for the whole IETF.

The IETF is the Internet Engineering Task Force. This is not an Internet 
Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.

No matter how any of us may feel about any US policy it would be wildly 
inappropriate to confuse the IETF's mission with such discussions. If 
you want to object to them, that is fine but it should be done outside 
of the IETF. In fact, every single IETF contributor could protest, or 
indeed support, any political policy in unison if they wanted, as long 
as they don't do it in the IETF's name.

MTGVENUE is the appropriate place to discuss the practicalities of any 
venues.

Emily

-- 
Emily Shepherd
Computer Science Graduate, MEng (Hons)
W: https://emilyshepherd.me/
M: +44(0)7575 721 231

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:35:02 -0600

I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing 
documents that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection, 
typically years in advance of the actual meetings) and the 
practicalities about what happens if the facts on the ground change 
non-trivially in the interim.

For example; from the reporting I'm reading [1], the United States will, 
at the time of the upcoming Chicago meeting, still have in effect an 
executive order that precludes entry of any kind for nationals of seven 
named countries. Looking back over the past several IETF meetings, I see 
at least 18 distinct attendees (12 from Iran, 2 from Libya, 2 from 
Somalia, 1 from Yemen, and 1 from Sudan) who would be barred from 
attending the Chicago meeting in person.

I think the broader question that Dave is asking -- and this lies way 
outside the mtgvenue charter -- is: when this happens, is there any 
specific action that any I* body should take? It's not clear to me that 
there are any practical actions to take: it's obviously impractical to 
cancel or move the meeting with this much notice.

Which is to say: I don't think there's anything to do, but I think it's 
a valid question to ask, and I think the general IETF list is as 
appropriate a venue as any other.

/a

____
[1] e.g., 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 18:29:04 -0500 (EST)

> Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.

Seeing how we had a pretty big discussion about Singapore, I do think
this is a very appropriate discussion. Not only is it important that
future venues still comply with our requirements, which are discussed at
mtgvenue, but there is also a direct financial link with the attendance
number. If people cannot come, or refuse to come out of solidarity,
it will simply cost the IETF money when the meeting runs at a larger loss.

And while most will agree there is nothing to be done for Chicago,
I think it would be prudent for the IAOC to look into alternatives for
IETF-102 next year which is currently scheduled to be in San Francisco,
as well as take this new information into consideration when deciding
venues for 2019-2020.

Personally, I will not attend IETF-98 if there are any race or religious
restrictions in place regardless of whether these apply to me personally.

Paul

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:03:49 +1300

On 29/01/2017 12:29, Paul Wouters wrote:
...
> as well as take this new information into consideration when deciding

Which is *exactly* why getting to consensus on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process
is the most urgent matter, and it's happening at [email-masked] right now.

    Brian

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:54:12 -0900

> is the most urgent matter, and it's happening at [email-masked] right now.

Yes.  We're trying to close out the process document but we're aware
that conditions have changed and that that's likely to have an impact
on how the draft will be interpreted.  For better or worse, how we
move issues along in the IETF is by working on document text, and that's
what's needed here.  Unfortunately this discussion hasn't led to new
comments on the draft yet.  I do wish people would give it a read
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/?include_text=1)
and take comments to the mtgvenue list.

Thanks,

Melinda
(mtgvenue co-chair)

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:44:10 -0500

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 04:35:02PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
> I think this highlights a gap between mtgvenue (which is producing documents
> that will provide guidance to the IAOC on venue selection, typically years
> in advance of the actual meetings) and the practicalities about what happens
> if the facts on the ground change non-trivially in the interim.

The facts on the ground are undergoing non-trivial change even as this
discussion takes place.  Last night, several separate court rulings were
issued that impose stays/TROs on this executive order.  (One in Brooklyn, NY;
one in Alexandria, VA; one in Massachusetts; one in Seattle, WA.  There
may be more than I'm not aware of yet.)

There are likely to be more legal challenges.  And based on real-time
reports from airports, there is clearly, at his moment, a very serious
disconnect between what the executive order says, what the courts are
saying, and what's being done to people.

Note also that the executive order affects US-based people: if they leave
the country (for a meeting or otherwise) they may be barred from re-entry.
So it's not just US-based meetings that raise issues.

---rsk

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC)

>So it's not just US-based meetings that raise issues.

It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.    I think that is an urgent topic.   Have I missed messages regarding that?
I know that Dawit Bekele runs an IETF-Africa list.   Should we bring up the topic of remote hubs for those countries on that list?
To address the point that Rich brought up, we may also want to start more remote hubs in the United States.   I believe the one in Boston has meetups all year.   We may want to start more of those in other areas.   I have a feeling that we may very well need to be working with each other closely in the next few years.
Nalini

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 09:33:34 -0800

Hi Hosnieh,

The current thread is interesting.  It reminds me of "the greater good".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:13:37 -0500

[email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It was brought up in the original message which started this conversation
> to think of remote hubs for the participants who cannot attend Chicago.
> I think that is an urgent topic.

   +1

> Have I missed messages regarding that?

   Probably not... :^(

   But "[email-masked]" isn't a good list to discuss that. May I suggest
"[email-masked]". I can promise to reply to posts there; and I think Alia
would also respond.

   "[email-masked]" is certainly active; but I don't think a
Boston hub would help folks who can't get into the US. :^(

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:43:21 +0100

Responding to the original question:

Indeed, MTGVENUE is the place to discuss the impacts of this
and other potential issues to how we select future meeting locations.

Now would be a great time to read the documents and participate
the discussion. For what it is worth, the IAOC and its meetings
committee are also tracking the situation, including understanding
specific impacts. And obviously this is a developing situation and
the long term is more interesting than this week’s particular
issue.

As for possible other reactions — maybe, but it isn’t as
obvious. Clearly, I think we all are unhappy about this
development.  And I have not met anybody at the IETF who
wouldn’t stand for open participation. SM posted ACM’s
statement.

But, if I look again at the crystal ball of obvious predictions,
I wouldn’t be surprised if recent trends would at some point
also generate some Internet-related bad policy suggestions.
This is just my 0.02μBTC but I personally would want to
prioritise putting my time to dealing with those situations,
be it about making statements or developing some tech
to help the situation. As we have done in the case of
pervasive monitoring, for instance. But again, just my
personal opinion.

Jari

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:31:58 +0000

Hiya,

On 30/01/17 00:43, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I wouldnâ€™t be surprised if recent trends would at some point
> This is just my 0.02Î¼BTC but I personally would want to

And a reasonable one. OTOH, as you noted in the case
of pervasive monitoring the IETF did choose to comment
upon aspects of that that were relevant to our work.

In this case, and as mentioned previously, there is at
least one aspect that goes beyond mtgvenue, in that those
leaving from one place to come to a meeting might be
restricted in returning home. That seems to me to be an
order of magnitude more problematic than not being allowed
entry. The "order of magnitude" aspect of that is maybe
not relevant for IETF discussion, but the "not able to
contribute since not able to return home" aspect would
surely be, as would the "not able to travel to *any*
'foreign' f2f meetings since not able to return home."

Anyway, and also speaking personally, I do think there
may be a valid public IETF reaction here, in addition to
mtgvenue considerations, which is that we, as with any
scientific or technical organisation with participants
welcome from all over the globe, depend on the rule of
law as it relates to travel being somewhat rational and
relatively stable. (*)

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.

And yes, you may well be right that there will be more
pressing matters on which we may need to consider comment
in future. Personally, I think I'd argue that even if that's
the case (which we all hope won't turn out true but fear
might) then we'll be better off having had some discussion
ahead of time as to where we do or do not have IETF consensus
for relevant comment being within our scope.

Lastly, I'd note that ISTM that mtgvenue is bound to end
up with some set of criteria that establish that a venue
is unsuitable. The existence of any such set of criteria
requires a discussion at to whether or not some specific
venue fits the "bad" profile or not. And I can't see that
all of that discussion can be on closed lists. That to me
means that there will always be a role for a public list
where discussion can be had about whether or not venue A
has bad property B, where B is relevant to mtgvenue's output.
I also cannot see a future where it is out of scope to
raise such an issue on this list, so while I fully agree
that folks interested here ought subscribe to and get
involved in discussion on mtgvenue (as I've just now
done:-), there remains a need for openness to discussion
of new events and situations on this list, or some other,
before, during and after mtgvenue succeeds.

My own conclusion is that it seems reasonable that the
IETF could reach consensus that an ACM-like statement
was reasonable. I'd be interested in opinions on that
specific question if folks wanted to offer them.

Cheers,
S.

(*) Even though the USA seem to have diverged from
that principle, I think that they are by no means the
worst offender in that respect. But there is, for me
at least, a real sadness that they've joined such a
group.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:39:42 -0800

> on which we could garner IETF consensus as it mostly

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.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:09:08 +1000

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> d/

+1

We should say so singly, *and* collectively. We should say so as the
IETF, and we should encourage our peer bodies and sister bodies to say
so individually and collectively.

I think the principle that we should say *something* is strong, and I
would like us to say it. I don't think the detail of what we say
matters as much as the act of standing up and being counted, so I hope
we can avoid racionating into 'but how do we decide when consensus has
been reached' activity.

If Andrew and Jari issue a statement as themselves in role, I won't
feel excluded from the decision to speak and I care more about them
being seen to voice a concern, than I care about what they say in
detail. That we have identified plausible participants both sides of
the US immigration processes in- and outbound who will materially
suffer, and our process suffer as a result of this, appears to me to
be direct evidence of effect we should speak to, quite aside from the
moral question.

-G

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 18:37:47 -0900

> statements.  But perhaps others who can effect change might.

Right, including our congressional representatives.  There is
likely to be a legislative response to what the administration
is trying to do, and if industry bodies speak up that can
provide them additional support and cover, I think.

I do think that issuing both IETF-only and joint statements
with other organizations would be a good thing.

Melinda

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 22:49:32 -0500

Actually, I think there is something for the I* bodies to do.
They should be contacting the State Department, the Dept of Homeland
Security, and the relevant Congressional representatives to make them
aware of the upcoming meeting and request clarification of the impact
the Executive Action of the POTUS will have on the meeting.  This should
be done for same reasons that the sports leagues are inquiring.  The
IETF is an international organization whose members could find
themselves in legal jeopardy by attempting to travel as a participant.

Jeffrey Altman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:14:56 +1300

On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
...
> The IETF is an international organization whose members...

Not actually. The IETF is not an international organization
(I know, because I used to work for one) and it doesn't have members.
Legally, it's unclear that it's an organization at all, or in which
country it might be based.

I also suspect that for some days or weeks, getting a straight answer
about the impact on IETF98 attendees may be impossible, but I agree
that the IASA should ask.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:03:15 +0000

If we change the topic to "If Israeli's are blocked by Malaysia, should the IETF respond", this already happened.

The IETF did not meet there but there was no "IETF response", so why should the IETF respond in this case.  

draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process talks about selecting venues not about voicing opinion on any country policies.

We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be a meeting location based on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: יום ב 30 ינואר 2017 02:43
> To: IETF
> Subject: Re: If Muslims are blocked by the U.S., should the IETF respond?
> 
> Indeed, MTGVENUE is the place to discuss the impacts of this and other
> potential issues to how we select future meeting locations.
> 
> Now would be a great time to read the documents and participate the
> discussion. For what it is worth, the IAOC and its meetings committee are
> also tracking the situation, including understanding specific impacts. And
> obviously this is a developing situation and the long term is more interesting
> than this week’s particular issue.
> 
> As for possible other reactions — maybe, but it isn’t as obvious. Clearly, I
> think we all are unhappy about this development.  And I have not met
> anybody at the IETF who wouldn’t stand for open participation. SM posted
> ACM’s statement.
> 
> But, if I look again at the crystal ball of obvious predictions, I wouldn’t be
> surprised if recent trends would at some point also generate some Internet-
> related bad policy suggestions.
> This is just my 0.02μBTC but I personally would want to prioritise putting my
> time to dealing with those situations, be it about making statements or
> developing some tech to help the situation. As we have done in the case of
> pervasive monitoring, for instance. But again, just my personal opinion.
> 
> Jari

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:19:41 -0900

On 1/29/17 9:03 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> We  should be active in selecting meeting venues and if people are
> banned from traveling to the USA or any other country, it may not be
> a meeting location based on
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

One thing that came out of the discussions about IETF 100 is that
it may be the case that the IAOC meeting committee members may
simply not be aware of local issues excluding different IETF
demographics.  This is a serious problem, so one of the goals is to
make sure that there's a process in place that allows for IETF
participants to know ahead of time which venues are under
consideration and to provide feedback to the meetings
committee.  I believe the situation is not that it's okay
with the meetings committee to exclude GLBT people, or Israelis,
or any other group, but that they (for whatever reason) simply
aren't aware of some of these problems.

Personally, I think we need to reduce our dependence on
in-person participation and do a better job on remote meetings
and remote participation.  But that's another topic for another
mailing list.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 03:57:29 -0500

+ <many>

Three additional comments:

-- Part of the problem with this set of moves is that they are
sudden and, at least in detail, unanticipated.  There is little
or nothing a meeting site selection process that is designed
around working three or five years out can do about countries
(or their leadership) that suddenly go nuts (including canceling
existing valid visa and forbidding legal residents from
returning), acts of war, or even natural disasters that occur,
effectively, overnight.     For those types of situations, our
only useful and practical remedies are making remote
participation work well and smoothly even if forced to scale up
considerably and thinking through, as a set of contingency
options, questions of the conditions under which we would cancel
a meeting entirely and/or convert it to "everyone is remote".
Even remote hubs are irrelevant unless they have, well in
advance, arrangements to scale up to accommodate all
participants from a particular country or category.

-- For those of us who live and vote in the US, especially in
so-called "red states", contacting legislative representatives
and making it clear that damage to US values, companies, and
ability to do business will cost them votes in the next election
if they don't take effective action.  That doesn't make
organizational statements less useful, but, as Dave points out,
those most responsible seem extremely unlikely to listen.  

-- I'm sympathetic to efforts in other countries to, e.g., ban
or severely constrain contacts and state visits.  Unfortunately,
if the mentality that seems to pervade the new US administration
continues, their likely response will be stick their fingers in
their virtual ears and chant "America First".  This stupid,
shameful, action really needs to be dealt with on this side of
what ponds and planned virtual or physical walls can be
identified.

    john

--On Sunday, January 29, 2017 18:37 -0900 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:02:05 +0900

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: Naeem Khademi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:48 +0100

> participants from a particular country or category.

Just answering this specific additional comment: for the very same reason
IETF will perhaps NEVER hold any meeting in certain countries due to their
unpredictable behavior or sudden policy shifts or unstable political
situation, we could argue that planning of further meetings in the US can
potentially be re-considered by the IETF and the currently-planned meetings
(except Chicago which is too imminent) can be relocated to Europe or
elsewhere (at least for the next 8 years "until we know what's going on
there" ;-).

Naeem

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:52:54 +0100

> relocated to Europe or elsewhere (at least for the next 8 years "until
> we know what's going on there" ;-). 

nailed it

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:59:42 +0000

>> we know what's going on there" ;-).

Maybe the ITU could host us in Geneva :)

Being a UN body they have hosting rights for all UN recognised 
countries, and presumable a few more besides.

Stewart

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:32:09 -0600

> with other organizations would be a good thing.

Don't forget the courts, while I doubt the IETF would have standing, or the
finances, to actually be a litigant, but it could prepare few amicus briefs
explaining the impact of this overreach on the IETF.  They might even be
useful in the court and legislative hearings that will undoubtedly occur.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[email-masked]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:30:11 +0900

> expenditures accordingly.

btw, i seem to have been unclear.  i do not agree with this position, i
just meant to clarify it.  pushing it to some commmittee/wg is a sign of
a lack of will.

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, see

    https://www.iacr.org/misc/us-immigration-ban.html

do not be the folk who sat in the planes which were driven into the
towers.  i would rather be with the folk on United 93.

https://twitter.com/KgouldA/status/825491285884751873/photo/1

randy

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:39:06 +0100

FYI: https://www.iacr.org/misc/us-immigration-ban.html

Statement from the International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR)
Condemning the U.S. President’s 2017-01-27 Executive Order
Barring Entry into the U.S. of Citizens from Seven Muslim-Majority Countries
January 29, 2017

The International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR) is the
scientific organization dedicated to advancing the theory and practice
of cryptology worldwide. Our members contribute to the advance of
critical information security techniques. These work toward making the
Internet safe, protecting e-commerce, securing computer storage, and
enabling the safe use of mobile phones. Members of the IACR, who come
from around the world, developed many of the cryptographic methods that
have been standardized by the USA’s National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and which are in use worldwide, such as the Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES).

The IACR strongly opposes U.S. President Donald Trump’s Executive Order
suspending visas to nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries. We
declare such actions, which hurt international collaboration, to pose a
concrete and direct threat to our mission, and to the continued
international contributions of our members to society, industry, and
government.

The open exchange of ideas is essential to the work the IACR does, and
to the advance of scientific knowledge and technology more broadly. The
open exchange of ideas requires freedom of movement — as when non-U.S.
citizens attend IACR-sponsored conferences held in the USA, a completely
routine activity.

All individuals are entitled to participate in IACR conferences,
regardless of their country of origin. Barring citizens of out-of-favor
countries from entering the United States sunders basic scientific and
community norms. These norms were strained even before the executive
action, with many scholars facing untoward barriers to getting U.S. visas.

The United States itself benefits from participation in the
international academic community, as when international graduate
students and postdoctoral scholars study at U.S. universities, and when
non-U.S. professors visit the U.S. to collaborate on research or share
their knowledge. Our community’s work, which often involves teams from
many countries, directly contributes to the successful efforts of U.S.
industry.

Running an international scientific society that contributes to
innovations in science and technology is not easy. The implications of
this executive order are unpredictable. In response to it, other nations
may take similar actions, making it impossible for U.S. scientists to
attend conferences in other countries.

In the end, this unhelpful and destructive executive order only hurts
the United States. The IACR calls for it to be immediately rescinded.

Approved by the IACR board of directors, January 29, 2017

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:53:20 -0900

On 1/30/17 7:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> 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

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:14:22 -0500

> chair, the IAB chair, or the I*.  (Yes, I think this is a problem)

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

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:44:08 -0500

There is already an ISOC blog.

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/institutional/2017/01/message-internet-society-president-and-ceo-kathy-brown

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:05:37 -0500

> Engineering issue and thus not appropriate discussion for the IETF.

​To make such a statement is to overlook the fact that the development of
communications technology is inevitably a political activity.

During the cold war, the countries in Europe developed five different
television standards. This was not, as is often claimed merely due to the
desire to introduce non tariff trade barriers, and would in any case have
been pointless if so.

The primary design constraint on the design of the West German colour TV
system​ was to enable viewers in East Germany to watch. And the placement
of every TV antenna in West Germany was designed to achieve maximal reach
into East Germany. I know because I worked with the people who did the
designs.

In the early 1990s, there were a dozen network hypertext systems emerging,
at least four of which were considerably better resourced than the Web. The
Web was not even the largest such system when whitehouse.gov went online.
The White House adopted the Web in part due to the fact that they had clear
title to the NCSA code and the CERN code was public domain. But the reason
the server was deployed was as part of what Carville called the
'disintermediation' strategy, a term that originated with the same MIT
nexus that had such firm opinions on the placement of TV antennas.

> inappropriate to confuse the IETF's mission with such discussions. If you
> want to object to them, that is fine but it should be done outside of the
> IETF. In fact, every single IETF contributor could protest, or indeed
> support, any political policy in unison if they wanted, as long as they
> don't do it in the IETF's name.
>

​Take a look at the IETF mission statement and you will find that it is
entirely circular in form. The IETF built the Internet and the Internet is
what the IETF builds.

The reason that the meeting venue list isn't the appropriate venue is that
we may well get into the part of the story where it is no longer possible
to do business the old way.

Jari is correct in saying we need to build tools that protect against mass
surveillance. ​But that isn't all we need. There is now abundant evidence
that the communications infrastructures that support democratic political
parties in the US, Germany and France have been attacked by hostile nation
state actors and it is now clear that every country is under attack.

Forget whether it was Russia or whoever last time. From now on it is going
to be open season.

If we are going to defend the system we need a communication infrastructure
where strong end to end cryptographic security is default and has no impact
on the user.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:19:14 -0500

--On Monday, January 30, 2017 12:14 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 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.

Concur.  I must say that, even without such formal requests, I
hope ISOC is working on such a statement and am somewhat
disappointed to have not seen it already.

To the degree possible without getting into our own version of
"alternate facts", I think it would be worthwhile to identify,
not only effects on IETF meetings but potential negative effects
on the Internet if we can't get our work done in a way that is
consistent with international consensus.

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

Yes.

best,
    john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:23:56 -0900

On 1/30/17 8:14 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I would like to

> I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better

Yes, I agree with both paragraphs.  I'll add that I very much
trust the IETF leadership to come up with the right text on this.

Melinda

---

From: Christian de Larrinaga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:26:01 +0000

John
I saw a note from Kathy Brown earlier today

Christian
> John C Klensin <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 30 January 2017 at 18:19
> Randy Bush <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 30 January 2017 at 10:02

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
[email-masked]
-------------------------

---

From: "Saifi Khan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:08:45 +0530

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 <[email-masked]>
>  To: [email-masked]
>  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.
>  
>  * A resolution
>  * Establishing remote hubs for our meetings in Iran and one of the
>  * 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
>  
>  --
>

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:51:28 -0500

Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 13:38, Saifi Khan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> No !
> 

That is getting harder?

https://m.facebook.com/kakooch/posts/10157996268225018?pnref=story

One of the ICANN board members misses both an ICANN and IETF meeting due to the ban.

There will be more.

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:37:02 -0500

Let me second Randy's comments and point out that it's not going to end
here.   It hasn't even started.  This is just a test probe to ascertain
what can be made to happen and what the support/opposition will look like.
Other nations, races, religions, ethnicities will be targeted in turn.
C'mon, we've seen this playbook in action enough times, this should be
obvious on inspection by the casual observer.

Every transnational organization (whether formally constituted or an
informal cooperative) is going to be impacted by this.  That's not an
unintentional side effect.

---rsk

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:39:31 +0200

I wanted to update people a bit on effects and numbers.

Adam had given earlier in this thread a list of affected
people from past meetings. I run my own script on the
attendee data though, and (I think) took into account
who was actually on site. Out of the seven countries
on the list, we’ve not had a single attendee on site from
the beginning of the full records at IETF #80.

Obviously, that doesn’t make it right. Also,
the registration data is still based on the country or
region that people given when they register. And
you can only enter one value.

I’m aware of at least two people (Kaveh and Naeem)
who have dual citizenships for instance, and they are
sadly affected. There’s likely some more. If you are
affected and planning to attend future IETF meetings,
drop me an e-mail.

Jari

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:02:09 -0500

> that the IASA should ask.

​I have worked at several international organizations, including CERN and I
have also read quite a bit on law.​

CERN is an international treaty organization established on the same bnasis
as the ITU and other intergovernmental bodies. It is an 'International
organization' the same way that WalMart is a retailer. Just as there are
many retailers that are smaller than Walmart, there are many international
organizations that are smaller than Walmart.

The World Croquet Federation is also an international organization. It is
not a treaty organization. Nor does it have diplomatic status.

​As for the IETF not being an organization, ​the only opinion on the matter
that would matter is the courts. And if the question ever came up in court,
I can guarantee that the first question to follow the statement 'we are not
an organization' would be 'then what are you'. Remember that in common law,
a contract that explicitly states it isn't a contract is still a binding
contract if it meets the requirements.

The fiction that the IETF is not an organization would not last five
minutes. Nor are its arrangements particularly complex. The only real
impact of not incorporating IETF as a separate organization subordinate to
ISOC is that ISOC is not insulated from any litigation against IETF.

​The aspect of the current situation that I think people should focus on is
that the primary design goal of the current arrangements was to prevent
capture of the IETF process by what were considered to be hostile foreign
powers. What appears to have been overlooked is the possibility of attack
by hostile domestic powers.​

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:13:43 +0200

FYI

https://www.ietf.org/blog/2017/01/barriers-to-entry/

Jari

---

From: Emily Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:39:52 +0000

>communications technology is inevitably a political activity.

Of course it is, but just because communications technology can and is 
sometimes political doesn't give us a licence to comment on all 
political things.

We are a technological organisation (or non-organisation, whatever the 
consensus on that may be) and we should focus on technical matters.  
Sometimes those matters will have political side effects yes, but the 
focus of our work should be technological in my humble opinion.

>entirely circular in form. The IETF built the Internet and the Internet is

Yes the mission statement is vague but it's clearly about the Internet, 
not international travel policy.

>to do business the old way.

Fine, that may happen and if it does that *will* indeed require a 
discussion on how to mitigate that, but there's a massive difference 
between a problem arising, be it political in nature or otherwise, and 
it being addressed, and "making a formal statement" for no reason other 
than to make it.

I understand that many people are upset about what seems like an extreme 
stance but foreign policy is a complex subject, one that deserves more 
than just blanket statements from unrelated organisations. If any of us 
truly care about this issue why not take it to a forum that can actually 
do some good?

Keep in mind that as far as many politicians are concerned, the IETF is 
the same as the IAB is the same as ICANN who supposedly stole the 
Internet from the US Department of Commerce last October.  Politics 
doesn't know about the IETF and the IETF doesn't know about politics, 
the two simply don't go well. Any overtly political statement from us 
won't help any political cause whatsoever, all it will do is harm our 
credibility as an objective technological body.

Look at it this way: when you want to make a new law you go to the 
Parliament of your country, when you want to want to uphold the law you 
go to the courts of your country. If you go to Parliament to report a 
crime, you won't get a result, if you go to the courts to try to make 
new legislation, you won't get a result. The same logic applies here: if 
you want to make a political change, go to a political organisation, 
don't turn to the IETF.

Many Thanks,

Emily

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:01:51 -0800

On 1/29/17 5:39 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The folk at the head of the current administration don't care about 
> such statements.  But perhaps others who can effect change might.
>
> 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 

   Statements just make the speakers feel good. It's a form of
virtue signalling and it does not actually change anything
tangible.

   So instead of virtue signalling, how about we just don't meet
in the US for the foreseeable future, just like we won't meet in
Saudi Arabia (treats women like chattel, punishes victims of rape,
prohibits free practice or non-practice of religion), or Iran
(executes gay men, makes women walk around in sacks), ... or any
other country that would not treat all IETFers equally and where
we won't feel safe to have a fully-inclusive meeting? When facts
on the ground change in these countries they can be reevaluated
as potential meeting sights.

   I personally would welcome a meeting in Mexico for IETF 102.

   Dan.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:04:59 -0500

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Emily Shepherd <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> stance but foreign policy is a complex subject, one that deserves more than
> just blanket statements from unrelated organisations. If any of us truly
> care about this issue why not take it to a forum that can actually do some
> good?

​Because when I am talking to people in those forums, what they ask me is
how policy X is affecting the ​'multi-stakeholder standards organizations'
that we have been trying to promote as the model for Internet governance.
Relaying Jari's personal opinion isn't much help because the ARPA era
constitution is expressly designed to stop the officers of the IETF having
authority to speak for the IETF as a whole.

​What I tell people is that the opinion of the IETF as an institution isn't
very relevant as the IETF does not actually have any formal powers or means
of enforcing them.​ If control over the IETF was to pass to a cabal led by
the SCO countries who decided to put backdoors into all the crypto
protocols, then development of Internet standards would simply shift
elsewhere.

​It doesn't take 50 still less, a hundred engineers to design a protocol.
In fact I have yet to see how having so many cooks helps if your only
criteria is the quality of the outcome. The reason for having so many
people involved is that it takes a very large number of stakeholders to
move an infrastructure as complex as the Internet.​

---

From: Emily Shepherd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:08:21 +0000

>protocols, then development of Internet standards would simply shift

Yes, exactly! :) This, this response is perfect.

My point is that we don't need anything further than this. There is no 
reason for the IETF to have any stance on this other than that.

Many Thanks,

Emily

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:28:47 +1300

Thanks, Jari. That and Kathy's post are good as immediate reactions.

Beyond that, I think Mike St Johns nailed it: a formal statement
from ISOC, whose official advisor on standards-making is the IAB,
which is appointed by the IETF NomCom. ISOC has some formal standing
and lobbying experience. In fact, ISOC was partly created for this.

Meanwhile, dust off your copies of RFC 1984, 2804 and 7258. I think
we'll be needing them before long.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:37:53 +0900

> virtue signalling and it does not actually change anything

qed?

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:40:46 -0400

Hello,

   I just want to say something very short: I don´t believe IETF should
take a political position but at the same time I believe that IETF
should express something in this matter (not necessarily is political).

  The worst thing we can do is do not say anything.

  I fully agree with Kathy Brown post and IACR statement.

Thanks,

Alejandro,

El 30/1/17 a las 1:44 p.m., Alia Atlas escribió:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>     Becoming one of them would probably be detrimental to our main
>     mission of improving the internet.
>
>     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

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:15:49 -0800

>> virtue signalling and it does not actually change anything

   Does saying "fascist hateful acts" make you feel better? It certainly
accomplishes nothing except to signal your virtue to everyone. In fact I
see things like this:

  "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."

as contemporary updates on the examples George Orwell gave in his
seminal work "Politics and the English Language" [1] where he described
"prose [that] consists less and less as /words/ chosen for the sake
of their meaning, and more and more of /phrases/ tacked together like
the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."

   Dan.

[1] http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:29:03 +0900

when you are in a hole, stop digging

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:32:37 +0000

I agree with Alejandro, we do not need to go all the political road but at
least the IETF should say something about this and express its concern.

Regards
as

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 at 16:41 Alejandro Acosta <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> take a political position but at the same time I believe that IETF should
> express something in this matter (not necessarily is political).
>

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:29:18 -0800

random misused metaphor as non sequitur

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:36:18 +1000

As relevant as anything: https://youtu.be/b97zJxKEqAk

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:48:42 +0200

Thanks, Brian.

> we'll be needing them before long.

My focus from now on.

Jari

---

From: Naeem Khademi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:35:05 +0100

Hi Jari

inline:

> you can only enter one value.

Just a clarification: some affected folks may not appear on such data as
is, since the IETF registration form asks for "country of residence" and
has only one field as "country of citizenship"; most people with dual
citizenship would have entered the country of citizenship that they thought
would have made it easier to get visa based on (since it's noted in the
IETF invitation letter for visa application) or even be exempted from visa.
The second nationality would have only appeared on the visa application
form used at the embassy and not in the IETF data.

Cheers,
Naeem

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:16:03 +0200

> Just a clarification: some affected folks may not appear on such data as is, since the IETF registration form asks for "country of residence" and has only one field as "country of citizenship"; most people with dual citizenship would have entered the country of citizenship that they thought would have made it easier to get visa based on (since it's noted in the IETF invitation letter for visa application) or even be exempted from visa. The second nationality would have only appeared on the visa application form used at the embassy and not in the IETF data.

Yes, that’s right.

Jari