On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.
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