On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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