Health wrote: > > all in all, > > Since IETF only focus on and discuss technical issues, has the issue of > politics or human right been discussed in the past IETF meeting? > > if the answer is "NO", there should have none probles of hold a meeting in > China.
Direct you attention to the primary sources. http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01985.html http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01991.html If you want to follow the thread: http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/thrd2.html This discussion was still going on several years later when I began participating in the IETF, even though clipper had been killed and presidential directive 5 had long since been neutered. The dialectic on what should be brought to the ietf, and the implications of polticaly imposed requirements influencing standards neither started nor ended there. > > Yao > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave CROCKER" <[email protected]> > To: "IETF Discussion" <[email protected]> > Cc: "IAOC IAOC" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:21 AM > Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future > meeting of the IETF > > >> >> Olaf Kolkman wrote: >>> Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you >>> suspect that those items could not have been discussed? >> When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically >> viewed >> as a human rights topic. >> >> Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract. >> >> >> But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted >> constraint. To add to some of the latest comments posted: >> >> This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, >> and >> have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF >> technical >> work of particular importance to China. Again: Chinese participants are >> already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time. >> >> If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the >> hosting >> country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason >> we >> should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places. We >> should >> seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense >> or >> suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended. Having this sort of >> political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting >> logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting. (And, like >> others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can >> influence >> anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...) >> >> Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match >> between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus >> /particular/ rules at a venue. Not in terms of principles but in terms of >> behavior. >> >> I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with >> both >> the expertise of local participants and the hosting details. But Asian >> organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and >> frankly >> every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing >> like >> the range displayed in the IETF. >> >> Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either >> a >> coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause >> individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the >> meeting. >> Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of >> that rule wouldn't cause a problem. Would we agree to such a constraint? I >> doubt it. Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable >> business >> tone for a meeting. >> >> But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting. >> >> I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we >> had >> at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the >> contract >> now in question. And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in >> Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and >> specifically >> problematic comments from the floor. Again: We are an indelicate group. >> Let's >> not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent >> behavior >> will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue. >> >> And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns. The >> constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are >> unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of >> meetings. >> It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves >> of >> the rules. Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to >> the >> rules and had successful meetings. >> >> What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the >> realities of IETF meeting behavior. >> >> As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the >> constraint. Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will >> attend. >> Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like >> this >> measure attitude, not behavior. >> >> Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask. So >> let's >> be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey. >> >> Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in >> Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that >> problems >> that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put >> forward as >> the strawman alternative. In other words, when thinking about likely >> outcomes, >> don't assume it will be all black or all white. Systemic hassles are >> usually >> pursued more subtly than that. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
