Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the >> paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people >> were arguing that it was a topic "regarding human rights". >> >> With that said, it's not clear to me that saying "China's policy >> of censoring the Internet sucks" isn't defamation. > > I would say that this DOES border on defamation, BUT I am at a loss > to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our > technical discussion. The statement is an opinion about a topic which > there is a lot more that can be said, but like the baby said "this > isn't the venue." (Let's just say that it isn't well understood in > the west). "X policy sucks" sound like politics and not technology > particularly if X is a country.
Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have a moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available despite that policy. If this requires technology changes, then that technology is within our purview. If it requires operational changes, then those operational changes are within our purview. If it requires political changes, then those changes are within our purview. Governments with policies like the PRC's are the enemy, to be defeated by all means technical, operational, and political. This can lead to some heated statements. The question: does meeting in China do more to further the goal of getting past PRC (and others) deplorable policies than does meeting elsewhere AND LETTING THE WORLD KNOW WHY WE ARE NOT MEETING IN CHINA. That's an open question, I'm not at all certain of the answer, and we have to analyze financial risk of that hotel contract given the situation. We also have to analyze the financial risk with regard to agents who may try to turn an IETF meeting into a political incident. -- Dean _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
