In propaganda, your statement would probably be considered a black and white fallacy. In symbolic logic, it would just be a fallacy.
For your statement to be always true, the first clause would have to read "Since the IETF ONLY discusses how to make the Internet better and nothing else" and it would also have to imply that "nothing the the IETF discusses to make the Internet better could be considered as any other class of discussion" Unfortunately, our discussions are not so limited... and I'm pretty sure you know that. With respect to the US or for that matter to any of our hosts in the past, show me the contract language, laws, or other indication where things normally discussed or designed at an IETF would be considered illegal. I know of none and I've been around for most of the meetings going back 23 years. At 08:45 PM 10/8/2009, Patrick Suger wrote: >2009/10/9 Michael StJohns <<mailto:mstjo...@comcast.net>mstjo...@comcast.net> >So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not >holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due >diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too >high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF >meetings. > > >Since the IETF discusses how to make the Internet work better, the only reason >why IETF members could feel worried is that they would intend to discuss how >to build a better working Internet that would be prohibited in China? Either >this means considering splitting the Internet from 1/3 of its users. Or that >the IETF can develop standards that do not take local users' legitimate and/or >legal needs into consideration. Or did I miss something? What about the >legality of a similar case in the USA? > >Patrick Suger
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
