On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Patrick Suger wrote: > 2) it also shows the lack of international experience of IETF. This is > embarassing since it is supposed to keep developping the international > network. It also seems that there is a particular lack of coordination with > its sponsors. What is worrying since the IETF must keep being funded. Look, > a few basic questions need to be raised:
> (a) IETF is an affiliate of ISOC True, ISOC is the "umbrella organization" for the IETF proving legal incorporation and financial support. (b) ISOC has an affiliate in China Not true. The Internet Society of China is not affiliated with ISOC. Unless you mean a certain chapter on a certain island, but let's not have that debate here, OK? > (c) if IETF may discuss off topic issues anywhere in the world that > conflict with the Chinese law, this embarasses ISOC China the same > as if was discuss in Beijing. > (d) what is the position of the ISOC China Chair? What is the list > of IETF topics he thinks in violation with the Chinese rules (for > example the "WhoIs" related issues are in violation of most of the > privacy laws in the world. The Internet Society of China is not the host for the proposed meeting and their position on what might or might not violate Chinese rules is not any more or less relevant than any other "expert opinion." > (e) upon ISOC China's position, what is the position of the ISOC > BoD? (f) has the ISOC Chair and the IETF Chair considered inviting > the Chinese Minister of Datacommunications? It would be up to the HOST to invite high-ranking officials to the meeting, this isn't really something the IETF Chair or the ISOC BoT gets involved in typically. We don't really (with a few minor exceptions) organize conferences and invite speakers. > (g) many hurt Chinese engineers participate to the IETF and very > politely do not react: have them been invited to comment? Everyone on the IETF mailing list has been invited to comment and that certainly includes Chinese engineers. > (h) has a Chinese Embassy been called upon and asked what IETF > topics might be conflicting? etc. etc. As has been pointed out by others, you cannot typically ask a government offical or a department for a list of "legal topics". This isn't likely going to get us anywhere useful, ignoring the type of delays one can typically expect if such a question is even acknowledged or answered. > > Sorry for being so basic. But I am very embarassed for the stability > of the network if such questions are so much discussed. > > Best > > Patrick Suger > Don't be embarrassed! IETF participants are proud of the fact that we get to debate any topic for any amount of time without restrictions, moderation, courtesy, and so on. It's not always the most tidy debate to watch, but it is very much part of our culture. Ole _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
