Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Wed Sep 23 04:45:39 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week It's worse if you digitally sign your messages... I always wondered why you did that. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 9/22/09 22:42, Sep 22, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of any government. The problem is that you're looking for a needle in the portion of a haystack that happens to have been recorded; finding none, you declare the haystack needle free. In my recollection, there is a semi-regular IETF participant who travels with a MacBook that has a Tibetan flag sticker prominently visible on the lid. Hopefully, someone with the political awareness to make that kind of statement also has the political awareness to recognize that bringing a laptop so decorated into the PRC is likely to cause an incident. On the other hand, someone with the value system to make that kind of statement may welcome such an incident. The clause under discussion runs headlong into this kind of problem and amplifies it by potentially shutting down the entire event. And that's just the needle in this haystack that I can remember, unaided, without the assistance of transcripts or surveillance of any kind. You're comfortable that it's the only needle? You have lot of faith. /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Adam Roach allegedly wrote on 09/23/2009 9:28 AM: In my recollection, there is a semi-regular IETF participant who travels with a MacBook that has a Tibetan flag sticker prominently visible on the lid. Assuming you are correct, that is an individual statement. It will not be part of presentations, distributed materials, or even discussion sponsored by the meeting. On the other hand, someone with the value system to make that kind of statement may welcome such an incident. The clause under discussion runs headlong into this kind of problem and amplifies it by potentially shutting down the entire event. Based on the little I've seen of PRC government responses to impromptu protests (I've never been in one but I have firsthand reports), they haven't blamed the organization those people were part of (just the individuals) unless it was significant, pre-planned, and the organization expected something of that kind to occur. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote: Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias, or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single out China. The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that we will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It is not directly related to their culture or (perceived) bias. The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland. Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, or printed materials used at the conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain any defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or show any disrespect to Irish culture, or violate any laws of the Republic of Ireland or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately. Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or would it be objecting to an unacceptable policy? /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:10, Adam Roach a...@nostrum.com wrote: On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland. Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, or printed materials used at the conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain any defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or show any disrespect to Irish culture, Apparent disrespect is quite a large part of Irish culture, so such a clause could be just perfectly confusing. I like it:-) Stephen. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/22/09 12:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote: On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote: Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias, or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single out China. The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that we will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It is not directly related to their culture or (perceived) bias. The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland. Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, or printed materials used at the conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain any defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or show any disrespect to Irish culture, or violate any laws of the Republic of Ireland or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately. Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or would it be objecting to an unacceptable policy? Thank you, Adam. I think it would be objecting to an unacceptable policy, because such a policy would inevitably result in self-censorship regarding topics that are directly related to our technical work (e.g., some IETF participants consider topics such as encryption to be matters of human rights). Furthermore, we simply cannot know much beforehand about the laws of the host country regarding freedom of speech (has the Republic of Ireland passed legislation that makes it a crime to speak disparagingly about redheads?). This is why I find the restriction about the contents of the group's activities, presentations, and printed materials violating the laws of the host country to be especially worrisome, because it is an extremely vague restriction that could be taken to cover anything presented (or perhaps even said) at a WG session, plenary, IESG or IAB meeting, etc. Would all slides and audio text to be presented need to be pre-approved by an IETF committee to ensure that the video or audio presentations do not violate any laws of the host country? How are we to know what those laws might be? We do a poor enough job of legal issues where we have some knowledge of the domain (IETF processes and procedures). Given that (1) such a committee or review process would quite simply be unworkable (most presenters don't even finish their slides until a day or two before the relevant WG session) and (2) the IETF would be liable for all presentations made at the conference, I don't see how we can realistically accept this restriction. (I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to work around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible to do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters say anything they want, given the organizational liability that is stipulated in the restriction. The IETF could claim that what presenters say at WG sessions, plenaries, and the like is outside the control of the IETF, but I think that is skating on rather thin ice.) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq5HPIACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzm4QCglTVmMZCdaYMaFNvI4opqaF7g XE0AoL8LE6/D/0gvVabYiu1N32rvZ1nJ =3Fq4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Tue Sep 22 19:52:34 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to work around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible to do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters say anything they want, given the organizational liability that is stipulated in the restriction. The IETF could claim that what presenters say at WG sessions, plenaries, and the like is outside the control of the IETF, but I think that is skating on rather thin ice.) Having attended only XSF and OMA aside from IETF, I'm not sure whether the IETF and XSF are essentially unique is trying to provide remote participation, either - the OMA certainly doesn't. I reiterate - if I wished to grind my political axe against the PRC, I would do so via the Jabber chatrooms. IETF meetings increasingly rely on these, and should they be deliberately used to raise issues with which the PRC would be uncomfortable, I see very little in the way of mitigation or remedy which I would, in turn, be comfortable with. The physical meeting I'm fine with in China. I'm pretty sure the bizarre - to Western eyes - rules and regulations can be dealt with in such a way that actual impact to the IETF meeting is minimized, and the benefits of the location - Chinese engineering knowledge, etc - would outweigh the disadvantages. But I'm concerned that only a couple of us have raised the potential impact on remote participation - can I ask what steps are being taken to minimize impact there? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote: On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote: Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias, or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single out China. The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that we will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It is not directly related to their culture or (perceived) bias. The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland. Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, or printed materials used at the conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain any defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or show any disrespect to Irish culture, or violate any laws of the Republic of Ireland or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately. Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or would it be objecting to an unacceptable policy? We'd say our hosts had been drinking a little too much fine Irish whiskey and either ignore it or just mark it out and send it back. There's no way we'd sign that. It's a human right to argue about human rights! Of course, if one were to defame Ireland in a downtown Dublin pub, one might expect to be asked to step outside, or just get punched in the nose on the spot. After all, being offensive is its own reward. But one still wouldn't expect to see this type of ballast added to a hospitality contract. Why? Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic discussions, but they are not illegal. And there's no way we should be holding an IETF meeting in any location where such discourse is illegal. It's against everything we have fought for with the Internet for many, many years. Ole says: I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't typically get to negotiate clauses that are required by national law. We'd obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this would remove any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law. If you don't like the law, don't enter its jurisdiction. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
You said: Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic discussions, but they are not illegal. I agree, but I think you are arguing that such discussions are a normal and required part of our technical work in semi-public fora and I think that's stretching the meaning of the terms you list. Which is why I think we've been invited with the blessing of the government, and why I think THEY (for all values of they) assume we will conduct business as usual. Otherwise there would not be much point in proposing that venue/country. I can imagine a few cultural adjustments such as taking off your shoes before entering certain buildings and so on, but I am not expecting a radically changed IETF meeting agenda. The most recent meeting I attended in China featured some very interesting presentations on the history and current deployment of Internet technologies in China, particularly with respect to IPv6 and with respect to the mobile Internet. I hope we can invite some of these speakers to our meeting if we make it to China. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: You said: Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic discussions, but they are not illegal. I agree, but I think you are arguing that such discussions are a normal and required part of our technical work in semi-public fora and I think that's stretching the meaning of the terms you list. Aren't they? I've certainly found discussions on thwarting the government's will to be a central part of a great many security- oriented discussions at IETF. Specifically, we're been concerned with the individuals human rights with respect to security of communications and privacy. We've refused government mandates to require cryptographic back doors time and again. Doesn't IETF regularly host PGP key-signing events in furtherance of this ideology? As for what constitutes defaming a government or disrespecting a culture, who knows what that really means? I assume the conference hotel knows, since they're the ones with the job of deciding and the power to enforce the contract. We know that in Thailand, insulting the King can get you 75 years in jail, and we also know that the King is apparently a lot easier to insult than most Western leaders (or really, that the King himself seems like a pretty reasonable guy, but that lower-echelon folks are easily insulted on his behalf). http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Thailand_bans_YouTube_over_videos_insulting_king http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/08/29/activist_gets_prison_sentence_for_insulting_thai_king/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/world/asia/20thai.html Now admittedly, PRC is not Thailand. But mysterious phrases in contracts referring to poorly understood crimes and imposing draconian penalties without any kind of review mechanism are still going to worry people. And I think they're right to be worried. If it's a non-issue, why does the hotel contract cede all rights for determining legality or offense to the hotel, and leave us holding nothing but the liability? -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/22/09 6:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: You said: Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic discussions, but they are not illegal. I agree, but I think you are arguing that such discussions are a normal and required part of our technical work in semi-public fora and I think that's stretching the meaning of the terms you list. Which is why I think we've been invited with the blessing of the government, and why I think THEY (for all values of they) assume we will conduct business as usual. As an example, does your definition of business as usual include the topics, presentations, and discussions that occurred in the net neutrality session during the technical plenary at IETF 75? That kind of session is business as usual for the IETF, but it might not be perceived as the usual business of a technical organization by those who are proposing to host this meeting. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq5i8cACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyuLACbBiPWW6LiE2JLLDe0iSWiWRsr z/UAoPA5wT4N0nz7aoM9XUz2qtbFC6+Y =x4Sd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: As an example, does your definition of business as usual include the topics, presentations, and discussions that occurred in the net neutrality session during the technical plenary at IETF 75? That kind of session is business as usual for the IETF, but it might not be perceived as the usual business of a technical organization by those who are proposing to host this meeting. I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of any government. Sure, it describes the state of affairs, it talks about blocking for various reasons, it discusses what role the IETF should or should not play, it quotes the participants more or less verbatim, for example, this snippet from Leslie Daigle: From our perspective, it is important that the technical specifications stay focused on building specifications that are about structure and transmitting of packets for a global network that supports innovation and development and deployment of new applications. QUOTE RAVEN: The IETF, an international standards body, believes itself to be the wrong forum for designing protocol or equipment features that address needs arising from the laws of individual countries, because these laws vary widely across the areas that IETF standards are deployed in. Bodies whose scope of authority correspond to a single regime of jurisdiction are more appropriate for this task. Describing the state of affairs, documenting what technology is used for and observing current practice does not constitute disrespectful behavior in my view, and hopefully someone from the PRC will back me up on this. For example, the restrictions placed on the use of the Internet in China are not secret. If you want to operate a website in the .cn domain, you need to be registered with a government agency, and you need to display a registration number on all of your webpages. And the registration has to correspond to a real physical address. This isn't a secret, you would be told this if your company set up shop in China and registered in .cn. The way Google works in China is also well known, and clearly spelled out. You could do a fascinating presentation comparing the results of various searches and tracing how the packets go. If that discussion focused on technology, I don't believe anyone would object. But if you did something for the sole purpose of embarrassing the host or the host country, I think it would be considered rude, regardless of venue. Dean said: I've certainly found discussions on thwarting the government's will to be a central part of a great many security-oriented discussions at IETF. Specifically, we're been concerned with the individuals human rights with respect to security of communications and privacy. We've refused government mandates to require cryptographic back doors time and again. And I would not expect us to curb discussion of this topic at a meeting in China, if the topic came up. Disagreeing with (or simply documenting) a government's law or its rules governing the use of a technology is not at all the same as inciting a riot or encouraging anyone to march on Parliament House (or whatever the building might be called). Peter said: I'm talking about discussion of technical topics that impinge on the political realm: things like the use of encryption to protect personal privacy (especially from the prying eyes of Isaac and Justin), the Internet as a technology that routes around censorship as damage, and the simple human right to be *left alone* by government bureaucrats and other such busybodies if one is going about one's business in a peaceful manner. Once again, I see nothing in the offending language that prohibits us from either discussing or using encryption in any way we see fit. If you want to host a BOF on how to circumvent certain rules and you want to invite people off the street to attend, then, yeah, maybe someone might take you aside and suggest that isn's such a good idea, but I would argue that such a BOF is quite outside the normal business of the IETF. Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/22/09 9:42 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Once again, I see nothing in the offending language that prohibits us from either discussing or using encryption in any way we see fit. If you want to host a BOF on how to circumvent certain rules and you want to invite people off the street to attend, then, yeah, maybe someone might take you aside and suggest that isn's such a good idea, but I would argue that such a BOF is quite outside the normal business of the IETF. Thank you for the clarifications. Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week It's worse if you digitally sign your messages... Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq5meMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz3CgCdHg2Bg8EaQbYvjXJDB3SMBTvN Ac4AnArRKDUrldCeOwB1AIdhQatXf2B7 =EPWE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Bernard Aboba allegedly wrote on 09/18/2009 3:33 PM: The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to local laws or customers. If attendees violate the laws or customs of the host country, they may face consequences -- but they're on their own. So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement that takes responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that this is a bad idea. It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say the same thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the city requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring that participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor day!). My reading is that neither the IETF nor the client is being asked to sign such an agreement. Individuals are, as you say, on their own. The point is about group activities, presentations and printed materials. My experience with meetings in China is that I try to control my urge to poke into every possible embarrassing topic (I try to control that anyway), and that often I'm surprised when Chinese participants themselves criticize their own government more than I would have. IMHO if the past Net Neutrality discussion were held at the China IETF, it would certainly be toned down simply because people wouldn't be sure if they were crossing a line, but a discussion of technical (IETF) issues related to the topic, and speculation about social implications, would not in themselves be a problem. I believe the same is true about GeoPriv. My personal opinion is that discussion on technical topics can be conducted in a way which goes into depth but is not defamation of the government of the PRC or shows disrespect to Chinese culture. Somehow we've managed to do this in other meetings there. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Pete Resnick wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it negotiation. We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was a sound no with no room for discussion. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:13:10 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote: Pete Resnick wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it negotiation. We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was a sound no with no room for discussion. I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the merits again. No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have political issues. People from several countries cannot get US visas, simply because of where they live, not anything they've done, but we seem willing to meet in the US anyway. China is a large and sophisticated country, nothing we do is going to change that, and politically motivated boycotts far larger than anything the IETF could do have invariably been ineffective and often counterproductive. Whatever small influence we might exert is going to be far greater if we meet and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 20 Sep 2009 17:07:06 - John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again. Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the merits again. No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have political issues. People from several countries cannot get US visas, simply because of where they live, not anything they've done, but we seem willing to meet in the US anyway. China is a large and sophisticated country, nothing we do is going to change that, and politically motivated boycotts far larger than anything the IETF could do have invariably been ineffective and often counterproductive. Whatever small influence we might exert is going to be far greater if we meet and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet. I didn't for a moment consider that an IETF decision not to go would have any impact on the policies of the Chinese government. I agree with you that it would not. The question that was posed, as I understand it, was about the acceptability of the restrictions to the IETF. If such restrictions are acceptable, then they should be acceptable anywhere. I don't think China should get a free pass because it's China. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Marshall, Since seeing your note, I've been trying to figure out how to formulate my concern. Carsten's note captured it for me, so let me be a little more specific. First, thanks for asking. I am deliberately not addressing the where else could we meet where things would be better question, the visa issues, or any of the other logistical questions in this note. Let's assume (at least for purposes of argument -- I assume some members of the community might disagree) that we can trust the government of the PRC to be sensible in this sort of matter, to understand what an IETF meeting implies, etc. The difficulty is that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host (Client) isn't the government or a government body. I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing too close to the politics or criticism line. I'd be much less concerned if any perceived incident led to some sort of conversation between us and relevant government folks about real issues and boundaries than if (and I assume this is an exaggeration) some middle-level hotel employee could panic and pull the eject lever. john --On Friday, September 18, 2009 18:26 +0200 Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote: The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. ... I have lived close enough to what was the GDR for long enough to know that 2 is an extremely uncontrollable problem. (And I have been in the IETF long enough to think that 1 isn't much more controllable.) ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote: I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing too close to the politics or criticism line. Those concerns are not different with other countries, including the US. A few hours after 9/11, once I was over my initial shock, I started downloading all cryptography software I knew was hosted mainly in the United States. We are far from a universal faith in any national government. Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias, or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single out China. Perhaps appropriate people could inform about organisational matters with others who have more experience, for example the IOC. Paul ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
John, (and others), The difficulty is that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host (Client) isn't the government or a government body. The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the host must have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they asked for it and got it. I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would have given the host permission to invite us in the first place. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would have given the host permission to invite us in the first place. I've run into first-time attendees who were extremely surprised, and not happy with, things that were said in meetings, even knowing in advance that discussion tends to be kind of, uh, frank. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:02:53PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single If there has been an indication one way or the other about the nature of the Internet access the meeting would be able to offer, I think I missed it. Do we know that the proposed meeting would not be so hampered? A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote: I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would have given the host permission to invite us in the first place. Um... I really doubt the government of the PRC has much understanding of the behavior or culture of the IETF. And the more I think of it, the more I think that even the slightest hint of a suggestion that the attendees comport themselves in such a manner as to please the Chinese government is very apt to provoke deliberate provocations from some members of our community -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com Perhaps appropriate people could inform about organisational matters with others who have more experience, for example the IOC. Umm, you're not being ironic here, are you? I'm wondering, because as I assume you are aware, a number of promises were made to the IOC before the Olympics, in order to get the event, and those promises were blatantly utterly ignored when the event actually started. So I don't know if your reference to the IOC was an allusion to all that. IMO, after the un-kept promises made before the Olympics, any organization would be terminally naive to accept at face value any representations or committments made by that government prior to an event. They might keep them, they might not. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 21:29 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote: John, (and others), The difficulty is that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host (Client) isn't the government or a government body. The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the host must have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they asked for it and got it. I was nearly certain of that. I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would have given the host permission to invite us in the first place. I am at least as certain of that as Fred is. My concern is not catching the government by surprise about our being there in any way. I think we have a fairly clear understanding of what we are getting into in that area and assume that they (both government and prospective hosts) pretty much do too. Within the IETF, some people are going to be happy about what that understanding implies and some people aren't, and I'm really glad that you folks are the ones who have to figure out where the consensus lies (and not me). The specific issue I was trying to address was whether there was any risk of one of our loose cannons (or politically/environmentally-insensitive individuals) triggering a reaction from some mid-level hotel staffer who was oversensitive and overly risk-adverse as a matter of personality, or as the result of conditions beyond anyone's control, and having the combination trigger a situation that would not exist with a combination of calmer heads with more inclination to try to defuse a situation than to escalate it. And, if that risk existed, whether there was anything that could be done to mitigate it. An example might include trying to change the provisions for unilateral action by the hotel or Host, into a requirement that, if a problem was perceived, it went into some sort of problem-understanding and resolution review team that involved a few of our senior folks and representation from the government as well as the hotel and Host people. I assume that such a team, if organized in advance, could move quickly enough to meet any reasonable need. I think that, if we were going to do this, that sort of model would benefit everyone. From our standpoint, it would help lower the risk of a misunderstanding turning into a crisis. From theirs, even a public hint of inclination to shut down an IETF meeting or start kicking participants out would, as others have pointed out, have long-term bad consequences that would spread well beyond a particular hotel or Host. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:02 -0400 Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com wrote: On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote: I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing too close to the politics or criticism line. Those concerns are not different with other countries, including the US. A few hours after 9/11, once I was over my initial shock, I ... We are far from a universal faith in any national government. Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias, or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before (by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full financial responsibility for any costs that result, if some number of participants are perceived of as being out of line... and perceived by a process in which the IETF has no voice, no right to state an opinion or defend itself, etc. It seems to me that provision is a significant issue, independent of how one feels about those concerns that are not different with other countries and also independent of our appraisal of how likely it is to be triggered. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAB] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before (by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full financial responsibility for any costs that result, if some number of participants are perceived of as being out of line... and perceived by a process in which the IETF has no voice, no right to state an opinion or defend itself, etc. Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but the IETF has not been asked any of this; the Host is the one signing the agreement and bearing the full financial responsibility. We haven't yet heard what the agreement between the IETF/IAOC and the Host is. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it negotiation. So long as we have assurances that crypto isn't a problem, and assurances that technical discussions which happen to touch on political issues (IDNs, crypto, privacy, etc.) are OK, I'm willing to roll the dice. But it seems silly to sign a contract like the one outlined. pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
