Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 10/11/09 8:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not want to set. I strongly agree. I think mixing up what people think is right and what people think is practicable from a logistics perspective confuses two very separate issues that could lead to two separate outcomes, based on the criteria the IAOC uses. I wish people would stick to the logistics argument. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. Henk, just clarify question. I assume you meant police not policy in the sentence above? Is that correct. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Cullen Jennings wrote: On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. Henk, just clarify question. I assume you meant police not policy in the sentence above? Is that correct. That is correct. 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole, At 16:56 10-10-2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? Are we a US-centric organization? This discussion has been mild by IETF standards. There hasn't been that many messages posted by people from the People's Republic of China. I'll quote part of a reply: do you think that Chinese government will allow the chinese participants to join the IETF meeting which often has the violation of Chinese law? and a comment from a message posted last year: Is USA qualified [as IETF Meeting Venue]? Some people may have strong views about the People's Republic of China. The free speech afforded to people to air such views is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. It is a tacit guarantee provided by the IETF as it has always been part of its culture not to restrict the field of discourse. If the choice of meeting venue is about sending a message, the IETF should learn about Panda politics. I don't know whether the IETF can win that or whether the IETF is actually being used as the panda. I believe that if the IETF gets into that, it is opening the door for problems in the long term beyond the choice of hosting a meeting in the People's Republic of China. For those arguing about legality, I'll mention that there are United States sanctions that prohibit citizens of the United States from doing business with entities identified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (United States). The person may be in violation of the sanctions by purchasing services or equipment from a telecommunications company (not in the People's Republic of China or any country on a watch list). I doubt that most people are aware that the company is listed. The IETF had a strong bias towards the United States. That has changed over time as there are more participants from Europe. It will likely change more as it moves towards the East. The move can be viewed in terms of participation and not in terms of meeting venue selection. At 15:40 09-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote: different things (and fewer or more of them). But I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. Every country has restrictions in some form or another. That's a fact of life. The IETF does not have the political clout to influence the country in making it more amenable to host a meeting. It does have the choice of not being turned into a pawn to support a geopolitical agenda. At 17:53 09-10-2009, Richard Barnes wrote: Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from the conspicuous absence of comment by all but a very few Chinese participants. There's a cultural gap. It is not specific to Chinese participants. I'll sum up this discussion with a sentence from RFC 3184: Seeing from another's point of view is often revealing, even when it fails to be compelling. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Doug, I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated. I would be surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech. If this were a vote, I would object quite strongly on not having my vote counted as a member of your second group, just because I also belong to the first group. Obviously, I'm speaking in a private capacity only. I think that the ISOC and IETF officials have indicated sufficiently clearly those few emails where they spoke in an official capacity, and I assume that all other mails have been sent in private capacity as well. (Personally, if I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. But that's a matter of taste.) Stephan On 10/10/09 9:18 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote: Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. I've only heard a handful of people argue against going to China on principle. Several more have expressed concerns about going to China on the basis of unprecedented contractual terms. Statistically at least, it might be proper to treat the first group as outliers in this discussion, rather than as representative of the second group. I'd sure like to see a clearer indication of whether people in positions of authority are expressing opinions in that capacity, or just as individuals. That request is not just for you, of course. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | item-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Syephan, You said: I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I have no skin in this game as they say, and if we end up not meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD, especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on. The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups (and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not currently. 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member speaking. Mike At 12:39 PM 10/11/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Mike, Then I am afraid you really misread my comments. There are indeed folks who are suggesting that China should be avoided for political reasons (see the list for examples, I see no need to repeat it here), and I would characterize that as a boycott. This is completely separate from the discussion about the hotel contract and legal provisions, unless that was unclear. In other words, we may decide that we cannot hold a normal meeting in China due to laws or contract language or any other normal criteria for meetings, but I am a lot less certain about what political criteria we could agree on for avoiding any country. I am not saying we can't have that discussion, but I am saying that it becomes a lot less clear who we are given the large and growing number of participants from the country in question. I have been largely speaking for myself. The original statement from Marshall does have phrases like the IAOC believes... but as I explained previously, no final decision has been made, and whatever snapshot of opinion was taken 3 weeks ago isn't necessarily accurate today. I do take your point. Consider everything I've said so far as my personal opinion, based on what I know and my experience in attending meetings in 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 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member speaking. Mike At 12:39 PM 10/11/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole, Yes, my email was aimed at your frequent postings on this subject in combination with your current ISOC position. Let me note that most of your postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a preference for a PRC IETF meeting. That said, it's good that you clarified your intentions so clearly, and there is no need for apologies here. Certainly not from your side. I hope that my posting did not come over as aggressive (even passive aggressive) to you. It was not meant this way. If it did, then it's my turn to ask for an apology. And I completely agree with the FUD comments---we have entirely too much FUD on i...@ietf. Then again, risk tolerances are different amongst different people, and at least in part established through past experiences. Discounting options of those with negative experiences (which, clearly, is not FUD) is at least as harmful to the IETF as excessive, but unsubstantiated FUD. (Please don't ask me, or anyone else, about possible negative experiences on the very subject country. If there were any, those involved could hardly tell---unless they were die-hard anti-PRC activists. And comments of the latter would probably not be a Good Thing on i...@ietf, either...) Regards, Stephan On 10/11/09 9:39 AM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: Syephan, You said: I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I have no skin in this game as they say, and if we end up not meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD, especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on. The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups (and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not currently. 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not going to comment on whether Ole has been appearing to be biased. (I assume we are all biased -- if fact I'm sure of it -- but yeah, I understand the concern about someone in a decision-making position sending messages that might confuse management of a group discussion with advocacy. But, again, I'm not commenting on whether I think Ole has or has not done that.) I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not want to set. I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this. We are a very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal. As a group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body we have the skills. Any attempt to make such factors essential to our decision-making now will invite their being used in the future. From my limited knowledge of global and national social and political issues, I am certain that every single country we might consider could reasonably be challenged for its questionable history, policies and/or practices. If a country already has a pattern of hosting international meetings, then I think it's fair for us to consider it now. If it does not already such a history, it still might be, but again, I suspect venue logistics ought to be the major conbcern, not venue politics. Really, folks. This is not merely a slippery slope. It's a cliff. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Stephan Wenger stewe at stewe dot org wrote: I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated. I would be surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech. You're right that my comment about first group and second group mixed up the question of what arguments have been raised with the question of how people feel. Considering the first group, those individuals who feel that the IETF should not go to China on principle have a right to argue on that basis, and should certainly feel entitled to skip that meeting on their own -- either to maintain their own integrity in the matter or to try to slow or stop the IETF's progress, by lack of quorum, in those WGs where they are involved -- or both. But my gut feeling is that unless the IETF wants its image to be one of a socio-political activist group, it should not decide against going to China on the grounds of socio-political differences alone. YMMV. The second group is entirely different IMHO. The contractual terms offered to I* are spelled out quite clearly, with plenty of wiggle room as to the punishable offenses but little or no wiggle room as to the punishment. There have been arguments that the terms won't be enforced, for one reason or another, but whereas individuals might choose to take the risk and attend as if nothing were different from other IETF meetings, it would be (as others have said) an abdication of fiduciary responsibility for the I* leadership to assume this. Any individual can, of course, belong to both groups. Where I was getting was that the group that wants to skip China on philosophical grounds, to boycott the meeting as Ole put it, does not speak as a whole for the larger group that objects to the contractual terms. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave CROCKER wrote: I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. On the one hand I agree with you that determining where the IETF should or should not meet on the basis of the social policy in the host country/state/region/etc. is a very dangerous, and slippery slope. On the other hand the question of whether the number of people who would not attend the meeting because of concerns such as social policy, censorship, unfortunate contractual terms, prevalence of smoking, etc. would prevent the meeting from being successful IS a logistical concern. Of course, keeping those two issues separate is a Solomonic task. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I'd suggest reading your posts again. It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results without bias. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post, individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but the organization cannot. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Doug Ewell wrote: I'd suggest reading your posts again. And I suggest you read the original message that started the whole discussion again, let me quote the relevant section: The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. I signed up to that statement before it was sent out. And yes, I have been speaking as an individual which I think it's OK to do since no final decisions have been made. It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results without bias. Really? How do you reconcile that with Marshall's statement? We're asking if the community can live with the clause as currently provided. We don't (or didn't at the time to be accurate) believe that the clause itself would prevent us from having a successful meeting there. But we asked for community input. The data collected (from the survey and from comments) is what we will use to further analyze the situation. Do we still believe what we belived when he sent out the message? I can't tell you because we have not discussed it in detail yet, but the whole point was to collect this information from the community. Obviously, at some level, it does not really matter WHY someone might not want to attend a meeting in China, if the number is large we're not going to have a successful meeting by our usual definition. The survey and comments tells us something about that, some of it as a direct result of the questions, some of it as side effects. And: a lot of OTHER issues have also been brought into focus as a result of these discussions, and all of it is good input to our decision making process. It ALSO provides a written record of the community's feelings on this meeting, something I expect will become really useful if further negotiations on contract terms procede. As for (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post, individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but the organization cannot. I understand your point, but taken literally can mean different things to different readers. It's not worth debating this any further since we already agree that the best thing would be to get rid of the clause so I suggest we move on and see what can be accomplished in that regard. Cheers, Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 02:32 PM 10/11/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this. We are a very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal. As a group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body we have the skills. I strongly agree with you on this. Unfortunately for this instance many folk are conflating the matters of logistics and cost with the social policies of the PRC making it difficult to concentrate on the former without dealing with all the emotional content tied up in the latter. I'd really like us to avoid boycott and what message would it send to the world in our discussions of whether or not this site (or for that matter any other) is acceptable for holding IETFs. Unfortunately, both sides seem to find these concepts useful as part of their talking points for interestingly different reasons. Ah well... Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all sorts of restrictions as a result. It may have been an export restriction rather than a discussion restriction, but the practical difference was zero. It is true that some security bureacrats tried to apply some existing laws in a very expansive way (e.g. to limit discussion and publication). However, in a series of court cases (most notably Bernstein v. United States, and Junger v. Daley) these attempts on the part of some government functionaries were struck down by the US courts. Junger is particularly on point: Junger sought an injunction against the enforcement of provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that require him to get the permission of the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls ... before he can communicate information about cryptographic software to foreign persons, whether in the United States or abroad. ... These provisions effectively prevent Junger from admitting foreign students to the course that he teaches (from the EFF web site on the case). Note that the Sixth Circuit (Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 - 6th Cir. 2000) found in favour of Junger, on Constitutional grounds. In other words - security bureacrats tried an expansive power grab that would have limited the ability to discuss cryptographic topics. (What a shock, bureacrats trying a power grab But I digress.) However, because there was an _independent and empowered_ judicial branch, and a constitution which provided rights which that judicial branch was determined to uphold _in practise_, this attempt was beaten back. I trust the moral is clear... (Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric. FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am personally quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of the world is not a clone of the US.) I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. Ah, I was insufficiently precise. In asking about 'discuss[ion] or design[ing]' anything, I was speaking of things within the IETF's normal scope of topics. I.e. the anything there was not meant to be read as anything at all, so my statement was not as expansive as you perhaps seem to have thought it might have been. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
You said: (Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric. FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am personally quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of the world is not a clone of the US.) Noel, Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? Are we a US-centric organization? (That question is not just for you of course). 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 04:56:43PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? I really don't think boycott is the right word --- or at least, it's not conducive to discussion. That word is loaded with a lot of connotations, both good and bad. It implies that we hope to change China's behavior and/or legal system by refusing to attend a meeting in that country until they make changes that we feel Should Happen --- and while there may have been one or two people who have said things that might lead people to believe that, I at least am under no illusions that China is likely to change its behavior based on any demands made by the IETF. So Boycott could be seen by some as a word used by those who are trying to argue that we should have a meeting in China no matter what. Perhaps a better way of putting things is that the IETF has various requirements for holding a successful meeting, and the question is how much of a guarantee we need that we can have a successful meeting, and hold certain conversations without being in fear of the meeting getting shut down and/or IETF attendees getting imprisoned? The fact that China is the world's biggest jailer of cyber dissidents ought to give one pause; the counter argument seems to be that China it's really not about the law, it's about who you know, and that people in China care enough about the honor of having an IETF that they're not likely to imprison something even though there are scary words in the hotel contract and in Chinese National Laws. This is despite the fact that the grounds upon which Chinese web loggers have been censored or imprisoned are very vague and could easily be seen to encompass discussions about privacy and human rights that are held in IETF meetings. (I'll note that even the *discussion* that China enganges in censorship, or harmonization can be enough to get web sites censored.) But things will be OK for the IETF? The laws will somehow be enforced differently for us? Maybe it's horribly US- and European- centric to want the sort of guarantees one can get in a system where there is rule-by-law, and not rule-by-man, where the whims of a local mandarin can result in people being thrown in jail, because the laws are written with such an expansive wording that it's all up to the discretion of the local bureaucrat (or hotel employee). I don't think it's unfair or US- or European-centric to expect something a bit more deterministic. Maybe it's a fine distinction, but it's not about refusing to do business with a country in the hopes of changing the country, and it's not about punishing a country because we don't like their laws. It's more about (at least to me) whether or not China's legal environment meets the requirement for a safe place where the IETF can have a meeting. Some people feel safe walking in Central Park in NYC after midnight. Other people don't. But I don't think you'd say that people who avoid Central Park at night are somehow boycotting it. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: [snip] Perhaps a better way of putting things is that the IETF has various requirements for holding a successful meeting, and the question is how much of a guarantee we need that we can have a successful meeting, and hold certain conversations without being in fear of the meeting getting shut down and/or IETF attendees getting imprisoned? Agreed, that's obviously the core issue in this context, but others seem to argue that even if these questions could be answered to our satisfaction they would still argue against going based on principles. My only observation was that if we start holding politicial positions we'll quickly find ourself in a debate about who we are and who they are for some value of each. We certainly should insist that we can hold normal conversions at any meeting, otherwise they would not be normal IETF meetings. The fact that China is the world's biggest jailer of cyber dissidents ought to give one pause; the counter argument seems to be that China it's really not about the law, it's about who you know, and that people in China care enough about the honor of having an IETF that they're not likely to imprison something even though there are scary words in the hotel contract and in Chinese National Laws. I disagree. I think there was an attempt to put the offending clause in some context. It doesn't make it less objectionable, but it might explain why it's there and what it is intended to control or prevent. Anyway, I think it should be removed, and I am obviously not alone in thinking so. But things will be OK for the IETF? The laws will somehow be enforced differently for us? No, but enforcement depends on reading of the laws/rules/contract and that all happens in a larger context of the situtation. If you bump your head against the smoke detector in the airplane lavatory and the cover pops off you may perhaps not be able to prove that you weren't tampering with it, but that's a long way from saying you will automatically be fined $10,000 or whatever it is these days. Some people feel safe walking in Central Park in NYC after midnight. Other people don't. But I don't think you'd say that people who avoid Central Park at night are somehow boycotting it. Right, but in this case, that's exactly what some people are suggesting, independent of what the particular contract says. We can/should certainly decide to hold or not hold a meeting in a certain location based on the criteria you mentioned at the start of your message, I was merely pointing out that if we go beyond that and start using OTHER criteria we may be heading down a slippery slope. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net 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 I never thought it could be understood differently: anything different would be rude for ISOC. So, what you personnalité want is to be sure that whatever off topic you may want to discuss it will be permitted by the local law? This sounds like invading foreign countries and saying, hey! guys, I am the IETF, I am your law now.. In fact you may genuinely think youcann ... But, what surprises me is that you seems to consider that discussing any non defined off topic matter is something the US law and order permit you. You surely pull my leg. 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi David, On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:30 PM, David Morris wrote: To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting. That is a good point. The particular contractual agreement we are being asked to make in this case is different from other cases, and I do find it problematic. I am especially concerned about the fact that the entire IETF meeting could be cancelled due to the bad contact of one or a few participants. Given the open nature of IETF participation, those IETF participants wouldn't even need to be members of the IETF community. They could just be people who showed up to cause trouble... Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Patrick Suger wrote: I never thought it could be understood differently: anything different would be rude for ISOC. So, what you personnalité want is to be sure that whatever off topic you may want to discuss it will be permitted by the local law? This sounds like invading foreign countries and saying, hey! guys, I am the IETF, I am your law now.. In fact you may genuinely think youcann ... I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which apparently makes illegal many things which normally would be discussed at IETF metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to hold an IETF meeting in China. The counterargument seems to be, naaah, don't worry, even though there is a contract that says these sorts of things aren't allowed, and if they happen a hotel employee can shut down the entire meeting --- they won't be enforced and don't worry your pretty little heads about such things. So if China wants to make various things illegal to discuss, that's fine. We should respect that. It doesn't mean that we should hold an IETF meeting there, though. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which apparently makes illegal many things which normally would be discussed at IETF metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to hold an IETF meeting in China. I don't think that it is apparent that many things which would normally be discussed at IETF meetings would be illegal to discuss in China, but, yes, that is the core of the argument here. The counterargument seems to be, naaah, don't worry, even though there is a contract that says these sorts of things aren't allowed, and if they happen a hotel employee can shut down the entire meeting --- they won't be enforced and don't worry your pretty little heads about such things. The counterargument is a little more complex than that, but it's fairly obvious that having a hotel employee determine what can and cannot be said is not an acceptable solution, so that's being worked on. So if China wants to make various things illegal to discuss, that's fine. We should respect that. It doesn't mean that we should hold an IETF meeting there, though. Right, but the crucial word in your statement is if and whether various things fall into the category of topics normally discussed at an IETF meeting. Again, this is being worked on. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract ... ... With respect 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. Interesting point. I can recall a number of countries with _export_ restrictions on some things, and perhaps one with a _use_ restriction, but I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. Did I too miss one? Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Theodore, you will excuse me. I am afraid this discussion is not real. I am only interested in the Internet working better, all over the place, including in China and in the USA. 1) this lasting debate decreases the credibility of the IETF to be able to build such a network, at least in its Chinese part. This is worrying duing the IDNABIS last call, no one seems to care about.No more than the IETF seems to care about a proper support of the orthotypography of many languages. 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 (b) ISOC has an affiliate in China (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. (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? (g) many hurt Chinese engineers participate to the IETF and very politely do not react: have them been invited to comment? (h) has a Chinese Embassy been called upon and asked what IETF topics might be conflicting? etc. etc. 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 2009/10/9 Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Patrick Suger wrote: I never thought it could be understood differently: anything different would be rude for ISOC. So, what you personnalité want is to be sure that whatever off topic you may want to discuss it will be permitted by the local law? This sounds like invading foreign countries and saying, hey! guys, I am the IETF, I am your law now.. In fact you may genuinely think youcann ... I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which apparently makes illegal many things which normally would be discussed at IETF metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to hold an IETF meeting in China. The counterargument seems to be, naaah, don't worry, even though there is a contract that says these sorts of things aren't allowed, and if they happen a hotel employee can shut down the entire meeting --- they won't be enforced and don't worry your pretty little heads about such things. So if China wants to make various things illegal to discuss, that's fine. We should respect that. It doesn't mean that we should hold an IETF meeting there, though. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, October 09, 2009 17:03 -0400 Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: Interesting point. I can recall a number of countries with _export_ restrictions on some things, and perhaps one with a _use_ restriction, but I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. Did I too miss one? Noel, I don't think it moves the discussion forward one way or the other, but I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all sorts of restrictions as a result. It may have been an export restriction rather than a discussion restriction, but the practical difference was zero. You could quite properly and correctly respond that there was a lot of resistance from the relevant communities and that the period of prior restraint on papers to be presented at such meetings didn't last very long, but it did occur. Similarly, if one assumed that I had learned enough as an undergraduate and from the public literature (i.e., without depending on any security clearances or other special access) to have a fairly good idea how to build a nuclear weapon and what the key parameters are, I think I would still be violating US law to stand up in a public meeting and describe how to do it. Certainly that would have been the case some years ago; I haven't spent a lot of time (or any time at all) tracking the evolution of law and regulations in that area. I think the Chinese situation is different, largely because of the meeting cancellation and hotel discretionary provisions (and, since Ole and others have told us several times that the IAOC is working on a different plan in those areas, I'm trying to sit quietly until I see what that process comes up with). Certainly different governments are going to be sensitive about different things (and fewer or more of them). But I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:44:17PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which apparently makes illegal many things which normally would be discussed at IETF metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to hold an IETF meeting in China. I don't think that it is apparent that many things which would normally be discussed at IETF meetings would be illegal to discuss in China, but, yes, that is the core of the argument here. Well, one of the big problems with China is that given that exactly how its local laws will be applied isn't crisply defined, and a huge amount of discretion can be applied by a mandarins (bureaucrats) or in the case of the contract, by a hotel employee. Worse yet, its laws are very vague (where insulting Chinese culture can be enough to get a blog to get haromonized or censored) --- and by the wording of the hotel contract, enough to get us thrown out on our ear. And given that human rights is a very expansive term, and that privacy, such sa what might be described by the Geopriv wg could very will infringe on the verboten human rights restriction, it's very hard for *anyone* to give any guarantees. Which is why I used the word apparently --- not in the sense of something being apparent, but in the sense of maybe, we're not sure, and by keeping things vague the Chinese government is probably hoping that people will self-censor themselves because of the inherent vagueness of words such as 'show any disrespect or defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China'. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
(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. Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from the conspicuous absence of comment by all but a very few Chinese participants. --Richard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: (Personal opinion) On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Let's parse your statement a bit closer. Actually, so far all of our discussions etc have been legal in the countries in which we've met - or at least we've never been told they are unlawful. Or do you have a specific list of countries in which such discussions or development were prohibited by law or contract? Unlike you I, and I expect many (most) of us would never assume that local policy would not notice. If I were a fiduciary for the IETF I would expect to be sued for failure to exercise due diligence if I took this position and someone noticed. If I were told that a specific act or topic of discussion was illegal or could lead to civil or criminal penalties I would have to evaluate whether that specific act or topic were core for the purpose of the meeting or event. I would then have to make a decision to either refrain from the act or topic (difficult if it was core to the meeting), or (if responsible for the meeting) move the meeting somewhere else. I would not assume I could blithely ignore local law. Hopefully, TPTB are doing this. For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract, b) that the penalties for (any of us collectively) breaking the law or terms of the contract could result in meeting termination in addition to any individual penalties. To my knowledge, this is unique to our experience. I haven't seen any comments to the contrary in this discussion thread In the PRC, the certain prohibited acts and topics are acts and topics that have not - to my knowledge - been prohibited either by contract or law at any other venue to which we've been. The acts may be and some of the topics are certainly core to every IETF meeting we've held prior to this and probably prior to every meeting we will hold before any possible future PRC meeting. 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. Mike Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on the list (and then some more). 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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.netmstjo...@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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in trouble. All that is happening thanks in part to the dicussion that has taken place on this list. 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 09:55 PM 10/8/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in trouble. To rephrase in a way that you may not agree. We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site, host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings. It really isn't about whether or not we might or might not get in trouble, its whether or not the plain language of the laws and contracts describe an environment which is incompatible with the IETF norm. All that is happening thanks in part to the dicussion that has taken place on this list. 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: To rephrase in a way that you may not agree. We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site, host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings. It really isn't about whether or not we might or might not get in trouble, its whether or not the plain language of the laws and contracts describe an environment which is incompatible with the IETF norm. I agree. There might be some issues in some countries about what is acceptable behavious OUTSIDE of the meeting room, but we should certainly be able to conduct business as usual in our meetings themselves. (Ignoring for the time being any discussion of plain language and various readings of such). Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
(Personal opinion) On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on the list (and then some more). 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: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting. On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea - it's certainly something we have done in the past but if it is not legal in the PRC, I could live with a meeting where we did not do any PGP key signing. It detracts a bit from the meeting but is not in what I consider the mediatory must have core of the meeting. Of course this would mean that a group of people that did not often travel out of the PRC would be missing a great opportunity to sign with a group of people outside of China which I view as one of the benefits of having a meeting in Beijing. Do you know if the PGP signing (and taking the keys home) was legal when we did it in France? It is my understanding that there are (or were) French laws forbidding the export of crypto. However, I don't remember this being raised as a big concern when we held the IETF in Paris. Did we hire a Swedish lawyer to determine if all of our planned activities were legal before going to Stockholm? Does anyone know what laws there are about public assembly and/or public discussion of political issues in Japan? I realize that there is a lot of concern about going to China, and some of it may be justified. But, we should also be careful that we don't end-up holding China to a higher standard than other countries that we visit. If we believe that we should only go to countries where a specific set of activities are legal, we should (IMO) itemize those activities and seek to determine that they are legal in all of our destination countries before we commit to going there. Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote: ... Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China earlier than expected, the prorata costs of unexpectedly attending only part of a meeting, and possibly the value of lost time. Suppose the hotel also tried to recover lost revenue and lost reputation costs as some have suggested in this discussion might be possible. Now consider going out and buying insurance against those risks. There are insurance companies who are happy to do that sort of risk assessment and quote prices (and do it professionally, as if their bottom line depends on it, which it does) and with great skill. If the cost of such insurance is a reasonable add-on to the other costs of holding a meeting in Beijing (or can be passed on to the host), then we go ahead with the meeting. If not, we make another plan. That's the best suggestion for managing the risk side of this equation that I've heard. It's brilliant! Great thinking, John! -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, October 2, 2009 3:55 pm, Noel Chiappa wrote: It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Let's be real. Were we offended when, during the Adelaide South Australia meeting, the local government made sure the newspapers knew about us and granted Adelaide some prestige for being involved? Nope. The government of South Australia isn't scary and isn't actively involved in censoring, blocking, and obfuscating the Internet. In fact, the local government rep spoke at our plenary, and asked as many of us as possible to consider moving to Adelaide permanently. No worries, mate! Do find the PRC government somewhat more threatening than the government of South Australia? If so, why, and what should we do about it if anything? Constructive engagement and avoidance are both valid options that have been brought into this debate. The current hosting contact terms have led me to favor the latter, but both positions have merit if we can manage the risks. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave, Thanks for your clarification, now I understand this has converged to a more contract language issue. At this stage, I may not be able to help on the detail languages since I guess the hoster or IAOC already have been deeply involved in it. Anyhow, I apprecaite that you make everybody more clear on it, thanks. Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does. Thanks for the discussion -Hui 2009/10/2 Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net: Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does. It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, October 02, 2009 11:55 -0400 Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Noel, any time we meet somewhere that considers us important enough to have a government official, even a local vice-mayor, show up (with press) and deliver a welcoming greeting, we are lending the IETF's... name to [a] government. My recollection is that we've had that happen a lot, and happened in places that certainly drew no particular comments (other than about a few politicians being long-winded) before or after the fact. I think there are some issues with meeting in Beijing, but support for any government isn't one of them. In the interest of clarity, I think there are going to be _some_ issues almost anywhere, e.g., we have met several times in Minneapolis, and had very successful meetings, at times of year when the host and hotel were unwilling to arrange balmy weather. For example, I'm much more worried about the possibility of a few key IETF participants being guilty of the crime of traveling while ill and exhausted, arriving with a fever, and being quarantined and kept out of the meeting for a few days than I am about the meeting being disrupted by the provisions of that contract. And, again, that situation could, in principle, arise in most of the countries of the world that follow WHO recommendations. However, like Dave, I'm hung up on the contractual language, not because I expect behavior that the IETF (or even the Chinese government) would consider bad enough to justify actually canceling a meeting (I believe that the odds of someone being offensive enough to be asked to leave the country are higher, but also much less problematic to the IETF... and not unique to China either). However, I'm concerned that, contractually and regardless of how I assess the odds, a hotel employee could, at his or her own discretion and based on his or her own sensitivities or other concerns, make a decision that would have far-reaching effects. Even then, I'd have little problem if the proposed agreement were entirely between the host and the hotel, with no risks to the IETF other than cancellation of a meeting after it had started -- i.e., that claims by the hotel for consequential financial damages or relief were between the hotel and the host and did not involve the IETF. The host presumably can appraise the risks themselves, possibly obtain insurance if they thought it was necessary, and make whatever decisions that thought appropriate. I'd be even more comfortable with it if the hotel that has all of this power could be sued in a non-Chinese jurisdiction for the costs that individuals or their companies would incur from early departure costs, lost work, etc. Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China earlier than expected, the prorata costs of unexpectedly attending only part of a meeting, and possibly the value of lost time. Suppose the hotel also tried to recover lost revenue and lost reputation costs as some have suggested in this discussion might be possible. Now consider going out and buying insurance against those risks. There are insurance companies who are happy to do that sort of risk assessment and quote prices (and do it professionally, as if their bottom line depends on it, which it does) and with great skill. If the cost of such insurance is a reasonable add-on to the other costs of holding a meeting in Beijing (or can be passed on to the host), then we go ahead with the meeting. If not, we make another plan. I do not consider Beijing unique in that regard: I'd favor obtaining insurance against premature meeting cancellation for a meeting anywhere in the world, if only to get the professional risk assessment that comes with it. From that perspective, the only thing that is special about this proposed meeting is the unusual contractual language; let an insurance company figure out whether it is important enough to worry about. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. Again, this appears to make us financial responsible for the hotel's actions. And the financial exposure is not limited. We cannot reasonably know how large the financial risk is. Some folk keep noting that the
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave, Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. Steve On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve Crocker wrote: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. Wow. No. In fact, it completely misses what I said. Given how thoroughly I parsed the problems with the contract language, this is surprising. You have apparently confused a diligent willingness to cite the realities of the IETF's dynamic range of behavior, and history of unfiltered speech, with criticism of it. And you have ignored the bulk of my comments, which were about the inherent problems in the contract terms. To repeat: What I said was that these are unreasonable contract terms. They are unreasonable for any venue. As for your own reaction to the overall thread, perhaps that accounts for your reading of my note. By contrast, I've been impressed with the proportion of serious postings. They have explored the topic in different and conflicting ways, but they've been serious. Early in the thread, I noted that contract terms which dictated that we must dress in a business style (coats and ties for men, skirts for women) would be just as unacceptable. All sorts of conditions that might be reasonable for other groups are inappropriate for the IETF. Contract terms which impose constraints that do not fit a group's culture and operation are unreasonable. Contract terms which specify vague conditions are unreasonable. Contract terms which specify open-ended liabilities are unreasonable. Whether some aspect of the IETF might also be unreasonable isn't part of this thread, IMO. We are what and who we are and it isn't going to change for one meeting. Nor am I suggesting that this aspect of the IETF needs to change. But then, I'm always reticent to criticize the IETF... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Scott, Your comments align very much with others that we have received privately, on the list, or through the survey. All of it is being considered very seriously and you can expect a progress report soon. As for alternative venues: since most IETF meetings depend on a host, we're not in a position to finesse (to use your term) the problem by going to a different location in the same region. (Ignoring the fact that venues in Hong Kong for example are booked many years in advance of any event). 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 On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Scott Lawrence wrote: Apologies if this point has been made elsewhere in this rather long thread, but I didn't see it in the parts that I have read This contract condition creates a denial of service attack on the IETF itself. An individual or small group who either wishes to create a media event or who wishes to disrupt (for any reason at all) the progress of the meeting or of some IETF Working Group can do so by taking actions designed to trigger this clause sufficiently publicly that it is not ignored. Whether or not such an attempt would succeed, the mere threat of such an action could itself disrupt the normal IETF processes, and consume the attention of leadership who should be focusing on allowing the technical work to proceed. I would very much like to acknowledge the contributions of our Chinese participants, and think that holding meetings in the Peoples Republic would be a fine thing, but I consider the potential for disruption and distraction to be too high to be acceptable. I like the idea of exploring possible alternative venues such as Hong Kong that might finesse this problem. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve Crocker said: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere. However, IETF participation is open, so that attempting to predict the behavior of IETF participants is as difficult as predicting the behavior of anyone on the planet. In the past (at a Washington DC meeting), IETF participants were detained after wandering into a restricted area. After their release, the story warranted little more than a chuckle from those involved, and had no ramifications for the IETF or its leadership. A good test for a potential site is to contemplate the ramifications were such an incident to be repeated at the proposed location. IETF participants are responsible for their own words and actions. The IETF makes no effort (and has no mechanism) to control their conformance to local laws or customs, and the host and IETF cannot assume any associated risks. Further evidence of the potential behavior exhibited by IETF participants is available on the appeals page: http://www.iab.org/appeals/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Bernard Aboba wrote: Steve Crocker said: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere. However, IETF participation is open, so that attempting to predict the behavior of IETF participants is as difficult as predicting the behavior of anyone on the planet. Combine Dave Crocker's carefully outlined risk analysis with the IETF's basic open structure which in recent months has allowed us to be subjected to email campaigns with a political agenda. What is to prevent such a group with the intent to disrupt the IETF, for what they believe to be the greater good, from using remote connectivity provisions to insert comments, etc. which would be deemed in violation of the contract without even entering China and subjecting themselves to personal risk? Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. Obviously this is not an easy path to take because it takes a lot of patience and probably many failed attempts at contacting someone in authority who is willing to seriously dialogue with the IETF. You could try talking to the Beijing police, you could try asking the hotel and the host for their government contacts, and you could try working through various PRC embassies. But the bottom line is that if the IETF does agree to Beijing and the contract is signed and some incident takes place at the meeting, and the hotel or government shut down the entire IETF meeting as a result, it would be a great embarrassment to the People's Republic of China. Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi, Four remarks: This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. First, as you mention further down in your email (reproduced in full below), its unlikely that PRC officials will take position. However, once the contract is signed, there are likely significant cancellation penalties which the IETF would have to absorb, in the case we decided to cancel the meeting ourselves (for example due to the lack of government assurances). That is why assurances have to be there first, and only then contracts should be signed. If we could cancel our meeting ourselves based on the government input (or lack thereof), at any time and without negative repercussions to the IETF or to the host, it would be a good strategy to follow. (But I would still be careful, due to the two points below.) Second, even if there were assurances, there is evidence that the PRC has not lived up to those in the recent past, at least not to the extend outsiders were expecting. I'm talking about freedom of the press/censorship issues during the Olympics, that *included* censorship of Internet traffic. The PRC interpretation of assurances given to the IOC, and the resulting actions against the Internet and the press during the Olympics, were very, very questionable to me (and, I believe, to the majority of the Western press). Third, given the tight alignment of the PRC's executive and judicative branches, it is unlikely that an outsider would have any likelihood of success when considering an appeal to any executive decision. Fourth, Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. A visa policy as described, by itself, constitutes to me a reason for not even considering a meeting in that country. (Please note that I'm not saying that the PRC has such a visa policy. I don't know.) Regards, Stephan On 10/1/09 2:59 PM, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote: Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. Obviously this is not an easy path to take because it takes a lot of patience and probably many failed attempts at contacting someone in authority who is willing to seriously dialogue with the IETF. You could try talking to the Beijing police, you could try asking the hotel and the host for their government contacts, and you could try working through various PRC embassies. But the bottom line is that if the IETF does agree to Beijing and the contract is signed and some incident takes place at the meeting, and the hotel or government shut down the entire IETF meeting as a result, it would be a great embarrassment to the People's Republic of China. Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote: Does this survey still work?, I failed to do anything over there. Yes it does. What problems did you experience? We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old Browser. Otherwise 343 have completed the survey successfully. Ray -Hui From: t...@americafree.tv To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 -0400 CC: i...@ietf.org; irtf-ch...@irtf.org Greetings; We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen and we would appreciate your feedback. The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this has reference to public political statements or pr otest marches, which are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the issue, requires that people who attend conferences in China (the IETF being but one example) not engage in political speech during their tour in China. We consider this to be acceptable, on the basis that the IETF intends to abide by the laws of whatever nations it visits and we don't believe that this impacts our ability to do technical work. The rule is implemented in the Hotel agreement and reads (note that the Client would be the Host, and the Group would be the IETF) : 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespec t to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. What does this condition mean ? The hotel staff would have, in theory, the legal right to shut down the meeting and ask the offending participants to lea ve the property immediately. While we do not foresee a situation where such action would take place, we feel that it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community. The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. We note that the Vancouver/Quebec survey conducted earlier this year asked for people to suggest venues in Asia; an overwhelming majority (94%) of those who mentioned China were in favor of having a meeting there. We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by commenting on the IETF discussion list, and also by completing a very short survey on people's intentions to travel to China, or not, subject to these conditions. This survey can be found here : https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx? sm=h4DUkRUOdG_2bVLqioPcYYHw_3d_3d All responses received by October 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM EDT (1300 UTC) will be considered by the IAOC in making its decision. We appreciate the assistance of the community in providing us with data that will help us to make an informed decision. Regards Marshall Eubanks (acting for the IAOC) Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Does this survey still work?, I failed to do anything over there. -Hui From: t...@americafree.tv To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 -0400 CC: i...@ietf.org; irtf-ch...@irtf.org Greetings; We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen and we would appreciate your feedback. The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this has reference to public political statements or protest marches, which are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the issue, requires that people who attend conferences in China (the IETF being but one example) not engage in political speech during their tour in China. We consider this to be acceptable, on the basis that the IETF intends to abide by the laws of whatever nations it visits and we don't believe that this impacts our ability to do technical work. The rule is implemented in the Hotel agreement and reads (note that the Client would be the Host, and the Group would be the IETF) : 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. What does this condition mean ? The hotel staff would have, in theory, the legal right to shut down the meeting and ask the offending participants to leave the property immediately. While we do not foresee a situation where such action would take place, we feel that it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community. The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. We note that the Vancouver/Quebec survey conducted earlier this year asked for people to suggest venues in Asia; an overwhelming majority (94%) of those who mentioned China were in favor of having a meeting there. We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by commenting on the IETF discussion list, and also by completing a very short survey on people's intentions to travel to China, or not, subject to these conditions. This survey can be found here : https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=h4DUkRUOdG_2bVLqioPcYYHw_3d_3d All responses received by October 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM EDT (1300 UTC) will be considered by the IAOC in making its decision. We appreciate the assistance of the community in providing us with data that will help us to make an informed decision. Regards Marshall Eubanks (acting for the IAOC) _ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui From: dean.wil...@softarmor.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 CC: i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean _ More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue of a meeting in China. Re-read the Tao. The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an Internet available to all. It is people, not governments. If you, personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go there and hold out your hand. I cannot think of a more excellent challenge to the IETF at this time than to meet in China, and meet 1,000 new friends. And to make 1,000 new friends for the IETF and for the continuation of a cooperative, open development of the Internet. Gene Gaines On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@hotmail.com wrote: excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui From: dean.wil...@softarmor.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 CC: i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean -- check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messageshttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Thanks Ray, Now I remember that I forget I have done that once already. that will be fine for me. Regards, -Hui 2009/10/1 Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org: On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote: Does this survey still work?, I failed to do anything over there. Yes it does. What problems did you experience? We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old Browser. Otherwise 343 have completed the survey successfully. Ray -Hui From: ...@americafree.tv To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 -0400 CC: i...@ietf.org; irtf-ch...@irtf.org Greetings; We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen and we would appreciate your feedback. The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this has reference to public political statements or pr otest marches, which are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the issue, requires that people who attend conferences in China (the IETF being but one example) not engage in political speech during their tour in China. We consider this to be acceptable, on the basis that the IETF intends to abide by the laws of whatever nations it visits and we don't believe that this impacts our ability to do technical work. The rule is implemented in the Hotel agreement and reads (note that the Client would be the Host, and the Group would be the IETF) : 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespec t to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. What does this condition mean ? The hotel staff would have, in theory, the legal right to shut down the meeting and ask the offending participants to lea ve the property immediately. While we do not foresee a situation where such action would take place, we feel that it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community. The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. We note that the Vancouver/Quebec survey conducted earlier this year asked for people to suggest venues in Asia; an overwhelming majority (94%) of those who mentioned China were in favor of having a meeting there. We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by commenting on the IETF discussion list, and also by completing a very short survey on people's intentions to travel to China, or not, subject to these conditions. This survey can be found here : https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=h4DUkRUOdG_2bVLqioPcYYHw_3d_3d All responses received by October 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM EDT (1300 UTC) will be considered by the IAOC in making its decision. We appreciate the assistance of the community in providing us with data that will help us to make an informed decision. Regards Marshall Eubanks (acting for the IAOC) Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole, Just want to make sure I understand this response fully. On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract that Marshall originally quoted: Does your above response mean that the host would not consider slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference? Or does your response mean that the host is going to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the content of working group sessions falls under the category of topics regarding human rights? Thanks much. Alissa If I have to choose only one of your questions it would be the final one: I do not think that our normal way of conducting business would run afoul of these rules. If you were planning to include blatant politicial propaganda in your presentation, then getting prior approval would be a good idea, but I cannot foresee a topic within the scope of what the IETF does to require you to use such material. The assumption is that the material is just normal IETF documents, presentations etc and thus no approval is required. Does our technology border or real-world uses, including human rights? I hope so, but that's a far cry from the type of action that these rules prohibit. Do I expect careful monitoring and various colored lights to light up tracking the conversations? No. The IAOC will be making more detailed statements in the near future. In the meantime, the survey is still open. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? d/ 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. I think the exact language is entirely irrelevant. This is after all an authoritarian government that historically just doesn't operate in a rules-based manner. The language we've seen is extremely vague. De facto, if a political threat is perceived, a strong unpleasant reaction is to be expected, and lawyers won't be invited to table to construe the finer meanings of the rules. My impression is that it's highly unlikely that the doings of the IETF will be perceived as politically threatening, but if I'm wrong on that, an appeal to section 3.8.7(a) of the agreement is unlikely to be material. -T ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. I think the exact language is entirely irrelevant. This is after all an authoritarian government that historically just doesn't operate in a rules-based manner. The language we've seen is extremely vague. De facto, if a political threat is perceived, a strong unpleasant reaction is to be expected, and lawyers won't be invited to table to construe the finer meanings of the rules. My impression is that it's highly unlikely that the doings of the IETF will be perceived as politically threatening, but if I'm wrong on that, an appeal to section 3.8.7(a) of the agreement is unlikely to be material. However, if consequences of the language spill over into lawsuits in other domains (for example, US attendees suing IETF to recover meeting fees and trip expenses after IETF screws up and gets the meeting canceled), then the exact wording of the agreement may be significant in deciding IETF's liability (unless the US court just says You KNOW they have no rule of law in China, why did you go there?, which I think we can argue against.) . So Dave's suggestion is very good, even if it doesn't help us with the ground truth in China. OMA held a plenary there in 2006, and an interop summit in Beijing also in 2006. I'll make inquiries with them (as the IETF liaison manager to OMA) and see if they have something they can share. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dean Willis allegedly wrote on 09/26/2009 1:04 PM: 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. rfc3935 says The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. Individually we may feel a desire to work on changing government policies on Internet availability, but that is not an IETF activity. The IETF may decide not to pursue technology simply based on the aggregate of individual participants deciding not to, but the IETF does not itself take positions on the ethics of various governments, just on whether technologies support the mission statement above. I and the United Nations support the goal of open access to the Internet (although I think you are oversimplifying the situation with both China and the rest of the world), but scope and venue are important, otherwise it becomes difficult to make progress. The question: does meeting in China do more to further the goal of getting past PRC (and others) deplorable policies Personally I don't think it would have any effect. They have far bigger fish to fry. Meeting in China furthers the IETF's goals by better integrating the work China is doing on technology and standards with what the IETF is doing -- while if you/we don't go, China continues as it has been. There are no solid, black-and-white, deterministic answers here. We're dealing with people and cultures. All we can do is predict likelihood. Personally, I believe that unless someone organizes a demonstration (and I do know someone who went to a meeting, demonstrated on Tiananmen square, and was told not to come back), there is very little chance of repercussions for talking the way we do in meetings. As long as a WG agenda is not purely political -- as long as the main issue is what technology to use and its implications for IETF goals -- I don't think there will be any trouble. If you want to look for trouble you can easily find it, but imho the likelihood of trouble looking for you is very small. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote: 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. Dave beat me to it but: We have a moral and ethical responsibility ? Who is we here. Does it include the several hundred folks from China who regularly participate either in our meetings or online? The IETF, ISOC, and supporters thereof bear this responsibility. And yes, our associates from any nation share in this responsibility if they're participating earnestly and honestly in our work. If not, I suggest they leave now. Does the IETF charter require us to do this? Are we supposed to overthrow governments as part of this? If so, do we have a ranked list, or should we just do it alphabetically? The IETF charter says Mission Statement: The mission of the IETF is (sic) make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. Government interference of the sort endorsed by the PRC does not make the Internet work better. Its impact is the opposite; it makes the Internet work worse. This requires a technical response from the IETF to counter. Yet these technical discussions are against the law of the PRC because they are in direct opposition to the intent of the PRC's government. Therefore, we should not be meeting there, or if we are meeting there, we should be focusing on the problem at hand, which is driven by PRC policy. Look, I am not in any way trying to defend the policy in question as something I agree with, but I cannot agree that we as a GROUP should be engaged in the politcal actions you suggest. Should we take a stance on universal health care while we're at it? If we were the Universal Health Care Engineering Group, then that would be in our scope. We aren't, and it isn't. So PRC's other human rights violations, whatever they may or may not be (and I enjoy many fine products manufactured by political prisoners putatively subjected to slave labor in the work camps), are completely out of scope for the IETF. However, the relationship of the policies of PRC relative to the workings of the Internet are clearly directly within our scope and mission. ... Regarding agents I have no way of evaluating that possibility and I am not sure anyone can. This is why we asked you. Having some background in direct political action, I can assure you we'd be juicy targets for agents provacateurs. Heck, I'm on the IETF's side, and even I am tempted to take a whack at it since it's such a big, fat, easy, obvious target that would generate relatively high political yields for not all that much effort. We're like a cash-laden pinata hanging from the ceiling over a hockey rink where EVERBODY has a stick. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dean Willis wrote: 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. Dean, Sorry, but that is very much *not* the question. As a group the IETF has no such goal. We have a goal of doing excellent technical work that enables new capabilities and better reliability and performance. We have no goals of getting past any government's policies. The closest we come to such an issue is the goal of equally not counting government policies as dictating particular technical choices in our work. What is distinctive about the IETF's culture for pursuing its work is how grossly undisciplined our process is, in the trenches. Over the years, we have packaged it nicely with higher-level rules, but the moment-to-moment exchanges are by random folks who make random statements. We tolerate the certainty of entirely inappropriate statements that are misguided, offensive, political and/or personal for the occasional wonderfulness of spontaneity. Signal-to-noise has always been poor in the IETF, but we've seen enough benefit in its unruliness to warrant retaining the model, rather than embracing the far more staid and structured style of other standards groups. With respect to making an organizational decision, the problem with the contract language is its import with respect to this basic way the IETF does its work. I think it essential that we not confuse this with anyone's views about a country's politics. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote: 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. Dave beat me to it but: We have a moral and ethical responsibility ? Who is we here. Does it include the several hundred folks from China who regularly participate either in our meetings or online? Does the IETF charter require us to do this? Are we supposed to overthrow governments as part of this? If so, do we have a ranked list, or should we just do it alphabetically? Look, I am not in any way trying to defend the policy in question as something I agree with, but I cannot agree that we as a GROUP should be engaged in the politcal actions you suggest. Should we take a stance on universal health care while we're at it? 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 Understood. I think the financial risks (in the event of a shut down) are low due to my reading of that probability, but I am also concerned about what effect this will have on (at least some people's) behavior. We should not, I agree, not have to change our normal way of doing the work of the IETF and we should not put ourselves in a situation where a substatial people stay away from the meeting regardless of their reasons for doing so. Regarding agents I have no way of evaluating that possibility and I am not sure anyone can. This is why we asked you. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Regarding the potential clause in the contract that has caused this discussion, which includes the text: ... Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. Again, speaking as an individual, I have a question: I understand that it is unlikely that anything bad will happen as a result of this clause in the contract. However, I am wondering what the worst downside could be. Suppose that some IETF participants (whether regular participants or people who just show up this one time) were to wage some sort of demonstration that was bad enough to get the meeting stopped in the middle. Suppose that as of the time that the IETF meets several other groups have reserved the hotel for conferences later in the year. Suppose that one or more of these other groups hears about our meeting being stopped, and decides to cancel their meeting (and presumably move it somewhere else). Would whomever signs the contract (whether IAOC or ISOC or the host or whatever) be responsible for the losses that the hotel would suffer as a result of the cancellation of these other meetings? To me this seems like it *might* be covered by financial loss and damage to the hotel's reputation. Just who would be at risk? I am not a layer. I don't play a lawyer on TV or via email or anywhere else. However, this looks to me like an unlikely outcome but one that could be very bad. Thus this would at least seem like a good question to ask the IETF's lawyer. Ross ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:23:57PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: As far as I know, you are not a lawyer (please correct me if I am wrong). I am not a lawyer. Ole is not a lawyer. What use is any of us doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce a technical analysis of LISP-ALT. I don't think that this will get us anywhere. I may not be a lawyer, but if there is a contract which says, any topics regarding human rights must require prior approval of the Chinese government, the plain reading of the contract is pretty clear, and if lawyer told me, nah you don't have to worry about the obvious wording of the contract, it's just normal boilerplate, I think I would be right to ask for a second (or third opinion). I understand that it is very hard for a lawyer to tell us whether or not there is a guarantee that we will be safe, but if there is something that is clear on the face that might be unsafe, I think it takes a fairly large amount of handwaving to say, that's not something you need to worry about in the contract. In fact, lawyers are usually telling us the opposite! Given that a number of people have already observed that comments of the form of how our protocols can be used to ensure human rights are certainly not unknown within the IETF, and it's not even clear such a comment would not be considered inappropriate, and there's a clear cause that seems to indicate that we should not even *mention* anything related to human rights without the prior approval of the Chinese government, it's clear that there will be some restriction on discussions that would otherwise legitimately take place at other IETF venues. Against that, we weigh the argument that the IETF would somehow become irrelevant if it doesn't meet in China. Personally, I have trouble buying that. Perhaps the cost of restricting legitimate discussions about how protocols might be used when it involves human rights or freedom is slight (although some might disagree with that; some might view this as a principle that's not worth compromising); but it's not clear the benefits of going to China are that great, either. A long time ago, I learned that the letter of legal agreements is in many cases less important than the intent of the parties. Maybe, but at the end of the day, the law is the law. The intent of the host and hotel may be good, but good intentions have never overruled law in a civil society which is governed by the rule of law. And the argument for why the statement *must* be present in the contract is that it is required by Chinese national law. I'm not sure which is worse, the argument that we don't need to worry about the law (thus implying that maybe China isn't actually a society where the rule of law is important), or that the law actually *does* impose these restrictions and is for real. My two cents, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole, Just want to make sure I understand this response fully. On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract that Marshall originally quoted: 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. Does your above response mean that the host would not consider slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference? Or does your response mean that the host is going to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the content of working group sessions falls under the category of topics regarding human rights? Thanks much. Alissa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Cullen, There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. You've asked a bunch of good questions which deserve to be answered, but we need a little time to craft a response. Stay tuned. Ole On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote: What is the approval process and how long should we expect it to take? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net said: MS If your answer is - because there's some benefit to the IETF - I MS would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other MS benefits and where should we draw the line? If we give up our normal level of free speech then we should expect darn nice cookies in trade! -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. What do we mean by third party here? It seems risky to *not* have some review process for the slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions, plenaries, and other official meetings, since those sure seem to fit the definition of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, which are explicitly covered by the restrictions described in the original email. Perhaps that review would not be completed by a third party but by a team of IETF participants who have been specially instructed in what does or does not count as defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China, disrespect to the Chinese culture, violat[ion of] any laws of the People's Republic of China, or topics regarding human rights or religion. But to not perform any kind of review seems to open the IETF to additional risk. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq7m7IACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwqvQCg6lng0j2dev0k6vbsgldVXcdL H20An342v0uS0jSNm/u4uHnA74xfH/kf =rbo4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ted, I understand that it is very hard for a lawyer to tell us whether or not there is a guarantee that we will be safe, but if there is something that is clear on the face that might be unsafe, I think it takes a fairly large amount of handwaving to say, that's not something you need to worry about in the contract. In fact, lawyers are usually telling us the opposite! Yes, because those lawyers are on a CYA mode. If you are lucky, they may advice what your safest option is, but you need to make the final call yourself. But more generally, there are no absolutely safe options, not in China and not elsewhere. I pretty much agree wit Marshall's analysis on the motives of the various parties in this particular case, and I'd have no problem with going over there with the IETF. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 07:19:15PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote: But more generally, there are no absolutely safe options, not in China and not elsewhere. I pretty much agree wit Marshall's analysis on the motives of the various parties in this particular case, and I'd have no problem with going over there with the IETF. Granted, no place is absolutely safe. But it does seem like China is more un-safe that other potential venues with respect to free speech, if we are to take Chinese National Law at their word (and the argument, don't worry, Selective Prosecution is the order of the day in China, and they won't bother us, isn't terribly comforting). And as others have already pointed out, discussions about how our protocols are used, and issues around privacy *are* regularly discussed in IETF mailing lists and meetings. It's not just about bits and bytes. The attitude, Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? It's not my department says Wernher von Brown, while it does exist in the IETF, certainly isn't the only, and perhaps not even the majority, position. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. What do we mean by third party here? I mean any government agency, the local host or even ourselves. As others have said, there are no absolutes or guarantees, this is something we all know when we board airplanes for example, but an evaluation based on the available evidence would suggest that this issue isn't going to come up or cause problems. If someone really wants to prove me wrong, that is another matter, but I have always considered this community to be fairly friendly and cooperative even if we occasionally have strong disagreements. Ole Our assumption, and now I really AM repeating myself, is that our normal technical topics (including those that have political implications) do not fall into a category that would require review and/or pre-approval. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi At first when I read the terms posted by Marshall Eubanks I sort of wanted to react with my reptile brain and boycott the whole thing. Looking in perspective however the idealistic part of me wants to believe that the Chinese people gains a lot more than they lose if the IETF visits China, nobody gains if we boycott countries just because we don't like their reign. IETF should not take on a political position, the only possible political position should be that the country in question must be able to issue visas to people coming from all countries (this is however not exactly the case with any country today). In the unlikely but possible case that something unfortunate happens and the whole meeting closes down because somebody makes a political manifest at the meeting I believe it gives a lot more bad-will for the Chinese government than for the IETF. That said, history has shown quite clearly that all efforts to try to control what people say and think will ultimately fail, it happened in the former eastern block and will happen in China as well and it is quite obvious that IP technology has made the control apparatus even more complex for the Chinese government. It's like when you construct a pond with concrete, the water will always find the cracks... /Ingemar *** Ingemar Johansson Senior Research Engineer, IETF nethead EAB/TVK - Multimedia Technologies Ericsson Research Ericsson AB Box 920 S-971 28 Luleå, Sweden Tel: +46 (0)10 7143042 ECN: 852-43042 Mobile: +46 (0)730 783289 Visit http://labs.ericsson.com ! *** ___ 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 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: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:31 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/22/09 at 2:50 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote: The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the language were not in the contract, it would still be the law. Certainly the part about defamation, show any disrespect, and violates any laws (which, according to Marshall's original message, includes certain politicial statements and protest marches) are clearly a statement of the law as others have explained in this thread. I've heard nothing so far that indicates that the rest of the clause (with regard to terminating the event or the hotel or host having responsibility for the enforcement) is any part of the law. This is exactly right. Reasoning by analogy is always dangerous, but let me suggest an analogy: say that we wanted to have an IETF in an area that had a lot of hurricanes. Now, the likelihood of a hurricane is not something we can control--I don't expect to negotiate with national law--but the extent to which it effects the IETF is at least partly within the hotel's control. So, one could imagine a number of clauses about what happens in the event of a hurricane in which the hotel becomes unusable: - The event is cancelled and lose all our money. - The event is cancelled but the hotel refunds a prorated portion of our money. - The event is cancelled but the hotel pays a large indemnity (thus allowing us to have a replacement event). Note that we can't get rid of the risk of hurricanes, but we can control who bears that risk. Now, this isn't a perfect analogy, since in the case of an IETF meeting, we do have limited control of the risk of the meeting being cancelled (though the IETF's control of it is really extremely limited, since they have such limited control over their members) and since the hotel's control over the situation is probably more limited here--but whether they unilaterally cancel the meeting at any hint of wrongdoing is likely to be in their control. However, I think the basic point remains: this contract seems to make the host and the IETF bear a large amount of risk which could be shifted to others. It's not at all clear to me that that point can't be negotiated with the hotel. Why would that be dictated by the Chinese government? -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying: (a) No, they don't prohibit those activities. (b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually be enforced that way. If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion), violates a number of the terms. What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so, that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you. I have stated what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, namely prevent political protest at the meeting. I have now attended 68 out of 75 IETF meetings, but I have never seen political protest of the form that I think might lead to a meeting being shut down in China. Yes, we are a rowdy bunch at times, and we discuss a lot of technical things that spill over into layer 9, but let me repeat what I said earlier: There is no way the host, with the understanding of the government, would invite us to meet in China if they expected us to: a) Not discuss our usual topics b) Stage a political rally The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b. Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative (b) above. Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money). -Ekr ___ 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: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so, that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you. A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first sentence in the clause says ...defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China... Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo any government unless you set it up as laundry list of what's wrong with this country (for any value of country) which isn't something you typically do at the IETF. a) Not discuss our usual topics b) Stage a political rally The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b. Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative (b) above. Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money). Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to interpretation and judgement. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so, that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you. A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first sentence in the clause says ...defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China... Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo any government unless you set it up as laundry list of what's wrong with this country (for any value of country) which isn't something you typically do at the IETF. Uh, that clause is ORed with other clauses: 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or ^^ ^^ violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature ^^ any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the paragraph. To take the example of encryption, Ithink 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. a) Not discuss our usual topics b) Stage a political rally The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b. Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative (b) above. Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money). Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to interpretation and judgement. Sure. I'll rephrase my question then: Is your claim that you believe that the contract would not be found in a court of law to cover the described activities? -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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. If on the other hand you were to say: I am upset about the way provider Y in country X does aggregation in BGP because this degrades performance of... you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps a technical argument. I managed to shame a certain provider in India into fixing their issue after they showed up as most unstable AS for a number of months, and they ended up thanking me for it in the end after considerable finger pointing. I'll rephrase my question then: Is your claim that you believe that the contract would not be found in a court of law to cover the described activities? If by activities you mean technical discussions that are a normal part of any IETF meeting, then yes. If, on the other hand, you mean using the IETF as a platform to publically criticize the host country, then I would say we are needlessly pushing the envelope. (I don't a court would really enter into it, but that's another matter). Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT), 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. Sure, but I've heard plenty of stuff like this said in the IETF, indeed in this very discussion. So, while you may not think that those are appropriate statements, ISTM that we do in fact have a situation in which common IETF speech potentially runs afoul of this restriction. If on the other hand you were to say: I am upset about the way provider Y in country X does aggregation in BGP because this degrades performance of... you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps a technical argument. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is in fact defamatory speech within the legal sense that prevails in the US. (That doesn't make it illegal in the US. First Amendment, etc.) I'll rephrase my question then: Is your claim that you believe that the contract would not be found in a court of law to cover the described activities? If by activities you mean technical discussions that are a normal part of any IETF meeting, then yes. In that case, can you please post your analysis of the other ORed parts of the original clause that supports that conclusion? -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 12:17 PM, 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. If on the other hand you were to say: I am upset about the way provider Y in country X does aggregation in BGP because this degrades performance of... you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps a technical argument. Here's the rub. In the heat of the moment during a given technical discussion, someone might come up to the mic and blurt out it sucks that countries like X enforce policy Y and IETF technologies need to provide a way for end users to route around that kind of interference with their sacred human right to freedom of unfettered communication. But now that person probably won't come up to the mic for fear of being carted away if they don't phrase things very carefully. People who show up at IETF meetings are simply not in the habit of self-censoring in this way, which means that they probably won't come up to the mic at all if they fear that a topic might be forbidden or dangerous. This climate of fear and self-censorship is a problem. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq6aWcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwdggCg3q68Ck49RDUaDvj0gct8lEEP eL4AmwVxZN7ru8StrRZvaJBn2aHZLY3n =dRMx -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: BUT I am at a loss to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our technical discussion. And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in which is was said) should be a required part of an IETF meeting? This isn't a China issue per se - this is about what we expect from and for ourselves in the context of the IETF. We have a way of interacting that - while not pretty - mostly works. It's unclear to me why we should accept restrictions on that way of interacting that are imposed from without. If your answer is - because there's some benefit to the IETF - I would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other benefits and where should we draw the line? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Mike, My answer is that this is a judgement call and it forms part of the decision making tree that the IAOC has to make when selecting any venue. We have asked for community feedback in this case, and we've received it (or we are receiving it I should say). Personally, yes, I see the benefits and I also don't believe that we really WOULD run afoul of the rules and suffer any consequences, but one can always come up with worst-case scenarios. If we all go there with self-censorship and fear in mind, I'd rather we went somewhere else, but I don't believe we need to be fearful. Ole On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in which is was said) should be a required part of an IETF meeting? This isn't a China issue per se - this is about what we expect from and for ourselves in the context of the IETF. We have a way of interacting that - while not pretty - mostly works. It's unclear to me why we should accept restrictions on that way of interacting that are imposed from without. If your answer is - because there's some benefit to the IETF - I would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other benefits and where should we draw the line? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 23, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT), 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. Sure, but I've heard plenty of stuff like this said in the IETF, indeed in this very discussion. So, while you may not think that those are appropriate statements, ISTM that we do in fact have a situation in which common IETF speech potentially runs afoul of this restriction. If on the other hand you were to say: I am upset about the way provider Y in country X does aggregation in BGP because this degrades performance of... you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps a technical argument. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is in fact defamatory speech within the legal sense that prevails in the US. (That doesn't make it illegal in the US. First Amendment, etc.) I'll rephrase my question then: Is your claim that you believe that the contract would not be found in a court of law to cover the described activities? If by activities you mean technical discussions that are a normal part of any IETF meeting, then yes. In that case, can you please post your analysis of the other ORed parts of the original clause that supports that conclusion? Dear Eric; As far as I know, you are not a lawyer (please correct me if I am wrong). I am not a lawyer. Ole is not a lawyer. What use is any of us doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce a technical analysis of LISP-ALT. I don't think that this will get us anywhere. Furthermore, my experience with lawyers is that they will rarely, if ever, in any legal system provide you with guarantees. They can point out problems, but you have to use judgement to decide what to do. A long time ago, I learned that the letter of legal agreements is in many cases less important than the intent of the parties. There are always issues in any agreement, and you can always war-game possible breakdowns. The real question is, is there intent to do what is agreed upon (and, do you both agree what that is) ? I think there is intent, in inviting us to China, for us to have a good and productive meeting in China. I think that all parties (us, the host, the Hotel, and the government) want this result. My judgement is therefore that we would not be found in breach of the contract by the hotel for any activities I have seen in 10 years of IETFs. That is not a legal analysis, but it is my considered opinion, based on all of the facts available to me, and my reading of the intent of the parties. Others, such as Ole, with much more experience with the PRC than I do have come to the same conclusion. Everyone is of course free to come their own conclusions, but this is how I came to mine. Regards Marshall -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
That I can pretty much guarantee, plus a whole bunch of tasty alternatives to cookies and of course many variants of tea. 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 On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Wes Hardaker wrote: On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net said: MS If your answer is - because there's some benefit to the IETF - I MS would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other MS benefits and where should we draw the line? If we give up our normal level of free speech then we should expect darn nice cookies in trade! -- Wes Hardaker Cobham Analytic Solutions ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. We will definitely talk about privacy in GEOPRIV. One interpretation of the above provision would lead me to conclude that at the very least the GEOPRIV group would have to get some of its presentation materials approved by the government in advance. What is the approval process and how long should we expect it to take? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Pete Resnick wrote: And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and the host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include words indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch on human rights issues are excluded from this clause. Pete, Simply crossing off the problematic text is an approach that is clean and simple, and returns the burden to the hotel. Nevermind that some or all of the text is dictated by law. Your suggested re-wording, however, is twice problematic. First, it tries to guess what is acceptable to the hotel and government. The second is that it tries to guess what is acceptable to the IETF community. Guessing the former is reasonable when you really are in a negotiation and have some sense of the other side. This ain't one of those cases. And as a member of the IETF community, I think your proffered text constrains things too far. Discussion of technical topics is not likely to cover discussion of the national and other policies that might affect or motivate use of the technology. Yet that, for example, is entirely plausible material for some IETF groups. Of course, there is also the inherent humor of trying to contractually constrain speech by the entire participating IETF community, given our unruly history... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com wrote: At 5:45 PM +0800 9/21/09, Peny Yang wrote: However, IMHO, your experience may be the story 10 years ago. I am a smoker. When I would like to smoke, I always go find the smoking corner. Now, in Beijing, smoking is prohibited in most of public areas. From my experience, the policies on smoking in China are more restrict than some other countries like EU, Japan. My experience was a couple of years ago, not ten, but it's good to hear that things have improved. Can you tell me what this smoking corner is? [Peny] OK. Smoking corner means some areas for smoking. China Government surely respects the right of smokers, when they tried to protect the health of non-smokers. I recall that a few years ago Copenhagen airport, for example, had such things, but they were simply designated indoor areas, and as such, were no help at all. Likewise, a few years ago, meetings in Japan officially prohibited smoking in many public areas, but the hotel simply wheeled in portable smoking areas which did nothing to help. [Peny] Well, every country has similar issues as you mentioned. In China, we also have such kind of smoking areas. I couldn't say they are 100% isolated from other areas. Can you tell me more about the smoking policy in China now? [Peny] OK. Originally, I was trying to find a English webpage for you. However, I didn't find it. Anyway, the link below is the policy on smoking in Beijing since Mar. 2008. http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2008-04/10/content_941252.htm I am not sure if you have some Chinese friends to translate it for you. And I agree with you about Japan, although that in the last few years I've been able to find 100% non-smoking restaurants (it takes some work). [Peny] Well, I have to say quite a lot of EU countries are also the same style. Anyway, just like other countries, China is just a country, which has smokers and non-smokers. This issue should not be a barrier for a IETF meeting in China. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man. But they don't bite everybody. --Stanislaw Lec ___ 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: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote: [T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to self-censorship by people who do choose to attend. +1 /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Applying the usual disclaimer- this is my personal opinion, and doesn't reflect the views of any organization with which I may be affiliated: I do believe this provision is counter to the values and spirit of contribution toward the evolution of the Internet as a tool for open communication, and thus, would not be in favor of holding a meeting where such a provision is required. On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Greetings; We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential upcoming meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen and we would appreciate your feedback. The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this has reference to public political statements or protest marches, which are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the issue, requires that people who attend conferences in China (the IETF being but one example) not engage in political speech during their tour in China. We consider this to be acceptable, on the basis that the IETF intends to abide by the laws of whatever nations it visits and we don't believe that this impacts our ability to do technical work. The rule is implemented in the Hotel agreement and reads (note that the Client would be the Host, and the Group would be the IETF) : 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 People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, 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. The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. What does this condition mean ? The hotel staff would have, in theory, the legal right to shut down the meeting and ask the offending participants to leave the property immediately. While we do not foresee a situation where such action would take place, we feel that it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community. The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. We note that the Vancouver/Quebec survey conducted earlier this year asked for people to suggest venues in Asia; an overwhelming majority (94%) of those who mentioned China were in favor of having a meeting there. We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by commenting on the IETF discussion list, and also by completing a very short survey on people's intentions to travel to China, or not, subject to these conditions. This survey can be found here : https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=h4DUkRUOdG_2bVLqioPcYYHw_3d_3d All responses received by October 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM EDT (1300 UTC) will be considered by the IAOC in making its decision. We appreciate the assistance of the community in providing us with data that will help us to make an informed decision. Regards Marshall Eubanks (acting for the IAOC) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying: (a) No, they don't prohibit those activities. (b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually be enforced that way. If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion), violates a number of the terms. What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I have stated what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, namely prevent political protest at the meeting. One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly that and no more. I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean literally what it says. /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: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote: On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying: (a) No, they don't prohibit those activities. (b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually be enforced that way. If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion), violates a number of the terms. What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I have stated what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, namely prevent political protest at the meeting. One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly that and no more. The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the language were not in the contract, it would still be the law. Ray I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean literally what it says. /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ 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: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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. Ole On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Adam Roach wrote: One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly that and no more. I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean literally what it says. /a ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
