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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
--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]
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
