On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 15:31 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I
carefully stayed away from social policy issues
1) What is political speech in China?
...
2) Are there any special rules about publishing and broadcasting? I
...
5) When discussing what I think
Scott Lawrence wrote:
I don't think it's helpful for you to repeatedly try to shut down
attempts to get answers to questions that many people on the list have
repeatedly said that they think are relevant and important.
Sure it is. It is specifically helpful.
The questions constitute a
On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF
operations.
I really don't think so. I don't even think there's
a denial of service effect, regardless of intent. The
community was asked for feedback about meeting in the
PRC given
+1
I think issues have been raised that should not be relevant and
that should be considered, if at all, as part of some other
question or issue. But most of the recent ones, including
Cullen's questions, seem very much in line with trying to
understand the question the IAOC decided to ask for
+1
Cullen is not inquiring after social policy, he's asking what the
practical constraints are likely to be if there is a meeting in China.
This is a sensible question, worthy of a thoughtful, well-researched
response.
I suspect you -- and most of the rest of us -- can't give a
definitive
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:44:58AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF operations.
In terms of principle, I and others have pointed out the basic flaw in
asking these types of question. The mere fact of having some questions
does not
Dear IAOC members,
I asked what I thought were some fairly reasonable questions on the
legalities of running a meeting as normal IETF meeting in PRC - I
carefully stayed away from social policy issues about if this was a
good place to have a meeting or not.
I was wondering if you plan
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I
carefully stayed away from social policy issues
1) What is political speech in China?
...
2) Are there any special rules about publishing and broadcasting? I
...
5) When discussing what I think of as technical issues, many
participants regularly treat Taiwan
On 9/24/09 18:31, Sep 24, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having our
meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be deemed in
violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in China to be just
like any other IETF
Just so some of the gallery is heard from on the list, I am presuming
that they are also counting the input from the survey.
I have no idea how many people responded to that, nor what they said.
I know that I indicated that I thought this was reasonable as long as
certain specific risks had
Adam,
Not quite. I think we have heard the comments of the community loud
and clear and we are working hard to deal with the issues. I also
should state that we have not formally made a decision about this
proposed meeting. The survey is still open, and comments are still
coming in, both on
Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
I propose an experiment, lets have a meeting if it gets shut down
we will never return to China.
Unfortunately, if my math is right, if the meeting were shut down and
the IETF paid out the damages that such a contract would appear to
require, we'd be bankrupt and
It may be academic since lawsuits can sometimes cascade, but it is
still worth pointing out that the IETF (or its legal arm ISOC), will
NOT be signing the agreement, the local host will.
I won't comment on the suggestion.
ole
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Unfortunately, if my math
Hi Ole,
This is an attempt to stop a war. I hope it is not too late
and that somehow, magically perhaps, peace will prevail again.
Note that the Lilliputians'camp includes all the who's-who of
the communication world, unlike the Blefuscuians' camp which
is very much oriented toward
SM,
Thank you.
I'll respond to only one point this time, since it's Friday and since
I did break the 10% barrier this week, sorry:
If it is all about connecting people, we can live without the MUST
in there for five days. After all, the experiment must reflect
operational practice for us
At 23:45 23/09/2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very
derogatory terms. There have been very
Olafur Gudmundsson allegedly wrote on 09/24/2009 10:57 AM:
At 23:45 23/09/2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one country have come up in
Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the Chinese
government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF does have open
discussions in these areas, hence provided they accept this then IETF would
be delighted to have the opportunity to meet in Beijing. If China is not
Alan,
The most obvious answer to your question is that it is not at all
clear if the government would even reply or if they did, how long
it would take for them to reply, and even then, how much information
you would be able to take away from the reply apart from don't break
the law.
Do you
Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
I propose an experiment, lets have a meeting if it gets shut down
we will never return to China.
What about the multiple references to chilling effect and other possible
negative effects of the contractual constraints?
Your experiment ignores these.
d/
--
Dave,
By the time everthing is said about this I suspect the chilling
effects will be minimized. There will probably still be people
not wanting to go on principle, but I at least hope that the
number will not be so great as to impact the success of the meeting.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Dave,
By the time everthing is said about this I suspect the chilling
effects will be minimized. There will probably still be people
not wanting to go on principle, but I at least hope that the
number will not be so great as to impact the success of the meeting.
And
On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Alan,
The most obvious answer to your question is that it is not at all
clear if the government would even reply or if they did, how long
it would take for them to reply, and even then, how much information
you would be able to take away from
At 12:41 PM 9/24/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Dave,
By the time everthing is said about this I suspect the chilling
effects will be minimized. There will probably still be people
not wanting to go on principle, but I at least hope that the
number will not be so great as to
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:57:58PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The most obvious answer to your question is that it is not at all
clear if the government would even reply or if they did, how long
it would take for them to reply, and even then, how much information
you would be able to take
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
True, but you probably *could* say that you (and every other Federal
employee, including the president) that to execute an oath to
preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States,
and that one of the previsions in the Bill of
On Sep 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
We brag about being a global
organization and how we're all connecting people together with our
technology, but the minute we encounter a slightly ominous sounding
clause we're going to just walk away?
I don't think that's a particularly fair
OK, fair enough. I should try for a narrower brush, it's been a long
week :-)
The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by
the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown.
So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical
Hi Ole,
I don't understand your last two sentences. Are you suggesting that what's
left to do is to arrange the China meeting within the constraints of the
contract, as proposed? Or are you suggesting that you need to go back and
attempt to re-negotiate that part of the contract?
Also, what
What I meant was that it remains for the IAOC to let the survey run
until October 1st as Marshall said in the original message. Then,
shortly thereafter, we need to make a decision, based on a number of
factors, including feedback received on this list, private feedback
and of course the
Melinda,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 03:41:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
Looking at it from a threat evaluation framework, it seems
to me that the actual likelihood of something happening
along these lines is pretty small, but the impact of it,
if it did happen, would be enormous, and it's
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:53:40PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by
the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown.
So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical
arrangements for the
IAOC,
I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies
of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very
derogatory terms. There have been very derogatory comments made by
people about
Marshall,
I think going to China would be a great opportunity and that we should
go for it and play by their rules. I agree with Bernard, attendees
should be responsible for their own actions no matter where in the world
we meet.
mike
-Original Message-
From:
34 matches
Mail list logo
