On Tue Sep 22 19:52:34 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to
work
around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible
to
do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters
say
anything they want,
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So
if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic
discussions, but they are not illegal.
I agree, but I think you are arguing
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic
discussions, but they are not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 6:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
You said:
Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a
culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be
rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly
A couple of things so as not to lose sight of what's actually being discussed:
On 9/20/09 at 5:13 PM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced
with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply
cross
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As an example, does your definition of business as usual include the
topics, presentations, and discussions that occurred in the net
neutrality session during the technical plenary at IETF 75? That kind of
session is business as usual for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 9:42 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Once again, I see nothing in the offending language that prohibits us
from either discussing or using encryption in any way we see fit. If
you want to host a BOF on how to circumvent certain rules and you
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-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
Just try to clarify somethings here, check inline please:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Personally, I have three specific concerns with a meeting in China:
(1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be violated by
what may appear
I just filled in the form.
The main potential issue I would have with such a meeting
is whether or not we'd have a normal meeting network
with normal Internet access. If there's anything that'd
be different about the meeting network and/or access to the
Internet, then I think the IAOC MUST bring
Steve,
If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the
rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose
relevance.
If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will
be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will
I have been in a couple of meetings in China, and everything always went
smoothly. Arrival process at the airport is one of the moat pleasant
that I've had outside Schengen area in EU. There is a lot of university
and commercial activity on new Internet technology, and going there
gives one
On Fri Sep 18 20:19:26 2009, SM wrote:
Some IETF participants might be considered as being disrespectful
towards the leadership. They can turn a meeting into a rowdy
party. If the above is implemented, there are risks, both internal
and external, of a public relations nightmare.
I
Rather than debate on whether this would have been or wouldn't have
been the case, can I suggest we actually approach the PRC government
and ask them? I'm sure they'd be willing to at least tell us. Their
purpose here is presumably to avoid contraversial topics being
discussed, rather than
At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I don't think the rules were written with a group like the IETF in
mind. I also don't think, in fact I am pretty certain, that the hotel
staff would be the ones who decide to shut down the meeting or take
other action. I am sure
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
On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Please try to keep in mind that (various organizations in) China has
been wanting to host an IETF meeting since 1997. One organization has
finally been given government approval to do so. This is a Big Deal
for them. Do you really think the
From: Dean Willis dean.wil...@softarmor.com
there are a lot of people in the world who will be looking for ways
to make the PRC government over-react against the IETF, resulting in
an international incident that is embarrassing or otherwise damaging
to the PRC.
I
Noel Chiappa wrote:
Are our members who are Falun Gong practitioners going to be
persecuted for their beliefs while attending IETF? Are our members
who are active in Tibetan or Taiwanese independence movements going
to be quietly picked up off the street outside our venue?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 07:01:22AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
My personal belief, and the belief of many of have attended meetings
in China is that the fear is unfounded.
When I attended APAN24 in China, I felt the discussions in each session
were very open.
As with the IETF, there was
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
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
Could technical discussions about the following be considered political?
Internet censorship (including evading of it)
Data privacy
anonymization
Lawful intercept
Spyware
DRM
I have personally seen IETF presentations that explicitly talked about
on how encryption and anonymization are
[Trimming to just the IETF Discussion list, as this topic is going to
be one heck of a time sink and flame thrower accelerant]
Before we get all high and mighty, check out 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 and
18 U.S.C.A. § 2385.
Is it more likely such laws would be enforced in Beijing than in New
In the LEMONADE group we had the same initial thoughts (there is
another word for that phrase...) about attendance when we were
planning interim meetings.
Here are some stats:
Vancouver: no visa issues for anyone: about 10 participants
Dallas: a few visa troubles: about 15 participants
#1 - all the other meetings I've been in in China, including ones that
talked about 'unfriendly firewall traversal' seemed to be ignored. YMMV.
#2 #3 - this is very, very, very true. For those who remember the
conference hotel in Prague, Beijing air makes Prague look like a
bastion of
I have helped setup one and attended another conference in Beijing and
have attended one conference in Hong Kong.
All of them were technical by nature, but not nearly as large as the
IETF. Nor did any have the potential of political debate that might
arise in the IETF.
Personally I found the
Applying the same disclaimers Ross did (this is just me as an
individual) I'd like to generally agree with his risk/benefit
argument, and to add two more points to it. First, I don't see an
offsetting compelling benefit. Second, there would also seem to be a
risk of loss of productivity
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
At 7:28 AM -0700 9/21/09, Wes Hardaker wrote:
What would happen to those discussions?
1) they would happen anyway, and nothing would happen (yay!)
(regardless of whether they went unnoticed or weren't offensive)
2) thew would happen anyway, and would get shut down
3) they
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:46:24PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot,
regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the
luxury of attending most IETF meetings.
To piggyback on this, much the same situation
Bernard Aboba allegedly wrote on 09/18/2009 3:33 PM:
The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the
political views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are
responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure
their conformance to local laws or
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:11 -0400, Ross Callon wrote:
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this
goes well beyond what we
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:42:36 -0700, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com
said:
RG (1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be
RG violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical
RG discussion. For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet
RG traffic by or
On 18 sep 2009, at 21.46, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500
Matt Crawford craw...@fnal.gov wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means -
by commenting on the IETF discussion list,
On 19 sep 2009, at 21.55, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is
better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF
are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open.
Much of this dialog has been worried about
Hi,
A personal opinion:
I believe that the logistic concerns voiced here (cost, visa, air pollution,
freedom of network access for IETF business needs) should not be seen as a
deterrent and are not likely to be a practical problem. There are
associated problems and risks, and they are IMHO
Pete Resnick wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with
similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off
the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest
of it, and see what comes back. Call it negotiation.
We
Hi,
I also fully agree with Steve. I wrote similar thoughts in the survey.
Regards,
Wassim H.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon
Perreault [simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 21:18
To:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:13:10 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with
similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off
the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition,
Hi Steve -
To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the topics that
can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as the cost of doing
business in China. And the reason for that is to maintain the relevance of the
IETF?
I'm finding this argument not well constructed.
From: Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com
The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding,
communicating and being open. ... More than a billion people live in
China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. ...
Our first slogan was Networks Bring
I don't think the IETF, either as a whole, in any of its working
groups, or as individuals, need feel inhibited about having the same
sorts of discussions in Beijing that it would have anywhere else.
Run the experiment and get some data. Survey attendees afterwards and
find out what
I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable
for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again.
Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the
merits again.
No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have
Steve -
Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's CLIPPER chip
initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a great example of open
discussion.
That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.
We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their
On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's
CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a
great example of open discussion.
That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.
We've had
Mike,
That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.
That's YOUR interpretation. Obviously the IAOC, or at least speaking
for myself only, do not believe this is true. If we have to change
the normal content of an IETF meeting in order to meet in a given
location, then I fully agree
On 20 Sep 2009 17:07:06 - John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable
for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again.
Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the
merits again.
No
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
Message-ID: pine.gso.4.63.0909181236360.12...@pita.cisco.com
| Whether or not we should meet in China based on
At 12:55 19-09-2009, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all
about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this
dialog has been worried about possible
Dear Michael;
What follows is purely my opinion.
On Sep 20, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Steve -
Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's
CLIPPER chip initiative. That was a hot topic of the time and was a
great example of open discussion.
That
You said:
There was a message posted by Ole Jacobsen [2]. I read host in
terms of premises and not in terms of country. It discloses the
rules. The question is whether people attending a meeting can live
with the warning. Would you:
(i) tone down your comments as there are people,
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of
course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no.
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an incontrovertible fact
that there are many people who
On Sep 20, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv wrote:
Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of
course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no.
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. It is an
Tim,
The government of China is NOT the host of the meeting. Beyond normal
courtesy as you cross the border (unless you want to be detained), I
wouldn't expect you to act in any particular way towards government
officials.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol
Roni wrote:
Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their
opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the
place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF
is
a technical body and not the UN.
Yes. It really will not
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you
suspect that those items could not have been discussed?
When discussed as other than a technical matter, privacy is typically viewed
as a human rights topic.
Discussion of human rights issues is
Steve,
No, ignoring extreme situations and unless a promise of no Internet
access censorship for the IETF meeting can be obtained, it is a choice
between endorsing censorship or opposing it. Networks censored on a
political, religious, and cultural basis do not Bring People
Together.
Your
Sorry - over generalizing here - but I think fairly.Change PRC to this
hotel under the terms of the contract as presented in the initial contract and
add without violating the terms of the contract to the end of the statement
and consider what I said again. A plain text reading of those
Personally, I have three specific concerns with a meeting in China:
(1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be
violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical
discussion. For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet
traffic by or under orders of the
On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-09-19 08:08, Fred Baker wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing
The government has been negotiating to bring an
Given that one of the reasons for moving meetings out of the US was an
inability to get timely visas for physical entry I find it kind of ironic that
we're contemplating having a meeting in a place where there's a complete
inability to get a visa for your mind.
Yup - hyperbole - but I will
Robert Elz wrote:
If the effect of that were to cause attendance at some site to be
so low that useful work was impossible, then the chances of a future
meeting there would be negligible - and that's the one thing that the
IETF (or IAOC or whoever) should consider
Robert,
Trying to follow
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
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all
about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this
dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's
focus on the
Hi,
I support this view.
Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their
opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the
place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF is
a technical body and not the UN.
Roni Even
Roni Even wrote:
I support this view.
Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their
opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the
place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF is
a technical body and not the UN.
Michael StJohns wrote:
Given that one of the reasons for moving meetings out of the US was an
inability to get timely visas for physical entry I find it kind of
ironic that we're contemplating having a meeting in a place where
there's a complete inability to get a visa for your mind.
Melinda,
I see a difference between addressing requirements for protocol that address
national regulatory services and voicing an opinion about national
regulatory policies.
I also noticed that the issues raised on the mailing list were wider than
national regulatory services
Roni Even
Speaking just for myself, I agree with Steve. I think it that is
better to engage than to retreat. Nothing is certain, but I also think
that it is highly likely that we would have a good meeting.
Regards
Marshall
On Sep 19, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between
At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:55 -0400,
Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all
about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this
dialog has been
It might be helpful to avoid responses of the form At least the Chinese
will be able to attend, whereas they couldn't get visas into the U.S.
or Yeah? Well, the U.S. has human rights problems, too! This is not
a competition between the U.S. and China. There are two hundred other
countries
Eric,
Speaking not on behalf of the IAOC, but as an individual attendee who
has also attended a couple of Internet-related meetings in China: You
raise a number of good questions. Unfortunately, since the wording was
dictated by a branch of the Chinese government I see little hope in it
either
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 00:48 +0300, Roni Even wrote:
The IETF is
a technical body and not the UN.
What more needs to be said? Please stay on track for the sake of the
IETF itself.
Richard Golodner
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
If by engage you mean continue to discuss the terms of having a meeting in
China, then I agree. If the government there really wants to host an IETF
meeting, they should be able to help changes these terms to focus on
individuals and not the entire event or organization.
But to suggest that
On Saturday 19 September 2009 15:55:55 Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive.
Thank you. I wanted to say this, but could not find the right words.
I fully agree with Steve Crocker.
In the long run, exposure
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
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech.
Perhaps more material to this discussion, the government has imposed
severe and wide-ranging restrictions on
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by
commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...
I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm during a
plenary such as the one at Danvers. I can't quite picture
Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:42:00AM -0400:
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
On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The IAOC does believe that this
condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business.
Marshall,
I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition to
do its business.
However, in this case there are two
On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Marshall Eubanks on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 11:42:00AM -0400:
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.
From: Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org
Has the SAR (Hong Kong) been considered?
Excellent idea. Does HK have the same 'Great Firewall of China' issues
(which I would assume would be a fairly significant problem for many
IETF members)?
Noel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/09 10:06 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech.
Perhaps more material to
To quote from Wikipedia: Most national laws of the People's Republic
of China do not apply to the Special Administrative Regions of Hong
Kong or Macau. There are no known cases of the Chinese authorities
censoring critical political or religious [Internet] content in those
territories.
I am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/18/09 9:42 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
Marshall,
Since seeing your note, I've been trying to figure out how to
formulate my concern. Carsten's note captured it for me, so
let me be a little more specific.
First, thanks for asking.
I am deliberately not addressing the where else could we meet
where things would be better
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Finally, do you think that, in this group of people, there won't be
at least one who cannot resist stating their opinions about some
political hot button? Or for that matter, figure out they can DoS
the entire IETF by throwing up a
John,
Since both you and I have attended meetings in China, as recently as 3
weeks ago, I think you will agree that the host --- any host --- has
a significant investment in effort, people and funds along with a
great deal of pride and determination that the meeting run
perfectly. Given all
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by
commenting on the IETF discussion list,
Marshall,
Thanks for asking.
I've only been to China a couple of times, but it was enough to be impressed,
particularly with many aspects of their
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a
discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing
too close
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this goes well
beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what we should put up with.
At 08:42 18-09-2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
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
As an IETF participant, I do not take any position
From: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com
ONE of the reasons a meeting is being proposed in China is that the
IETF now has a significant number (and growing) of Chinese
participants
A meeting in China makes a certain amount of sense, but there are
inevitably going to be side-issues.
Hi Ross,
Please see below:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Ross Callon wrote:
Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:
Same here.
I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.
Agreed.
I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that
John, (and others),
The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
(Client) isn't the government or a government body.
The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the host must
have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they
asked
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host permission to invite us
The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political
views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are responsible for
their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to
local laws or customers. If attendees violate the laws or customs
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:02:53PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single
If there has been an indication one way or the other about the nature
of the Internet
Dean Willis wrote:
So all in all, I'd say I'm not comfortable with the idea of an IETF
meeting in the PRC at this time. Maybe, in a few years, if they open
up their Internet and cut back on the human rights abuses associated
with the users of our technology (making bloggers disappear is
101 - 200 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
