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
-
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal h...@ripe.net wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host
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 IETF meeting to China
since 1997, and has been very carefully vetting the IETF's activities
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 IETF meeting to China
since 1997, and has been very
From: Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com
Perhaps appropriate people could inform about organisational matters
with others who have more experience, for example the IOC.
Umm, you're not being ironic here, are you?
I'm wondering, because as I assume you are aware, a number of promises
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 21:29 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
h...@ripe.net wrote:
John, (and others),
The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
(Client) isn't the government or a government body.
The (possible) host is not a government body. However,
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:02 -0400 Paul Wouters
p...@xelerance.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to
On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before
(by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all
participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full
financial responsibility for any costs that
33 matches
Mail list logo
