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
