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 without being in fear of the meeting > getting shut down and/or IETF attendees getting imprisoned? >
Agreed, that's obviously the core issue in this context, but others seem to argue that even if these questions could be answered to our satisfaction they would still argue against going based on "principles". My only observation was that if we start holding politicial positions we'll quickly find ourself in a debate about who "we" are and who "they" are for some value of each. We certainly should insist that we can hold "normal conversions" at any meeting, otherwise they would not be normal IETF meetings. > > The fact that China is the world's biggest jailer of cyber dissidents > ought to give one pause; the counter argument seems to be that China > it's really not about the law, it's about who you know, and that > people in China care enough about the "honor" of having an IETF that > they're not likely to imprison something even though there are scary > words in the hotel contract and in Chinese National Laws. I disagree. I think there was an attempt to put the offending clause in some context. It doesn't make it less objectionable, but it might explain why it's there and what it is intended to control or prevent. Anyway, I think it should be removed, and I am obviously not alone in thinking so. > But things will be OK for the IETF? The laws will somehow be > enforced differently for us? No, but enforcement depends on reading of the laws/rules/contract and that all happens in a larger context of the situtation. If you bump your head against the smoke detector in the airplane lavatory and the cover pops off you may perhaps not be able to prove that you weren't "tampering" with it, but that's a long way from saying you will automatically be fined $10,000 or whatever it is these days. > > Some people feel safe walking in Central Park in NYC after midnight. > Other people don't. But I don't think you'd say that people who > avoid Central Park at night are somehow "boycotting" it. > > Right, but in this case, that's exactly what some people are suggesting, independent of what the particular contract says. We can/should certainly decide to hold or not hold a meeting in a certain location based on the criteria you mentioned at the start of your message, I was merely pointing out that if we go beyond that and start using OTHER criteria we may be heading down a slippery slope. Ole _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
