Theodore,
you will excuse me. I am afraid this discussion is not real. I am only
interested in the Internet working better, all over the place, including in
China and in the USA.
1) this lasting debate decreases the credibility of the IETF to be able to
build such a network, at least in its Chinese part. This is worrying duing
the IDNABIS last call, no one seems to care about.No more than the IETF
seems to care about a proper support of the orthotypography of many
languages.
2) it also shows the lack of international experience of IETF. This is
embarassing since it is supposed to keep developping the international
network. It also seems that there is a particular lack of coordination with
its sponsors. What is worrying since the IETF must keep being funded. Look,
a few basic questions need to be raised:
(a) IETF is an affiliate of ISOC (b) ISOC has an affiliate in China (c) if
IETF may discuss off topic issues anywhere in the world that conflict with
the Chinese law, this embarasses ISOC China the same as if was discuss in
Beijing. (d) what is the position of the ISOC China Chair? What is the list
of IETF topics he thinks in violation with the Chinese rules (for example
the "WhoIs" related issues are in violation of most of the privacy laws in
the world. (e) upon ISOC China's position, what is the position of the ISOC
BoD? (f) has the ISOC Chair and the IETF Chair considered inviting the
Chinese Minister of Datacommunications? (g) many hurt Chinese engineers
participate to the IETF and very politely do not react: have them been
invited to comment? (h) has a Chinese Embassy been called upon and asked
what IETF topics might be conflicting? etc. etc.
Sorry for being so basic.
But I am very embarassed for the stability of the network if such questions
are so much discussed.
Best
Patrick Suger
2009/10/9 Theodore Tso
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Patrick Suger wrote:
> >
> > 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" ...
>
> I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in fact
> saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which apparently
> makes illegal many things which normally would be discussed at IETF
> metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to hold an IETF meeting in
> China. The counterargument seems to be, naaah, don't worry, even
> though there is a contract that says these sorts of things aren't
> allowed, and if they happen a hotel employee can shut down the entire
> meeting --- they won't be enforced and don't worry your pretty little
> heads about such things.
>
> So if China wants to make various things illegal to discuss, that's
> fine. We should respect that. It doesn't mean that we should hold an
> IETF meeting there, though.
>
>- Ted
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
