Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole, Just want to make sure I understand this response fully. On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract that Marshall originally quoted: Does your above response mean that the host would not consider slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference? Or does your response mean that the host is going to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the content of working group sessions falls under the category of topics regarding human rights? Thanks much. Alissa If I have to choose only one of your questions it would be the final one: I do not think that our normal way of conducting business would run afoul of these rules. If you were planning to include blatant politicial propaganda in your presentation, then getting prior approval would be a good idea, but I cannot foresee a topic within the scope of what the IETF does to require you to use such material. The assumption is that the material is just normal IETF documents, presentations etc and thus no approval is required. Does our technology border or real-world uses, including human rights? I hope so, but that's a far cry from the type of action that these rules prohibit. Do I expect careful monitoring and various colored lights to light up tracking the conversations? No. The IAOC will be making more detailed statements in the near future. In the meantime, the survey is still open. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole, Just want to make sure I understand this response fully. On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract that Marshall originally quoted: 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 any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately. Does your above response mean that the host would not consider slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to be part of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference? Or does your response mean that the host is going to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the content of working group sessions falls under the category of topics regarding human rights? Thanks much. Alissa ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Cullen, There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. You've asked a bunch of good questions which deserve to be answered, but we need a little time to craft a response. Stay tuned. Ole On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote: What is the approval process and how long should we expect it to take? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. What do we mean by third party here? It seems risky to *not* have some review process for the slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions, plenaries, and other official meetings, since those sure seem to fit the definition of the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the conference, which are explicitly covered by the restrictions described in the original email. Perhaps that review would not be completed by a third party but by a team of IETF participants who have been specially instructed in what does or does not count as defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China, disrespect to the Chinese culture, violat[ion of] any laws of the People's Republic of China, or topics regarding human rights or religion. But to not perform any kind of review seems to open the IETF to additional risk. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq7m7IACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwqvQCg6lng0j2dev0k6vbsgldVXcdL H20An342v0uS0jSNm/u4uHnA74xfH/kf =rbo4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) meeting. What do we mean by third party here? I mean any government agency, the local host or even ourselves. As others have said, there are no absolutes or guarantees, this is something we all know when we board airplanes for example, but an evaluation based on the available evidence would suggest that this issue isn't going to come up or cause problems. If someone really wants to prove me wrong, that is another matter, but I have always considered this community to be fairly friendly and cooperative even if we occasionally have strong disagreements. Ole Our assumption, and now I really AM repeating myself, is that our normal technical topics (including those that have political implications) do not fall into a category that would require review and/or pre-approval. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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 People Together. The likelihood that having the IETF actually meet in China will have _any_ real impact on a country so large, I find very improbable. The things we produce? Yes. Having a meeting there? Somehow I don't think so. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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 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 center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was Networks Bring People Together. If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: 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 suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we have weakened ourselves. Steve ___ IAOC mailing list i...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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 without holding a meeting in China the IETF does not engage its Chinese members, that is simply false. Personally, I doubt I will be attending a meeting in China. Not because of any political reasons, but simply because the cost of such a meeting compared to the value it brings my employer (that is attending a meeting, not general IETF participation). My concerns are having access to the meeting via IRC and voice streams and not having to worry about where the meeting it taking place. I think bad behavior is more likely from people participating from outside China than at the event. And if all it takes to shut down such channels is someone saying something about Tibet on the IRC channel, then that's simply not acceptable. EHL -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:17 PM To: Steve Crocker Cc: IAOC IAOC; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF 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 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 center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was Networks Bring People Together. If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis: 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 suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously. Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we have weakened ourselves. Steve ___ IAOC mailing list i...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
