Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On 10/11/09 8:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not want to set. I strongly agree. I think mixing up what people think is right and what people think is practicable from a logistics perspective confuses two very separate issues that could lead to two separate outcomes, based on the criteria the IAOC uses. I wish people would stick to the logistics argument. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. Henk, just clarify question. I assume you meant police not policy in the sentence above? Is that correct. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Cullen Jennings wrote: On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. Henk, just clarify question. I assume you meant police not policy in the sentence above? Is that correct. That is correct. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole, At 16:56 10-10-2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? Are we a US-centric organization? This discussion has been mild by IETF standards. There hasn't been that many messages posted by people from the People's Republic of China. I'll quote part of a reply: do you think that Chinese government will allow the chinese participants to join the IETF meeting which often has the violation of Chinese law? and a comment from a message posted last year: Is USA qualified [as IETF Meeting Venue]? Some people may have strong views about the People's Republic of China. The free speech afforded to people to air such views is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. It is a tacit guarantee provided by the IETF as it has always been part of its culture not to restrict the field of discourse. If the choice of meeting venue is about sending a message, the IETF should learn about Panda politics. I don't know whether the IETF can win that or whether the IETF is actually being used as the panda. I believe that if the IETF gets into that, it is opening the door for problems in the long term beyond the choice of hosting a meeting in the People's Republic of China. For those arguing about legality, I'll mention that there are United States sanctions that prohibit citizens of the United States from doing business with entities identified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (United States). The person may be in violation of the sanctions by purchasing services or equipment from a telecommunications company (not in the People's Republic of China or any country on a watch list). I doubt that most people are aware that the company is listed. The IETF had a strong bias towards the United States. That has changed over time as there are more participants from Europe. It will likely change more as it moves towards the East. The move can be viewed in terms of participation and not in terms of meeting venue selection. At 15:40 09-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote: different things (and fewer or more of them). But I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. Every country has restrictions in some form or another. That's a fact of life. The IETF does not have the political clout to influence the country in making it more amenable to host a meeting. It does have the choice of not being turned into a pawn to support a geopolitical agenda. At 17:53 09-10-2009, Richard Barnes wrote: Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from the conspicuous absence of comment by all but a very few Chinese participants. There's a cultural gap. It is not specific to Chinese participants. I'll sum up this discussion with a sentence from RFC 3184: Seeing from another's point of view is often revealing, even when it fails to be compelling. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Doug, I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated. I would be surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech. If this were a vote, I would object quite strongly on not having my vote counted as a member of your second group, just because I also belong to the first group. Obviously, I'm speaking in a private capacity only. I think that the ISOC and IETF officials have indicated sufficiently clearly those few emails where they spoke in an official capacity, and I assume that all other mails have been sent in private capacity as well. (Personally, if I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. But that's a matter of taste.) Stephan On 10/10/09 9:18 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote: Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. I've only heard a handful of people argue against going to China on principle. Several more have expressed concerns about going to China on the basis of unprecedented contractual terms. Statistically at least, it might be proper to treat the first group as outliers in this discussion, rather than as representative of the second group. I'd sure like to see a clearer indication of whether people in positions of authority are expressing opinions in that capacity, or just as individuals. That request is not just for you, of course. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | item-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Syephan, You said: I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I have no skin in this game as they say, and if we end up not meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD, especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on. The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups (and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not currently. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member speaking. Mike At 12:39 PM 10/11/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Mike, Then I am afraid you really misread my comments. There are indeed folks who are suggesting that China should be avoided for political reasons (see the list for examples, I see no need to repeat it here), and I would characterize that as a boycott. This is completely separate from the discussion about the hotel contract and legal provisions, unless that was unclear. In other words, we may decide that we cannot hold a normal meeting in China due to laws or contract language or any other normal criteria for meetings, but I am a lot less certain about what political criteria we could agree on for avoiding any country. I am not saying we can't have that discussion, but I am saying that it becomes a lot less clear who we are given the large and growing number of participants from the country in question. I have been largely speaking for myself. The original statement from Marshall does have phrases like the IAOC believes... but as I explained previously, no final decision has been made, and whatever snapshot of opinion was taken 3 weeks ago isn't necessarily accurate today. I do take your point. Consider everything I've said so far as my personal opinion, based on what I know and my experience in attending meetings in China. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member speaking. Mike At 12:39 PM 10/11/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. ___ 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi Ole, Yes, my email was aimed at your frequent postings on this subject in combination with your current ISOC position. Let me note that most of your postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a preference for a PRC IETF meeting. That said, it's good that you clarified your intentions so clearly, and there is no need for apologies here. Certainly not from your side. I hope that my posting did not come over as aggressive (even passive aggressive) to you. It was not meant this way. If it did, then it's my turn to ask for an apology. And I completely agree with the FUD comments---we have entirely too much FUD on i...@ietf. Then again, risk tolerances are different amongst different people, and at least in part established through past experiences. Discounting options of those with negative experiences (which, clearly, is not FUD) is at least as harmful to the IETF as excessive, but unsubstantiated FUD. (Please don't ask me, or anyone else, about possible negative experiences on the very subject country. If there were any, those involved could hardly tell---unless they were die-hard anti-PRC activists. And comments of the latter would probably not be a Good Thing on i...@ietf, either...) Regards, Stephan On 10/11/09 9:39 AM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: Syephan, You said: I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a private capacity. If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I have no skin in this game as they say, and if we end up not meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD, especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on. The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups (and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not currently. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Ole - Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC. I'm not going to comment on whether Ole has been appearing to be biased. (I assume we are all biased -- if fact I'm sure of it -- but yeah, I understand the concern about someone in a decision-making position sending messages that might confuse management of a group discussion with advocacy. But, again, I'm not commenting on whether I think Ole has or has not done that.) I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not want to set. I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this. We are a very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal. As a group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body we have the skills. Any attempt to make such factors essential to our decision-making now will invite their being used in the future. From my limited knowledge of global and national social and political issues, I am certain that every single country we might consider could reasonably be challenged for its questionable history, policies and/or practices. If a country already has a pattern of hosting international meetings, then I think it's fair for us to consider it now. If it does not already such a history, it still might be, but again, I suspect venue logistics ought to be the major conbcern, not venue politics. Really, folks. This is not merely a slippery slope. It's a cliff. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Stephan Wenger stewe at stewe dot org wrote: I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated. I would be surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech. You're right that my comment about first group and second group mixed up the question of what arguments have been raised with the question of how people feel. Considering the first group, those individuals who feel that the IETF should not go to China on principle have a right to argue on that basis, and should certainly feel entitled to skip that meeting on their own -- either to maintain their own integrity in the matter or to try to slow or stop the IETF's progress, by lack of quorum, in those WGs where they are involved -- or both. But my gut feeling is that unless the IETF wants its image to be one of a socio-political activist group, it should not decide against going to China on the grounds of socio-political differences alone. YMMV. The second group is entirely different IMHO. The contractual terms offered to I* are spelled out quite clearly, with plenty of wiggle room as to the punishable offenses but little or no wiggle room as to the punishment. There have been arguments that the terms won't be enforced, for one reason or another, but whereas individuals might choose to take the risk and attend as if nothing were different from other IETF meetings, it would be (as others have said) an abdication of fiduciary responsibility for the I* leadership to assume this. Any individual can, of course, belong to both groups. Where I was getting was that the group that wants to skip China on philosophical grounds, to boycott the meeting as Ole put it, does not speak as a whole for the larger group that objects to the contractual terms. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave CROCKER wrote: I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. On the one hand I agree with you that determining where the IETF should or should not meet on the basis of the social policy in the host country/state/region/etc. is a very dangerous, and slippery slope. On the other hand the question of whether the number of people who would not attend the meeting because of concerns such as social policy, censorship, unfortunate contractual terms, prevalence of smoking, etc. would prevent the meeting from being successful IS a logistical concern. Of course, keeping those two issues separate is a Solomonic task. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote: If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize. I'd suggest reading your posts again. It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results without bias. (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post, individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but the organization cannot. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Doug Ewell wrote: I'd suggest reading your posts again. And I suggest you read the original message that started the whole discussion again, let me quote the relevant section: The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business. I signed up to that statement before it was sent out. And yes, I have been speaking as an individual which I think it's OK to do since no final decisions have been made. It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results without bias. Really? How do you reconcile that with Marshall's statement? We're asking if the community can live with the clause as currently provided. We don't (or didn't at the time to be accurate) believe that the clause itself would prevent us from having a successful meeting there. But we asked for community input. The data collected (from the survey and from comments) is what we will use to further analyze the situation. Do we still believe what we belived when he sent out the message? I can't tell you because we have not discussed it in detail yet, but the whole point was to collect this information from the community. Obviously, at some level, it does not really matter WHY someone might not want to attend a meeting in China, if the number is large we're not going to have a successful meeting by our usual definition. The survey and comments tells us something about that, some of it as a direct result of the questions, some of it as side effects. And: a lot of OTHER issues have also been brought into focus as a result of these discussions, and all of it is good input to our decision making process. It ALSO provides a written record of the community's feelings on this meeting, something I expect will become really useful if further negotiations on contract terms procede. As for (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally). How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post, individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but the organization cannot. I understand your point, but taken literally can mean different things to different readers. It's not worth debating this any further since we already agree that the best thing would be to get rid of the clause so I suggest we move on and see what can be accomplished in that regard. Cheers, Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 02:32 PM 10/11/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy. I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this. We are a very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal. As a group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body we have the skills. I strongly agree with you on this. Unfortunately for this instance many folk are conflating the matters of logistics and cost with the social policies of the PRC making it difficult to concentrate on the former without dealing with all the emotional content tied up in the latter. I'd really like us to avoid boycott and what message would it send to the world in our discussions of whether or not this site (or for that matter any other) is acceptable for holding IETFs. Unfortunately, both sides seem to find these concepts useful as part of their talking points for interestingly different reasons. Ah well... Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all sorts of restrictions as a result. It may have been an export restriction rather than a discussion restriction, but the practical difference was zero. It is true that some security bureacrats tried to apply some existing laws in a very expansive way (e.g. to limit discussion and publication). However, in a series of court cases (most notably Bernstein v. United States, and Junger v. Daley) these attempts on the part of some government functionaries were struck down by the US courts. Junger is particularly on point: Junger sought an injunction against the enforcement of provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations that require him to get the permission of the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls ... before he can communicate information about cryptographic software to foreign persons, whether in the United States or abroad. ... These provisions effectively prevent Junger from admitting foreign students to the course that he teaches (from the EFF web site on the case). Note that the Sixth Circuit (Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 - 6th Cir. 2000) found in favour of Junger, on Constitutional grounds. In other words - security bureacrats tried an expansive power grab that would have limited the ability to discuss cryptographic topics. (What a shock, bureacrats trying a power grab But I digress.) However, because there was an _independent and empowered_ judicial branch, and a constitution which provided rights which that judicial branch was determined to uphold _in practise_, this attempt was beaten back. I trust the moral is clear... (Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric. FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am personally quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of the world is not a clone of the US.) I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. Ah, I was insufficiently precise. In asking about 'discuss[ion] or design[ing]' anything, I was speaking of things within the IETF's normal scope of topics. I.e. the anything there was not meant to be read as anything at all, so my statement was not as expansive as you perhaps seem to have thought it might have been. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
You said: (Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric. FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am personally quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of the world is not a clone of the US.) Noel, Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? Are we a US-centric organization? (That question is not just for you of course). Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 04:56:43PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question. Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind of position? I really don't think boycott is the right word --- or at least, it's not conducive to discussion. That word is loaded with a lot of connotations, both good and bad. It implies that we hope to change China's behavior and/or legal system by refusing to attend a meeting in that country until they make changes that we feel Should Happen --- and while there may have been one or two people who have said things that might lead people to believe that, I at least am under no illusions that China is likely to change its behavior based on any demands made by the IETF. So Boycott could be seen by some as a word used by those who are trying to argue that we should have a meeting in China no matter what. 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? 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. This is despite the fact that the grounds upon which Chinese web loggers have been censored or imprisoned are very vague and could easily be seen to encompass discussions about privacy and human rights that are held in IETF meetings. (I'll note that even the *discussion* that China enganges in censorship, or harmonization can be enough to get web sites censored.) But things will be OK for the IETF? The laws will somehow be enforced differently for us? Maybe it's horribly US- and European- centric to want the sort of guarantees one can get in a system where there is rule-by-law, and not rule-by-man, where the whims of a local mandarin can result in people being thrown in jail, because the laws are written with such an expansive wording that it's all up to the discretion of the local bureaucrat (or hotel employee). I don't think it's unfair or US- or European-centric to expect something a bit more deterministic. Maybe it's a fine distinction, but it's not about refusing to do business with a country in the hopes of changing the country, and it's not about punishing a country because we don't like their laws. It's more about (at least to me) whether or not China's legal environment meets the requirement for a safe place where the IETF can have a meeting. 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. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi David, On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:30 PM, David Morris wrote: To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting. That is a good point. The particular contractual agreement we are being asked to make in this case is different from other cases, and I do find it problematic. I am especially concerned about the fact that the entire IETF meeting could be cancelled due to the bad contact of one or a few participants. Given the open nature of IETF participation, those IETF participants wouldn't even need to be members of the IETF community. They could just be people who showed up to cause trouble... Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: 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. I don't think that it is apparent that many things which would normally be discussed at IETF meetings would be illegal to discuss in China, but, yes, that is the core of the argument here. 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. The counterargument is a little more complex than that, but it's fairly obvious that having a hotel employee determine what can and cannot be said is not an acceptable solution, so that's being worked on. 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. Right, but the crucial word in your statement is if and whether various things fall into the category of topics normally discussed at an IETF meeting. Again, this is being worked on. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract ... ... With respect to ... any of our hosts in the past, show me the contract language, laws, or other indication where things normally discussed or designed at an IETF would be considered illegal. Interesting point. I can recall a number of countries with _export_ restrictions on some things, and perhaps one with a _use_ restriction, but I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. Did I too miss one? Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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 ty...@mit.edu 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Patrick Suger wrote: 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 True, ISOC is the umbrella organization for the IETF proving legal incorporation and financial support. (b) ISOC has an affiliate in China Not true. The Internet Society of China is not affiliated with ISOC. Unless you mean a certain chapter on a certain island, but let's not have that debate here, OK? (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. The Internet Society of China is not the host for the proposed meeting and their position on what might or might not violate Chinese rules is not any more or less relevant than any other expert opinion. (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? It would be up to the HOST to invite high-ranking officials to the meeting, this isn't really something the IETF Chair or the ISOC BoT gets involved in typically. We don't really (with a few minor exceptions) organize conferences and invite speakers. (g) many hurt Chinese engineers participate to the IETF and very politely do not react: have them been invited to comment? Everyone on the IETF mailing list has been invited to comment and that certainly includes Chinese engineers. (h) has a Chinese Embassy been called upon and asked what IETF topics might be conflicting? etc. etc. As has been pointed out by others, you cannot typically ask a government offical or a department for a list of legal topics. This isn't likely going to get us anywhere useful, ignoring the type of delays one can typically expect if such a question is even acknowledged or answered. 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 Don't be embarrassed! IETF participants are proud of the fact that we get to debate any topic for any amount of time without restrictions, moderation, courtesy, and so on. It's not always the most tidy debate to watch, but it is very much part of our culture. Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, October 09, 2009 17:03 -0400 Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: Interesting point. I can recall a number of countries with _export_ restrictions on some things, and perhaps one with a _use_ restriction, but I can't think of one where discuss[ion] or design[ing] anything would have been prohibited. Did I too miss one? Noel, I don't think it moves the discussion forward one way or the other, but I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all sorts of restrictions as a result. It may have been an export restriction rather than a discussion restriction, but the practical difference was zero. You could quite properly and correctly respond that there was a lot of resistance from the relevant communities and that the period of prior restraint on papers to be presented at such meetings didn't last very long, but it did occur. Similarly, if one assumed that I had learned enough as an undergraduate and from the public literature (i.e., without depending on any security clearances or other special access) to have a fairly good idea how to build a nuclear weapon and what the key parameters are, I think I would still be violating US law to stand up in a public meeting and describe how to do it. Certainly that would have been the case some years ago; I haven't spent a lot of time (or any time at all) tracking the evolution of law and regulations in that area. I think the Chinese situation is different, largely because of the meeting cancellation and hotel discretionary provisions (and, since Ole and others have told us several times that the IAOC is working on a different plan in those areas, I'm trying to sit quietly until I see what that process comes up with). Certainly different governments are going to be sensitive about different things (and fewer or more of them). But I don't think it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere else in the world. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:44:17PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: 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. I don't think that it is apparent that many things which would normally be discussed at IETF meetings would be illegal to discuss in China, but, yes, that is the core of the argument here. Well, one of the big problems with China is that given that exactly how its local laws will be applied isn't crisply defined, and a huge amount of discretion can be applied by a mandarins (bureaucrats) or in the case of the contract, by a hotel employee. Worse yet, its laws are very vague (where insulting Chinese culture can be enough to get a blog to get haromonized or censored) --- and by the wording of the hotel contract, enough to get us thrown out on our ear. And given that human rights is a very expansive term, and that privacy, such sa what might be described by the Geopriv wg could very will infringe on the verboten human rights restriction, it's very hard for *anyone* to give any guarantees. Which is why I used the word apparently --- not in the sense of something being apparent, but in the sense of maybe, we're not sure, and by keeping things vague the Chinese government is probably hoping that people will self-censor themselves because of the inherent vagueness of words such as 'show any disrespect or defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China'. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
(g) many hurt Chinese engineers participate to the IETF and very politely do not react: have them been invited to comment? Everyone on the IETF mailing list has been invited to comment and that certainly includes Chinese engineers. Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from the conspicuous absence of comment by all but a very few Chinese participants. --Richard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: (Personal opinion) On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Let's parse your statement a bit closer. Actually, so far all of our discussions etc have been legal in the countries in which we've met - or at least we've never been told they are unlawful. Or do you have a specific list of countries in which such discussions or development were prohibited by law or contract? Unlike you I, and I expect many (most) of us would never assume that local policy would not notice. If I were a fiduciary for the IETF I would expect to be sued for failure to exercise due diligence if I took this position and someone noticed. If I were told that a specific act or topic of discussion was illegal or could lead to civil or criminal penalties I would have to evaluate whether that specific act or topic were core for the purpose of the meeting or event. I would then have to make a decision to either refrain from the act or topic (difficult if it was core to the meeting), or (if responsible for the meeting) move the meeting somewhere else. I would not assume I could blithely ignore local law. Hopefully, TPTB are doing this. For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract, b) that the penalties for (any of us collectively) breaking the law or terms of the contract could result in meeting termination in addition to any individual penalties. To my knowledge, this is unique to our experience. I haven't seen any comments to the contrary in this discussion thread In the PRC, the certain prohibited acts and topics are acts and topics that have not - to my knowledge - been prohibited either by contract or law at any other venue to which we've been. The acts may be and some of the topics are certainly core to every IETF meeting we've held prior to this and probably prior to every meeting we will hold before any possible future PRC meeting. So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF meetings. Mike Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on the list (and then some more). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF meetings. 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
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 Unfortunately, our discussions are not so limited... and I'm pretty sure you know that. With respect to the US or for that matter to any of our hosts in the past, show me the contract language, laws, or other indication where things normally discussed or designed at an IETF would be considered illegal. I know of none and I've been around for most of the meetings going back 23 years. At 08:45 PM 10/8/2009, Patrick Suger wrote: 2009/10/9 Michael StJohns mailto:mstjo...@comcast.netmstjo...@comcast.net So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF meetings. 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
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in trouble. All that is happening thanks in part to the dicussion that has taken place on this list. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
At 09:55 PM 10/8/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote: I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in trouble. To rephrase in a way that you may not agree. We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site, host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings. It really isn't about whether or not we might or might not get in trouble, its whether or not the plain language of the laws and contracts describe an environment which is incompatible with the IETF norm. All that is happening thanks in part to the dicussion that has taken place on this list. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote: To rephrase in a way that you may not agree. We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site, host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings. It really isn't about whether or not we might or might not get in trouble, its whether or not the plain language of the laws and contracts describe an environment which is incompatible with the IETF norm. I agree. There might be some issues in some countries about what is acceptable behavious OUTSIDE of the meeting room, but we should certainly be able to conduct business as usual in our meetings themselves. (Ignoring for the time being any discussion of plain language and various readings of such). Ole ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
(Personal opinion) On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on the list (and then some more). Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting. On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea - it's certainly something we have done in the past but if it is not legal in the PRC, I could live with a meeting where we did not do any PGP key signing. It detracts a bit from the meeting but is not in what I consider the mediatory must have core of the meeting. Of course this would mean that a group of people that did not often travel out of the PRC would be missing a great opportunity to sign with a group of people outside of China which I view as one of the benefits of having a meeting in Beijing. Do you know if the PGP signing (and taking the keys home) was legal when we did it in France? It is my understanding that there are (or were) French laws forbidding the export of crypto. However, I don't remember this being raised as a big concern when we held the IETF in Paris. Did we hire a Swedish lawyer to determine if all of our planned activities were legal before going to Stockholm? Does anyone know what laws there are about public assembly and/or public discussion of political issues in Japan? I realize that there is a lot of concern about going to China, and some of it may be justified. But, we should also be careful that we don't end-up holding China to a higher standard than other countries that we visit. If we believe that we should only go to countries where a specific set of activities are legal, we should (IMO) itemize those activities and seek to determine that they are legal in all of our destination countries before we commit to going there. Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? Margaret ___ 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
