Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote: ... Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China earlier than expected, the prorata costs of unexpectedly attending only part of a meeting, and possibly the value of lost time. Suppose the hotel also tried to recover lost revenue and lost reputation costs as some have suggested in this discussion might be possible. Now consider going out and buying insurance against those risks. There are insurance companies who are happy to do that sort of risk assessment and quote prices (and do it professionally, as if their bottom line depends on it, which it does) and with great skill. If the cost of such insurance is a reasonable add-on to the other costs of holding a meeting in Beijing (or can be passed on to the host), then we go ahead with the meeting. If not, we make another plan. That's the best suggestion for managing the risk side of this equation that I've heard. It's brilliant! Great thinking, John! -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Fri, October 2, 2009 3:55 pm, Noel Chiappa wrote: It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Let's be real. Were we offended when, during the Adelaide South Australia meeting, the local government made sure the newspapers knew about us and granted Adelaide some prestige for being involved? Nope. The government of South Australia isn't scary and isn't actively involved in censoring, blocking, and obfuscating the Internet. In fact, the local government rep spoke at our plenary, and asked as many of us as possible to consider moving to Adelaide permanently. No worries, mate! Do find the PRC government somewhat more threatening than the government of South Australia? If so, why, and what should we do about it if anything? Constructive engagement and avoidance are both valid options that have been brought into this debate. The current hosting contact terms have led me to favor the latter, but both positions have merit if we can manage the risks. -- Dean ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave, Thanks for your clarification, now I understand this has converged to a more contract language issue. At this stage, I may not be able to help on the detail languages since I guess the hoster or IAOC already have been deeply involved in it. Anyhow, I apprecaite that you make everybody more clear on it, thanks. Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does. Thanks for the discussion -Hui 2009/10/2 Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net: Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
From: Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does. It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
--On Friday, October 02, 2009 11:55 -0400 Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote: It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either internal, or external), as happened with the Olympics. Yes, we are very small fry indeed compared to the IOC, but I'm not interested in lending the IETF's good name to any government. Noel, any time we meet somewhere that considers us important enough to have a government official, even a local vice-mayor, show up (with press) and deliver a welcoming greeting, we are lending the IETF's... name to [a] government. My recollection is that we've had that happen a lot, and happened in places that certainly drew no particular comments (other than about a few politicians being long-winded) before or after the fact. I think there are some issues with meeting in Beijing, but support for any government isn't one of them. In the interest of clarity, I think there are going to be _some_ issues almost anywhere, e.g., we have met several times in Minneapolis, and had very successful meetings, at times of year when the host and hotel were unwilling to arrange balmy weather. For example, I'm much more worried about the possibility of a few key IETF participants being guilty of the crime of traveling while ill and exhausted, arriving with a fever, and being quarantined and kept out of the meeting for a few days than I am about the meeting being disrupted by the provisions of that contract. And, again, that situation could, in principle, arise in most of the countries of the world that follow WHO recommendations. However, like Dave, I'm hung up on the contractual language, not because I expect behavior that the IETF (or even the Chinese government) would consider bad enough to justify actually canceling a meeting (I believe that the odds of someone being offensive enough to be asked to leave the country are higher, but also much less problematic to the IETF... and not unique to China either). However, I'm concerned that, contractually and regardless of how I assess the odds, a hotel employee could, at his or her own discretion and based on his or her own sensitivities or other concerns, make a decision that would have far-reaching effects. Even then, I'd have little problem if the proposed agreement were entirely between the host and the hotel, with no risks to the IETF other than cancellation of a meeting after it had started -- i.e., that claims by the hotel for consequential financial damages or relief were between the hotel and the host and did not involve the IETF. The host presumably can appraise the risks themselves, possibly obtain insurance if they thought it was necessary, and make whatever decisions that thought appropriate. I'd be even more comfortable with it if the hotel that has all of this power could be sued in a non-Chinese jurisdiction for the costs that individuals or their companies would incur from early departure costs, lost work, etc. Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China earlier than expected, the prorata costs of unexpectedly attending only part of a meeting, and possibly the value of lost time. Suppose the hotel also tried to recover lost revenue and lost reputation costs as some have suggested in this discussion might be possible. Now consider going out and buying insurance against those risks. There are insurance companies who are happy to do that sort of risk assessment and quote prices (and do it professionally, as if their bottom line depends on it, which it does) and with great skill. If the cost of such insurance is a reasonable add-on to the other costs of holding a meeting in Beijing (or can be passed on to the host), then we go ahead with the meeting. If not, we make another plan. I do not consider Beijing unique in that regard: I'd favor obtaining insurance against premature meeting cancellation for a meeting anywhere in the world, if only to get the professional risk assessment that comes with it. From that perspective, the only thing that is special about this proposed meeting is the unusual contractual language; let an insurance company figure out whether it is important enough to worry about. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation from the Client. Again, this appears to make us financial responsible for the hotel's actions. And the financial exposure is not limited. We cannot reasonably know how large the financial risk is. Some folk keep noting that the
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Dave, Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. Steve On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Hui, Hui Deng wrote: 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see Hui, this really has little to do with China. Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never accept for any other venue. The only reason we have a debate about this because we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China! Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. Let's be specific: 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 Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech of /anyone/. any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other country...) So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is permitted and what is prohibited. of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with culture which could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the world. Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that change its basic style of operation. violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later... any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China, As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we have never done that. 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. This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where fiduciary responsibility becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.) The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel will claim compensation
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve Crocker wrote: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. Wow. No. In fact, it completely misses what I said. Given how thoroughly I parsed the problems with the contract language, this is surprising. You have apparently confused a diligent willingness to cite the realities of the IETF's dynamic range of behavior, and history of unfiltered speech, with criticism of it. And you have ignored the bulk of my comments, which were about the inherent problems in the contract terms. To repeat: What I said was that these are unreasonable contract terms. They are unreasonable for any venue. As for your own reaction to the overall thread, perhaps that accounts for your reading of my note. By contrast, I've been impressed with the proportion of serious postings. They have explored the topic in different and conflicting ways, but they've been serious. Early in the thread, I noted that contract terms which dictated that we must dress in a business style (coats and ties for men, skirts for women) would be just as unacceptable. All sorts of conditions that might be reasonable for other groups are inappropriate for the IETF. Contract terms which impose constraints that do not fit a group's culture and operation are unreasonable. Contract terms which specify vague conditions are unreasonable. Contract terms which specify open-ended liabilities are unreasonable. Whether some aspect of the IETF might also be unreasonable isn't part of this thread, IMO. We are what and who we are and it isn't going to change for one meeting. Nor am I suggesting that this aspect of the IETF needs to change. But then, I'm always reticent to criticize the IETF... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Steve Crocker said: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere. However, IETF participation is open, so that attempting to predict the behavior of IETF participants is as difficult as predicting the behavior of anyone on the planet. In the past (at a Washington DC meeting), IETF participants were detained after wandering into a restricted area. After their release, the story warranted little more than a chuckle from those involved, and had no ramifications for the IETF or its leadership. A good test for a potential site is to contemplate the ramifications were such an incident to be repeated at the proposed location. IETF participants are responsible for their own words and actions. The IETF makes no effort (and has no mechanism) to control their conformance to local laws or customs, and the host and IETF cannot assume any associated risks. Further evidence of the potential behavior exhibited by IETF participants is available on the appeals page: http://www.iab.org/appeals/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Bernard Aboba wrote: Steve Crocker said: Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China? After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced. The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere. However, IETF participation is open, so that attempting to predict the behavior of IETF participants is as difficult as predicting the behavior of anyone on the planet. Combine Dave Crocker's carefully outlined risk analysis with the IETF's basic open structure which in recent months has allowed us to be subjected to email campaigns with a political agenda. What is to prevent such a group with the intent to disrupt the IETF, for what they believe to be the greater good, from using remote connectivity provisions to insert comments, etc. which would be deemed in violation of the contract without even entering China and subjecting themselves to personal risk? Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. Obviously this is not an easy path to take because it takes a lot of patience and probably many failed attempts at contacting someone in authority who is willing to seriously dialogue with the IETF. You could try talking to the Beijing police, you could try asking the hotel and the host for their government contacts, and you could try working through various PRC embassies. But the bottom line is that if the IETF does agree to Beijing and the contract is signed and some incident takes place at the meeting, and the hotel or government shut down the entire IETF meeting as a result, it would be a great embarrassment to the People's Republic of China. Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hi, Four remarks: This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. First, as you mention further down in your email (reproduced in full below), its unlikely that PRC officials will take position. However, once the contract is signed, there are likely significant cancellation penalties which the IETF would have to absorb, in the case we decided to cancel the meeting ourselves (for example due to the lack of government assurances). That is why assurances have to be there first, and only then contracts should be signed. If we could cancel our meeting ourselves based on the government input (or lack thereof), at any time and without negative repercussions to the IETF or to the host, it would be a good strategy to follow. (But I would still be careful, due to the two points below.) Second, even if there were assurances, there is evidence that the PRC has not lived up to those in the recent past, at least not to the extend outsiders were expecting. I'm talking about freedom of the press/censorship issues during the Olympics, that *included* censorship of Internet traffic. The PRC interpretation of assurances given to the IOC, and the resulting actions against the Internet and the press during the Olympics, were very, very questionable to me (and, I believe, to the majority of the Western press). Third, given the tight alignment of the PRC's executive and judicative branches, it is unlikely that an outsider would have any likelihood of success when considering an appeal to any executive decision. Fourth, Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. A visa policy as described, by itself, constitutes to me a reason for not even considering a meeting in that country. (Please note that I'm not saying that the PRC has such a visa policy. I don't know.) Regards, Stephan On 10/1/09 2:59 PM, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote: Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term fiduciary responsibility covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing. This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing assurances in writing, to the IETF, the hotel and the host, that the government does not support/encourage taking actions against the IETF in reaction to the actions of some individuals. If individuals break the laws and violate the customs of China, let them bear the full brunt of the law, but not the IETF. Obviously this is not an easy path to take because it takes a lot of patience and probably many failed attempts at contacting someone in authority who is willing to seriously dialogue with the IETF. You could try talking to the Beijing police, you could try asking the hotel and the host for their government contacts, and you could try working through various PRC embassies. But the bottom line is that if the IETF does agree to Beijing and the contract is signed and some incident takes place at the meeting, and the hotel or government shut down the entire IETF meeting as a result, it would be a great embarrassment to the People's Republic of China. Having said that, I've no doubt that the PRC government already has some idea who could prove to be an embarrassment and those people will not get their visas delivered in time to go to the meeting. But it is still worth having the dialogue with the PRC government. --Michael Dillon ___ 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
Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui From: dean.wil...@softarmor.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 CC: i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean _ More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue of a meeting in China. Re-read the Tao. The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an Internet available to all. It is people, not governments. If you, personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go there and hold out your hand. I cannot think of a more excellent challenge to the IETF at this time than to meet in China, and meet 1,000 new friends. And to make 1,000 new friends for the IETF and for the continuation of a cooperative, open development of the Internet. Gene Gaines On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@hotmail.com wrote: excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui From: dean.wil...@softarmor.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 CC: i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean -- check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messageshttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/ ___ 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
