--On Friday, October 09, 2009 17:03 -0400 Noel Chiappa
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
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
(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
> From: John C Klensin
> 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 h
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 qui
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 rangin
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 w
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
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 wo
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 reco
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
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 disc
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 clarifi
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 t
Stephan Wenger 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
p
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 n
201 - 222 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
