Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting

Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you 
> suspect that those items could not have been discussed?
When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically viewed 
as a human rights topic.
Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract.


But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted 
constraint.  To add to some of the latest comments posted:
This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, and 
have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF technical 
work of particular importance to China.  Again:  Chinese participants are 
already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time.
If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the hosting 
country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason we 
should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places.  We should 
seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense or 
suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended.  Having this sort of 
political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting 
logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting.  (And, like 
others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can influence 
anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...)
Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match 
between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus 
/particular/ rules at a venue.  Not in terms of principles but in terms of behavior.
I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with both 
the expertise of local participants and the hosting details.  But Asian 
organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and frankly 
every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing like 
the range displayed in the IETF.
Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either a 
coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause 
individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the meeting. 
 Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of 
that rule wouldn't cause a problem.  Would we agree to such a constraint?  I 
doubt it.  Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable business 
tone for a meeting.
But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting.

I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we had 
at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the contract 
now in question.  And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in 
Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and specifically 
problematic comments from the floor.  Again:  We are an indelicate group.  Let's 
not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent behavior 
will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue.
And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns.  The 
constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are 
unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of meetings. 
 It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves of 
the rules.  Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to the 
rules and had successful meetings.
What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the 
realities of IETF meeting behavior.
As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the 
constraint.  Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will attend. 
Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like this 
measure attitude, not behavior.
Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask.  So let's 
be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey.
Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in 
Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that problems 
that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put forward as 
the strawman alternative.  In other words, when thinking about likely outcomes, 
don't assume it will be all black or all white.  Systemic hassles are usually 
pursued more subtly than that.
d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf