Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future meeting of the IETF
2009-09-21 15:02:53
Health wrote:
all in all,
Since IETF only focus on and discuss technical issues, has the issue of
politics or human right been discussed in the past IETF meeting?
if the answer is "NO", there should have none probles of hold a meeting in
China.
Direct you attention to the primary sources.
http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01985.html
http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01991.html
If you want to follow the thread:
http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/thrd2.html
This discussion was still going on several years later when I began
participating in the IETF, even though clipper had been killed and
presidential directive 5 had long since been neutered.
The dialectic on what should be brought to the ietf, and the
implications of polticaly imposed requirements influencing standards
neither started nor ended there.
Yao
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "IAOC IAOC" <iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future
meeting of the IETF
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, (continued)
- RE: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Eric Rescorla
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Simon Perreault
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Michael StJohns
- Message not available
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Steve Crocker
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Michael StJohns
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Olaf Kolkman
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Dave CROCKER
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Michael StJohns
- Message not available
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future meeting of the IETF, Health
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerninga future meeting of the IETF,
Joel Jaeggli <=
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Dean Willis
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Tim Bray
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Dave Cridland
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuture meeting of the IETF, Adrian Farrel
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, SM
- Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF, Ole Jacobsen
|
|
|