-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 12:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single
out China.
The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that we
will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It is not
directly related to their "culture" or "(perceived) bias." The
conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the
same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar
agreement to meet in, say, Ireland.
"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 any
defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or
show any disrespect to Irish culture, or violate any laws of the
Republic of Ireland or feature any topics regarding human rights or
religion without prior approval from the Government of the Republic
of Ireland, 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."
Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or would
it be objecting to an unacceptable policy?
Thank you, Adam.
I think it would be objecting to an unacceptable policy, because such a
policy would inevitably result in self-censorship regarding topics that
are directly related to our technical work (e.g., some IETF participants
consider topics such as encryption to be matters of human rights).
Furthermore, we simply cannot know much beforehand about the laws of the
host country regarding freedom of speech (has the Republic of Ireland
passed legislation that makes it a crime to speak disparagingly about
redheads?). This is why I find the restriction about the contents of the
group's activities, presentations, and printed materials violating the
laws of the host country to be especially worrisome, because it is an
extremely vague restriction that could be taken to cover anything
presented (or perhaps even said) at a WG session, plenary, IESG or IAB
meeting, etc. Would all slides and audio text to be presented need to be
pre-approved by an IETF committee to ensure that the video or audio
presentations do not violate any laws of the host country? How are we to
know what those laws might be? We do a poor enough job of legal issues
where we have some knowledge of the domain (IETF processes and
procedures). Given that (1) such a committee or review process would
quite simply be unworkable (most presenters don't even finish their
slides until a day or two before the relevant WG session) and (2) the
IETF would be liable for all presentations made at the conference, I
don't see how we can realistically accept this restriction.
(I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to work
around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible to
do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters say
anything they want, given the organizational liability that is
stipulated in the restriction. The IETF could claim that what presenters
say at WG sessions, plenaries, and the like is outside the control of
the IETF, but I think that is skating on rather thin ice.)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkq5HPIACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzm4QCglTVmMZCdaYMaFNvI4opqaF7g
XE0AoL8LE6/D/0gvVabYiu1N32rvZ1nJ
=3Fq4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf