On Tue Sep 22 19:52:34 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(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.)
Having attended only XSF and OMA aside from IETF, I'm not sure
whether the IETF and XSF are essentially unique is trying to provide
remote participation, either - the OMA certainly doesn't.
I reiterate - if I wished to grind my political axe against the PRC,
I would do so via the Jabber chatrooms. IETF meetings increasingly
rely on these, and should they be deliberately used to raise issues
with which the PRC would be uncomfortable, I see very little in the
way of mitigation or remedy which I would, in turn, be comfortable
with.
The physical meeting I'm fine with in China. I'm pretty sure the
bizarre - to Western eyes - rules and regulations can be dealt with
in such a way that actual impact to the IETF meeting is minimized,
and the benefits of the location - Chinese engineering knowledge, etc
- would outweigh the disadvantages.
But I'm concerned that only a couple of us have raised the potential
impact on remote participation - can I ask what steps are being taken
to minimize impact there?
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)dave(_dot_)cridland(_dot_)net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf