I wonder if the situation deserves a look from another angle.
I'm certainly _not_ arguing that the restriction should be there. My
contention is that the restriction of "don't criticize the Chinese
government and/or the Chinese culture" (however that's defined) is not
such a high threshold. Except for those who are determined to explore
the various political issues at the podium, which are arguably
non-technical in nature, I submit that participants and speakers at
IETF meetings already practice self-censorship regularly. I would love
to be proven wrong.
Would you be speaking out about events during World War II - what
happened in China and Southeast Asia and what you think Japan's role is
in them when you attend the November meeting?
Did you make a point of speaking out at the podium about Native
Americans at any of the meeting in the Americas, say in San Francisco or
DC ? War on drug? And the current "unpleasantness" in the Middle East
(to borrow from Robert De Niro)?
Did you make a point to speak about Nazi's in a meeting in Germany IETF
39), or IRA in Dublin?
The answer is probably 'No'. And that would be a correct answer because
IETF meeting and podium are not the proper platform for such
discussions. I hope the Chinese government softens the stance on the
restrictions but that's neither here nor there. My point is that we do
self-censor and I don't understand how self-censor is being mentioned in
these emails as if it has never happened before.
I don't speak for anyone else or any entity, just for me.
Thanks,
Jerry
--
Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 (+1 630 719 4389, soon)
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Yaron Sheffer
Subject: Re: China venue survey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/19/09 10:23 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Ole,
The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other
SDOs.
We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality,
and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about security. Many
of our members care a lot about IPR and its effect on open source.
So why when it comes to free speech, which is clearly related to our
open way of making standards, we suddenly shy away from taking a
moral stance and instead resort to budgetary calculations?
And regarding the survey: most people, myself included, would bend a
principle or two to go somewhere as interesting and exciting as
China. But you would get a radically different answer if you asked:
should the IETF hold a meeting in a country that mandates a non-free
speech commitment, or should we prefer an alternative where no such
commitments are required.
Thanks,
Yaron
You might get a different answer, but it's ultimately up to the
individuals who answer the survey. How would you expect our large and
growing contingent from China to answer that question? Should we ask
about the policies of the United States, France or Germany on a long
range of topics (visa, wars, death penalty...)? Where do we draw the
line?
I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.
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/
iEYEARECAAYFAkq5O00ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOtgCeOgV7bNCS2qHPmXqQVz7WdiNS
kIIAnicU346vdYIwT+3HSIMOpnas/fWt
=P8LB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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