Hi Ole,
"This is an attempt to stop a war. I hope it is not too late
and that somehow, magically perhaps, peace will prevail again.
Note that the Lilliputians'camp includes all the who's-who of
the communication world, unlike the Blefuscuians' camp which
is very much oriented toward the computing world.
Both camps have already adopted the slogan "We'd rather fight
than switch!".
I believe they mean it."
The quote is from IEN 137.
At 16:31 24-09-2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Not wishing to defend China's government or policies, but it "is what
it is" and the world of business seems to be happily engaged. Most of
the Apple products I own were built in China and shipped from there
directly to me. Other organizations and businesses have meetings in
China "all the time." There is little, if any anecdotal evindence that
anyone has encountered heavy-handed interference and shutdowns. If we
I'm self-censoring myself to avoid getting into politics. That's my
choice and I do not ask you or any other participant to do so.
The IOC and 3GPP have been mentioned as examples. The IOC does not
have a bottom-up approach like the IETF and it does not operate at
the same level. The 3GPP is a partnership between telecommunications
standards bodies. The "processes and social contracts that worked
for fifty engineers have managed to sustain the IETF in dealing with
a community of thousands of engineers and a greatly expanded
technology and market space".
Let's see what the social contract is. As far as I am aware,
well-known companies that "participate" in the IETF do not have a
special say in the decision making. It is done that way so that one
or a group of companies do not control the IETF. The business
interests are channelled through individuals where each individual
can voice their opinion in a manner where their boss cannot pressure
them to follow the company line. The contract has also helped in
side-stepping the political swamp where illusory or short-term
benefits are the order of the day.
Some cultures view harmony and the "greater good" as more important
than favoring the individual. The somewhat political stance taken by
some people involved in this discussion may seem strange to people
within that culture especially as there isn't always a clear reason
why technical discussions should breach the political realm.
As Dave Crocker [1] pointed out:
"Technical discussions often must discuss usage policies and, as has
been repeatedly noted, some legitimate IETF topics run smack into
national privacy and human rights issues. Take this simple fact and
match it with our indelicacy and the odds are high that there will
be comments that violate multiple terms of the contract."
have to curb our right to public protest for 5 days is this really the
end of the IETF as we know it? We brag about being a global
That fact that it comes to that choice is troublesome.
organization and how we're all connecting people together with our
technology, but the minute we encounter a slightly ominous sounding
clause we're going to just walk away? I find this attitude very
depressing if it's prevalent.
The attitude is not about China. It is about a clause that has never
been in any contract before. If there was a clause which prevented
participation from any country on a "enemy list", I'd say that the
arguments you have heard would have been the same because it is
important that everybody can participate in the technical
discussions. If you have followed the discussions about languages,
you might notice that the input from individuals from a country,
which the United States of America does not like, is taken into
account. You will also notice that the nationalistic issues about
languages have been avoided by taking a practical approach to the problem.
You said that the "chilling effect" will be minimized. After all,
there is no harm in not saying for five days that the Irish are
disrespectful and the Germans complain about Italy. An IETF meeting
may lose its flavor without those flamboyant comments. We all know
the code words to say it differently. And some people will probably
use that to get away with murder.
David Morris asked [2] about Internet connectivity. The network
requirements specify that:
"The transit provided in support of the IETF MUST be capable
of providing access to the IPv4 and IPv6 default free zones
without the imposition of content filtering (e.g., URL, Site,
application, port, or DPI based filtering)"
If it is all about connecting people, we can live without the "MUST"
in there for five days. After all, the experiment must reflect
operational practice for us to understand how the Internet works in
different countries.
Alan Clark asked [3]:
"Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the Chinese
government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF does have open
discussions in these areas, hence provided they accept this then IETF would
be delighted to have the opportunity to meet in Beijing."
That is like asking governments for authorization about what can be
discussed. If this was about Internet governance where having
variable principles is a strong requirement to get governments to
back you, then you could do that. One of the advantages of not being
funded by governments is that they cannot use that to influence the decisions.
Cullen Jennings asked [4] what was OK and what was not in terms of
political speech in China. This is about using your judgement. It
is better to avoid any discussion that may be misinterpreted as
political to avoid offending anybody. If remote participants are
using Jabber to misbehave, you can always bring down the Jabber
server and say that it is due to some technical problems. As the
Jabber server has gone down previously during meetings, this would
not considered as censorship.
Michael StJohns asked [5] where do we draw the line. I wonder
whether it is up to the IAOC to draw that line.
As Dave Cridland pointed out [6], the rules and regulations may seem
bizarre to Western eyes. China has been around for a few thousand
years. It takes more than one IETF meeting to learn about China.
Hong Kong and Macau (Macao) has been suggested [7] as alternative
locations. If you want to be closer to China, you could go there.
I hope that the IAOC web site will be updated to provide the
community with timely details of the IAOC's discussions about this
topic and more information about the administrative side of the IETF.
I think that you deserve a round of applause for the replies you have
provided on this topic.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58745.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58787.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58760.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58751.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58741.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58693.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58775.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf