In propaganda, your statement would probably be considered a black and white
fallacy. In symbolic logic, it would just be a fallacy.
For your statement to be always true, the first clause would have to read
"Since the IETF ONLY discusses how to make the Internet better and nothing
else" and it would also have to imply that "nothing the the IETF discusses to
make the Internet better could be considered as any other class of discussion"
Unfortunately, our discussions are not so limited... and I'm pretty sure you
know that.
With respect to the US or for that matter to any of our hosts in the past, show
me the contract language, laws, or other indication where things normally
discussed or designed at an IETF would be considered illegal. I know of none
and I've been around for most of the meetings going back 23 years.
At 08:45 PM 10/8/2009, Patrick Suger wrote:
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns
<<mailto:mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not
holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due
diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too
high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF
meetings.
Since the IETF discusses how to make the Internet work better, the only reason
why IETF members could feel worried is that they would intend to discuss how
to build a better working Internet that would be prohibited in China? Either
this means considering splitting the Internet from 1/3 of its users. Or that
the IETF can develop standards that do not take local users' legitimate and/or
legal needs into consideration. Or did I miss something? What about the
legality of a similar case in the USA?
Patrick Suger
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf