On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 04:56:43PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question.
Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued
that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there
for reasons ranging from Internet policies to Human Rights. Given the
large and increasing number of Chinese engineers that participate in
the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind
of position?
I really don't think boycott is the right word --- or at least, it's
not conducive to discussion. That word is loaded with a lot of
connotations, both good and bad. It implies that we hope to change
China's behavior and/or legal system by refusing to attend a meeting
in that country until they make changes that we feel Should Happen ---
and while there may have been one or two people who have said things
that might lead people to believe that, I at least am under no
illusions that China is likely to change its behavior based on any
demands made by the IETF. So "Boycott" could be seen by some as a
word used by those who are trying to argue that we should have a
meeting in China no matter what.
Perhaps a better way of putting things is that the IETF has various
requirements for holding a successful meeting, and the question is how
much of a guarantee we need that we can have a successful meeting, and
hold certain conversations without being in fear of the meeting
getting shut down and/or IETF attendees getting imprisoned?
The fact that China is the world's biggest jailer of cyber dissidents
ought to give one pause; the counter argument seems to be that China
it's really not about the law, it's about who you know, and that
people in China care enough about the "honor" of having an IETF that
they're not likely to imprison something even though there are scary
words in the hotel contract and in Chinese National Laws. This is
despite the fact that the grounds upon which Chinese web loggers have
been censored or imprisoned are very vague and could easily be seen to
encompass discussions about "privacy" and "human rights" that are held
in IETF meetings. (I'll note that even the *discussion* that China
enganges in censorship, or "harmonization" can be enough to get web
sites censored.) But things will be OK for the IETF? The laws will
somehow be enforced differently for us?
Maybe it's horribly US- and European- centric to want the sort of
guarantees one can get in a system where there is rule-by-law, and not
rule-by-man, where the whims of a local mandarin can result in people
being thrown in jail, because the laws are written with such an
expansive wording that it's all up to the discretion of the local
bureaucrat (or hotel employee). I don't think it's unfair or US- or
European-centric to expect something a bit more deterministic. Maybe
it's a fine distinction, but it's not about refusing to do business
with a country in the hopes of changing the country, and it's not
about "punishing" a country because we don't like their laws. It's
more about (at least to me) whether or not China's legal environment
meets the requirement for a safe place where the IETF can have a
meeting.
Some people feel safe walking in Central Park in NYC after midnight.
Other people don't. But I don't think you'd say that people who avoid
Central Park at night are somehow "boycotting" it.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf