Hi Ole,
At 16:56 10-10-2009, 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?
Are we a US-centric organization?
This discussion has been mild by IETF standards. There hasn't been
that many messages posted by people from the People's Republic of
China. I'll quote part of a reply:
"do you think that Chinese government will allow the chinese participants
to join the IETF meeting which often has the violation of Chinese law?"
and a comment from a message posted last year:
"Is USA qualified [as IETF Meeting Venue]?"
Some people may have strong views about the People's Republic of
China. The "free speech" afforded to people to air such views is not
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. It is a tacit
guarantee provided by the IETF as it has always been part of its
culture not to restrict the field of discourse.
If the choice of meeting venue is about sending a message, the IETF
should learn about Panda politics. I don't know whether the IETF can
win that or whether the IETF is actually being used as the panda. I
believe that if the IETF gets into that, it is opening the door for
problems in the long term beyond the choice of hosting a meeting in
the People's Republic of China.
For those arguing about legality, I'll mention that there are United
States sanctions that prohibit citizens of the United States from
doing business with entities identified by the Office of Foreign
Assets Control (United States). The person may be in violation of
the sanctions by purchasing services or equipment from a
telecommunications company (not in the People's Republic of China or
any country on a "watch list"). I doubt that most people are aware
that the company is "listed".
The IETF had a strong bias towards the United States. That has
changed over time as there are more participants from Europe. It
will likely change more as it moves towards the East. The move can
be viewed in terms of participation and not in terms of meeting venue
selection.
At 15:40 09-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
different things (and fewer or more of them). But I don't think
it helps to exaggerate the differences by suggesting that there
are no restrictions on discussion of sensitive topics anywhere
else in the world.
Every country has restrictions in some form or another. That's a
fact of life. The IETF does not have the political clout to
influence the country in making it more amenable to host a
meeting. It does have the choice of not being turned into a pawn to
support a geopolitical agenda.
At 17:53 09-10-2009, Richard Barnes wrote:
Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from the
conspicuous absence of comment by all but a very few Chinese participants.
There's a cultural gap. It is not specific to Chinese participants.
I'll sum up this discussion with a sentence from RFC 3184:
"Seeing from another's point of view is often revealing,
even when it fails to be compelling."
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf