ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

2009-10-11 12:13:07
Hi Doug,

I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment.  I would count myself
as belonging into both of your categories.  The IETF should not go to the
PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free
speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be
prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated.  I would be
surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on
principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the
contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech.

If this were a vote, I would object quite strongly on not having my vote
counted as a member of your second group, just because I also belong to the
first group.

Obviously, I'm speaking in a private capacity only.  I think that the ISOC
and IETF officials have indicated sufficiently clearly those few emails
where they spoke in an official capacity, and I assume that all other mails
have been sent in private capacity as well.

(Personally, if I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political
organization, I would not have argued strongly in favor or against a
proposal on which the leadership asks the community for input.  Not even in
a private capacity.  But that's a matter of taste.)

Stephan


On 10/10/09 9:18 PM, "Doug Ewell" <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org> wrote:

Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco dot com> wrote:


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.



I've only heard a handful of people argue against
going to China on 
principle.  Several more have expressed concerns about
going to China on 
the basis of unprecedented contractual terms.
Statistically at least, 
it might be proper to treat the first group as
outliers in this 
discussion, rather than as representative of the second
group.

I'd sure like to see a clearer indication of whether people in
positions 
of authority are expressing opinions in that capacity, or just as

individuals.  That request is not just for you, of course.

--
Doug Ewell  |
Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |
item-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
­

_______________________________________________
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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>