Re: Concerns about Singapore


Andrew Allen <aallen(_at_)blackberry(_dot_)com> writes:

This is what I mean by slippery slope - once we go down this path it never 
ends - in a global community of well over 1000 active people at least one 
person is likely to have a problem with some aspect of most of the countries 
governments, policies, cultures or actions, etc.


FWIW, I believe an earlier mail I sent led in part to this thread. I was
saying it was important for me to understand how and when the IETF is
being treated "specially". I wish to have this information so that I can
make informed decision on whether I will attend the meeting (i.e.,
voting with my presence and dollars).

I'm wasn't asking for anything more, and I don't think there's a
slippery slope in being transparent on this issue.

I've refrained from getting involved in debates with people trying to
convince me that my views are wrong. That's another discussion, it's not
one I wish to have on the IETF discussion list, and not relevant to the
question of transparency that I was addressing.

Thanks,
Chris.

We could be left with the only possible venue being a cruise ship sailing in 
international waters - but then someone will probably object because the ship 
is registered in Panama or Liberia!

The focus should be on choosing a location for the meeting that is open for 
all to attend and where it is reasonably safe to attend and meets the needs 
of a meeting for a large number of people and represents the regional balance 
of the membership.

The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high 
quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, 
use, and manage the Internet.

The IETF is not an organization that's mission is to be an advocate for 
global social, environmental or political change. The selection of a meeting 
location should be for the purposes of advancing the IETF's mission. I think 
some of the concerns raised about Singapore need to be addressed in terms of 
the practical impact and risk to the attendance of some in the IETF community 
but we shouldn’t start down the road of choosing or not choosing meeting 
locations based on an evaluation of a countries laws, culture and policies 
and whether those are acceptable to all or most of the community.

Debates over whether a location is politically or morally acceptable will 
only distract from the mission of the IETF and likely divide the community 
rather than help in making progress towards forming consensus on the future 
development of the internet.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Vinayak 
Hegde
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 10:24 PM
To: chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:46 AM,  <chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org> wrote:

It's certainly relevant to me, b/c I don't personally think that IETF
meetings should be held in oppressive and censoring countries. I don't
know how to articulate this well -- others are better at it -- but I
certainly would like to skip any meetings that I feel violate IETFs
value of openness so that I can at least vote with my feet and my
dollars.


Well how does this work with Internet's (and IETF's) mission of 
inclusiveness. Applying the same scale of "oppressiveness", I am sure large 
parts of the world think the same about the US/UK which has waged wars in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, Argentina (our latest venue) and elsewhere.

The IETF doesn't seem to have a problem having meetings in these countries. I 
hope the majority of participants on this list realise that they are viewing 
the world through a western prism.

The notion of punishing the general populace for the mistakes of their 
elected and unelected govt. seems wrong to me. Many times, the general 
populace of the country is fighting their govt. through the Internet. eg. 
Turkey.

-- Vinayak

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature