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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:07:02 -0400 (EDT)

> From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>

    > I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of
    > certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present
    > was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all
    > sorts of restrictions as a result. It may have been an export
    > restriction rather than a discussion restriction, but the practical
    > difference was zero.

It is true that some security bureacrats tried to apply some existing laws in
a very expansive way (e.g. to limit discussion and publication). However, in
a series of court cases (most notably Bernstein v. United States, and Junger
v. Daley) these attempts on the part of some government functionaries were
struck down by the US courts.

Junger is particularly on point:

  Junger sought an injunction against the enforcement of provisions of the
  International Traffic in Arms Regulations that require him to get the
  permission of the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls ...
  before he can communicate information about cryptographic software to
  foreign persons, "whether in the United States or abroad." ... These
  provisions effectively prevent Junger from admitting foreign students to
  the course that he teaches

(from the EFF web site on the case). Note that the Sixth Circuit (Junger v.
Daley, 209 F.3d 481 - 6th Cir. 2000) found in favour of Junger, on
Constitutional grounds.

In other words - security bureacrats tried an expansive power grab that would
have limited the ability to discuss cryptographic topics. (What a shock,
bureacrats trying a power grab.... But I digress.)

However, because there was an _independent and empowered_ judicial branch,
and a constitution which provided rights which that judicial branch was
determined to uphold _in practise_, this attempt was beaten back.

I trust the moral is clear...

(Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric nature
of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because the example
cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric.

FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am personally
quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of the world is not a
clone of the US.)

    >> I can't think of one where "discuss[ion] or design[ing]" anything
    >> would have been prohibited.

    > 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.

Ah, I was insufficiently precise. In asking about "'discuss[ion] or
design[ing]' anything", I was speaking of things within the IETF's normal
scope of topics. I.e. the "anything" there was not meant to be read as
"anything at all", so my statement was not as expansive as you perhaps seem
to have thought it might have been.

	Noel

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:56:43 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"(Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric 
nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because 
the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric.

FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am 
personally quite sensitive to the need to understand that the rest of 
the world is not a clone of the US.)"

Noel,

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? 

(That question is not just for you of course).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:38:00 -0400

> the IETF, what sort of message would we be sending by taking that kind 

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

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:14:14 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:

[snip]
> getting shut down and/or IETF attendees getting imprisoned?

Agreed, that's obviously the core issue in this context, but others 
seem to argue that even if these questions could be answered to our 
satisfaction they would still argue against going based on 
"principles". My only observation was that if we start holding 
politicial positions we'll quickly find ourself in a debate about who 
"we" are and who "they" are for some value of each. We certainly 
should insist that we can hold "normal conversions" at any meeting, 
otherwise they would not be normal IETF meetings.

> words in the hotel contract and in Chinese National Laws.

I disagree. I think there was an attempt to put the offending clause 
in some context. It doesn't make it less objectionable, but it might
explain why it's there and what it is intended to control or prevent.
Anyway, I think it should be removed, and I am obviously not alone in
thinking so.

> But things will be OK for the IETF?  The laws will somehow be 
> enforced differently for us?

No, but enforcement depends on reading of the laws/rules/contract and 
that all happens in a larger context of the situtation. If you bump 
your head against the smoke detector in the airplane lavatory and the 
cover pops off you may perhaps not be able to prove that you weren't 
"tampering" with it, but that's a long way from saying you will 
automatically be fined $10,000 or whatever it is these days.

> Other people don't.  But I don't think you'd say that people who 
> avoid Central Park at night are somehow "boycotting" it.
> 
> 

Right, but in this case, that's exactly what some people are 
suggesting, independent of what the particular contract says. We 
can/should certainly decide to hold or not hold a meeting in a certain 
location based on the criteria you mentioned at the start of your 
message, I was merely pointing out that if we go beyond that and start 
using OTHER criteria we may be heading down a slippery slope.

Ole

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:18:25 -0600

Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco dot com> wrote:

> 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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:02:10 -0700

Hi Ole,
>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

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:12:24 -0700

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

> I've only heard a handful of people argue against
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 

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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing
> list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:39:23 -0700 (PDT)

Syephan,

You said:

"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."

If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have
not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to 
clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues 
might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements
were read otherwise, then I apologize.

I have no "skin in this game" as they say, and if we end up not 
meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make 
sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD,
especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on.
The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an 
unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any 
direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one
more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at 
least if taken literally).

As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that
is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups
(and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will
point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue 
selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are
not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not
currently.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:23:58 -0400

Hi Ole - 

Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well.  I took the use of "boycott" and "what sort of message would we be sending" in your recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.

I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member speaking.

Mike

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:41:16 -0700 (PDT)

Mike,

Then I am afraid you really misread my comments. There are indeed 
folks who are suggesting that China should be avoided for political
reasons (see the list for examples, I see no need to repeat it here), 
and I would characterize that as a boycott.

This is completely separate from the discussion about the hotel 
contract and legal provisions, unless that was unclear. 

In other words, we may decide that we cannot hold a normal meeting in 
China due to laws or contract language or any other "normal criteria 
for meetings", but I am a lot less certain about what political 
criteria we could agree on for avoiding any country. I am not saying 
we can't have that discussion, but I am saying that it becomes a lot 
less clear who "we" are given the large and growing number of 
participants from the country in question.

I have been largely speaking for myself. The original statement from 
Marshall does have phrases like "the IAOC believes..." but as I 
explained previously, no final decision has been made, and whatever
snapshot of opinion was taken 3 weeks ago isn't necessarily accurate
today. I do take your point. Consider everything I've said so far as 
my personal opinion, based on what I know and my experience in 
attending meetings in China.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote:

> Hi Ole - 
> 
> Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well.  I took the use 
> of "boycott" and "what sort of message would we be sending" in your 
> recent messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.
> 
> I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to 
> tell when its Ole the individual as opposed to Ole the IAOC member 
> speaking.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Ietf mailing list

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:43:59 -0700

Hi Ole,

Yes, my email was "aimed" at your frequent postings on this subject in
combination with your current ISOC position.  Let me note that most of your
postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a
preference for a PRC IETF meeting.

That said, it's good that you clarified your intentions so clearly, and
there is no need for apologies here.  Certainly not from your side.  I hope
that my posting did not come over as aggressive (even passive aggressive) to
you.  It was not meant this way.  If it did, then it's my turn to ask for an
apology.

And I completely agree with the FUD comments---we have entirely too much FUD
on ietf@ietf.  Then again, risk tolerances are different amongst different
people, and at least in part established through past experiences.
Discounting options of those with negative experiences (which, clearly, is
not FUD) is at least as harmful to the IETF as excessive, but
unsubstantiated FUD.

(Please don't ask me, or anyone else, about possible negative experiences on
the very subject country.  If there were any, those involved could hardly
tell---unless they were die-hard anti-PRC activists.  And comments of the
latter would probably not be a Good Thing on ietf@ietf, either...)

Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:32:44 -0700

Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi Ole -
> 
> Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well.  I took the use of
> "boycott" and "what sort of message would we be sending" in your recent
> messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.

I'm not going to comment on whether Ole has been appearing to be biased. (I 
assume we are all biased -- if fact I'm sure of it -- but yeah, I understand the 
concern about someone in a decision-making position sending messages that might 
confuse management of a group discussion with advocacy. But, again, I'm not 
commenting on whether I think Ole has or has not done that.)

I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements 
for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a 
precedent that the IETF really does not want to set.

I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of 
political or social concerns.  We've sometimes challenged it for matters of 
logistics and cost, but not social policy.

I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this.  We are a 
very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal.  As a 
group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body 
we have the skills.

Any attempt to make such factors essential to our decision-making now will 
invite their being used in the future.  From my limited knowledge of global and 
national social and political issues, I am certain that every single country we 
might consider could reasonably be challenged for its questionable history, 
policies and/or practices.

If a country already has a pattern of hosting international meetings, then I 
think it's fair for us to consider it now.  If it does not already such a 
history, it still might be, but again, I suspect venue logistics ought to be the 
major conbcern, not venue politics.

Really, folks.  This is not merely a slippery slope.  It's a cliff.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:28:05 -0600

Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe dot org> wrote:

> 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.

You're right that my comment about "first group" and "second group" 
mixed up the question of what arguments have been raised with the 
question of how people feel.

Considering the first "group," those individuals who feel that the IETF 
should not go to China on principle have a right to argue on that basis, 
and should certainly feel entitled to skip that meeting on their own --  
either to maintain their own integrity in the matter or to try to slow 
or stop the IETF's progress, by lack of quorum, in those WGs where they 
are involved -- or both.  But my gut feeling is that unless the IETF 
wants its image to be one of a socio-political activist group, it should 
not decide against going to China on the grounds of socio-political 
differences alone.  YMMV.

The second "group" is entirely different IMHO.  The contractual terms 
offered to I* are spelled out quite clearly, with plenty of wiggle room 
as to the punishable offenses but little or no wiggle room as to the 
punishment.  There have been arguments that the terms won't be enforced, 
for one reason or another, but whereas individuals might choose to take 
the risk and attend as if nothing were different from other IETF 
meetings, it would be (as others have said) an abdication of fiduciary 
responsibility for the I* leadership to assume this.

Any individual can, of course, belong to both "groups."  Where I was 
getting was that the group that wants to skip China on philosophical 
grounds, to "boycott" the meeting as Ole put it, does not speak as a 
whole for the larger group that objects to the contractual terms.

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

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:34:29 -0700

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the
> basis of political or social concerns.  We've sometimes challenged it
> for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy.

On the one hand I agree with you that determining where the IETF
should or should not meet on the basis of the "social policy" in the
host country/state/region/etc. is a very dangerous, and slippery slope.

On the other hand the question of whether the number of people who
would not attend the meeting because of concerns such as social
policy, censorship, unfortunate contractual terms, prevalence of
smoking, etc. would prevent the meeting from being successful IS a
logistical concern.

Of course, keeping those two issues separate is a Solomonic task.

Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:39:50 -0600

> were read otherwise, then I apologize.

I'd suggest reading your posts again.

It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks 
are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people 
will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that 
nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a 
banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them.  But if you post 
this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, 
because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee 
is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results 
without bias.

> (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, 
> at least if taken literally).

How can it not be taken literally?  As I said in my other post, 
individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast 
as they want, but the organization cannot.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:46:22 -0700 (PDT)

> I'd suggest reading your posts again.

And I suggest you read the original message that started the whole 
discussion again, let me quote the relevant section:

"The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this
 condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this
 condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business."

I signed up to that statement before it was sent out. And yes, I
have been speaking as an individual which I think it's OK to do
since no final decisions have been made.

> 
> It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the 
> risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or 
> that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject 
> matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against 
> IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for 
> them.  But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked 
> as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is 
> your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the 
> question and tallying the results without bias.

Really? How do you reconcile that with Marshall's statement? We're 
asking if the community can "live with" the clause as currently 
provided. We don't (or didn't at the time to be accurate) believe that 
the clause itself would prevent us from having a successful meeting 
there. But we asked for community input. The data collected (from the 
survey and from comments) is what we will use to further analyze the 
situation. Do we still believe what we belived when he sent out the 
message? I can't tell you because we have not discussed it in detail 
yet, but the whole point was to collect this information from the 
community. Obviously, at some level, it does not really matter WHY 
someone might not want to attend a meeting in China, if the number is 
large we're not going to have a successful meeting by our usual 
definition. The survey and comments tells us something about that, 
some of it as a direct result of the questions, some of it as "side 
effects".

And: a lot of OTHER issues have also been brought into focus as a 
result of these discussions, and all of it is good input to our 
decision making process. It ALSO provides a written record of the 
community's feelings on this meeting, something I expect will become 
really useful if further negotiations on contract terms procede.

As for

> 
> > (And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at
> How can it not be taken literally?  As I said in my other post, individuals
> can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but
> the organization cannot.
> 

I understand your point, but "taken literally" can mean different 
things to different readers. It's not worth debating this any further
since we already agree that the best thing would be to get rid of
the clause so I suggest we move on and see what can be accomplished
in that regard.

Cheers,

Ole

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:21:03 -0400

At 02:32 PM 10/11/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of political or social concerns.  We've sometimes challenged it for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy.
>
>I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this.  We are a very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal.  As a group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body we have the skills.

I strongly agree with you on this.  Unfortunately for this instance many folk are conflating the matters of logistics and cost with the social policies of the PRC making it difficult to concentrate on the former without dealing with all the emotional content tied up in the latter. 

I'd really like us to avoid "boycott" and "what message would it send to the world" in our discussions of whether or not this site (or for that matter any other) is acceptable for holding IETFs.  Unfortunately, both "sides" seem to find these concepts useful as part of their talking points for interestingly different reasons.

Ah well... 

Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:13:10 +0200

On 10/11/09 8:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and 
> requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the 
> postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not 
> want to set.

I strongly agree.  I think mixing up what people think is right and what 
people think is practicable from a logistics perspective confuses two 
very separate issues that could lead to two separate outcomes, based on 
the criteria the IAOC uses.  I wish people would stick to the logistics 
argument.

Eliot