Yes, I share your concern. Last time the only saving grace was Prof. Wu's
in Europe and beyond. VPNs are being *actively* disrupted in China these
days.
Shangri-La Hotel Clause for IETF 79 Beijing
“Should the contents of the Group’s activities, visual or audio
presentations, or printed materials contain any defamation against
the Government of the People’s Repub¬lic of China, or show any
disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violate any laws of the
People’s Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human
rights or religion without prior approval from the Government of the
People’s Republic Of China, the Hotel reserves the right to
terminate the event on the spot and/or ask the person(s) who
initiates or participates in any or all of the above actions to
leave the Hotel premises immediately. Should there be any financial
loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel’s
reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel
will claim compensation from the Client.”
So, sure, let's make sure the fine print is read and understood.
Ole
On Sep 21, 2024, at 16:00, Mike StJohns <mstjohns=40comcast.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Roman - one of the most egregious issues with our last visit to the PRC were additional conditions and restrictions imposed upon the conference and transitively on the attendees AFTER we had signed the meeting agreement documents.
Do we have a specific list of conditions we have to meet? E.g. mandatory individual logins to the ietf network? No open ietf network? Hotel providing mandatory security to prevent non-registered locals from dropping by? No VPNs permitted?
Do we have a signed agreement that we will have open access to the wider internet?
AIRC the conditions came as a surprise and were imposed close to the meeting date without a lot of warning and with no real recourse.
Does the IESG have a line in the sand with respect to restrictions it will allow? Could you publish those please?
Thanks - Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:43, Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unless I'm misreading this, these seem like horrible results. I guess they pass some low bar we've apparently set, but aren't there *better* choices in Asia region that don't eliminate half the people that would normally attend in person (and 62% of NA attendees)?
I would think that we'd at least try to maximize overall participation not just make sure it meets some bare minimum (49% reduction in total on-site participation is good, really?)
Thanks,
Chris.
IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi!
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is appreciative of all of the
community input provided during the July 2024 survey [1] on convening a meeting
in China for IETF 125 (March 2026). Based on this input, the IESG has decided
that a venue in China would meet the requirements of Section 2, “Why We Meet”,
of RFC8718. This assessment answers the question posed in step 4b of the IETF
LLC’s venue identification and selection process [2].
More details about this decision and the survey can be found at [3].
Regards,
Roman
(as IETF Chair for the IESG)
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Og9ESsfDWrhy5Ea8tso7HfaqY5A/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/
[3] https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary.pdf
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell: +1 415-370-4628
Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
