Hi Mike As Roman has noted, this is within the remit of the LLC not the IESG, as per RFC 8718, so I will try to answer what I can.
Yes but...
So I assumed, perhaps incorrectly that the IESG's statement weighs heavily on the LLCs decision process. Or at least the IESG thinks so..! :-)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.
RFC 8718 sets the policy around the Internet connection in the following mandatory criterion:• It MUST be possible to provision Internet Access to the Facility and IETF Hotels that allows those attending in person to utilize the Internet for all their IETF, business, and day-to-day needs; in addition, there must be sufficient bandwidth and access for remote attendees. Provisions include, but are not limited to, native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and global reachability; there may be no additional limitation that would materially impact their Internet use. To ensure availability, it MUST be possible to provision redundant paths to the Internet.Before I provide direct details, I should note that about 18 months ago at IETF 116 I presented an I-D to gendispatch recommending that the community revisit the clauses around Internet provision to tighten them up and help us assess situations like that of Australia/NZ where there is limited Internet filtering. The response from the community was that this did not need changing and that it intentionally gave the LLC a degree of latitude around this. The network provision that we expect to be provided at IETF 125 is as follows: - The Internet connection will be open to all traffic/clients, which specifically included VPNs and all IETF protocols such as MASQUE etc. - The Internet connection will filter some sites that the Chinese government considers highly illegal but this will not impact on the criterion above. - All devices will need credentials to access the Internet and these will be provided in the same (or technically identical) method as the Beijing meeting where a bowl of paper slips with credentials was made available and participants could take as many as they want as often as they want with no record made of who took what. - All participants, whatever their country of origin, will get the same access in the same way. We are still in the process of negotiating the various elements of IETF 125 and contracts are not signed as it would not have been appropriate for us to sign a contract before the IESG made its decision. However, the Internet provision will not be fully covered by contracts - the process here is that one of our local hosts applies to the government for a license to provide the network as specified above. If that license is granted then that is what we expect to get, but governments are sovereign and rarely sign contracts committing to such things and so I do not expect to get a contract to that effect. Let me know if you have any further questions. Jay
I had to go back and revisit the survey criteria, and I admit to
being surprised that "Reconsider Travel" against the US Travel
Advisory System was "Acceptable". Be that as it may, I decided to
do a slightly deeper dive and found this (China Country Security
Report - dated 13 Sept 2023) linked to the US TAS entry for China:
https://www.osac.gov/Content/Report/77b1dc96-82d6-497f-9836-1c4f67baa024
OSAC is "OSAC is a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and security professionals from U.S. organizations operating abroad. Together, OSAC members share timely security information and maintain strong bonds for the protection of U.S. interests overseas."
So not just the US Gov't opinions, but
definitely US centric analysis. However, I found similar
analysis or warnings on both UK and DE government sites.
What I found a bit problematic relative
to the IETF and your above comments is (quoting from that
document):
The Chinese government
consistently targets Westerners with arbitrary
detentions and exit bans as a form of hostage
diplomacy during times of geopolitical
tension. Additionally, the Chinese government
has targeted U.S. businesses and individuals
associated with U.S. businesses frequently
with regulatory harassment, lack of privacy,
and travel difficulties. This has included:
arbitrary interference with privacy; pervasive
and intrusive technical surveillance and
monitoring; serious restrictions on free
_expression_, including physical attacks on and
criminal prosecution of journalists, lawyers,
writers, bloggers, dissidents, petitioners,
and others as well as their family members,
and censorship and site blocking; interference
with the rights of peaceful assembly and
freedom of association, including overly
restrictive laws targeting nongovernmental
organizations; severe restrictions and
suppression of religious freedom; substantial
restrictions on freedom of movement. In 2019,
Chinese authorities detained three Canadian
citizens as a retaliatory measure towards
Canada. In 2021, authorities sentenced one of
those Canadian citizens to death, and another
to an 11-year prison sentence, though the PRC
government eventually allowed both Canadian
citizens to leave China later that year. China
has targeted businesses that have made
statements on human rights issues on China
with restrictions and extensive protests. In
the past few years, detentions and regulatory
harassment have risen alongside U.S.-China
tensions.
and
The government arbitrarily
enforces local laws, including by carrying out
arbitrary and wrongful detentions and through the
use of exit bans on U.S. citizens and citizens of
other countries without due process of law. The
government uses arbitrary detention and exit bans:
to compel individuals to participate in government
investigations, to pressure family members to
return to China from abroad, to influence
authorities to resolve civil disputes in favor of
Chinese citizens, and to gain bargaining leverage
over foreign governments. In most cases, U.S. citizens
only become aware of an exit ban when they attempt
to depart the country. There is no reliable
mechanism or legal process to find out how long
the ban might continue or to contest it in a court
of law
and
Those who make politically
sensitive comments in public speeches, academic
discussions, or remarks to media, or post sensitive
comments online, remain subject to punitive
measures, as do members of their family. In
addition, an increase in electronic surveillance in
public spaces, coupled with the movement of many
routine interactions to the digital space, signify
that the government is monitoring an increasing
portion of daily life. Conversations in groups or
peer-to-peer on social media platforms and via
messaging applications are subject to censorship,
monitoring, and action from the authorities. An
increasing threat of peer-to-peer observation and
possible referral to authorities further erode
freedom of speech.
and
Visitors should have no
expectation of privacy in public or private
locations. Security personnel carefully watch
foreign visitors and may place them under
surveillance. Authorities may monitor hotel rooms
(including meeting rooms), offices, cars, taxis,
telephones, Internet usage, and smartphone
applications remotely. Overt placement of
microphones and video cameras in taxis is common.
Elevators and public areas of housing compounds are
under continuous surveillance. Authorities may
search personal possessions in hotel rooms,
including computers, without the occupant’s
knowledge or consent.
So while I'm happy the paperwork
reflects the site (currently) meets our minimums (de jure),
I'm concerned that the reality (de facto) of the situation
is below our minimums. Either that or our minimums could be
incorrectly calibrated.
And lest someone think I'm making a
political argument - I'm not.
Later, Mike
ps - do our contracts give us the right
to cancel without cost if say for example the US State Dept
advisory changes to "do not travel"? We're more than a year
out and things could get worse (or better?).
On 22 Sep 2024, at 00:00, 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 iPhoneOn 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
