Marshall,
Since seeing your note, I've been trying to figure out how to
formulate my concern. Carsten's note captured it for me, so
let me be a little more specific.
First, thanks for asking.
I am deliberately not addressing the "where else could we meet
where things would be better" question, the visa issues, or any
of the other logistical questions in this note.
Let's assume (at least for purposes of argument -- I assume some
members of the community might disagree) that we can trust the
government of the PRC to be sensible in this sort of matter, to
understand what an IETF meeting implies, etc. The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
("Client") isn't the government or a government body.
I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a
discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing
too close to the "politics" or "criticism" line. I'd be much
less concerned if any perceived incident led to some sort of
conversation between "us" and relevant government folks about
real issues and boundaries than if (and I assume this is an
exaggeration) some middle-level hotel employee could panic and
pull the eject lever.
john
--On Friday, September 18, 2009 18:26 +0200 Carsten Bormann
<cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> The IAOC does believe that this
>> condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its
>> business.
>...
> I have lived close enough to what was the GDR for long enough
> to know that 2 is an extremely uncontrollable problem.
> (And I have been in the IETF long enough to think that 1 isn't
> much more controllable.)
>...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf