--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:02 -0400 Paul Wouters
<paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Those concerns are not different with other countries,
> including the US.
> A few hours after 9/11, once I was over my initial shock, I
>...
> We are far from a universal faith in any national
> government.
>
> Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture,
> (perceived) bias,
> or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is
> wrong.
But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked
before (by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped,
having all participants being kicked out of the country, and
bearing full financial responsibility for any costs that result,
if some number of participants are perceived of as being out of
line... and perceived by a process in which the IETF has no
voice, no right to state an opinion or defend itself, etc.
It seems to me that provision is a significant issue,
independent of how one feels about those concerns that are "not
different with other countries" and also independent of our
appraisal of how likely it is to be triggered.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf