Hi Ole, The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs. We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality, and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about security. Many of our members care a lot about IPR and its effect on open source. So why when it comes to free speech, which is clearly related to our open way of making standards, we suddenly shy away from taking a moral stance and instead resort to budgetary calculations? And regarding the survey: most people, myself included, would bend a principle or two to go somewhere as interesting and exciting as China. But you would get a radically different answer if you asked: should the IETF hold a meeting in a country that mandates a non-free speech commitment, or should we prefer an alternative where no such commitments are required. Thanks, Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:ole@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 16:07 > To: Yaron Sheffer > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: China venue survey > > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > > Hi Ole, > > > > I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative. > > The one pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a > > meeting in China, then asks if the respondent, as an individual, > > would prefer to attend it. This is very different from asking if we, > > as a community, should hold such a meeting given that we, as a > > community, are required to sign away our right to free speech. > > Perhaps my use of the phrase "rough consensus" in another message > led you to conclude that we are trying to get the IETF to take a > moral or political stance. That's not the intention and should not > be the intention as kre points out. > > As organizers of a meeting for the IETF we have an obligation to > determine if a bunch of conditions are met in advance, including > such things as suitability of venue, access, cost, safety, etc. > There is even an Internet Draft that outlines these requirements. > Free speech and other politicial matters are not part of the > Draft, but that doesn't mean we should not consider them. > > At the end of the day, if a majority of the community (who would > otherwise attend) would stay away from location X for whatever reason, > then it would make little sense for us to hold a meeting there. Not > only do we need "critical mass" in order to make it a productive > meeting, we need a certain attendance level to make the budget work. > (Yes, the budget is based on predicted attendance levels which do vary > based on a number of factors, but I think you would agree that holding > meetings in places where we expect extraordinarily low levels of > attendance would not be good for anyone). > > In this case "the community" really means each individual. We have > already determined that the venue meets our requirements for a > successful meeting, that's not what we're asking about. > > > > > For your reference, the question is: You may have other reasons for > > not attending the meeting, but would this contract provision by > > itself prevent you from attending the meeting? > > > > Thanks, > > Yaron > > > > I don't see why the answer to that question would not be informative. > I would say the feedback received so far has been very informative. > > 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: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj > > > > Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf