Olaf Kolkman wrote:
Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you
suspect that those items could not have been discussed?
When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically viewed
as a human rights topic.
Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract.
But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted
constraint. To add to some of the latest comments posted:
This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, and
have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF technical
work of particular importance to China. Again: Chinese participants are
already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time.
If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the hosting
country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason we
should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places. We should
seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense or
suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended. Having this sort of
political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting
logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting. (And, like
others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can influence
anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...)
Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match
between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus
/particular/ rules at a venue. Not in terms of principles but in terms of behavior.
I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with both
the expertise of local participants and the hosting details. But Asian
organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and frankly
every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing like
the range displayed in the IETF.
Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either a
coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause
individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the meeting.
Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of
that rule wouldn't cause a problem. Would we agree to such a constraint? I
doubt it. Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable business
tone for a meeting.
But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting.
I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we had
at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the contract
now in question. And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in
Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and specifically
problematic comments from the floor. Again: We are an indelicate group. Let's
not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent behavior
will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue.
And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns. The
constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are
unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of meetings.
It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves of
the rules. Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to the
rules and had successful meetings.
What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the
realities of IETF meeting behavior.
As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the
constraint. Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will attend.
Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like this
measure attitude, not behavior.
Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask. So let's
be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey.
Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in
Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that problems
that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put forward as
the strawman alternative. In other words, when thinking about likely outcomes,
don't assume it will be all black or all white. Systemic hassles are usually
pursued more subtly than that.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf