On 19 sep 2009, at 21.55, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better. Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's focus on the center. More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly. They are building much of the technology and contributing technically. It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction. Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together."If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis:If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of the world will come together without us. The IETF will lose relevance.If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be much worse for China than for the IETF. The work of the IETF will suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously.Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude. We're robust enough to deal with any consequences. If we don't go to China, however, we have weakened ourselves.
Steve, well put!For whatever my own views on the political system in PRC is - I don't for a second believe that what the contract language refers to is to any of the technical discussions in the IETF. Every country have their own laws that restrict freedom of speech in one way or the other (so does the three I kind of consider home too). For example, if I would have stood up in Stockholm and burnt a Swedish flag - this would have been an action that would have had sever consequences for me (if we would have had enough police officers in Sweden, but that is a different discussion :-)). I admit there is a difference, the consequences would have been for me as an individual - not for the organizers.
That said, Eric made the analysis that the actions seems to be directed towards the organizers, but the area covered is vague. Still, I believe this is in reference to topics well outside the topics normally discussed inside the IETF.
Best regards, - kurtis -
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf