I wonder if the situation deserves a look from another angle. I'm certainly _not_ arguing that the restriction should be there. My contention is that the restriction of "don't criticize the Chinese government and/or the Chinese culture" (however that's defined) is not such a high threshold. Except for those who are determined to explore the various political issues at the podium, which are arguably non-technical in nature, I submit that participants and speakers at IETF meetings already practice self-censorship regularly. I would love to be proven wrong. Would you be speaking out about events during World War II - what happened in China and Southeast Asia and what you think Japan's role is in them when you attend the November meeting? Did you make a point of speaking out at the podium about Native Americans at any of the meeting in the Americas, say in San Francisco or DC ? War on drug? And the current "unpleasantness" in the Middle East (to borrow from Robert De Niro)? Did you make a point to speak about Nazi's in a meeting in Germany IETF 39), or IRA in Dublin? The answer is probably 'No'. And that would be a correct answer because IETF meeting and podium are not the proper platform for such discussions. I hope the Chinese government softens the stance on the restrictions but that's neither here nor there. My point is that we do self-censor and I don't understand how self-censor is being mentioned in these emails as if it has never happened before. I don't speak for anyone else or any entity, just for me. Thanks, Jerry -- Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 (+1 630 719 4389, soon) -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:02 PM To: Ole Jacobsen Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Yaron Sheffer Subject: Re: China venue survey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/19/09 10:23 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > >> 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 >> > > You might get a different answer, but it's ultimately up to the > individuals who answer the survey. How would you expect our large and > growing contingent from China to answer that question? Should we ask > about the policies of the United States, France or Germany on a long > range of topics (visa, wars, death penalty...)? Where do we draw the > line? I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq5O00ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOtgCeOgV7bNCS2qHPmXqQVz7WdiNS kIIAnicU346vdYIwT+3HSIMOpnas/fWt =P8LB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf