Re: China venue survey

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed Sep 23 04:14:26 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated,

You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.


Well, heavy weaponry was declared out of scope. As was reaching any kind of useful decision.


> and disruptive
> influences can be, and are, removed from mailing lists. (I have no clue > if there's an equivalent to PR actions for physical meetings, but I can
> imagine that we might make one up if we needed to).

Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we might sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose laws we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the IETF has never before signed a contract that lets the government of
the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for
discussion.


As other people have said, the much more worrying aspect is that this is a contract with the Hotel.

But in the scenario I was suggesting, a person is generally regarded as disruptive as defined by a comparitively small group of people, not including the disruptors themselves. The people we entrust this decision to have, we hope, fairly acceptable views on what disruption is.

> On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some people > have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the PRC impose > may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF typically engages in.

We don't know if they do or if they don't, without studying the laws of
the People's Republic of China.

True, but we can find out by simply asking the government and authorities of the People's Republic of China.

> I suspect that it may not be so, and would hope that this can be
> determined, clearly, and in advance of any decision.

Determined by whom, and to whose satisfaction?


Determined by the PRC, to our satisfaction.


> However, I would note that I'm still concerned about the possible
> effects by and on remote participation. But you'll all have read my
> other comments, right?

The XMPP technology that is used to run jabber.ietf.org includes methods for room moderation, and I suppose that such methods could be invoked.

Yes, but again, we have to ensure that the PRC is prepared for potential abuse of this facility, and we have to ensure that the methods for coping with disruption are themselves minimally disruptive, and are acceptable to the PRC. As well as that, we have to ensure that the PRC accepts that the potentially borderline discussion that occur in meetings may also be occuring via the XMPP service, and this nevertheless need to remain available.

I don't think - and this is purely my sense of reading the mailing list - that the majority of people would object to a meeting where we couldn't wave political placards demanding whatever. What we do want is to discuss, openly, those topics we have previously been known to discuss, without having to curb the technical content of our discussions purely because of the location.

I'm hoping, as I say, that we can obtain clear guidance on these issues directly from the authorities in the PRC. Moreover, I agree with the sense of Pete Resnick's comments, and Dean Willis's, that we should push for clarification and close contact, and remove the Hotel from the chain of enforcement.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]