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