Re: China venue survey

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

 





I am going to assume that such a presentation would be largerly technical, a case study with some political overtones, but technical nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.


A very basic problem with these sorts of assurances is that they are being made by people who do, and cannot, not speak for the government or hotel management.

We really need to avoid the tendency to idealize what can go wrong or right, particularly in the absence of serious information.

We need to avoid the desire to interpret the language or possible actions according to what we, ourselves, might do. We need to interpret things from the perspective of the folks who will be the principal actors, defined in the agreement. These actors are have hugely different perspectives and priorities from most of the rest of us.

We also need to assume that reality will be more nuanced than an organized public demonstration or a platoon of police shutting the meeting down. Problems are likely to be more individual and more quiet. That does not make the problems less or more serious. Just serious.

What we have in front of us is some pretty plain language:

   contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
   presentations...contain

   any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic
   of China, or

   show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or

   violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or

   feature any topics regarding human rights or religion
   ...
   Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event
   ...
   Hotel will claim compensation from the Client

Some of the assurances folks have offered are based on conditions not required or covered by this language. For example, this does not refer to, or imply, an organized protest, as some folk have tried to suggest.

Let's be very clear:

This allows the Hotel to shut the meeting down, according to its interpretation of things -- not ours or the government's -- and to charge the IETF for having done it.

Let's also be clear:

1. We often are highly disrespectful. As a group, we really suck at being careful.

2. Technical discussions often must discuss usage policies and, as has been repeatedly noted, some legitimate IETF topics run smack into national privacy and human rights issues. Take this simple fact and match it with our indelicacy and the odds are high that there will be comments that violate multiple terms of the contract.

As with others, I cannot fathom the line of logic that says this unique set of contract conditions will be ignored.

I also cannot fathom claims that the legitimacy or utility of the IETF depends upon where we hold our meetings. I don't recall seeing that in any of our documents and I don't recall its being discussed over the last 15 years. Over these many discussions about venue, concerns about venues have /always/ reduced down to preferences of the host, rather than utility or legitimacy of the IETF.

The fact that some folk are now casting things in terms of utility or legitimacy -- or in terms of the IETF's being some sort of ambassador of the Internet -- appears to be spontaneously generated. That reduces both their utility and their legitimacy.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________

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]