----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Ole Jacobsen" <ole@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "IETF-Discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:05 AM Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a futuremeeting of the IETF > Ole Jacobsen wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote: >>> Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have >>> a moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available >>> despite that policy. If this requires technology changes, then that >>> technology is within our purview. If it requires operational >>> changes, then those operational changes are within our purview. If >>> it requires political changes, then those changes are within our >>> purview. Governments with policies like the PRC's are the enemy, to >>> be defeated by all means technical, operational, and political. This >>> can lead to some heated statements. >> >> Dave beat me to it but: >> >> "We have a moral and ethical responsibility" ? Who is "we" here. Does >> it include the several hundred folks from China who regularly >> participate either in our meetings or online? > > The IETF, ISOC, and supporters thereof bear this responsibility. And > yes, our associates from any nation share in this responsibility if > they're participating earnestly and honestly in our work. If not, I > suggest they leave now. Since IETF includes Chinese, why can you say that " if they're participating earnestly and honestly in our work"? Our work means your work? Why can you say that "If not, I suggest they leave now." Chinese contributing to IETF is a power. you want to deprive it? IETF is intending to include every contributor. my question is : Who is IETF? you? who gives you the right to do "If not, I suggest they leave now."? > >> >> Does the IETF charter require us to do this? Are we supposed to >> overthrow governments as part of this? If so, do we have a ranked >> list, or should we just do it alphabetically? > > The IETF charter says "Mission Statement: The mission of the IETF is > (sic) make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant > technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and > manage the Internet." > > Government interference of the sort endorsed by the PRC does not make > the Internet work better. Its impact is the opposite; it makes the > Internet work worse. how do you know that? how do you prove that? political issue and technical issues are totally different. China's internet implements most RFC protocols. > This requires a technical response from the IETF to > counter. Yet these technical discussions are against the law of the PRC why, I never seeing such thing? example? > because they are in direct opposition to the intent of the PRC's > government. Therefore, we should not be meeting there, or if we are > meeting there, we should be focusing on the problem at hand, which is > driven by PRC policy. do you hear any statement about "China against some technology"? Actually, Chinse government sees the technology power as the first pust to improving the living standard of all Chinese. > >> >> Look, I am not in any way trying to defend the policy in question as >> something I agree with, but I cannot agree that we as a GROUP should >> be engaged in the politcal actions you suggest. Should we take a >> stance on universal health care while we're at it? > > If we were the Universal Health Care Engineering Group, then that would > be in our scope. We aren't, and it isn't. So PRC's other human rights > violations, whatever they may or may not be (and I enjoy many fine > products manufactured by political prisoners putatively subjected to > slave labor in the work camps), are completely out of scope for the > IETF. However, the relationship of the policies of PRC relative to the > workings of the Internet are clearly directly within our scope and mission. you try to re-charter IETF from technolgy body to political body? > > .. > >> Regarding "agents" I have no way of evaluating that possibility and I >> am not sure anyone can. >> >> This is why we asked you. > > Having some background in direct political action, I can assure you we'd > be juicy targets for agents provacateurs. Heck, I'm on the IETF's side, > and even I am tempted to take a whack at it since it's such a big, fat, > easy, obvious target that would generate relatively high political > yields for not all that much effort. We're like a cash-laden pinata > hanging from the ceiling over a hockey rink where EVERBODY has a stick. > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf