----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Health" <healthyao@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Ole Jacobsen" <ole@xxxxxxxxx>; "IETF-Discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuturemeeting of the IETF > > On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Health wrote: > >> >> ----- 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? >> > > The IETF's work is the IETF's work. Some people are working hard to > further it. I suspect some people are just there to take notes. I > suspect others are there to find pieces of IPR that can be patented, > and are patenting it just ahead of our standardization efforts. I > suspect others are government agents, some charged with just reporting > back, some with influencing technical directions towards national > priorities. you just suspect, you suspect everything, do you know the principle of IETF? IETF believes the "running code". suspecting everything is a deduction, is not a kind of "running code". > > There are several of those groups that we could probably do without, > and the note takers don't worry me much. > >> Why can you say that "If not, I suggest they leave now." >> >> Chinese contributing to IETF is a power. you want to deprive it? >> > > Many of our colleagues from China, just like those from other > locations, are hard-working, serious contributors to the IETF. +1. >Others, > just like from other countries, probably fall into the groups I think > we can do without. It is unfortunate that some of those who are > contributing to the IETF's work are arguably opposed by governmental > priorities in their home countries. They are, I believe, true heroes > in every sense of the word. is every technology supported by every comany? does every technology have same priorities in every comany? > > >> IETF is intending to include every contributor. > > Exactly. But is it intended to "include" those who are working within > the IETF framework against the IETF's goals? I have no such example. even there is one, why not say "this is a freee speech". it seems that what you saying is a representation of "free speech"; other saying is not a representation of "free speech"; > >> >> my question is : >> >> Who is IETF? you? >> who gives you the right to do "If not, I suggest they leave now."? >> > > IETF is of course all of us who contribute to the IETF, and to the > Internet Society that sponsors the IETF. > +1 > As for who gives me the right to say anything, it's called Free > Speech. yes, you can say it. but at least, it is not a symbol of gentleman. >That's something some localities have, and others do not. you can say it in China. no problem. >This > is a centerpoint of the discussion we are having about which venues > are aligned with the IETF's goals, and which are opposed to it. > Many > of the conversations we might have at IETF are against the law in some > locations, and not against the law in others. Getting clarity on this > massive legal complexity and its implications to the IETF is something > we need to do before we have an IETF meeting in any location in which > we might find ourselves in violation of local laws. I have enjoy many IETF meetings, I have no discussion viloations of Chinese law. many IETFers from China are from some government related comanies. do you think that Chinese government will allow the chinese participants to join the IETF meeing which often has the violation of Chinese law? if your answer is yes, that means that Chinese government is kind, has a free speech. (even in USA, the government will not allow someone to have a violation of the law) if your answer is no, that means that IETF has not serious political discussion, so that chinese government does not care for it. > > >>> >>>> >>>> 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? > > Censorship, massive national firewalls, route restriction, web site > blocking, deep packet inspection with filtering, massive national firewalls, route restriction, web site blocking are technologies, some are also discussed in IETF. I am sure that these technolgy is not only used by China. >arrest and > prosecution of people who use the Internet for political speech, > capricious policy changes, Green Dam Youth Escort and other > politically-driven challenges to the function of the Internet are > quite obviously NOT making the Internet work better. Unless of course > you see them as valuable evolutionary pressures that force us to make > the Internet better in order to make these sorts of governmentally- > sponsored denial of service attacks less and less effective. If you > take the latter view, then learning to defeat them is obviously within > the scope of the IETF. you seems to care more about politicas than technolgy. one IETF meeting can change everything? every country has a different situation, every culture has a different thing; you want them to be same to yours? > >> >> political issue and technical issues are totally different. >> > > Political issues often drive technical issues. It's an unfortunate fact. > >> 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? > > Ok, so let's say my P2PSIP slides talk about the requirement of end-to- > end encryption for bypassing hostile nodes operated by the PRC's > Ministry of State Security or the USA's National Security > Administration. We might also discuss means for detecting such hostile > proxies and dynamically rerouting to avoid them. I've been led to > believe that in the PRC, public discourse on how to defeat the state's > invasive interception mechanisms is frowned on and probably illegal. > Are you telling me this isn't true? Will you be leading the discussion > as a local expert? Or are you afraid of what the PRC government might > do? Or are you secretly an agent of the PRC government tasked with > breaking the Internet so that it works the way the government wants it > to, and you want to keep your job? If so, don't take it personally -- > we've been known to ask the same questions about agents of other > governments that are or have been involved in IETF work. All > governments meddle, it's their nature. Our nature is to detect and > analyze that meddling and its impact on our operation and decide > whether it is beneficial or detrimental to our goals. > > >> >>> 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. > > Oddly enough, I agree with that. Like any national government, the > PRC's government is complicated. There are forward-looking leaders, > and there are reactionary leaders. There are leaders who understand > the benefits of technology, and leaders who see technology as a threat. > > Many of us outside the PRC are thrilled by the increasing reach of the > Internet within the PRC, and hope that it will lead to ever-broader > cultural and personal understanding and plenty of opportunity for > mutually profitable business. We also hope that it will lead to > agreements on environmental management (preventing pollution, species > loss, thermal shift, and all that stuff), and benefit the human rights > spectrum. Note that we haven't talked about things like > "environment"here; although they're big political footballs, they are > outside the scope of the IETF, as far as I know. > > Unfortunately, there are also leaders who understand the technology, > see how it can be a benefit to their people but also understand the > threat to their leadership position and want to change the technology > so that it is less of a threat to them. It is NOT within the IETF's > mandate to adapt our technology to supporting a political regime's > continued self-preservation, especially where such goals conflict with > the proper operation of the Internet. > > Specifically, the proper operation of the Internet includes the end-to- > end principle and the concept of strong operational security as seen > by the Internet hosts themselves (the end points), not as seen by a > political security apparatus that has control of the network fabric > itself. In particular, things like filtering firewalls, politically- > driven route filtering, enablement of deep-packet inspection and > "lawful intercept" run counter to the end-to-end and strong endpoint > security principles. And the policies of the PRC, as seen from > outside, seem clearly inclined towards this direction. Some elements > of the PRC leadership seem to be working as hard as they can to keep > the Internet from working the way it should. some love icecream; some do hate it. >We don't have to support > their game by showing up to play in their yard. you can not say "we", you are just one of IETFers. you'd better say "I". > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >> > > As we have often said, politics influence technology. It is only fair > that technology pushes back where necessary to preserve its own > integrity. in IETF history, which technolgy is pushed back by Chinse governement? I have seen none. you forget the "running code" again. >But I'm very much afraid that such "pushing back" would be > seen (at least by some parties) to violate PRC law and consequently > the terms of the host's contract, thereby putting the IETF in an > untenable financial position. if you are truly IETFer and focus on technolgy, I do not believe that you will have a violation of any chinese law. seeing is beliving. China is totally different to China 20 years ago. if your idea origins from "COLD WAR", you need downloade the new information to update it. > > -- > Dean > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf