--On Monday, October 05, 2009 12:30 -0600 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> Another piece of this question is whether PGP (or CACert) >> key-signing activities, with signed private keys being taken >> out of the country afterwards, would violate any law or >> require a license. I had previously assumed that the answer >> would be "no", but the answers you have given to this >> question, the P2PSIP/CA one, and maybe others, leads me to >> wonder a bit. > > The PGP Key signing is a good question - I have no idea - it's > certainly something we have done in the past but if it is not > legal in the PRC, I could live with a meeting where we did not > do any PGP key signing. It detracts a bit from the meeting but > is not in what I consider the mediatory must have core of the > meeting. Of course this would mean that a group of people that > did not often travel out of the PRC would be missing a great > opportunity to sign with a group of people outside of China > which I view as one of the benefits of having a meeting in > Beijing. I am suggesting only that this is another question --perhaps on a par with some of your other ones and perhaps not-- where we need to know the answer for planning purposes. We might not need to know the answer in order to decide whether to hold a meeting or not, but would certainly want to know before we started scheduling. In principle, I believe that, if there are other strong reasons for holding a meeting in a particular place, we might be able to live without holding meetings of one or two WGs (e.g., by forcing them into interim meetings at some other time and place), so the issues are not all that different. >... >> > Answer seemed pretty solid that this topic was not one that >> > most people would consider a really bad idea to discuss in >> > PRC. >> >> Too many negatives in that sentence for me to parse. Did you >> mean "was one that ...bad idea to discuss" or "ok to discuss"? > > Oops - sorry. I meant to try and say, that most the people I > had talked to advised me *not* to have any such discussion in > PRC. Ack. Thanks. Again, just wanted to understand what you were reporting. >... >> For the record, I'm still generally in favor of a meeting in >> Beijing. But I agree with Cullen that answers to these types >> of questions should be extremely clear before a decision to >> go is made and that, if any of the answers are sub-optimal, >> that the IESG should make a formal decision, after reviewing >> community input, etc., as to whether they believe that a >> satisfactory meeting can be held in spite of them. And I >> believe we should hold any potential meeting site to those >> standards, i.e., that this is not about the PRC. > > +1, and speaking of other countries, I also thing it is a very > reasonable requirement that "most of the participants can get > a visa in a reasonable time". Not sure what the values of most > and reasonable time are but I would say something like we only > meet in countries where 95% of the participants can get a visa > in under 4 months. FWIW, I believe the PRC meets that requirement. It is not clear that the US would if it were not the case that a significant fraction of our participants are either US citizens, US permanent residents, or qualify for some sort of visa waiver program. If you looked only at how long it takes for someone who needs a visa to get one, I believe the answer for China would be well over 95% in under four months and that that answer for the US would be, at best, unclear. john > >> >> john >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf