Re: [IAOC] Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a futuremeetingof the IETF

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

 




On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:

On Oct 5, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's job for it. It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to ensure the logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not likely to
become experts in the details of holding a meeting in China.

Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make sure they have answers to the questions I am raising before making a decision.

I asked about legalities of discussing crypto a few years ago when this China meeting was raised to IESG. I did not get an answer. I asked about it around the time of the Stockholm meeting and got no answer. I am asking publicly on the IETF list when the topic finally got brought to a public list. I think it is a reasonable question.


So do I. While it is certainly the IAOC's job to reserach possible venues and select a meeting location, many of us have jobs which require knowing the answers to some of the questions you've raised. For example...

I co-chair a working group which is responsible for a cryptographic
authentication protocol.  If it is not legal to discuss and develop
cryptographic algorithms and protocols in the PRC, or to export the
results of such work, then my working group cannot usefully meet there,
regardless of what the IAOC decides about the IETF as a whole being
able to meet.

I also normally organize PGP key-signing sessions at IETF meetings.
If the operation of a CA or other cryptographic signing service requires a license in the PRC, then we may not be able to hold such a session, or it may require a special license.

I consider it entirely appropriate for me in my role as a working group chair, or Cullen in his role as an AD, to ask that the IAOC obtain answers to these questions from competent experts, such as legal counsel familiar with PRC law.


Finally, I would note that I am all for appointing people to positions of responsibility, putting appropriate checks and appeal and recall mechanisms in place, and them letting them go about doing their jobs. However, in this instance, the IAOC _asked_ for community input, so it seems silly to object to someone providing such input on the grounds that they are "doing the IAOC's job for it".


I would just note that no one on the IAOC has objected to this. I, for one, find all of this discussion useful and enlightening.

Regards
Marshall

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
IAOC mailing list
IAOC@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc


_______________________________________________

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]