Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe dot org> wrote:
I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it would not be prudent to meet under the contractual terms as communicated. I would be surprised if many of those who feel uncomfortable with the PRC as a venue on principle can agree to the contractual terms, for the simple reason that the contractual terms spell out an IMO despiseable policy against free speech.
You're right that my comment about "first group" and "second group" mixed up the question of what arguments have been raised with the question of how people feel.
Considering the first "group," those individuals who feel that the IETF should not go to China on principle have a right to argue on that basis, and should certainly feel entitled to skip that meeting on their own -- either to maintain their own integrity in the matter or to try to slow or stop the IETF's progress, by lack of quorum, in those WGs where they are involved -- or both. But my gut feeling is that unless the IETF wants its image to be one of a socio-political activist group, it should not decide against going to China on the grounds of socio-political differences alone. YMMV.
The second "group" is entirely different IMHO. The contractual terms offered to I* are spelled out quite clearly, with plenty of wiggle room as to the punishable offenses but little or no wiggle room as to the punishment. There have been arguments that the terms won't be enforced, for one reason or another, but whereas individuals might choose to take the risk and attend as if nothing were different from other IETF meetings, it would be (as others have said) an abdication of fiduciary responsibility for the I* leadership to assume this.
Any individual can, of course, belong to both "groups." Where I was getting was that the group that wants to skip China on philosophical grounds, to "boycott" the meeting as Ole put it, does not speak as a whole for the larger group that objects to the contractual terms.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf