Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/04/2016 02:48, Michael StJohns wrote: >> On 4/10/2016 10:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>>>> it was clean unfettered Internet. some local folk stuck their necks out >>>>> very far to accomplish this. it was definitely different than one got >>>>> outside of the ietf meeting network. this has been a condition placed >>>>> on hosts and beijing was no exception. >>>> This surprises me - "this has been a condition placed on hosts...". > > In the case of Beijing it was very clear from the earliest discussions, > going back to 2005 and before, to my personal knowledge. > > ... >> >> I repeat - "where" have the local hosts/laws specified conditions that resulted in the IETF network content access being >> markedly different than that accessible to the random local citizen? > > Why is that relevant? The criterion is: can the IETF do its work properly? > Of which a sub-criterion is: will there be clean unfettered Internet at > the meeting site? It's certainly relevant to me, b/c I don't personally think that IETF meetings should be held in oppressive and censoring countries. I don't know how to articulate this well -- others are better at it -- but I certainly would like to skip any meetings that I feel violate IETFs value of openness so that I can at least vote with my feet and my dollars. Thanks, Chris. > > How RFC 4084 applies in the local coffee shops is another matter. > > Brian