Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 -0400

Greetings;

We have received numerous suggestions and requests for an IETF meeting
in China and the IAOC has been working on a potential China meeting for
several years. We are now close to making a decision on a potential
upcoming  meeting in China. However, the following issue has arisen
and we would appreciate your feedback.

The Chinese government has imposed a rule on all conferences held
since 2008 regarding political speech. A fundamental law in China
requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this
has reference to public political statements or protest marches, which
are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the  
issue,
requires that people who attend conferences in China (the IETF being
but one example) not engage in political speech during their tour
in China. We consider this to be acceptable, on the basis that the
IETF intends to abide by the laws of whatever nations it visits and
we don't believe that this impacts our ability to do technical work.

The rule is implemented in the Hotel agreement and reads (note that
the "Client" would be the Host, and the "Group" would be the IETF) :

    "Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
    presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
    conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain
    any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic
    of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or
    violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature
    any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior
    approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China,
    the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot
    and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or
    all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.

    The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary
    actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial
    loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's
    reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel
    will claim compensation from the Client."

What does this condition mean ? The hotel staff would have, in theory,
the legal right to shut down the meeting and ask the offending
participants to leave the property immediately. While we do not
foresee a situation where such action would take place, we feel that
it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community.

The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this
condition as a matter of principle. The IAOC does believe that this
condition would not prevent the IETF from conducting its business.

We note that the Vancouver/Quebec survey conducted earlier this year
asked for people to suggest venues in Asia; an overwhelming majority
(94%) of those who mentioned China were in favor of having a meeting
there.

We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means - by
commenting on the IETF discussion list, and also by completing a very
short survey on people's intentions to travel to China, or not,
subject to these conditions. This survey can be found here :

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=h4DUkRUOdG_2bVLqioPcYYHw_3d_3d

All responses received by October 1, 2009 at  9:00 AM EDT  (1300 UTC)
will be considered by the IAOC in making its decision. We appreciate
the assistance of the community in providing us with data that will
help us to make an informed decision.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
(acting for the IAOC)

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:06:32 -0700

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> since 2008 regarding political speech.

Perhaps more material to this discussion, the government has imposed
severe and wide-ranging restrictions on people's access to the
Internet.  This bites most sharply at the Web/HTTP level.

[Non-rhetorical information-seeking question: Is IRC access unrestricted?]

Thus, operators of a Web-centric conference might have to decide
between declining to go, based on the Web's being restricted to a
crippled subset of itself, or alternatively to use an event there as a
teaching platform as to the benefits of an uncensored Web.

Also, bear in mind that there are a large number of people around the
world who are very angry at the Chinese government, and are looking
for opportunities to stage protests as visibly as possible.  It is not
inconceivable that some of them are IETF attendees and might choose to
try to do this in the IETF context.  The thought of the IETF or hotel
being held liable for what the government perceives as illegal action,
or on the other hand being forced to be a party to trying to prevent
what I'd see as a legitimate protest, are both extremely unattractive.

Finally, it wouldn't be that surprising if there was some amused news
coverage about the IETF meeting in the world capital of Internet
censorship.

 -Tim

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500

On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...

I'm trying to imagine the thought police remaining calm during a  
plenary such as the one at Danvers. I can't quite picture it.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:14:59 -0400

> it is proper to disclose these conditions to the community.

I don't see that.  Is this what they told you?  What I see is:

- the _conference_ materials shouldn't contain political speech.
  "which are within control of the client"

- if an _individual_ does so, that individual may be asked to leave.

I don't see "if anyone says anything they could shut the conference
down".

Scott

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:26:12 +0200

On Sep 18, 2009, at 17:42, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> The IAOC does believe that this

Marshall,

I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition to  
do its business.
However, in this case there are two aspects out of control:
1) The IETF participants may have a different interpretation of the  
condition than you and I have.
2) The people running the place may have a different interpretation of  
the condition than you and I have.

I have lived close enough to what was the GDR for long enough to know  
that 2 is an extremely uncontrollable problem.
(And I have been in the IETF long enough to think that 1 isn't much  
more controllable.)

China certainly deserves to host a meeting.
Has the SAR (Hong Kong) been considered?

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:38:52 -0400

>  "which are within control of the client"

In the above,

"the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot"

I, speaking just for myself, think that this is extremely unlikely to  
happen.
There have been a number of technical meetings in the PRC in the  
recent past,
and I haven't heard of any being shut down. Also, this would be a very  
serious step
for any venue to take, and would likely mean a near termination of any  
future foreign
conference business for them for quite some time to come.

Others, of course, will have to judge this probability for themselves.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:03:26 -0600

> Internet.  This bites most sharply at the Web/HTTP level.

Given that my blog is probably blocked, I suppose I won't be doing any
blogging that week. ;-)

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:50 -0600

On 9/18/09 9:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> What does this condition mean ? 

The problem is that we have no idea what this means, and even worse we
have in principle no way of discovering what it might mean. Presumably
interpretation of the rule will be up to the local authorities, and we
have no way of knowing beforehand what activities might be they might
construe as defamation of the local government, disrespect for the local
culture, violation of the local laws, or discussion of human rights or
religion. However, we can think of many statements that could be made
and topics that could be discussed at an IETF meeting that might fall
afoul of this rule. As a recent example, consider the session on network
neutrality during the technical plenary at IETF 75, which included a
freewheeling discussion about encryption as a human right (as I recall,
Ted Hardie even used the word "liberty"). Given the extraordinarily
vague nature of this condition, I think its effect would be chilling on
the freedom of speech that is necessary to complete even our technical
work, which as we know often threatens the asserted power of those who
function on Layer 8.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:28:47 -0400

Marshall,

Since seeing your note, I've been trying to figure out how to
formulate my concern.   Carsten's note captured it for me, so
let me be a little more specific.  

First, thanks for asking.

I am deliberately not addressing the "where else could we meet
where things would be better" question, the visa issues, or any
of the other logistical questions in this note.

Let's assume (at least for purposes of argument -- I assume some
members of the community might disagree) that we can trust the
government of the PRC to be sensible in this sort of matter, to
understand what an IETF meeting implies, etc.  The difficulty is
that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
("Client") isn't the government or a government body.

I am concerned that, if there is some incident --completely
unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or
hotel might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a
discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing
too close to the "politics" or "criticism" line.  I'd be much
less concerned if any perceived incident led to some sort of
conversation between "us" and relevant government folks about
real issues and boundaries than if (and I assume this is an
exaggeration) some middle-level hotel employee could panic and
pull the eject lever.

      john

--On Friday, September 18, 2009 18:26 +0200 Carsten Bormann
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
  
> I have lived close enough to what was the GDR for long enough
> to know that 2 is an extremely uncontrollable problem.
> (And I have been in the IETF long enough to think that 1 isn't
> much more controllable.)
>...

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:38:02 -0500

On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

>
>
> Finally, do you think that, in this group of people, there won't be  
> at least one who cannot resist stating their opinions about some  
> political hot button? Or for that matter, figure out they can DoS  
> the entire IETF by throwing up a controversial slide.  Obviously  
> there's some wiggle-room in the "within the control of the client"  
> clause--but that's the sort of thing that gets worked out in courts  
> later. It's not very helpful when the on-site authorities have  
> already pulled the plug, and I don't expect them to be sympathetic  
> to the idea that the IETF cannot control the behavior of it's  
> participants.
>

You are absolutely right.

I might find a little political speech tempting, and can assure you  
that there would be a number of other people with pithy political  
comments to make.

Perhaps something like "Free Tibet and Taiwan, Celebrate Falan Gong,  
Porn is a Human Right",  as a footer on every slide? After all, we  
have no rules about political speech. If the IETF tried to move to  
suppress such discourse,  we could well be sued back in the States.

I can certainly imagine people with agendae using this as an  
opportunity to score massive publicity by getting the IETF shut down  
or even better arranging for mass arrests and/or related civil  
disobedience on a large scale. It might even be a good thing, but it  
would be better if we weren't caught in the middle of it. Or maybe I'm  
wrong; perhaps the best service we can give the world is to be made  
examples of in China.

There are other risks as well. It wasn't too long ago that the Mexican  
government had to send a plane to retrieve many of the Mexican  
citizens in the country, after PRC health authorities decided to put  
them all into a rather primitive extended quarantine (read  
"concentration/death camp"). Given the IETF's penchant for outbreaks  
of respiratory diseases (the "IETF cold/flu" that frequently gets  
around), I'd not like to have that happen to us. I was doing standards  
work and we were scheduled to meet in Guangdong during the SARS  
outbreak, and remember television scenes of hospitals fenced in with  
barbed wire, with the afflicted being fork-lifted over the fence to  
die, as all supplies in the hospitals had supposedly been exhausted  
and water and electricity cut off to "prevent spread". Not that any  
country would do all that well in such a situation, but the People's  
Republic of China has a proven track record of being rather scary, at  
least from a western point of view.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8033089.stm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124137876507580987.html

http://www.salisburypost.com/Lifestyle/082109-quarantined-in-china

So all in all, I'd say I'm not comfortable with the idea of an IETF  
meeting in the PRC at this time. Maybe, in a few years, if they open  
up their Internet and cut back on the human rights abuses associated  
with the users of our technology (making bloggers "disappear" is just  
NOT acceptable), then we'll be ready to meet there. But not now, not  
yet.

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)

John,

Since both you and I have attended meetings in China, as recently as 3 
weeks ago, I think you will agree that the host --- any host --- has
a significant investment in effort, people and funds along with a 
great deal of pride and determination that the meeting run 
"perfectly." Given all that, I would find it very surprising that the
host would allow a random hotel employee, or anyone else for that 
matter, to pull the eject lever to use your term. I also very much
doubt that government officials (if we assume they will be present)
are looking for an excuse to throw us out and shut the meeting down.
Perhaps if this was a Greenpeace conference, but it's not.

This isn't to say that I "agree" with the conditions, just that I feel
fairly confident that an IETF meeting running "normally" would not 
find itself running afoul of any of these rules.

I would also like to remind everyone that ONE of the reasons a meeting 
is being proposed in China is that the IETF now has a significant 
number (and growing) of Chinese participants and for reasons beyond
our control, many of them are having difficulties obtaining visas to
visit the United States when we have IETF meetings here.

Ole

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:

> formulate my concern.  Carsten's note captured it for me, so let me 
> be a little more specific.
> 
> I am deliberately not addressing the "where else could we meet where 
> things would be better" question, the visa issues, or any of the 
> other logistical questions in this note.
> 
> unrelated to IETF-- that someone associated with the host or hotel 
> might overreact and decide to interpret, e.g., a discussion about 
> mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as pushing too close to the 
> "politics" or "criticism" line.  I'd be much less concerned if any 
> perceived incident led to some sort of conversation between "us" and 
> relevant government folks about real issues and boundaries than if 
> (and I assume this is an exaggeration) some middle-level hotel 
> employee could panic and pull the eject lever.
> 
>       john
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:49:29 -0700

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> commenting on the IETF discussion list, 

Marshall,

Thanks for asking.

I've only been to China a couple of times, but it was enough to be impressed, 
particularly with many aspects of their Internet technical and operations savvy.

Alas, that's not the question here.

As a community, we of the IETF are extremely diverse, extremely undisciplined, 
and extremely insensitive.  In particular, attempting to place us into an 
environment with distinctive political constraints is loaded with risk.  We 
can't even follow local customs to avoid sitting in inappropriate places in the 
hotel (Munich), nevermind the already-noted exchange that took place at the last 
IETF Plenary...

We should try to avoid venues that have visa challenges and behavior challenges. 
  Our diversity ensures that the former will be a real problem.  Our unruliness 
makes the latter quite likely to be a problem.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:02:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John C Klensin wrote:

> too close to the "politics" or "criticism" line.

Those concerns are not different with other countries, including the US.
A few hours after 9/11, once I was over my initial shock, I started
downloading all cryptography software I knew was hosted mainly in
the United States. We are far from a universal faith in any national
government.

Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single
out China. Perhaps appropriate people could inform about organisational
matters with others who have more experience, for example the IOC.

Paul

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:11:10 -0400

Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:

I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.  

I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this goes well beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what we should put up with.

There are two classes of issues which concern me:

The first is the risk to the IETF. I understand that the likelihood of anything happening as a result of this is very low. However, the IETF is a very unruly and opinionated group, and is probably more unruly than other groups that have recently met in China (or anywhere else). We have little idea what IETF attendees will do either in spite of or even because of this restriction. It would not be surprising to have some sort of major dust-up at the IESG plenary over this issue, and we don't know how the host country officials would react to this. Also, while the risk of the meeting being stopped in the middle seems very low, if it did happen this would be a very bad result for all concerned. If one IETF attendee were to be booted out of the hosting country based on something that they said or put on their slides or in a jabber room even that would be very bad. 

Also, from a moral point of view I don't think that we should accept this. Freedom of speech is a very basic freedom that is guaranteed in a wide range of countries (although of course not all).  The people who live there don't have the ability to say "no" without serious consequences. We DO have the ability to say no, and I think that we should. 

Again, this is just my personal opinion, and not the opinion of any group nor organization that I might happen to be associated with. 

thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: 18 September 2009 11:42
To: IETF Announcement list; IETF-Discussion list; Working Group Chairs
Cc: IAOC Jabberr; IAB IAB; IESG; [email-masked]
Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

Greetings;

Regards
Marshall Eubanks
(acting for the IAOC)

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:19:26 -0700

>requires that one not criticize the government. Practically, this

As an IETF participant, I do not take any position on the above.

>are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the

It is in the custom of the IETF to follow local laws in respect to meetings.

>    all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.

The topics to be discussed at an IETF meeting are set by the IETF.  I 
am not aware of any practice that requires government approval of the 
topics.  I note that contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 
5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879).

>    will claim compensation from the Client."

That is a liability the IETF can live without.

I believe that it is an extremely bad idea for the IETF to accept the 
rule implemented in the hotel agreement.

One of the requirements for an IETF meeting which most attendees care 
about is Internet access.  The only political restriction on that is 
that network must not assign RFC 1918 IP addresses to users and that 
there must not be any filtering which purports to "enhance the user 
experience" or protect them.

Some IETF participants might be considered as being disrespectful 
towards the "leadership".  They can turn a meeting into a rowdy 
party.  If the above is implemented, there are risks, both internal 
and external, of a public relations nightmare.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:19:59 -0700

Hi Ross,

Please see below:

> Speaking solely as an individual, providing only my personal opinion:

Same here.

> I think that this is not acceptable and we should not sign it.

Agreed.

> I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this goes well beyond what
>  we normally put up with and well beyond what we should put up with.
>
> The first is the risk to the IETF. I understand that the likelihood of anything happening
> as a result of this is very low. However, the IETF is a very unruly and
> opinionated group, and is probably more unruly than other groups that
> have recently met in China (or anywhere else). We have little idea what
> IETF attendees will do either in spite of or even because of this
> restriction. It would not be surprising to have some sort of major
> dust-up at the IESG plenary over this issue, and we don't know how the
> host country officials would react to this. Also, while the risk of the
> meeting being stopped in the middle seems very low, if it did happen
> this would be a very bad result for all concerned. If one IETF attendee were to be
> booted out of the hosting country based on something that they said or
> put on their slides or in a jabber room even that would be very bad.
>
> Also, from a moral point of view I don't think that we should accept this. Freedom of
> speech is a very basic freedom that is guaranteed in a wide range of
> countries (although of course not all).  The people who live there don't
> have the ability to say "no" without serious consequences. We DO have
> the ability to say no, and I think that we should.
>

I agree with that. This is basically about freedom of speech. It would be
ironical to host a meeting of the IETF, which stands for open Internet
standards, in a setting which limits open speech.

This is purely my personal opinion as well.

rahul

> Again, this is just my personal opinion, and not the opinion of any
> group nor organization 'that I might happen to be associated with.
>

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:29:08 +0200

John, (and others),

>  The difficulty is

The (possible) host is not a government body.  However, the host must
have permission from the government to organize the meeting, they
asked for it and got it.

I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some checks
on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy with
things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
have given the host permission to invite us in the first place.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no
          hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:32:40 -0800

> have given the host permission to invite us in the first place.

I've run into first-time attendees who were extremely
surprised, and not happy with, things that were said
in meetings, even knowing in advance that discussion
tends to be kind of, uh, frank.

Melinda

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:33:25 -0700

The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political views, manners or behavior of attendees.   The attendees are responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to local laws or customers.  If attendees violate the laws or customs of the host country, they may face consequences -- but they're on their own. 

So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement that takes responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that this is a bad idea.   It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say the same thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the city requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring that participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor day!).

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:37:43 -0400

> connection not hampered by a Great Firewall, I see no reason to single

If there has been an indication one way or the other about the nature
of the Internet access the meeting would be able to offer, I think I
missed it.  Do we know that the proposed meeting would not be so
hampered?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:41:07 +0200

> NOT acceptable), then we'll be ready to meet there. But not now, not  

Or, at the very least, remove the Facebook block: that would be a real
show stopper for many of us.

(Besides, I've heard that Mafia Wars scores play an essential role in
resolving disputes within the IESG...)

I'm only half kidding.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:43:15 -0700

> have given the host permission to invite us in the first place.

Um... I really doubt the government of the PRC has much understanding
of the behavior or culture of the IETF.

And the more I think of it, the more I think that even the slightest
hint of a suggestion that the attendees comport themselves in such a
manner as to please the Chinese government is very apt to provoke
deliberate provocations from some members of our community  -Tim

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:46:24 -0400

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:59 -0500
Matt Crawford <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > We are therefore asking for input from the community by two means -
> > by commenting on the IETF discussion list, ...
> 
Speaking of Danvers -- what is the situation -- theory and practice --
regarding encrypted transmissions to/from such a meeting?  I think that
a high percentage of IETF attendees are using various sorts of VPNs
and/or encrypted tunnels for email retrieval, remote login, etc.  Note
that I'm assuming they don't care much if we discuss cryptographic
technology (i.e., they're happy for the Security Area to meet).  I'm
just talking ordinary, day-to-day activities for many participants.

N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot,
regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the
luxury of attending most IETF meetings.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:50:54 -0400

>   all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.

We will definitely talk about privacy in GEOPRIV. One interpretation  
of the above provision would lead me to conclude that at the very  
least the GEOPRIV group would have to get some of its presentation  
materials approved by the government in advance.

---

From: Gene Gaines <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:51:22 -0400

Marshall, excellent statement for the IAOC.
May I recommend that the IETF sit down with representatives of the People's
Republic of China and the U.S. government and discuss concerns with meetings
in both countries -- the issue of censorship in China and arbitrary visa
problems in the U.S.

Not to open Internet-related issues, only to establish procedures and
agreements that will permit the IETF to meet in both countries without
having to sacrifice the open character of its meetings and without having
the visa problems that have harmed some individuals in the past.

It is important to both countries and to the the IETF to normalize its
meeting relationships.

Gene Gaines

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political
> views, manners or behavior of attendees.   The attendees are responsible for
> their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to
> local laws or customers.  If attendees violate the laws or customs of the
> host country, they may face consequences -- but they're on their own.
>
> So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement that takes
> responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that this is a bad
> idea.   It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say the same thing if
> the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the city requested that the
> IETF take responsibility for ensuring that participants conformed to the
> dress code (no white after labor day!).
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:06:06 -0400

> Marshall, excellent statement for the IAOC.

Thank you, but I trust that you and others understand that the  
statement represents the consensus view of the IAOC, and was prepared  
by the IAOC working together.

The Chair, Bob Hinden, has been unavailable because he is on vacation.  
I volunteered to be the Acting Chair,
which is why I am writing this instead of Bob.

Regards
Marshall

>
> May I recommend that the IETF sit down with representatives of the  
> People's Republic of China and the U.S. government and discuss  
> concerns with meetings in both countries -- the issue of censorship  
> in China and arbitrary visa problems in the U.S.
>
> Not to open Internet-related issues, only to establish procedures  
> and agreements that will permit the IETF to meet in both countries  
> without having to sacrifice the open character of its meetings and  
> without having the visa problems that have harmed some individuals  
> in the past.
>
> It is important to both countries and to the the IETF to normalize  
> its meeting relationships.
>
> Gene Gaines
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Bernard Aboba <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
> The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the  
> political views, manners or behavior of attendees.   The attendees  
> are responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability  
> ensure their conformance to local laws or customers.  If attendees  
> violate the laws or customs of the host country, they may face  
> consequences -- but they're on their own.
>
> So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement  
> that takes responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that  
> this is a bad idea.   It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd  
> say the same thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and  
> the city requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring  
> that participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor  
> day!).
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:08:50 -0700

On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

> on what the IETF is doing

The government has been negotiating to bring an IETF meeting to China  
since 1997, and has been very carefully vetting the IETF's activities  
for a long time. U betcha they know what we're doing.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:11:46 -0600

On 9/18/09 1:33 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> political views, manners or behavior of attendees.   The attendees are
> responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure
> their conformance to local laws or customers.  If attendees violate the
> laws or customs of the host country, they may face consequences -- but
> they're on their own.
> 
> So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement that
> takes responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that this is a
> bad idea.   It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say the same
> thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the city
> requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring that
> participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor day!).

Wearing white after Labor Day, while gauche, does not put a damper on
technical discussions (and their inevitable political ramifications)
within the IETF.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:44:29 +1200

> for a long time. U betcha they know what we're doing.

Up to *at least* the level of a Vice Minister of the PRC Government, from my
personal knowledge. Roughly the same level as the US Government's direct contact
with the IETF, also from my personal knowledge. There is nothing sinister
there; we should be flattered.

However, I have a question to the IAOC: do we know if other standards meetings
such as 3GPP had to sign similar conditions before meeting in the PRC?

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:17:05 -0400

--On Friday, September 18, 2009 21:29 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> have permission from the government to organize the meeting,
> they asked for it and got it.

I was nearly certain of that.

> have given the host permission to invite us in the first place.

I am at least as certain of that as Fred is.

My concern is not "catching the government by surprise about our
being there" in any way.  I think we have a fairly clear
understanding of what we are getting into in that area and
assume that they (both government and prospective hosts) pretty
much do too.  Within the IETF, some people are going to be happy
about what that understanding implies and some people aren't,
and I'm really glad that you folks are the ones who have to
figure out where the consensus lies (and not me).  

The specific issue I was trying to address was whether there was
any risk of one of our loose cannons (or
politically/environmentally-insensitive individuals) triggering
a reaction from some mid-level hotel staffer who was
oversensitive and overly risk-adverse as a matter of
personality, or as the result of conditions beyond anyone's
control, and having the combination trigger a situation that
would not exist with a combination of calmer heads with more
inclination to try to defuse a situation than to escalate it.
And, if that risk existed, whether there was anything that could
be done to mitigate it.

An example might include trying to change the provisions for
unilateral action by the hotel or Host, into a requirement that,
if a problem was perceived, it went into some sort of
problem-understanding and resolution review team that involved a
few of our senior folks and representation from the government
as well as the hotel and Host people.  I assume that such a
team, if organized in advance, could move quickly enough to meet
any reasonable need.

I think that, if we were going to do this, that sort of model
would benefit everyone.  From our standpoint, it would help
lower the risk of a misunderstanding turning into a crisis.
>From theirs, even a public hint of inclination to shut down an
IETF meeting or start kicking participants out would, as others
have pointed out, have long-term bad consequences that would
spread well beyond a particular hotel or Host.

    john

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:52:16 +0100

On 18 Sep 2009, at 16:42, Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> in China

I'd have no problem with such a meeting if, and only if, there would  
be a normal meeting network with normal Internet access. I reckon the  
hotel-pull-the-plug scenario is unlikely enough to ignore, (assuming  
there are no other restrictions),

Stephen

PS: will there be a prize for the least appropriate BoF proposal? :-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:27:19 -0400

--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:46 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Speaking of Danvers -- what is the situation -- theory and
> practice -- regarding encrypted transmissions to/from such a
> meeting?  I think that a high percentage of IETF attendees are
> using various sorts of VPNs and/or encrypted tunnels for email
> retrieval, remote login, etc.  Note that I'm assuming they
> don't care much if we discuss cryptographic technology (i.e.,
> they're happy for the Security Area to meet).  I'm just
> talking ordinary, day-to-day activities for many participants.

I obviously cannot speak for the meeting or venue, but I've
routinely used encrypted tunnels from various facilities and
hotels in Beijing and have not encountered a problem for many
years (and the problems then were not clearly different from
problems I used to routinely encounter in hotels in the US and
Western Europe).

Commitments and clarity would definitely be good, especially
given that someone feels a need for the sort of provision
Marshall quoted, but my impression from some experience is that,
if we confine our networking efforts and technical (and even
technical policy) discussions to the meeting and meeting
participants, we would be extremely unlikely to have any
problems.  Now, if some IETF participant decided to wander into
a far-away neighborhood of Beijing, find a random Internet cafe,
wander in, and offer to teach everyone there how to set up an
encrypted tunnel to web proxies in some problematic country (or
other entity)... well, I haven't had any first-hand experiences
that let me guess what would happen, although I assume it would
be treated as bad judgment or worse.

      john

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)

Technically, the IETF (or ISOC or IAOC) will not be signing the 
agreement, the host in China will, but that's in some sense a fairly 
minor detail. We would still be expected to "play by the rules".

I don't think anyone is expecting us to warrant the views or 
behaviors of our attendees, so Marshall's question is really about 
disclosing what the rules are ("you have been warned") and asking the 
community if they can live with those rules. And yes, if you break the 
rules, you're on your own, but if it brings down the meeting (and 
network in the process) that's not good for anyone, but we feel it is 
VERY unlikely to happen.

Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of
free speech and such is, I think, something we need to come to
at least a rough consensus on. We, the IAOC, are confident that
a meeting there would be successful by the usual criteria that
we apply for meetings, but we recognize that the matter at hand
is important and thus it is being disclosed prior to any agreement 
being made.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> this is a bad idea.  It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say 
> the same thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the 
> city requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring that

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:35:57 -0400

--On Friday, September 18, 2009 15:02 -0400 Paul Wouters
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> discussion about mandatory-to-implement cryptography, as
>> pushing too close to the "politics" or "criticism" line.
> 
> A few hours after 9/11, once I was over my initial shock, I
>...
> We are far from a universal faith in any national
> government.
> 
> or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is
> wrong. 

But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked
before (by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped,
having all participants being kicked out of the country, and
bearing full financial responsibility for any costs that result,
if some number of participants are perceived of as being out of
line... and perceived by a process in which the IETF has no
voice, no right to state an opinion or defend itself, etc.

It seems to me that provision is a significant issue,
independent of how one feels about those concerns that are "not
different with other countries" and also independent of our
appraisal of how likely it is to be triggered.

    john

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:28:06 -0400

In addition to the distasteful restriction on freedom of speech placed
on attendees (comments, perhaps made in jest, during the plenary or
even in the hallway about the "great firewall of china" might cause
summary ejection of the individuals or the entire groups), there are
two other issues that don't seem to be addressed in the Hotel
agreement.

(1) What assurances if any can be given about IETF members being
granted or denied visas based on blog postings talking about, say,
Google or Cisco being evil due to their aiding and abetting China's
censorship of the Internet made available to their citizens (not to
mention those who may have in the past rendered technical assistance
to those in China desiring to circumvent the "Great Firewall")?

(2) What sort of access will IETF'ers have to the Internet?  Will
IETF'ers behind the Great Firewall?  What about the ability for
IETF'ers to use encryption (ssh, IPSEC, etc.) to connect to their
corporate Intranet?  Note that encrypted tunnels could be used by
IETF'ers to proxy out to get unfiltered internet access --- but will
the Chinese government allow this on the grounds that they won't be
able to monitor network activity for "political activity"?  If these
restrictions prevents people from being to connect to their corporate
networks, it would seem to be an absolute showstopper.

							- Ted

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:16:18 +0700

Date:        Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
    From:        Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Whether or not we should meet in China based on principles of
  | free speech and such is, I think, something we need to come to
  | at least a rough consensus on.

Actually, no, we don't, and shouldn't.   If we were to start down
that road we'd need to start analysing the policies of countries on
all kinds of sensitive issues, such as religious freedom, the right
to "bear arms", compulsory military service provisions, whether
or not abortion is permitted, adherence to the Kyoto pact on
climate control, ....

None of that makes sense for an organisation like the IETF.   On the
other hand, individuals both can, and should, exercise their own
right to refuse to attend meetings in locations where if they were
to attend they'd feel either threatened, or to perhaps be complicit
in some policy with which they disagree.

If the effect of that were to cause attendance at some site to be
so low that useful work was impossible, then the chances of a future
meeting there would be negligible - and that's the one thing that the
IETF (or IAOC or whoever) should consider - will it be possible to
hold an effective IETF meeting, if the answer to that is no, then
look elsewhere, if yes, then that is a suitable venue, after which
it's just a (perhaps not trivial) matter of choosing between all
the available suitable venues offered for any particular meeting.

kre

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:47:23 -0400

> or not abortion is permitted, adherence to the Kyoto pact on

I think we can make a distinction between things that aren't going to
affect (or are highly unlikely) to directly affect an average IETF
attendee, and issues are more general in nature, or what an oppressive
regime inflicts on its citizens.  If there was a proposal to go to a
country was highly likely to clap someone in irons and lock them away
just because they were Jewish, and it would apply to IETF attendees, I
hope it would be obvious that this would be a "religious freedom"
issue that would impact our choice of that venue.

Some IETF'ers might decide that they don't want to render legtimacy to
a regime that denies its citizens Free Speach, and I agree with you
that should be a decision that each attendee should make for its own.

OTOH, if there is a legal agreement which must be signed which clearly
impacts the free speach rights of IETF attendees, past a certain
level, I think it is valid for us as a community to decide that maybe
using such a venue might not be the path of wisdom.

Whether or not the situation "on the ground" in Beijing is likely to
rise to that level, I am not sure.  Maybe people are right in that the
authorities understand that if they were to be unreasonable, it's
highly likely that it would be widely publicized and it would be a
major black eye for them.  On the other hand, having heard stories
(admittedly many years ago), about someone on an international
assignment in China who called his wife and talked to her in Portugese
(since that was her native language), only to have a heavily
Chinese-accented voice break into the line to demand, "speak in
English", I'd be feeling rather cautious about going to China and
would probably feel that I would want to be very careful about how I
spoke and behaved while in that country, far more than most other
civilized parts of the world --- which wouldn't make it to be a
terribly pleasant place to visit.

       	  	    	    	     	      - Ted

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)

> using such a venue might not be the path of wisdom.

Which is why we asked you :-)

> rise to that level, I am not sure.  Maybe people are right in that 
> the authorities understand that if they were to be unreasonable, 
> it's highly likely that it would be widely publicized and it would 
> be a major black eye for them.  On the other hand, having heard 
> stories (admittedly many years ago), about someone on an 
> international assignment in China who called his wife and talked to 
> her in Portugese (since that was her native language), only to have 
> a heavily Chinese-accented voice break into the line to demand, 
> "speak in English", I'd be feeling rather cautious about going to 
> China and would probably feel that I would want to be very careful 
> about how I spoke and behaved while in that country, far more than 
> most other civilized parts of the world --- which wouldn't make it 
> to be a terribly pleasant place to visit.

I think that if you would ask the thousands of businessmen who visit 
China every day you would not hear such stories in 2009. Having just 
come from a meeting in Beijing (APNIC 28), I can certainly attest to 
the fact that nobody worries about what they say in public or private 
and there isn't an army of listeners ready to jump on you (at least as 
far as I could tell). Of course, if you wander down to a certain 
square and unroll a banner, it would probably get you arrested before 
anyone had a chance to read it. Since that's not typically something 
we do in the IETF, the IAOC does not feel it would impact our ability 
to have a good meeting.

The result of the survey will be informative, I am sure.

Ole

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:33:11 -0500

On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

>But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before 
>(by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all 
>participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full 
>financial responsibility for any costs that result, if some number 
>of participants are perceived of as being out of line... and 
>perceived by a process in which the IETF has no voice, no right to 
>state an opinion or defend itself, etc.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but the IETF has not been 
asked any of this; the Host is the one signing the agreement and 
bearing the full financial responsibility. We haven't yet heard what 
the agreement between the IETF/IAOC and the Host is.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced 
with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply 
cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, 
sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation".

So long as we have assurances that crypto isn't a problem, and 
assurances that technical discussions which happen to touch on 
political issues (IDNs, crypto, privacy, etc.) are OK, I'm willing to 
roll the dice. But it seems silly to sign a contract like the one 
outlined.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:47:53 -0400

> such as 3GPP had to sign similar conditions before meeting in the PRC?

Dear Brian;

Please note that we would not be signing these conditions. The host  
would be.

We were told that these conditions apply to all conferences, without  
exception.

Whether or not other conferences have the same level of transparency  
as we do (i.e.,
whether the organizing committees know about these formal  
restrictions, and
communicate them to their attendees), I do not know.

Regards
Marshall

> IAOC mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:57:27 -0400

Given that one of the reasons for moving meetings out of the US was an inability to get timely visas for physical entry I find it kind of ironic that we're contemplating having a meeting in a place where there's a complete inability to get a visa for your mind.....

Yup - hyperbole - but I will note the set of permissible actions at this venue appears to be much more constrained than any other venue we've visited.   I will also note that many if not most of the topics considered within the security area could be in violation of PRC law.  We've been focusing on the free speech issues and really should be considering whether or not we have more fundamental issues.  For those who have said "the government is unlikely to enforce..." various items, I would suggest that its not smart to knowingly violate any laws in any country.

Mike

At 11:42 AM 9/18/2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:48:52 -0700

Robert Elz wrote:
> IETF (or IAOC or whoever) should consider

Robert,

Trying to follow up on Ted Tso's very reasonable comments...

You are suggesting an evaluation model that would cause going to a place that 
resulted in poor attendance and other problems during the meeting, thereby 
seriously damaging the effectiveness of that meeting.  If we believe the 
incremental cost and utility of a single meeting is small, then this is a 
reasonable model.

If instead we know that costs are quite high -- as they are -- and we believe 
that each meeting should be treated as strategically important, then we should 
not be so cavalier in taking risks with their success.

d/

ps.  I quite like Pete's suggestion to simply cross off the problematic section 
of text.  However, since it is really the host -- that is, a Chinese group -- 
and not "us" signing the thing, I suspect this approach has its own problems.
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:33:55 -0700

> are not the IETF's custom. The government, which is a party to the issue,

It's not entirely clear to me what these conditions mean, so
maybe it's worth trying to parse them a bit. ISTM that there are
a bunch of potential questions about their interpretation:

1. What materials are covered under this? This could include any
   of [in roughly descending order of "officialness"]:
   (a) Materials printed in the program [Do we have a program?]
   (b) Materials presented by IETF management (IAB, IESG, etc.)
   (c) Speech by IETF management
   (d) Materials presented by WG participants
   (e) Speech by WG participants

2. What exactly is covered by the restriction on "any defamation
   against the Government of the People's Republic of China, or show
   any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or violates any laws of the
   People's Republic of China or feature any topics regarding human
   rights or religion"?

3. What recourse, if any, do we have if the hotel staff judge that
   the lines above have been crossed?

4. What, if anything, is the IETF on the hook for if the conference
   is cancelled?

None of these seem entirely clear from the text above. In the
maximal (and most worrisome) interpretation, the hotel staff, in their
sole discretion, could choose to cancel the entire IETF because a
single WG participant says something about Taiwan in the course of a
WG discussion. If that's in fact the controlling interpretation, then
that seems distinctly problematic. 

Is it really that bad? Let's take a deeper look at each term:

1. The materials covered are specified as:

    "Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
    presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
    conference (which are within the control of the Client)"

Except for the final parenthetical, this seems to include all of
(a)-(e). The relevant question then becomes what the meaning
of the final parenthetical is, and in particular, who the
Client is. I suppose one could argue that the Client is just
IASA and so all that's relevant is presentations from IAOC
(or more liberally from the I*). However, if you argue that
the client is IETF then clearly the IETF management *could*
control what people present (E.g., require pre-clearance of
slides) and say (by cutting off the microphones). So, I don't
think this is particularly clear. It doesn't seem to me that
we would really have much of an argument that presentations
at the plenary aren't "within the control of the Client",
however. That said, I think the natural interpretation is
that anything that's on the agenda falls into this category--if
people want to interpret it differently, we should get a 
legal opinion to that effect--or better yet, get the
terms modified to make it clear.

2. The offensive topics are described as:

   "[1] any defamation
   against the Government of the People's Republic of China, or [2] show
   any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or [3] violates any laws of the
   People's Republic of China or [4] feature any topics regarding human
   rights or religion"?

(Numbers mine)

This really seems exceptionally broad. I'm not overly worried about
IETFers defaming the government of the PRC, but I think I can come
up with plausible technical topics that would violate at least
[2] and [4]. In particular:

- An expression that HTTP error codes need not be translated into
  Chinese could be argued to show disrespect to Chinese culture.
- Discussion of location privacy [Geopriv] or resistance to lawful 
  intercept [TLS, RTPSEC, IPsec] could be argued to be 
  relevant to human rights. I've fairly regularly heard negative
  opinions expressed about both the US and Chinese governments
  in these discssions. 
- As someone else observed, the discussion of net neutrality in last
  IETF's plenary could similarly be argued to be relevant to human
  rights (cf. Ted's comments) The US and China come in for
  criticism here as well.
- Discussion of language differences between Taiwan and China
  could easily fall into a number of these categories.

So, absent some narrowing of this clause, it does seem to me like
this would have a chilling effect on technical discussion.

3. This clause actually seems the clearest and the most expansive:

This appears to me to allow the hotel staff, in their sole discretion,
to determine which actions violate this contract and shut down the
entire IETF meeting. I don't see that we have any meaningful recourse.

Perhaps it's just security guy paranoia, but I would be reluctant to
sign a contract that featured this sort of clause regardless of the
antecedent actions that ostensibly triggered it; the problem here is
that it gives the hotel an incentive to use the implicit threat of
terminating the event as negotiating leverage for other interactions
where they simply wish to get a more advantageous deal.

4. I'm not entirely clear what our liability is here. Consider the
worst case: in the first session on Monday, there's a formal
presentation from an IETF official (e.g., an AD) denouncing China's
Tibet policy. The hotel decides that this is a breach of the above
terms and closes the entire IETF meeting. At this point, a large
fraction of IETFers cancel their hotel reservations, demand their
money back, and go home. Is the IETF required to make the hotel whole?
Maybe these reservations will be un-cancellable, but that's not
been the case for at least some previous meetings I've attended.
If the IETF is on the hook here, this seems like a fairly high
level of risk for the IETF to bear.

The bottom line, then, is that the stated terms seem to me to be quite
problematic: they (at least arguably) seem to apply to relevant
technical discussions by pretty much everyone at IETF and don't give
us any meaningful recourse if the hotel judges that we're in breach.

This leads immediately to the question of whether there is some more
constrained version of these terms that actually would be
acceptable. I don't see much room for negotiation in point (2), which
seems to me to be the meat of the objectionable material. One could
imagine narrowing (1) to apply somehow to only "official" statements
by the IETF and (3) to provide some sort of recourse, or required
escalation procedures, or something. However, I don't know if the IETF
management would be willing to bind themselves to these terms and I
don't know if we could define a meaningful escalation procedure, but
if we were able to achieve these, it seems like the impact on the
rest of the IETF would be marginal. [Speaking solely for myself,
were I still on the IAB I would not be willing to be bound by these
terms.] However, as it is, this seems to me to have the potential
for an unacceptably high impact on the IETF as a whole.

-Ekr

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:55 -0400

The choice is between engaging and not engaging.  Engaging is better.   
Not engaging isn't constructive.  The Internet and the IETF are all  
about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open.  Much of this  
dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations.  Let's  
focus on the center.  More than a billion people live in China and  
their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly.  They are building  
much of the technology and contributing technically.  It's to  
everyone's advantage to have comfortable, constructive interaction.   
Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together."

If you prefer to focus on the negatives, here's my analysis:

If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the  
rest of the world will come together without us.  The IETF will lose  
relevance.

If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will  
be much worse for China than for the IETF.  The work of the IETF will  
suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough.  However, China's  
quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more  
seriously.

Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude.  We're  
robust enough to deal with any consequences.  If we don't go to China,  
however, we have weakened ourselves.

Steve

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:48:43 +0300

Hi,
I support this view.
Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their
opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the
place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF is
a technical body and not the UN. 

Roni Even

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Steve Crocker
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 10:56 PM
> To: IETF Discussion; IAOC IAOC
> Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a
> future meeting of the IETF
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:01:02 -0800

> a technical body and not the UN. 

Unfortunately (or maybe not) national regulatory policies
do have some influence on what the IETF does and one hopes
that what the IETF does has some influence on national
regulatory policies.  I think the likelihood of there being
a problem seems low, but still, it's hard not to wonder about
something like the Raven process and how that particularly
boisterous meeting (Washington?) would have fared in China.

Melinda

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:14:38 -0700

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> Given that one of the reasons for moving meetings out of the US was an
> inability to get timely visas for physical entry I find it kind of
> ironic that we're contemplating having a meeting in a place where
> there's a complete inability to get a visa for your mind.....
> 
> Yup - hyperbole - but I will note the set of permissible actions at
> this venue appears to be much more constrained than any other venue
> we've visited.   I will also note that many if not most of the topics
> considered within the security area could be in violation of PRC law.
> We've been focusing on the free speech issues and really should be
> considering whether or not we have more fundamental issues.  For those
> who have said "the government is unlikely to enforce..." various items,
> I would suggest that its not smart to knowingly violate any laws in any
> country.

I too was struck by the irony of trading one set of visa issues for another
...

While I agree one should not intentionally violate any laws of the visited
country, my concern with this condition is that I might lose my ability to
acquire a visa in the future due to the stupid actions of someone else. I
don't recall the questions on the PRC visa application, but I know that a
frequent question on visa app forms is something to the effect of "have you
ever been denied access, or asked to leave the country". I am willing to
deal with the consequences of my own actions, but I am not sure I want to
risk my future livelihood over someone else's desire for 15 minutes of fame.

I have been to Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/HK many times over the last 7
years, and I can't see jeopardizing the ability to conduct future business
there given the strongly held viewpoints of many IETF attendees, so it is
not clear to me that I would attend under that condition. I would be happy
to participate in normal IETF business there, as there are contributors that
deserve the same locality considerations that the rest of the group is
given. If there were some way to make it clear that any issues were personal
actions, which probably means not scheduling a plenary to invite a group
discussion which may go south, I would be less concerned about attending.

Beyond that, I do agree with Mike that we need to take a close look at the
WGs which have problematic agendas in such an environment. It is not about
how we interpret the content of the discussions, it is how the local
officials would interpret it. Unless someone fairly high up in the national
government is willing to bless the topics in advance, and strong-arm any
local enforcement that is looking to make a name for themselves, I don't
think it makes sense to even bother scheduling them to meet.

Tony

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:14:42 +0300

Melinda,
I see a difference between addressing requirements for protocol that address
national regulatory services and voicing an opinion about national
regulatory policies. 
I also noticed that the issues raised on the mailing list were wider than
national regulatory services

Roni Even

> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:01 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'Steve Crocker'; 'IETF Discussion'; 'IAOC IAOC'

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:16:48 -0400

Speaking just for myself, I agree with Steve. I think it that is  
better to engage than to retreat. Nothing is certain, but I also think  
that it is highly likely that we would have a good meeting.

Regards
Marshall

On Sep 19, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:

> The choice is between engaging and not engaging.  Engaging is  
> better.  Not engaging isn't constructive.  The Internet and the IETF  
> are all about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open.   
> Much of this dialog has been worried about possible extreme  
> situations.  Let's focus on the center.  More than a billion people  
> live in China and their use of the Internet is expanding rapidly.   
> They are building much of the technology and contributing  
> technically.  It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable,  
> constructive interaction.  Our first slogan was "Networks Bring  
> People Together."
>
> If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences  
> will be much worse for China than for the IETF.  The work of the  
> IETF will suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough.  However,  
> China's quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt  
> more seriously.
>
> robust enough to deal with any consequences.  If we don't go to  
> China, however, we have weakened ourselves.
>
> Steve
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:27:36 -0700

At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:55 -0400,
> however, we have weakened ourselves.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this analysis, but I'm not sure
it's a complete analysis.

We've been offered a deal under certain terms that at least some of
the community aren't comfortable with. Now, it might well be true that
it's better to take those terms than not if those were the only two
options, but that's not the case here. In particular, we can refuse to
take those terms now and instead attempt to negotiate for terms that
we find more acceptable. It seems to me that even under the analysis
you've laid out that's a superior course of action.

-Ekr

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:24:59 -0600

It might be helpful to avoid responses of the form "At least the Chinese 
will be able to attend, whereas they couldn't get visas into the U.S." 
or "Yeah?  Well, the U.S. has human rights problems, too!"  This is not 
a competition between the U.S. and China.  There are two hundred other 
countries where international conferences can be held.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Eric,

Speaking not on behalf of the IAOC, but as an individual attendee who 
has also attended a couple of Internet-related meetings in China: You
raise a number of good questions. Unfortunately, since the wording was
dictated by a branch of the Chinese government I see little hope in it
either being revised or further clarified. I view the entire thing as
a warning sign that certain activities are not allowed [just like we 
have signs that say "violators may be prosecuted"]. The broadness
of these statements I am sure is deliberate.

In a more recent message you said:

" In particular, we can refuse to take those terms now and instead 
  attempt to negotiate for terms that we find more acceptable."

I very much doubt that we have any way to negotiate with the Chinese 
government on this.

But back to the specifics:

I don't think the rules were written with a group like the IETF in 
mind. I also don't think, in fact I am pretty certain, that the hotel 
staff would be the ones who decide to shut down the meeting or take 
other action. I am sure what would happen, in practice, is that the 
*local host* would intervene, warn the offender and that would 
probably be the end of it. This assumes there was ever anything for 
the hotel or host to complain about in the first place which is 
something I also doubt, ---- unless someone in our community decides 
that they want to push the boundaries and prove a point. That is 
frankly my ONLY worry about this matter. The Chinese government is, by 
now, well aware of what a typical IETF meeting looks like and would 
not have granted permission for the meeting to take place if they 
expected us to stage a political rally, but just in case we should be 
so inclined, there is a set of rules spelled out (albeit broadly) in 
the text we are discussing.

I assure you that there is no intention to have WG materials 
pre-screened or anything of the sort, heck they're never ready on time 
anyway ;-) And I honestly do not think that anyone should plan on 
being more careful than usual about what they say in general WG 
discussions or plenaries. The meeting should be like any other IETF
meeting in terms of content.

So, we can do what Steve Crocker suggests, go to China with a positive
attitude or stay home and wonder what might have happened.

Ole

> 4. What, if anything, is the IETF on the hook for if the conference
[snip]

---

From: Richard Golodner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:36:33 -0500

On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 00:48 +0300, Roni Even wrote:
> The IETF is
	What more needs to be said? Please stay on track for the sake of the
IETF itself.
	Richard Golodner

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:13:36 -0700

If by engage you mean continue to discuss the terms of having a meeting in China, then I agree. If the government there really wants to host an IETF meeting, they should be able to help changes these terms to focus on individuals and not the entire event or organization.

But to suggest that without holding a meeting in China the IETF does not engage its Chinese members, that is simply false.

Personally, I doubt I will be attending a meeting in China. Not because of any political reasons, but simply because the cost of such a meeting compared to the value it brings my employer (that is attending a meeting, not general IETF participation).

My concerns are having access to the meeting via IRC and voice streams and not having to worry about where the meeting it taking place. I think bad behavior is more likely from people participating from outside China than at the event. And if all it takes to shut down such channels is someone saying something about Tibet on the IRC channel, then that's simply not acceptable.

EHL

> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:17 PM
> To: Steve Crocker
> Cc: IAOC IAOC; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Request for community guidance on issue concerning
> a future meeting of the IETF
>

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:18:24 -0400

On Saturday 19 September 2009 15:55:55 Steve Crocker wrote:
> Not engaging isn't constructive.

Thank you. I wanted to say this, but could not find the right words.

I fully agree with Steve Crocker.

In the long run, exposure to and participation in the IETF might even prove 
beneficial to the Chinese.

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:13:10 +0200

Pete Resnick wrote:

> Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with 
> similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off 
> the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest 
> of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation".

We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer was
a sound no with no room for discussion.

Henk

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:45:02 -0400

>a sound no with no room for discussion.

I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable for on venue, once the 
precedent is set, it may well be requested again.

Scott K

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:37:49 -0400

Hi Steve -

To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as the cost of doing business in China.  And the reason for that is to maintain the relevance of the IETF?

I'm finding this argument not well constructed.

I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country.   That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a venue without excessive constraints on discussion.

I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a meeting there.

>rest of the world will come together without us.  The IETF will lose  

This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant.  The IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest of the world "come together without us".  Nor will us going to the meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us.  

>quest for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more  

There's bad and there's BAD.  I'm mostly concerned not about the whole IETF being kicked out of the hotel/PRC, but in individuals being sequestered or removed for speech that in any other IETF venue would be relevant and on-topic for the technical discussion.  That (fear of) prior restraint has a strong possibility of adversely affecting the IETF by limiting discussion and constraining the free flow of ideas.  And that - free flow of ideas- not "engagement" - is the strength of the IETF.

>however, we have weakened ourselves.

Bottom line - we should be the IETF and find venues that will accept us for ourselves.

_______________________

Hmm.. I was going to stop there, but let's ask the meta question:  What is the maximum set of constraints you think we should accept on the IETF as the price of holding a meeting?  For example, would it be acceptable to go somewhere where a class of IETF participant were treated as 2nd class citizens and possibly segregated?  Would it be acceptable to go somewhere where ALL presentations had to be vetted and approved by the local government?  Etc?  

Its all about slippery slopes - if we accept constraints other than those we impose upon ourselves, we weaken ourselves.

Mike

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:53:57 -0400

I don't think the IETF, either as a whole, in any of its working  
groups, or as individuals, need feel inhibited about having the same  
sorts of discussions in Beijing that it would have anywhere else.

Run the experiment and get some data.  Survey attendees afterwards and  
find out what everyone felt.  (My prediction: There will be more  
discussion about the usual problems of not enough cookies, location of  
restaurants, connectivity, etc.)

Steve

On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:

> Hi Steve -
>
> To paraphrase, you believe we should accept constraints upon the  
> topics that can be raised at the meeting (stick to the center) as  
> the cost of doing business in China.  And the reason for that is to  
> maintain the relevance of the IETF?
>
> I agree that engagement is good, but the IETF is about individuals  
> and we engage better at a personal level than IETF to country.    
> That can be accomplished at any venue - and possibly better at a  
> venue without excessive constraints on discussion.
>
> I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than  
> those common to the security area, but I remain concerned about  
> prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a  
> meeting there.
>
>
> This construction is black and white and somewhat irrelevant.  The  
> IETF not meeting at this time in China is unlikely to make the rest  
> of the world "come together without us".  Nor will us going to the  
> meeting be the sole reason for the world coming together with us.
>
> There's bad and there's BAD.  I'm mostly concerned not about the  
> whole IETF being kicked out of the hotel/PRC, but in individuals  
> being sequestered or removed for speech that in any other IETF venue  
> would be relevant and on-topic for the technical discussion.  That  
> (fear of) prior restraint has a strong possibility of adversely  
> affecting the IETF by limiting discussion and constraining the free  
> flow of ideas.  And that - free flow of ideas- not "engagement" - is  
> the strength of the IETF.
>
>
>
> Hmm.. I was going to stop there, but let's ask the meta question:   
> What is the maximum set of constraints you think we should accept on  
> the IETF as the price of holding a meeting?  For example, would it  
> be acceptable to go somewhere where a class of IETF participant were  
> treated as 2nd class citizens and possibly segregated?  Would it be  
> acceptable to go somewhere where ALL presentations had to be vetted  
> and approved by the local government?  Etc?
>
> Its all about slippery slopes - if we accept constraints other than  
> those we impose upon ourselves, we weaken ourselves.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>> Steve
>>

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Sep 2009 17:07:06 -0000

>I think it should be considered that if such restrictions are acceptable
>for on venue, once the precedent is set, it may well be requested again.

Quite possibly, and I expect that should it happen, we'll debate the
merits again.

No venue is perfect, and any large country is going to have political
issues.  People from several countries cannot get US visas, simply
because of where they live, not anything they've done, but we seem
willing to meet in the US anyway.  China is a large and sophisticated
country, nothing we do is going to change that, and politically
motivated boycotts far larger than anything the IETF could do have
invariably been ineffective and often counterproductive.  Whatever
small influence we might exert is going to be far greater if we meet
and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet.

R's,
John

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:18:29 -0400

Steve -

Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's CLIPPER chip initiative.  That was a hot topic of the time and was a great example of open discussion.  

That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.

We've had various discussions on P2P systems and their ability to evade government restrictions.

That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.

We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan.

That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.

I'm not sure what the hot topics will be at the time of a PRC meeting and whether or not they might be offensive to the PRC government - there may be none or they may be non-offensive. 

The question I'd like us to consider:  Is it in the best interests of the IETF to pre-censor ourselves as the price of holding a meeting in a specific venue?

I don't know the answer to that question. 

If the answer is yes - let's do it... but it feels like we're losing something that's critical to the IETF.

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:36:25 +0200

On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:

>
> Some 15 years ago, the IETF had a plenary session on the NSA's  
> CLIPPER chip initiative.  That was a hot topic of the time and was a  
> great example of open discussion.
>
> We've had discussions on E164 and whether or not the owner of  
> E164.ARPA could allocate a country code for Taiwan.
>

Mike,

Do you have evidence that those items could not be discussed or do you  
suspect that those items could not have been discussed?

--Olaf

________________________________________________________

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                        Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT)

Mike,

"That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC."

That's YOUR interpretation. Obviously the IAOC, or at least speaking 
for myself only, do not believe this is true. If we have to change
the "normal content" of an IETF meeting in order to meet in a given
location, then I fully agree that we should not meet in such a place.

As I've said many times already, there is a state law in place and the 
hotel has reminded us of this by inserting the clause (which the HOST 
not the IETF/IAOC or ISOC) will be signing. We can certainly agree 
that the language is broad and that it seems to give a lot of power to 
the hotel, but that's likely because this is generic language that is 
inserted into the contract to protect the business interests of the 
hotel (I'm not defending it, just an observation).

The language in question is not intended to curb our speech, or make 
us worry about what we can say in the course of doing normal IETF 
business. I am sure it wasn't even designed with a group like the IETF 
in mind. I know that you can choose to read it that way and I 
understand your right to object to the language on principle, but I 
have to tell you in all honesty that unless someone decides to score a 
political point by doing something really "stupid" there is nothing to 
worry about. I further predict that IF such a stupid act were to take 
place, there would be plenty of warning, negotiation and so on rather 
than swift action.

Please try to keep in mind that (various organizations in) China has 
been wanting to host an IETF meeting since 1997. One organization has
finally been given government approval to do so. This is a Big Deal
for them. Do you really think the Chinese government is looking for
an excuse to make an example of a bunch of geeks meeting in a hotel
and embarrass the local host in the process? I don't think so.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:45:11 -0400

>and interact with the people who run the Chinese Internet.
I didn't for a moment consider that an IETF decision not to go would have 
any impact on the policies of the Chinese government.  I agree with you 
that it would not.

The question that was posed, as I understand it, was about the 
acceptability of the restrictions to the IETF.  If such restrictions are 
acceptable, then they should be acceptable anywhere.  I don't think China 
should get a free pass because it's China.

Scott K

---

From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:47:50 -0700

> or not abortion is permitted, adherence to the Kyoto pact on

Going down the path of banning meetings in various locations due to
ideological issues could rapidly create a dilemma that Berkeley,
California found itself in.

The Berkeley city council banned purchasing fuel for the city vehicles
from various suppliers due to human rights issues, among others.  They
at some point found out that they had banned all possible suppliers,
and therefor could not purchase fuel.  They had to compromise on their
stance in order to keep the community running.

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:30:44 -0700

>Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People Together."

As far as I am aware, the IETF engages participants from all 
countries, including China.  There is on-going work within the IETF 
on technologies that will be useful to the people living in 
China.  Participants from China do contribute to the IETF.  I have 
not seen participants shun because they are from China or proposals 
shun because they are made by a participant from China or any other country.

The IETF does not run the Internet.  The IETF is not about 
politics.  Some countries may not agree with the contents of RFC 1984 
or RFC 2804.  The "IETF does not take a moral position when there is 
no clear consensus around a single position".

The choice is not about engaging or not engaging.  The IAOC requested 
community guidance about a rule implemented in the Hotel agreement 
[1].  I do have some side questions but I prefer not to ask them for 
now.  I suggest that the IAOC does not base its decision on the 
results of a survey as the results are not the "sense of the room".

I'll mention that this is a very delicate issue for unstated 
reasons.  There were some comments that referred to a region in the 
Far East.  That is to be expected as there is a diversity of 
views.  It does not affect the technical choices of the IETF.

There was a message posted by Ole Jacobsen [2].  I read "host" in 
terms of premises and not in terms of country.  It discloses the 
rules.  The question is whether people attending a meeting can live 
with the "warning".  Would you:

   (i) tone down your comments as there are people, irrespective of country,
       that find the IETF norm unbusiness-like.

  (ii) self-censor to avoid any interpretation that may be considered as
       infringing the rules.

(iii) explore the limits of what is considered as acceptable.

The choice of a location for a meeting is not about making a 
political statement.  If we focus on the center only, it is going to 
be interpreted as a political statement.  Whatever decision is taken, 
it won't look good.

There are some IETF participants that have business interests in 
China [4].  To them, it is a question of whether attending the IETF 
meeting can have a negative impact on their ability to conduct business.

Some people have commented on a negotiation of the conditions.  The 
outcome was obvious [3].  The world does not work as the IETF 
does.  There was a (non-IETF related) meeting that got pulled off 
because some government (not China) thought that it could be used as 
a bargaining chip to influence the decision of the organizer on another matter.

An IETF meeting in Beijing will be successful both in terms of 
participation and revenue.  You can run IPSec sessions from AS 
4808.  You may receive bogus DNS answers.  A secdir review may be 
similar to the message [5] posted by Ekr.  The lawyers have not chipped in yet.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06549.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58524.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58562.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58551.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58547.html

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:55:58 -0400

Dear Michael;

What follows is purely my opinion.

> That discussion could not be had at an IETF in the PRC.

I do not agree with this and the following assertions about what  
cannot be discussed in our technical meetings.
These were all technical discussions and, while they may have  
political or other implications, is there
any Internet technology for which that is not the case ? The basic  
engineering design of the Internet has fairly
profound political implications.

I have not censored my technical discussions in the past for political  
reasons and do not intend to do
so in the future. I would be opposed to any meeting location that  
required such technical censorship. Politeness and respect towards the  
Host, yes, of course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or  
otherwise, no.

I do not feel that we will be technically censored in any Chinese IETF  
meeting and would certainly not have supported going forward with  
this, even to this extent, if I did feel that way.

I recognize that this is ultimately a judgement call, and others may  
differ, but that is my opinion.

Regards
Marshall

> I'm not sure what the hot topics will be at the time of a PRC  
> meeting and whether or not they might be offensive to the PRC  
> government - there may be none or they may be non-offensive.
>
> The question I'd like us to consider:  Is it in the best interests  
> of the IETF to pre-censor ourselves as the price of holding a  
> meeting in a specific venue?
>
>>>> better.
>>>> will

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"There was a message posted by Ole Jacobsen [2].  I read "host" in 
terms of premises and not in terms of country.  It discloses the 
rules.  The question is whether people attending a meeting can live 
with the "warning".  Would you:

  (i) tone down your comments as there are people, irrespective of 
      country, that find the IETF norm unbusiness-like.

 (ii) self-censor to avoid any interpretation that may be considered 
      as infringing the rules.

(iii) explore the limits of what is considered as acceptable."

For clarification, "host" means the organization in China that is 
organizing the meeting, finding local sponsors etc, etc. The most
recent host was .SE in Stockholm for IETF 75, the next host is
WIDE for IETF 76 in Hiroshima.

As for (i) and (ii), I would say "we should not have to". Beyond
some cultural sensitivity which it's always good to observe, I
don't think self-censorship is what is needed or requested.

Regarding (iii), I would obviously not recommend such action, and
apart from our usual desire to run experiments, I don't really see
what purpose this would serve.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:15:04 -0700

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Politeness and respect towards the Host, yes, of
> course. Censorship of technical discussions, pre or otherwise, no.

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that.  It is an incontrovertible fact
that there are many people who feel the PRC government is corrupt and
authoritarian, sends its armed forces to shoot down peaceful
protesters, brutally oppresses national minorities, invades some
neighbors and threatens to invade others, kidnaps and locks up people
for expressing their opinions; is essentially barbarous and thus has
forfeited any right to respect from civilized people.  To be fair, you
can find people who have a gripe with any government in the world,
although China's is unusually controversial.  In any case, respect for
any particular governing body really can't be imposed as a
precondition of attending any meeting anywhere.

 -Tim

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:46:24 -0400

> precondition of attending any meeting anywhere.

I was speaking purely for myself, and about our hosts. I believe that,  
if I accept someone's hospitality,
that implies that I should show them politeness and respect while I am  
their guest.
That is not the same as saying that I will agree with them, or even  
that I will hold my tongue, but
I do try and be polite.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)

Tim,

The government of China is NOT the host of the meeting. Beyond normal 
courtesy as you cross the border (unless you want to be detained), I 
wouldn't expect you to act in any particular way towards government 
officials.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Tim Bray wrote:

> that there are many people who feel the PRC government is corrupt 
> and authoritarian, sends its armed forces to shoot down peaceful 
> neighbors and threatens to invade others, kidnaps and locks up 
> people for expressing their opinions; is essentially barbarous and 
> thus has forfeited any right to respect from civilized people.  To 
> be fair, you can find people who have a gripe with any government in 
> the world, although China's is unusually controversial.  In any 
> case, respect for any particular governing body really can't be 
> imposed as a precondition of attending any meeting anywhere.
> 
>  -Tim

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:51:34 +0100

On Sep 20, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:

> I'd be happy to have a WG meeting in the PRC - on topics other than  those 
> common to the security area, but I remain concerned about  prior restraint 
> for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a  meeting there.

I wonder if we could ask. Is that too simple?

We have plenty of minutes of previous meetings, slidesets, and I-Ds/RFCs. We 
even have audio recordings.

There have been loads of Chinese nationals at the meetings who could 
comment.

Can we find out in advance whether the material is even close to being an 
issue to the Chinese government?

My guess is that it would not be and that clearing the air in this way would 
be welcomed.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:56:38 +0100

> a technical body and not the UN.

Yes. It really will not be a productive use of email space to comment on 
each other's countries as if we had studied the culture and socio-political 
situation in any more depth than the mass media in our own countries shows 
us.

Surely individuals are free to make their own choices about attending or 
staying away. If sufficient individuals stated their intention to stay away 
(for whatever reason), that would give the IAOC pause for thought because 
the success of the meeting is dependent on attendance. But otherwise we 
should just make up our own minds and act on our own principles.

Adrian

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:21:03 -0700

> suspect that those items could not have been discussed?

When discussed as other than a technical matter, "privacy" is typically viewed 
as a human rights topic.

Discussion of human rights issues is prohibited by the contract.

But we all really need to be more careful about discussing this contracted 
constraint.  To add to some of the latest comments posted:

This is not about "engaging" China and Chinese people in the IETF. They are, and 
have been for many years, fully engaged in the IETF, with some IETF technical 
work of particular importance to China.  Again:  Chinese participants are 
already fully engaged in the IETF and have been for a long time.

If our ability to hold a meeting in a particular venue is a test of the hosting 
country's engagement in IETF work, then this represents yet one more reason we 
should routinize our meetings, holding them in a fixed set of places.  We should 
seek to avoid having this been an opportunity for the IETF to give offense or 
suffer a bad meeting, or for a country to be offended.  Having this sort of 
political concern be a factor in what really ought to be mundane meeting 
logistics administration strikes me a strategically distracting.  (And, like 
others, I think it both arrogant and silly to think that the IETF can influence 
anyone else's culture; we have enough problems with our own...)

Rather, I will again suggest that the question needs to be about the match 
between the /particular/ details of IETF operational culture, versus 
/particular/ rules at a venue.  Not in terms of principles but in terms of behavior.

I have enjoyed the meetings I have attended in China and was impressed with both 
the expertise of local participants and the hosting details.  But Asian 
organizations, like APNIC, industry trade associations like 3gPP, and frankly 
every other group I've been around, have meeting styles that are nothing like 
the range displayed in the IETF.

Imagine that the rule in question were that all attendees had to wear either a 
coat and tie, or a skirt, and that violation of that rule would cause 
individuals to be excluded, with broad enough violation terminating the meeting. 
  Imagine further that various folk assured us that individual violations of 
that rule wouldn't cause a problem.  Would we agree to such a constraint?  I 
doubt it.  Yet it's really a very mild effort to ensure a reasonable business 
tone for a meeting.

But it doesn't match the realities of an IETF meeting.

I find it hard to believe that the discussion about net neutrality that we had 
at the last plenary would be acceptable according to the rules of the contract 
now in question.  And I find it hard to imagine that having that plenary in 
Beijing would not have elicited far stronger and more pointed and specifically 
problematic comments from the floor.  Again:  We are an indelicate group.  Let's 
not pretend otherwise and let's not pretend that decades of consistent behavior 
will magically change for a meeting in a particular venue.

And we should be careful at arm-waving dismissals of the concerns.  The 
constraints in the contract are real and meaningful and, as noted, they are 
unlike anything the IETF has had to agree to in more than 20 years of meetings. 
  It does not matter whether any of us individually approves or disapproves of 
the rules.  Equally, it does not matter whether other groups have agreed to the 
rules and had successful meetings.

What should matter is whether agreeing to the rules makes sense, given the 
realities of IETF meeting behavior.

As for the survey, it only queries whether folks will attend, given the 
constraint.  Or rather, it only queries whether folks /say/ they will attend. 
Whether they actually do attend will not be known. Survey questions like this 
measure attitude, not behavior.

Better, there are various other, important questions it doesn't ask.  So let's 
be very careful about what we claim is learned from the survey.

Also, let's be careful about our expectations, should the meeting be held in 
Beijing, with the constraints being agreed to. It is quite likely that problems 
that ensue will not be as visible or as massive as some folk have put forward as 
the strawman alternative.  In other words, when thinking about likely outcomes, 
don't assume it will be all black or all white.  Systemic hassles are usually 
pursued more subtly than that.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:59:44 -0400

Steve,

No, ignoring extreme situations and unless a promise of no Internet
access censorship for the IETF meeting can be obtained, it is a choice
between endorsing censorship or opposing it. Networks censored on a
political, religious, and cultural basis do not "Bring People
Together".

Your message below is fundamentally inconsistent. You claim that the
IETF is so insignificant that if it doesn't meet in China, the IETF
will become irrelevant. Yet you claim that the IETF is so significant
that if it holds a meeting in China and there are troubles, this will
strike a severe blow against China's aspirations. You can't have it
both way.

Donald

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Steve Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The choice is between engaging and not engaging.  Engaging is better.  Not
> engaging isn't constructive.  The Internet and the IETF are all about
> engaging, expanding, communicating and being open.  Much of this dialog has
> been worried about possible extreme situations.  Let's focus on the center.
>  More than a billion people live in China and their use of the Internet is
> expanding rapidly.  They are building much of the technology and
> contributing technically.  It's to everyone's advantage to have comfortable,
> constructive interaction.  Our first slogan was "Networks Bring People
> Together."
>
> If we don't go to China, we have charted a downhill course and the rest of
> the world will come together without us.  The IETF will lose relevance.
>
> If we do go to China and something bad happens, the consequences will be
> much worse for China than for the IETF.  The work of the IETF will suffer a
> bit, but we'll recover quickly enough.  However, China's quest for
> engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously.
>
> Bottom line: We should go to China with a positive attitude.  We're robust
> enough to deal with any consequences.  If we don't go to China, however, we
> have weakened ourselves.
>
> Steve

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:05:01 -0400

Sorry - over generalizing here - but I think fairly.    Change "PRC" to "this hotel under the terms of the contract as presented in the initial contract" and  add "without violating the terms of the contract to the end of the statement" and consider what I said again.  A plain text reading of those terms would - I believe - ban these types of discussions.  

But I'll mostly stand by my original comments given that the contract terms as presented to us, were presented to the hotel by the government and are there to enforce a government requirement.

If the terms were simply those imposed by this site, and we could get other terms at other locations in the country - let's do that.  But those terms are imposed on the host by the hotel at the behest of the government and are apparently not negotiable regardless of which site in the country we choose.

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:42:36 -0700

Personally, I have three specific concerns with a meeting in China:

(1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be 
violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical 
discussion.  For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet 
traffic by or under orders of the Chinese government is well known. 
If this were to be mentioned or discussed during the IETF, perhaps in 
the context of encryption, tunneling, web proxy, DNS, or some other 
technical area, we could run be violating the law and hence the rule.

(2) This is a very personal concern, but my experience with China is 
that it is among the worst places to try and avoid tobacco smoke.

(3) Similarly to (2), my experience in Bejing has been that the air 
is exceptionally polluted.  Hence, I'd be concerned for those IETF 
members who would find this makes participation difficult.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.

---

From: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:59:28 +0800

all in all, 

   Since IETF only focus on and discuss technical issues, has the issue of politics or human right been discussed in the past IETF meeting?

  if the answer is "NO", there should have none probles of hold a meeting in China.

Yao

---

From: Peny Yang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:45:57 +0800

Just try to clarify somethings here, check inline please:

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> wrote:
> (1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be violated by
> what may appear to IETF participants as technical discussion.  For example,
> the manipulation/censorship of Internet traffic by or under orders of the
> Chinese government is well known. If this were to be mentioned or discussed
> during the IETF, perhaps in the context of encryption, tunneling, web proxy,
> DNS, or some other technical area, we could run be violating the law and
> hence the rule.
[Peny] Well, I am afraid IETF is basically a technical standard
organization. Actually, we have been discussing the technologies
mentioned by you in China every day. But, I personally don't have any
trouble. Did somebody else have?
Again, I am afraid your concern is a bit too political. We basically
will only have technical discussion in IETF.

> (2) This is a very personal concern, but my experience with China is that it
> is among the worst places to try and avoid tobacco smoke.
[Peny] I am sorry for your bad experience. However, IMHO, your
experience may be the story 10 years ago. I am a smoker. When I would
like to smoke, I always go find the smoking corner.
Now, in Beijing, smoking is prohibited in most of public areas. From
my experience, the policies on smoking in China are more restrict than
some other countries like EU, Japan.

> (3) Similarly to (2), my experience in Bejing has been that the air is
> exceptionally polluted.  Hence, I'd be concerned for those IETF members who
> would find this makes participation difficult.
[Peny] At this moment, I am pretty sure that I can see the blue sky
out of my office. I guess your last visit to Beijing is probably 5
years ago. If IETF could have a meeting in Beijing, I strongly
recommend to have it in autumn. It's the most lovely season of
Beijing.

BR
Peny

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:03:00 +0100

I just filled in the form.

The main potential issue I would have with such a meeting
is whether or not we'd have a normal meeting network
with normal Internet access. If there's anything that'd
be different about the meeting network and/or access to the
Internet, then I think the IAOC MUST bring that to the
community before making any decision. If there's to be nothing
different, then I think the IAOC would be wise to be
crystal-clear about that.

Absent that information, I don't think that the survey is
useful and it shouldn't be used as the basis for a positive
decision.

The reason I think this is important is that we can only
speculate about reactions to microphone statements, but
we can know in advance about any networking restrictions.
If we cannot access the Internet as usual then I would be
against such a meeting since it would mean participants
could not do their work as usual.

I have yet to see a clear statement on the above. If this
is not yet resolved, that would also be useful to know,

Stephen.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:03:47 +0300

Steve,

> suffer a bit, but we'll recover quickly enough. However, China's quest 
> for engagement with the rest of the world will be hurt more seriously.
>

FWIW I agree with Steve on this.

(I don't think going to China will make or break our relevance, but it 
is important to be where networks and equipment are being built, so 
other things being equal I'd really like to go.)

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:33 +0300

I have been in a couple of meetings in China, and everything always went 
smoothly. Arrival process at the airport is one of the moat pleasant 
that I've had outside Schengen area in EU. There is a lot of university 
and commercial activity on new Internet technology, and going there 
gives one typically a very different, fresh viewpoint. I never had any 
problems with my VPN and had also direct access to the sites that I use 
daily. Its a large country with very large variations in the level of 
modernization and infrastructure, e.g., hotel, restaurant and Internet 
connection quality can vary quite a bit. Some of my colleagues in the 
same lab have also been over there, e.g., the 3GPP security group has 
met there several times (and they often deal with topics such as 
encryption or anonymity) and the experience was similar.

With regards to the hotel clause I need to say that I'm not an expert in 
writing hotel contracts. But I'll just that there are plenty of laws 
that one has to obey in every country. Unfortunately, there may not 
always be an bulletproof way to avoid getting into problems with 
purposefully vague laws. If the authorities really wanted to, I'm sure a 
sizable fraction of the IETF could be investigated in many countries 
for, say, export of encryption software or just being a crypto expert 
(see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov), 
reverse-engineering which might be a violation of DCMA (see, e.g., 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography#Digital_rights_management), 
copyright violations for your personal benefit, building software or 
protocols that allow others to violate someone's copyright (we have 
several working groups trying to improve P2P technology), or linking to 
infringing content*. But for some reason none of us are suddenly scared 
about these things. That's because we know from experience that when we 
go to a country, we are not suddenly all arrested. I would suggest the 
way to resolve our current question is to look for other meetings that 
have taken place in China. If operator forums, 3GPP, IEEE, a few major 
scientific conferences on our field, etc have successfully met there, I 
think we should go as well.

I also strongly believe that political views should not matter for this 
discussion. For the record, I'm not happy with the actions of the 
Chinese government. But I'm also unhappy with many other governments, 
including the one in my own country. If we start blaming a particular 
country, there's a lot of blame to go around.

Jari

*) Message to whoever intercepts this e-mail: Naturally, I have not been 
involved with any of the listed activities :-)

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:25:45 +0100

> and external, of a public relations nightmare.

I wonder what might happen if a remote participant started openly,  
and pointedly, talking about human rights, say, or the Tibet  
situation, on the XMPP chatroom service.

Now, obviously that participant is not going to be ejected from the  
hotel - they could easily be a few thousand miles away - but  
presumably some authority somewhere might well act.

Would that action be:

1) The termination of XMPP services (either by the hotel, or by the  
GFW).

2) The termination of IP services from the hotel.

3) The termination of the conference.

It strikes me that any of these would harm participation very  
heavily, and since it presents little or no risk to the remote  
participant - who could therefore remotely participate purely for  
disruptive purposes - it opens up a large window of disruption by  
essentially external parties.

There's already been comments that an IETF meeting held within the  
GFW would be seized upon by the press as ironic. It seems to be that  
one sabotaged, or used deliberately for political purposes, would  
raise much more press, and worse, this press coverage may actually be  
useful to someone wanting to ensure the point is made.

I'd like to know what the PRC might say to that. The only solutions I  
immediately see would be to give the PRC administrative rights over  
the chatrooms, or else perform such policing ourselves, neither of  
which exactly fills me with glee.

FWIW, I wouldn't be going to China, but then, I nearly always  
remotely participate, so no change there. I do think we should make  
every effort to hold a meeting in China, though, as a hefty chunk of  
network expertise is there.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:25:46 +0100

Rather than debate on whether this would have been or wouldn't have  
been the case, can I suggest we actually approach the PRC government  
and ask them? I'm sure they'd be willing to at least tell us. Their  
purpose here is presumably to avoid contraversial topics being  
discussed, rather than to catch us out.

I suspect that the idea would be to avoid calling to attention any  
political viewpoints specifically relating to China, rather than  
discussing the basic problems and issues.

On Sun Sep 20 18:18:29 2009, Michael StJohns wrote:
> CLIPPER chip initiative.  That was a hot topic of the time and was  
> a great example of open discussion.
> 

[...]

Dave.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:34:16 -0700

At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT),
> the text we are discussing.

I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:

(a) No, they don't prohibit those activities.
(b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually
    be enforced that way.

If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis
of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the
contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion
we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion),
violates a number of the terms.

If you're saying (b), then I have to say I don't find that very
reassuring.

> attitude or stay home and wonder what might have happened.

I'm a little puzzled by "stay home". It's not like the world
is divided into "China" and "Home". In what way are Hiroshima,
Anaheim, and Maastricht, to pick three random examples any more 
"Home" than China?

-Ekr

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis of 
> why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the contrary. 
> Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion we are having now 
> (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion), violates a number 
> of the terms.

What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and 
concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I have stated 
what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, 
namely prevent political protest at the meeting. I have now attended 
68 out of 75 IETF meetings, but I have never seen "political protest" 
of the form that I think might lead to a meeting being shut down in 
China. Yes, we are a rowdy bunch at times, and we discuss a lot of 
technical things that spill over into layer 9, but let me repeat what 
I said earlier: There is no way the host, with the understanding of 
the government, would invite us to meet in China if they expected us 
to:

a) Not discuss our usual topics
b) Stage a political rally

The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b.

> Anaheim, and Maastricht, to pick three random examples any more 

I thought this was clear, but: Staying home for any value of home
would mean not attending a meeting in China if it were held there,
or more generally not holding the meeting there. There are already
some people who have said they would "stay" home if we held a meeting 
there, based on principle or based on what I will characterize as 
"fear of consequences".

My personal belief, and the belief of many of have attended meetings
in China is that the fear is unfounded.

Ole

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:03:56 -0500

> and embarrass the local host in the process? I don't think so.

No,  the PRC government at the top level is not trying to make an  
example of the IETF. They're probably trying very hard to get the IETF  
to engage with them.

But there a re a lot of people in the world who will be looking for  
ways to make the PRC government over-react against the IETF, resulting  
in an international incident that is embarrassing or otherwise  
damaging to the PRC. IETF is a much more visible target than other  
SDOs that might meet in China (including 3GPP2 and OMA that I have had  
experience with). Further, it might be easier to trigger a  
governmental reaction against IETF than those other bodies due to the  
politically sensitive nature of some of our work. After all, we're the  
people who made things happen so that Taiwan would have its own  
country code in the DNS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain

And there are "politcal immune cells" that operate at a level below  
that of the top-level government people that made the decision to  
allow the IETF. It's hard to say what sort of actions might cause them  
to activate against us or our people.

Another way to ask this question: Are our members who are Falun Gong  
practitioners going to be persecuted for their beliefs while attending  
IETF? Are our members who are active in Tibetan or Taiwanese  
independence movements going to be quietly picked up off the street  
outside our venue? Are our members who run large-scale porn web sites  
going to be hassled? Will the IETF be held financially liable for  
their legal defense? If so, would it not behoove said movements to  
orchestrate a few arrests in order to gain international attention and  
force the IETF to financial and politically engage on behalf of the  
movements?

This seems like a golden opportunity for publicity, and I'd bet every  
dissident with half a clue is currently thinking very hard about how  
to maximize the opportunity. If they can make it happen by leaking  
something into the ear of a suspected snitch, they will. If they can  
make it happen by setting up a WG conversation around a risky topic,  
they will. If they can make it happen by having someone pretending to  
be a senior party member threaten the hotel manager, causing the hotel  
manager to close a working group meeting, they will. If they can make  
it happen by triggering the political immune system (which they  
understand far better than we do) in any way, they will.

Do we have a large political bullseye painted on our foreheads? Yes,  
we do. Should we let that stop us from meeting in China? That's the  
open question. There are risks, we need to understand those risks, and  
then we can decide whether or not we want to go down that path.

We should perhaps note that at least one  SIP interoperability event  
(SIPit 21) was held in China. The hospitality was reported as  
excellent, no real political problems were reported, and the event   
was generally considered quite successful. I seem to recall that they  
did have an issue with network connectivity. However, this is a very  
small group, and much less attractive as a political target than a  
meeting of the full IETF would be.

--
Dean Willis

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:54:35 +0100

> in China is that the fear is unfounded.

When I attended APAN24 in China, I felt the discussions in each session
were very open.  

As with the IETF, there was also plenty of good discussions around tables
outside the meeting rooms (smoke-free, for the person who asked) and
network access seemed open.   The meeting agenda contained some of the 
topics that some posters to this thread seem to have concerns with
(see http://www.apan.net/meetings/xian2007/schedule.html).  And a lot
of very interesting and innovative new application areas.

I think the IETF should explore every possibility to host a meeting in
China.

-- 
Tim

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:00:50 -0400

Hi,

Here are my impressions regarding the areas of concern you raise.
 
> technical area, we could run be violating the law and hence the
rule.

I have worked for a subsidirary of Huawei, and now work for
HuaWeiSymantec (a joint venture startup) and visit Beijing once or
twice a year. 
I don't know if the venues under consideration are in Beijing, but I
assume that is fairly likely.
These opinions are my own and do not in any way represent the opinions
of Huawei or HuaweiSymantec.

I have personal concerns about censorship and manipulation of Internet
traffic. I don't have anything to hide, and do not regularly post
views I expect the Chinese government might find offensive, so it does
not impact me directly, but it does impact me indirectly.

I had some difficulty reaching some web sites, although they were
mostly news websites that might discuss politically-sensitive topical
issues. I do not remember having difficulty reaching any websites
critical to my IETF work.

The HQ of HuaweiSymantec is in Hong Kong, and my boss who lives there
tells me that HK is not subject to the censorship on the China
mainland. So maybe meeting in Hong Kong would allow us to meet in
China, without the censorship. (But I personally found HK very
expensive compared to mainland China)
 
I doubt the Chinese government, or the hotel, is likely to interfere
in our technical discussions. Some lively plenary discussions about
government-regulation impact on Internet technologies, such as the net
neutrality discussion in the Washington meeting and the encryption
regulations discussion we had in Danvers, might make our Chinese
participants and our host uncomfortable.

I would be a bit cautious about political discussions in public venues
outside the official meeting, e.g., over dinner or in bar BOFs.
"Bush-bashing" and other disrepect for our leaders is considered great
sport in Western countries; In China, for cultural reasons based on a
very long history going back at least to Confucious, this type of
disrespect for one's leaders is apparently considered very poor
manners. I am pretty sure that disrespect for their leaders would be
very very poor manners. The locals are much more likely to consider
you a barbarian than to want to engage in such discussions of their
leaders.

> that it is among the worst places to try and avoid tobacco smoke.

I have not found avoiding smoke in China much worse than in Europe. I
find it much easier to avoid smoke in US cities.

> members who would find this makes participation difficult.

Auto emission pollution in Beijing is a real problem. If you have any
respiratory problems, I recommend you avoid heavy-traffic areas of
Beijing. 

This problem is mostly an outdoor problem, not an indoor problem. You
can mitigate the pollution by wearing surgical masks when outside
(which is fairly common in Beijing). I assume the air handling systems
in a conference center and major international hotels would mitigate
this while indoors.

I think the level of poluution in Beijing is a valid concern when
evaluating venues.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:08:45 +0200

> and we would appreciate your feedback.

  I would suggest waiting until after Hiroshima to make a decision.  I'm
hearing that a large number of people (such as myself) do not have the
budget for a trip to Asia.  I suspect an IETF in China within the next 2
years will have lower attendance than Hiroshima.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:24:05 -0500

Could technical discussions about the following be considered political?

Internet censorship (including evading of it)
Data privacy
anonymization
Lawful intercept
Spyware
DRM

I have personally seen IETF presentations that explicitly talked about  
on how encryption and anonymization are pro-human-rights technologies,  
which would seem a direct contravention of the language of the contract.

Finally, do you think that, in this group of people, there won't be at  
least one who cannot resist stating their opinions about some  
political hot button? Or for that matter, figure out they can DoS the  
entire IETF by throwing up a controversial slide.  Obviously there's  
some wiggle-room in the "within the control of the client" clause--but  
that's the sort of thing that gets worked out in courts later. It's  
not very helpful when the on-site authorities have already pulled the  
plug, and I don't expect them to be sympathetic to the idea that the  
IETF cannot control the behavior of it's participants.

Is the "hotel agreement" something that individual participants would  
be party to? Would the IAOC expect individual participants to sign a  
contract around this sort of thing in order to participate?

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:04:14 -0400

[Trimming to just the IETF Discussion list, as this topic is going to  
be one heck of a time sink and flame thrower accelerant]

Before we get all high and mighty, check out  18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 and  
18 U.S.C.A. § 2385.

Is it more likely such laws would be enforced in Beijing than in New  
York? Unquestionably.

Is it likely that the Chinese government would look for trouble at the  
IETF? Doubtful.

Will the Chinese government have a lassaiz faire approach to some  
whacked out IETF participant looking for trouble? Probably not.  
However, unless you are a Chinese national (in which case all bets are  
off) you will probably fare better in the Chinese legal system than in  
other places where we have held IETFs.

Yes, a Free Tibet license plate ($10 from the VA Department of Motor  
Vehicles) might get you in trouble in Beijing. Then again, I wouldn't  
drive around Miami with an "I Endorse Castro" bumper sticker, either.  
True, you would not get arrested for the latter. Then again, you might  
end up pummeled or worse.

I have been to many, many conferences and business meetings in China.  
I would offer that one will find:

1. Beijing is way more expensive then you would expect.

2. Beijing has surprisingly good infrastructure. IETF anecdote: UK  
interim LEMONADE meeting: no WiFi, only dial-up; only port 80 enabled;  
all NATed
& Firewalled access. Beijing interim LEMONADE meeting: WiFi, nothing  
blocked, actual Internet access. YMMV.

3. Beijing is a big city, like most big cities, meaning some pluses  
and minuses, including the usual pickpockets, shady taxis, etc. offset  
by thousands of years of culture.

4. Language will be an issue for non-speakers, but like any big city  
you should be able to get around.

5. Beijing proper is geographically much, much, much larger than most  
cities. If you decide to not stay in the conference hotel, be very  
careful about how far away the conference venue is.

6. China's visa process, while infinitely better than that of the U.S.  
and Russian Federation, is still a government-run bureaucracy that is  
expensive and time-consuming. Apply for your visa as soon as you know  
you will be going.

On Sep 18, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I also do not believe that the IETF needs to violate this condition  
> to do its business.
> 2) The people running the place may have a different interpretation  
> of the condition than you and I have.
>
> I have lived close enough to what was the GDR for long enough to  
> know that 2 is an extremely uncontrollable problem.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:47:21 -0400

In the LEMONADE group we had the same initial thoughts (there is  
another word for that phrase...) about attendance when we were  
planning interim meetings.

Here are some stats:
Vancouver: no visa issues for anyone: about 10 participants
Dallas: a few visa troubles: about 15 participants
Toronto: no visa issues for anyone: about 10 participants
London: few visa issues for anyone, geographically closest to 50% of  
the active WG members: about 10 participants
Beijing: few visa issues for anyone: about 25 participants

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:08:12 -0400

#1 - all the other meetings I've been in in China, including ones that  
talked about 'unfriendly firewall traversal' seemed to be ignored. YMMV.

#2 & #3 - this is very, very, very true. For those who remember the  
conference hotel in Prague, Beijing air makes Prague look like a  
bastion of healthy living and fresh air. Worse yet, the Beijing  
geography is similar to LA, except with even more industrial pollution  
and more impact from the nearby desert.

On Sep 20, 2009, at 9:42 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> If this were to be mentioned or discussed during the IETF, perhaps  
> in the context of encryption, tunneling, web proxy, DNS, or some  
> other technical area, we could run be violating the law and hence  
> the rule.
>

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:33:19 -0400

Applying the same disclaimers Ross did (this is just me as an  
individual) I'd like to generally agree with his risk/benefit  
argument, and to add two more points to it.  First, I don't see an  
offsetting compelling benefit.  Second, there would also seem to be a  
risk of loss of productivity due to self-censorship by people who do  
choose to attend.

--John

On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Ross Callon wrote:

> I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this  
> goes well beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what  
> we should put up with.
>
> The first is the risk to the IETF. I understand that the likelihood  
> of anything happening as a result of this is very low. However, the  
> IETF is a very unruly and opinionated group, and is probably more  
> unruly than other groups that have recently met in China (or  
> anywhere else). We have little idea what IETF attendees will do  
> either in spite of or even because of this restriction. It would not  
> be surprising to have some sort of major dust-up at the IESG plenary  
> over this issue, and we don't know how the host country officials  
> would react to this. Also, while the risk of the meeting being  
> stopped in the middle seems very low, if it did happen this would be  
> a very bad result for all concerned. If one IETF attendee were to be  
> booted out of the hosting country based on something that they said  
> or put on their slides or in a jabber room even that would be very  
> bad.
>
> Also, from a moral point of view I don't think that we should accept  
> this. Freedom of speech is a very basic freedom that is guaranteed  
> in a wide range of countries (although of course not all).  The  
> people who live there don't have the ability to say "no" without  
> serious consequences. We DO have the ability to say no, and I think  
> that we should.
>
> group nor organization that I might happen to be associated with.
>
> thanks, Ross
>

---

From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:54:55 -0700

Marshall,

I think going to China would be a great opportunity and that we should
go for it and play by their rules. I agree with Bernard, attendees
should be responsible for their own actions no matter where in the world
we meet. 

mike

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:42 AM
> Cc: IAOC Jabberr; [email-masked]
> Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future
> meetingof the IETF
> 
> Greetings;
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:29:03 -0700

At 5:45 PM +0800 9/21/09, Peny Yang wrote:

>  However, IMHO, your

My experience was a couple of years ago, not ten, but it's good to 
hear that things have improved.  Can you tell me what this "smoking 
corner" is?  I recall that a few years ago Copenhagen airport, for 
example, had such things, but they were simply designated indoor 
areas, and as such, were no help at all.  Likewise, a few years ago, 
meetings in Japan officially prohibited smoking in many public areas, 
but the hotel simply wheeled in portable "smoking areas" which did 
nothing to help.

Can you tell me more about the smoking policy in China now?

And I agree with you about Japan, although that in the last few years 
I've been able to find 100% non-smoking restaurants (it takes some 
work).

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Thoughts, like fleas, jump from man to man.  But they don't bite everybody.
    --Stanislaw Lec

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:31:05 -0700

At 7:28 AM -0700 9/21/09, Wes Hardaker wrote:

>  What would happen to those discussions?
>
>    1) they would happen anyway, and nothing would happen (yay!)
>       (regardless of whether they went "unnoticed" or "weren't offensive")
>    2) thew would happen anyway, and would get "shut down"
>    3) they wouldn't happen because of fear
>
>  The problem isn't just one of "can we have it".  The mere existence of
>  the policy may prevent people from voicing a comment they might in
>  another venue.  A single missing comment or discussion due to fear would
>  be a bad thing.

Even with the "yay!" of (1), I personally don't like the idea that 
we're violating the law and hotel policy, even if we are getting away 
with it.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:39:35 -0400

> luxury of attending most IETF meetings.

To piggyback on this, much the same situation exists here as well,
and no doubt for some others.

My proposed solution to this is to do away with physical meetings
altogether.  They're expensive in terms of money, time, energy
consumption, etc., and surely we, of all people, should be well-equipped
to do without them.  We have the requisite technology -- or if we don't,
we *could* have the requisite technology.  We should be using it, and
providing an example for the rest of the world to follow.

---Rsk

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:06:47 -0400

> participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor day!).

My reading is that neither the IETF nor the client is being asked to
sign such an agreement.  Individuals are, as you say, on their own.  The
point is about "group activities, presentations and printed materials".

My experience with meetings in China is that I try to control my urge to
poke into every possible embarrassing topic (I try to control that
anyway), and that often I'm surprised when Chinese participants
themselves criticize their own government more than I would have.  IMHO
if the past Net Neutrality discussion were held at the China IETF, it
would certainly be toned down simply because people wouldn't be sure if
they were crossing a line, but a discussion of technical (IETF) issues
related to the topic, and speculation about social implications, would
not in themselves be a problem.  I believe the same is true about
GeoPriv. My personal opinion is that discussion on technical topics can
be conducted in a way which goes into depth but is not "defamation of
the government of the PRC" or shows "disrespect to Chinese culture".
Somehow we've managed to do this in other meetings there.

Scott

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:07:03 -0400

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:11 -0400, Ross Callon wrote:

> goes well beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what we
> should put up with.
> 
> The first is the risk to the IETF. I understand that the likelihood of
> anything happening as a result of this is very low. However, the IETF
> is a very unruly and opinionated group, and is probably more unruly
> than other groups that have recently met in China (or anywhere else).
> We have little idea what IETF attendees will do either in spite of or
> even because of this restriction. It would not be surprising to have
> some sort of major dust-up at the IESG plenary over this issue, and we
> don't know how the host country officials would react to this. Also,
> while the risk of the meeting being stopped in the middle seems very
> low, if it did happen this would be a very bad result for all
> concerned. If one IETF attendee were to be booted out of the hosting
> country based on something that they said or put on their slides or in
> a jabber room even that would be very bad. 
> 
> this. Freedom of speech is a very basic freedom that is guaranteed in
> a wide range of countries (although of course not all).  The people
> who live there don't have the ability to say "no" without serious
> consequences. We DO have the ability to say no, and I think that we
> should. 
> 

+1

// Steve

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:28:58 -0700

>>>>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:42:36 -0700, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> said:

RG> (1) The law and associated hotel rule Marshall quoted could be
RG> violated by what may appear to IETF participants as technical
RG> discussion.  For example, the manipulation/censorship of Internet
RG> traffic by or under orders of the Chinese government is well known. If
RG> this were to be mentioned or discussed during the IETF, perhaps in the
RG> context of encryption, tunneling, web proxy, DNS, or some other
RG> technical area, we could run be violating the law and hence the
RG> rule.

I've had similar thoughts: what happens when the lines are blurred?
Where are the lines exactly in the first place?  I think many potential
technical conversations will be conversations that could be viewed as
anti-government because the IETF frequently develops technology to get
around middle-box impediments.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT)

Just a couple of comments regarding cost and visas, speaking from 
personal experience.

Cost:

Once you wander out of the main, relatively expensive, International 
hotel (any of the major chains), food is VERY cheap by US standards,
as are things like a bottle of beer in the local grocery store (less
than a dollar). You can ride anywhere on the metro for 2 Yuan which
is equivalent to 29 US cents. Taxis are also very inexpensive by US
standards, actually by any standard.

Visa:

If you are a US citizen, the visa fee is $130 here in the US. For 
non-US citizens, the fee is only $30 :-) However, be very careful 
about visa validity. As a Norwegian citizen, I can (in San Francisco) 
only get a visa that is valid for 3 months, single entry, but the 
clock starts on the day it is ISSUED, not, as one might expect, when 
you arrive in China in spite of the fact that the form asks when you 
will be arriving. The visa has an expiration date which basically says 
"must not arrive after xxx". I made the mistake of applying too early, 
but the consulate here was gracious enough to cancel the visa and give 
me my fee back. (They did this by carefully removing the full-page 
visa sticker from my passport WITHOUT destroying the page in the 
process, quite impressive actually). [You do need a full blank page
in your passport for the sticker].
 
Depending on where you are from and where you apply, multi-entry visas 
for a year or even more may be available. Express service (1-2 days) 
may also be available for a fee, but in June in San Francisco, this 
was NOT available and the process took a week. All these are things to 
watch out for especially if you travel a lot since of course the 
consulate or embassy will hold your passport while processing the visa 
application.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:02:44 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:03 PM
 
> with normal Internet access. 

It was the issue of Internet access that first occurred to me.

The agreement talks of things

"which are within the control of the Client"

where the Client is the Host of the meeting and so presumably
providing Internet access and all that goes with it, including,
presumably, what is needed in the way of monitoring to
ensure that the Client is able to fulfil their obligations.

Tom Petch. 

>                                                   If there's anything that'd

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:28:39 -0400

--On Monday, September 21, 2009 10:10 -0700 Ole Jacobsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
 
> Just a couple of comments regarding cost and visas, speaking
> from  personal experience.
>... 
> Visa:
> 
> If you are a US citizen, the visa fee is $130 here in the US.
> For  non-US citizens, the fee is only $30 :-) However, be very
> careful  about visa validity. As a Norwegian citizen, I can
> (in San Francisco)  only get a visa that is valid for 3
> months, single entry, but the  clock starts on the day it is
> ISSUED, not, as one might expect, when  you arrive in China in
> spite of the fact that the form asks when you  will be
>...
> Depending on where you are from and where you apply,
> multi-entry visas  for a year or even more may be available.
> Express service (1-2 days)  may also be available for a fee,
> but in June in San Francisco, this  was NOT available and the
> process took a week. All these are things to  watch out for
> especially if you travel a lot since of course the  consulate
> or embassy will hold your passport while processing the visa 
> application.

Two additional observations may be useful.   In the US, someone
must appear in person at the embassy or consulate -- there is no
mail-in service, at least for US citizens.  In practice, that
means that if one is in a city with a consulate (or close to
one), one has to use a visa service as an intermediary.  Their
fees can easily exceed the visa fees themselves unless one works
for a company that has a special deal with one of them.  More
important, they often require far more documentation than the
embassy nominally requires, presumably to be sure that they have
what they need if the embassy (or local consulate) starts asking
questions about the traveler.  That additional documentation may
include confirmed flight or hotel reservations, letters of
endorsement or guarantee (in addition to meeting invitations,
etc.).   So, especially if one cannot appear in person, one
should get started early or be prepared to pay even higher fees.

If I remember correctly from the embassy's web site, part of the
documentation requirement for a multiple-entry visa is previous
visits to China and associated visas.  I.e., if you haven't had
at least a couple of single-entry visas, there is no point
thinking about a multiple-entry one.

     john

---

From: Stephane H Maes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)

I want to echo Eric Burger's notes.

1) I have been to China many times to attend conferences, standard meetings (including IETF Lemonade, OMA, 3GPP, ...) and business meetings. I have never felt or observed any constraint in what can be discussed, presented or done. Sure that did not involve making political statements or staging public protest; but it would not cross my mind to do that anywhere else I have meeting either anyway.

2) Infrastructure (network, hotels, restaurant, transport etc) is very good. Networking is better than in many places.

3) Security in major cities is OK. Some places and some countryside are more risky. But it does not feel worse than in many other international or US locations. Same common sense is required.

4) Meetings in China are extremely well attended (more local / Asian participants than usual; usually expert in the domains in discussions BUT also more experts from other geographies...)

5) No meeting I attuned has been "closed" for improper discussions and I have not heard of individual expelled or running into trouble.

6) working with hotels and Chinese companies (~ host) to have such meetings has been very easy (we did organize meetings aside from the IETF Lemonade meetings and OMA meeting) and without any problem with hotel or government. Being able to tunnel through firewall etc was on the agenda. Government owned Chinese companies participated.

I do believe that the main issue at hand here is that IETF and the host (really the host if I understand well) will be somehow expected to ensure that its participants attend IETF for IETF purposes, not as an excuse to stage public protests outside the IETF activities. It's again no different from other meetings. So I guess the question is: is it that IETF participation is such that for the host it may be hard to feel comfortable ensuring such things? If an incident like that occurs can it be considered as an individual issue or do we expect many participants will be involved?

Thanks

Stephane

_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD, 
Chief Architect & CTO, Mobility, Voice, and Communications, Oracle.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax / Office UM: +1-650-607-6296
e-mail: [email-masked]
IM: shmaes (AIM/Y!/skype) or [email-masked] (MSN Messenger) or [email-masked] (Google)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:41:18 -0700

>  find it much easier to avoid smoke in US cities.

In my experience, it no longer makes sense to talk about smoking in 
"Europe" as the situation varies so much from country to country. 
Prague was awful, Frankfurt was just fine, Rome and Dublin were not 
too bad, the U.K. is great.  I have been avoiding Spain, France, 
Portugal, Greece, and other such countries were it is likely to be 
very bad, which is easier now that alternative countries are 
available.

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Any idiot can face a crisis, it's this day to day living that wears
you out.                                             --Anton Chekov

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:04:10 -0400

For the main hotel, do we know whether the cost will be significantly different from what we normally spend on IETF hotels? 

I am assuming that VISA information will be provided on the IETF web site, and that we will need a letter of invitation which the IETF will provide. For non-US citizens living in the US, do we apply to the Chinese consulate in the US, and get the non-US rate? I am assuming that people with dual citizenship can use whichever passport results in the lowest fee (independent of whether they used the same one last time they went to China). 

thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ole Jacobsen
Sent: 21 September 2009 13:10
To: Eric Burger
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Visas and Costs

Cost:

Visa:

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:27:52 -0400

On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Ross Callon wrote:

> For the main hotel, do we know whether the cost will be  
> significantly different from what we normally spend on IETF hotels?

Less than the main hotel in San Francisco and Stockholm

Ray

>
> I am assuming that VISA information will be provided on the IETF web  
> site, and that we will need a letter of invitation which the IETF  
> will provide. For non-US citizens living in the US, do we apply to  
> the Chinese consulate in the US, and get the non-US rate? I am  
> assuming that people with dual citizenship can use whichever  
> passport results in the lowest fee (independent of whether they used  
> the same one last time they went to China).
>
> thanks, Ross
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:32:54 -0400

Okay, so one advantage of having a meeting in the PRC is that the
majority of participants (including US and Canadian ones) who can
normally travel almost anywhere without VISAs will have to experience
some of the pain of getting a VISA.

But, if we want to go somewhere communist, for my money, I'd rather we
had an IETF in Havana. 

- -- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:38:03 -0400

John, 
  I'm commenting specifically on your recollection of China requiring
people having visited China before it would consider a multi-entry visa.
It doesn't appear to be true - if it was true before. The visa
application form I downloaded from the Chinese Consulate in Chicago
(just now) lists choice of visa types and number of planned entries to
China on page one while the question about whether one has visited China
before is on page two of two pages. I could not find any indication that
the stated condition was implied. 

  I applied for and received a one-year multi-entry visa last year not
having visited with a new US passport.

Thanks,
Jerry (my own opinions, not my employer's.)
--
Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 (+1 630 719 4389, soon)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:29 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: Visas and Costs

     john

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:00:04 -0700

>   if the answer is "NO", there should have none probles of hold a meeting in China.

Direct you attention to the primary sources.

http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01985.html

http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/msg01991.html

If you want to follow the thread:

http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec/92.ipsec/thrd2.html

This discussion was still going on several years later when I began
participating in the IETF, even though clipper had been killed and
presidential directive 5 had long since been neutered.

The dialectic on what should be brought to the ietf, and the
implications of polticaly imposed requirements influencing standards
neither started nor ended there.

---

From: Lindqvist Kurt Erik <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:45:45 +0200

> luxury of attending most IETF meetings.

I access my network equipment located in China over SSH, and when I  
have been there I have accessed my network equipment in Stockholm over  
SSH. Didn't try any other cryptography as far as I can remember. Maybe  
SSL, but nothing I can reacall.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Lindqvist Kurt Erik <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:27:07 +0200

> China, however, we have weakened ourselves.

Steve, well put!

For whatever my own views on the political system in PRC is - I don't  
for a second believe that what the contract language refers to is to  
any of the technical discussions in the IETF. Every country have their  
own laws that restrict freedom of speech in one way or the other (so  
does the three I kind of consider home too). For example, if I would  
have stood up in Stockholm and burnt a Swedish flag - this would have  
been an action that would have had sever consequences for me (if we  
would have had enough police officers in Sweden, but that is a  
different discussion :-)). I admit there is a difference, the  
consequences would have been for me as an individual - not for the  
organizers.

That said, Eric made the analysis that the actions seems to be  
directed towards the organizers, but the area covered is vague. Still,  
I believe this is in reference to topics well outside the topics  
normally discussed inside the IETF.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:22:18 -0700 (PDT)

> significantly different from what we normally spend on IETF hotels?

The rates are expected to be in line with normal IETF rates (if there
is such a thing). Hotel costs is certainly one of the things the IAOC
considers in venue selection.
 
> the Chinese consulate in the US, and get the non-US rate?

That is what I did, using the consulate in San Francisco. See John's 
note regarding visa service providers if you don't live near such a
facility.

> I am assuming that people with dual citizenship can use whichever 

Probably, but that's the sort thing a good visa broker can tell you. 
When I made my stupid mistake and applied too early, the first thing
I did was to sheepishly call the visa broker that I probably should
have used in the first place. They gave me all sorts of useful info
such as, "you should have applied through LA instead," and so on.
Your mileage may vary, check with the wizards.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:25:23 -0400

Hi,

A personal opinion:

I believe that the logistic concerns voiced here (cost, visa, air pollution,
freedom of network access for IETF business needs) should not be seen as a
deterrent and are not likely to be a practical problem.  There are
associated problems and risks, and they are IMHO considerably larger than
the ones of this infamous RFID experiment, but they appear to me to be
manageable.

Still, I am against the idea of an IETF meeting hosted in the PRC at the
present time, and I'm not in favor of signing the agreement as proposed.
Given a choice by my clients or employer, I'm also not going to travel to
the PRC.

My main motivation lies in the moral dimension, as excellently formulated by
Ross in his second class of concern (reproduced below for convenience).

The need for self-censorship beyond of what common sense suggests to a
western-educated person is a second, albeit smaller and perhaps a bit
selfish, concern.

This is not only a PRC issue: I would also argue against IETF meetings in
perhaps two thirds of the UN member states, for similar reasons.

In contrast to SDOs under control of political entities (ITU, ESTI, ...), we
do have a choice of venue.  Let's exercise it.

Regards,
Stephan

P.s.: A personal anecdote; skip it if you are in a rush: Between 1984 and
1989 I was living in West Berlin, which was at the time surrounded by the
so-called German Democratic Republic (GDR).  The GDR's political system
shared some aspects of the system in the PRC, including certain limitations
in personal freedom, that I was not willing to endorse in any way.
When driving from West Berlin to the rest of free Germany, one necessarily
had to transit through the GDR.  Catering to those transit drivers, the GDR
offered cheap food, gas, cigarettes and booze at "Intershop" shops along
these transit routes, for western currency of course.  Stopping and shopping
there was popular, and one could save quite a bit of money.
I tried to *never* take advantage of these commercial offerings.  It was my
minor, risk-free way to deny the then GDR regime a few pennies of western
currency.  (Occasionally I did get gas, because I forgot to fill up in the
West, but I do not recall to ever have filled up...).
In summary, at the time I did have a choice, and I exercised it.  It did
cost me a bit, and it was unlikely to have any measurable effect on the
political system in the GDR.  Still, it felt right to me.
Needless to say, with the fall of the iron curtain, all this became a
non-issue.

On 9/18/09 12:11 PM, "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I understand that no location is perfect. However, I think that this goes well
> beyond what we normally put up with and well beyond what we should put up
> with.
> 
> anything happening as a result of this is very low. However, the IETF is a
> very unruly and opinionated group, and is probably more unruly than other
> groups that have recently met in China (or anywhere else). We have little idea
> what IETF attendees will do either in spite of or even because of this
> restriction. It would not be surprising to have some sort of major dust-up at
> the IESG plenary over this issue, and we don't know how the host country
> officials would react to this. Also, while the risk of the meeting being
> stopped in the middle seems very low, if it did happen this would be a very
> bad result for all concerned. If one IETF attendee were to be booted out of
> the hosting country based on something that they said or put on their slides
> or in a jabber room even that would be very bad.
> 
> Also, from a moral point of view I don't think that we should accept this.
> Freedom of speech is a very basic freedom that is guaranteed in a wide range
> of countries (although of course not all).  The people who live there don't
> have the ability to say "no" without serious consequences. We DO have the
> ability to say no, and I think that we should.
> 
> Again, this is just my personal opinion, and not the opinion of any group nor
> organization that I might happen to be associated with.
> 
> thanks, Ross
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:14:47 -0400

There are multiple Chinese consulates in the US, and each one seems to
have its own rules regarding visas. So it really pays to work with an
experienced visa service.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:42:40 -0400

OK. That may be the case, so I checked the Chinese Consulate in Houston and San Francisco, as well as the Chinese Embassy (in addition to Chicago). All four list multi-entry visa for 6 or 12 month without additional conditions. Note that 6- and 12-month duration are the only ones available for selection in the application form anyway. The explanation (such as at http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/, then select "Chinese Visa" on the left menu, then "Chinese Visa", then "Business (F) Visa" ) does list 24-month multi-entry visa as being available for any individual under certain conditions such as having made an investment in China, or having been to China on "F" visa at least twice before. Maybe that's what John had in mind.

While it may indeed be better off working with a visa service if one is not close to a Chinese Consulate, or doesn't have the time, etc., we shouldn't let it come across as harder than it really is.

Thanks,
Jerry (my own opinions/experience in the US. YMMV.)
--
Jerry Huang, AT&T Labs, +1 630 810 7679 (+1 630 719 4389, soon)
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:15 PM
To: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS
Cc: John C Klensin; Ole Jacobsen; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: Visas and Costs

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:18:29 +1200

>> site, and that we will need a letter of invitation which the IETF will
>> provide. 

You really have to check with a local expert. For my last visit,
I needed not a letter of invitation from my host, but an official
invitation (or something: I can't read it) from a government office,
applied for by my host, which arrived quite late, so that I had to use
rush processing at the consulate. That was for a UK citizen resident
in New Zealand; your mileage *will* vary.

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:24:24 -0400

--On Monday, September 21, 2009 18:42 -0400 "HUANG, ZHIHUI
(JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> OK. That may be the case, so I checked the Chinese Consulate
> in Houston and San Francisco, as well as the Chinese Embassy
> (in addition to Chicago). All four list multi-entry visa for 6
> or 12 month without additional conditions. Note that 6- and
> 12-month duration are the only ones available for selection in
> the application form anyway. The explanation (such as at
> http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/, then select "Chinese Visa"
> on the left menu, then "Chinese Visa", then "Business (F)
> Visa" ) does list 24-month multi-entry visa as being available
> for any individual under certain conditions such as having
> made an investment in China, or having been to China on "F"
> visa at least twice before. Maybe that's what John had in mind.

No, actually.   

If the various consulates are telling you different things, that
may be an argument for either a visa service or shopping for the
best deal.

I was told in May, and again in July, that the authoritative
document for US Citizens was the one that also appears on the
web page at 
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t84247.htm

Please see point I.6, which says:

  ▲US citizens may apply for a Single Entry (valid for 3-6
months), Double Entry (valid for 6 months), Multiple Entry
(valid for 6 months or 12 months) "F" Visa as needed.
  ▲US citizens may apply for a Multiple Entry "F" Visa valid
for 24 months, if
	1) they submit documents proving that they have made an
	investment in China, or have established a collaboration
	with a Chinese company, e.g. business license,
	contracts, a letter of appointment, etc.; or
	2) they have been issued "F" visa at least twice times,
	and shall submit copies of the visas.

With the understanding that the language that follows is, as far
as I know, absolutely standard (i.e., just about every country
that requires visas has similar language in their application
information), also note, from Section VI,

	2.Usually applicant submit his visa application one
	month earlier before his trip.

See Ole's note about that.

	3.Visa Officers are empowered to make final decision on
	the validity,duration of stay and times of entry of a
	visa and may require the applicants provide relevant
	documents.

That translates into "apply for what you would like; they will
give you what they think appropriate".   Again, this is
standard, not something special about the PRC.

> While it may indeed be better off working with a visa service
> if one is not close to a Chinese Consulate, or doesn't have
> the time, etc., we shouldn't let it come across as harder than
> it really is.

Right.  On the other hand, having been timed out while waiting
for a visa application to come through in the (northern
hemisphere) spring, I've become a little cautious.  For those
who don't know, visas are seldom _denied_ without some very
substantial reason.  What happens much more often is that they
simply are not granted before the event for which one wanted to
travel.

    john

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:00:26 -0500

> Could technical discussions about the following be considered  

The various mobile groups, OMA in particular (as OMA DRM was once a  
key piece of their plan) have apparently not had any trouble  
discussing DRM in mainland venues. Nor, as far as I know, have they  
encountered any "oversight" on their discourse during the meetings.  
They do tend to be much smaller groups, and talk a lot less shop over  
dinner, and be more "standards professionals" and less "activist  
intellectual" than IETFers. At times past they did have trouble  
getting "real" Internet access, but I understand that has gotten  
better over the last few years.

But I do think IETFers would be much more likely to say something  
problematic, and that IETF would be a much bigger target for agents  
provocateurs than the mobile phone standards bodies have historically  
been. If I'm finding "pushing the envelope" to be tempting, I'm sure  
that there are other folks who will find it to be irresistible. After  
all, IETF (unlike 3GPP) is not a job. It's a lifestyle. We have a lot  
more financially independent people who are just there because they  
like it than 3GPP does, and they often spend their money on "causes"  
rather than just whiskey and sex like "real" standards professionals  
do (or at least pretend to do; really we're all saving up for a flat- 
screen TV, college for the kids, and a vacation in the tropics).

--
Dean

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:30:57 -0400

John, The link you provided is arrived at through my convoluted steps - only because when I copied the link into a browser window, it didn't work. We are looking at the exact same document and I would have quoted exactly the same paragraphs as you did.

With that said, I'm not sure we are disagreeing at all. My point was that a US citizen can get a multi-entry visa for 6- or 12-month window _without_ needing to demonstrate anything unusual (such as having been to China on a business visa at least twice prior); only when he wants a multi-entry visa that is effective for 24 months will he need to demonstrate having a substantiated investment _or_ having been to China at least twice with an 'F' visa.

Thanks,
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:24 PM
To: HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: Visas and Costs

No, actually.   

    john

---

From: Peny Yang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:53:57 +0800

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Randall Gellens <[email-masked]> wrote:
> My experience was a couple of years ago, not ten, but it's good to hear that
> things have improved.  Can you tell me what this "smoking corner" is?
[Peny] OK. "Smoking corner" means some areas for smoking. China
Government surely respects the right of smokers, when they tried to
protect the health of non-smokers.

> I
> recall that a few years ago Copenhagen airport, for example, had such
> things, but they were simply designated indoor areas, and as such, were no
> help at all.  Likewise, a few years ago, meetings in Japan officially
> prohibited smoking in many public areas, but the hotel simply wheeled in
> portable "smoking areas" which did nothing to help.
[Peny] Well, every country has similar issues as you mentioned. In
China, we also have such kind of smoking areas. I couldn't say they
are 100% isolated from other areas.

> Can you tell me more about the smoking policy in China now?
[Peny] OK. Originally, I was trying to find a English webpage for you.
However, I didn't find it. Anyway, the link below is the policy on
smoking in Beijing since Mar. 2008.
http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2008-04/10/content_941252.htm
I am not sure if you have some Chinese friends to translate it for you.

> And I agree with you about Japan, although that in the last few years I've
> been able to find 100% non-smoking restaurants (it takes some work).
[Peny] Well, I have to say quite a lot of EU countries are also the
same style. Anyway, just like other countries, China is just a
country, which has smokers and non-smokers. This issue should not be a
barrier for a IETF meeting in China.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:08:34 +0700

John C Klensin [mailto://[email-masked]] writes:

...

> means that if one is in a city with a consulate (or close to
                         ^not
> should get started early or be prepared to pay even higher fees.

I have traveled to China fairly frequently over the past few years (3GPP2
used to meet there at least once a year).  I have a current double-entry
visa, obtained here in Bangkok in about 48 hours (not a rush order), while
the last one I got in Hong Kong in < 24 hours (rush order).  However, the
first & most subsequent Chinese visas I obtained were through Visa Network
(http://www.visanetwork.com/index.shtml); it's been awhile but as I recall
their fees were quite reasonable (far more so than the service that the
company for which I worked used).  They can normally do a 24 hour
turnaround.  For that matter, I can't think of a reason why one would want
or need a multiple-entry visa for an IETF meeting (except, perhaps, if the
meeting was in Shentzen & you wanted to commute from HK ;-).

> thinking about a multiple-entry one.

Maybe things have changed, but my first Chinese visa was a double-entry
(note that "multiple" != "double").

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:54:26 +0200

Hi,

> some of the pain of getting a VISA.

You may have meant this in a sarcastic way, but it very literally *is*
an advantage: it may cure some of the U.S. IETF participants who usually
hand-wave away the visa issue of non-U.S. participants in a U.S. venue
as "can't be that bad, stop whining". It is always good to see "the
other side". Makes for a better discussion ground.
(Disclaimer: I was not one of the people needing a visa. But I can have
empathy for other beings.)

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:12:32 -0400

Hi.

After a brief offlist conversation with Zhujui, I think I may
have added to the confusion, rather than clarifying.    So let
me see if I can summarize my remarks and maybe his.

	* There are, or have been, some countries that view visa
	application requirements purely as revenue
	opportunities.  China is not one of them -- this is a
	serious process.
	
	* One needs to pay careful attention to information and
	materials requested and to schedules.  And, I hope
	obviously, one should to supply what is needed, when it
	is required.  Doing otherwise wastes your time and that
	of the consular official.  
	
	* When visa applications (or applicants) somehow cause
	consular officials concern, the most popular action is
	not to deny them but to delay issuing them until the
	relevant event has passed.  That behavior is not unique
	to PRC officials -- the US arguably pioneered it or at
	least elevated its use to that of an art form.
	
	* Different consulates (even within the same country and
	representing the same other country) may have different
	policies in practice.  The ability to apply for a
	particular type of visa does not imply that it will be
	granted.   Unless you actually know what the policies
	are in practice (the better visa agencies do), it is
	usually prudent to not apply for more than you actually
	need, especially if you have not visited the country
	before.  Again, that is a general principle and has
	nothing to do with the PRC in particular.
	
	* If you don't live in a place convenient to a
	Consulate, or have doubts about the process, visa
	agencies ("brokers") are a good idea and perhaps a
	necessity.   Fees, services, and styles differ widely.

None of the above should be taken as implying that this a big
deal.  It is just an administrative necessity that must be dealt
with in a timely and orderly fashion.  For those for whom the
experience is new, consider it a learning opportunity.

IMO, the visa issue should not be part of the question of
whether or not to go to a meeting in China (or elsewhere)
although I hope that, when visa fees for large numbers of
attendees are non-trivial, the IAOC considers those fees as part
of their calculations of the cost of a meeting location to
attendees.

      john

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:10:56 -0500

On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
> out China.

The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that we 
will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It is not 
directly related to their "culture" or "(perceived) bias." The 
conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many of the 
same arguments) if we were being asked to make a substantially similar 
agreement to meet in, say, Ireland.

    "Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
    presentations at the conference, or printed materials used at the
    conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain any
    defamation against the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or
    show any disrespect to Irish culture, or violate any laws of the
    Republic of Ireland or feature any topics regarding human rights or
    religion without prior approval from the Government of the Republic
    of Ireland, the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on
    the spot and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in
    any or all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately."

Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or would 
it be objecting to an unacceptable policy?

/a

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:13:49 -0500

On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote:
> [T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to 
> self-censorship by people who do choose to attend.

+1

/a

---

From: "L. Giuliano" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:40:44 -0400 (EDT)

Applying the usual disclaimer- this is my personal opinion, and doesn't 
reflect the views of any organization with which I may be affiliated:

I do believe this provision is counter to the values and spirit of 
contribution toward the evolution of the Internet as a tool for open 
communication, and thus, would not be in favor of holding a meeting where 
such a provision is required.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:45:17 -0500

On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> namely prevent political protest at the meeting.
>    

One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when 
the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the 
parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if 
the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly 
that and no more.

I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean 
literally what it says.

/a

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:44:43 +0100

On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:10, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul

> The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many  
> of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a  
> substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland.
>
> show any disrespect to Irish culture,

Apparent disrespect is quite a large part of Irish culture, so such a  
clause could be just perfectly confusing. I like it:-)

Stephen.

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:53 -0400

On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that  
> when the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention  
> of the parties to the contract, then the language needs to be  
> rewritten. So if the intention is to prevent political protest, it  
> needs to say exactly that and no more.

The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is intended  
to put the Host and group on notice of such.
If the language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.

Ray

>
> I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to  
> mean literally what it says.
>
> /a

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:52:34 -0600

> it be objecting to an unacceptable policy?

Thank you, Adam.

I think it would be objecting to an unacceptable policy, because such a
policy would inevitably result in self-censorship regarding topics that
are directly related to our technical work (e.g., some IETF participants
consider topics such as encryption to be matters of human rights).

Furthermore, we simply cannot know much beforehand about the laws of the
host country regarding freedom of speech (has the Republic of Ireland
passed legislation that makes it a crime to speak disparagingly about
redheads?). This is why I find the restriction about the contents of the
group's activities, presentations, and printed materials violating the
laws of the host country to be especially worrisome, because it is an
extremely vague restriction that could be taken to cover anything
presented (or perhaps even said) at a WG session, plenary, IESG or IAB
meeting, etc. Would all slides and audio text to be presented need to be
pre-approved by an IETF committee to ensure that the video or audio
presentations do not violate any laws of the host country? How are we to
know what those laws might be? We do a poor enough job of legal issues
where we have some knowledge of the domain (IETF processes and
procedures). Given that (1) such a committee or review process would
quite simply be unworkable (most presenters don't even finish their
slides until a day or two before the relevant WG session) and (2) the
IETF would be liable for all presentations made at the conference, I
don't see how we can realistically accept this restriction.

(I suppose that other SDOs and conference organizers have tried to work
around this restriction in various ways, but it seems irresponsible to
do so by ignoring the restriction altogether and letting presenters say
anything they want, given the organizational liability that is
stipulated in the restriction. The IETF could claim that what presenters
say at WG sessions, plenaries, and the like is outside the control of
the IETF, but I think that is skating on rather thin ice.)

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:52:46 -0700 (PDT)

I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't typically
get to negotiate clauses that are required by national law. We'd 
obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this would remove
any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.

Ole

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Adam Roach wrote:
> 
> One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when the
> language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the parties to
> the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if the intention is
> to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly that and no more.
>

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:16:07 +0100

> the IETF, but I think that is skating on rather thin ice.)

Having attended only XSF and OMA aside from IETF, I'm not sure  
whether the IETF and XSF are essentially unique is trying to provide  
remote participation, either - the OMA certainly doesn't.

I reiterate - if I wished to grind my political axe against the PRC,  
I would do so via the Jabber chatrooms. IETF meetings increasingly  
rely on these, and should they be deliberately used to raise issues  
with which the PRC would be uncomfortable, I see very little in the  
way of mitigation or remedy which I would, in turn, be comfortable  
with.

The physical meeting I'm fine with in China. I'm pretty sure the  
bizarre - to Western eyes - rules and regulations can be dealt with  
in such a way that actual impact to the IETF meeting is minimized,  
and the benefits of the location - Chinese engineering knowledge, etc  
- would outweigh the disadvantages.

But I'm concerned that only a couple of us have raised the potential  
impact on remote participation - can I ask what steps are being taken  
to minimize impact there?

Dave.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0500

On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> The majority of the conversation so far has related to a clause that  
> we will be forced to accept as a condition of meeting in China. It  
> is not directly related to their "culture" or "(perceived) bias."  
> Could you imagine the uproar? Would it be anti-Irish sentiment? Or  
> would it be objecting to an unacceptable policy?
>

We'd say our hosts had been drinking a little too much fine Irish  
whiskey and either ignore it or just mark it out and send it back.  
There's no way we'd sign that. It's a human right to argue about human  
rights!

Of course, if one were to defame Ireland in a downtown Dublin pub, one  
might expect to be asked to step outside, or just get punched in the  
nose on the spot. After all, being offensive is its own reward. But  
one still wouldn't expect to see this type of ballast added to a  
hospitality contract. Why? Because in the free world, defaming the  
government, disrespecting a culture, discussing human rights, and  
discussing religion might be rude, or they might be the subjects of  
perfectly appropriate academic discussions, but they are not illegal.

And there's no way we should be holding an IETF meeting in any  
location where such discourse is illegal. It's against everything we  
have fought for with the Internet for many, many years.

> any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.

If you don't like the law, don't enter its jurisdiction.

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:03:57 -0700 (PDT)

You said:

"Because in the free world, defaming the government, disrespecting a 
 culture, discussing human rights, and discussing religion might be 
 rude, or they might be the subjects of perfectly appropriate academic 
 discussions, but they are not illegal."

I agree, but I think you are arguing that such discussions are a 
normal and required part of our technical work in semi-public fora and 
I think that's stretching the meaning of the terms you list.

Which is why I think we've been invited with the blessing of the 
government, and why I think THEY (for all values of they) assume we 
will conduct "business as usual." Otherwise there would not be much 
point in proposing that venue/country.

I can imagine a few "cultural adjustments" such as taking off your
shoes before entering certain buildings and so on, but I am not 
expecting a radically changed IETF meeting agenda.

The most recent meeting I attended in China featured some very 
interesting presentations on the history and current deployment of
Internet technologies in China, particularly with respect to IPv6
and with respect to the mobile Internet. I hope we can invite
some of these speakers to our meeting if we make it to China.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:40:55 -0500

> I think that's stretching the meaning of the terms you list.

Aren't they? I've certainly found discussions on thwarting "the  
government's" will to be a central part of a great many security- 
oriented discussions at IETF. Specifically, we're been concerned with  
the individuals human rights with respect to security of  
communications and privacy. We've refused "government mandates" to  
require cryptographic back doors time and again.

Doesn't IETF regularly host PGP key-signing events in furtherance of  
this ideology?

As for what constitutes "defaming a government" or "disrespecting a  
culture", who knows what that really means? I assume the conference  
hotel knows, since they're the ones with the job of deciding and the  
power to enforce the contract.  We know that in Thailand, insulting  
the King can get you 75 years in jail, and we also know that the King  
is apparently a lot easier to insult than most Western leaders (or  
really, that the King himself seems like a pretty reasonable guy, but  
that lower-echelon folks are easily insulted on his behalf).

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Thailand_bans_YouTube_over_videos_insulting_king

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/08/29/activist_gets_prison_sentence_for_insulting_thai_king/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/world/asia/20thai.html

Now admittedly, PRC is not Thailand. But mysterious phrases in  
contracts referring to poorly understood crimes and imposing draconian  
penalties without any kind of review mechanism are still going to  
worry people. And I think they're right to be worried.

If it's a non-issue, why does the hotel contract cede all rights for  
determining legality or offense to the hotel, and leave us holding  
nothing but the liability?

--
Dean

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:45:27 -0600

On 9/22/09 6:03 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> will conduct "business as usual." 

As an example, does your definition of "business as usual" include the
topics, presentations, and discussions that occurred in the net
neutrality session during the technical plenary at IETF 75? That kind of
session is business as usual for the IETF, but it might not be perceived
as the usual business of a technical organization by those who are
proposing to host this meeting.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:31 -0500

A couple of things so as not to lose sight of what's actually being discussed:

On 9/20/09 at 5:13 PM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

>We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer 
>was a sound no with no room for discussion.

You'll note that nowhere in my message did I suggest that you ask 
(and I'm not at all surprised that the hotel said "No"). I have never 
heard of a contract negotiation where one party asks the other such 
things. I said that the host should simply cross it off and sign the 
remainder and see what happens. Better yet (and I've done this sort 
of thing in contract negotiations myself), "reword" the paragraph 
such that it still expresses the constraints of the law, but gives 
the hotel and the host no enforcement duties, and say, "We've 
reworded this and we believe it still captures the necessary 
requirements." See what happens.

And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and 
the host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include 
words indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch 
on human rights issues are excluded from this clause.

On 9/22/09 at 2:50 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:

>The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is 
>intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the 
>language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.

Certainly the part about "defamation", "show any disrespect", and 
"violates any laws" (which, according to Marshall's original message, 
includes certain politicial statements and protest marches) are 
clearly a statement of the law as others have explained in this 
thread. I've heard nothing so far that indicates that the rest of the 
clause (with regard to terminating the event or the hotel or host 
having responsibility for the enforcement) is any part of the law.

On 9/22/09 at 11:52 AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

>I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't 
>typically get to negotiate clauses that are required by national 
>law. We'd obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this 
>would remove any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.

Ray did not say that the clause is required by national law, nor has 
anybody else as far as I have read. All Ray said was the the clause 
was putting the IETF on notice of the law. Let's not start this 
discussion from a point of amateur lawyering (as if this discussion 
is different than every other). Someone should find out what the law 
really requires and whether this is just a clause in a contract from 
an overly vigilant hotel.

For the record, I said in the survey that this language wouldn't stop 
me from going (because it's no money out of my pocket if the 
conference gets cancelled midweek, and I don't *think* I would be 
restrained in anything I might say, but I think contracting this 
meeting with such a clause is kind of nuts and I wouldn't do it if I 
were on the IAOC.

pr
Qualcomm Incorporated

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:42:19 -0700 (PDT)

> proposing to host this meeting.

I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on 
net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of
any government. Sure, it describes the state of affairs, it talks 
about blocking for various reasons, it discusses what role the IETF 
should or should not play, it quotes the participants more or less
verbatim, for example, this snippet from Leslie Daigle:

"From our perspective, it is important that the technical
 specifications stay focused on building specifications that are 
 about structure and transmitting of packets for a global network 
 that supports innovation and development and deployment of new
 applications.

 QUOTE RAVEN: "The IETF, an international standards body, believes
 itself to be the wrong forum for designing protocol or equipment
 features that address needs arising from the laws of individual
 countries, because these laws vary widely across the areas that 
 IETF standards are deployed in.  Bodies whose scope of authority
 correspond to a single regime of jurisdiction are more appropriate 
 for this task."

Describing the state of affairs, documenting what technology is used 
for and observing current practice does not constitute disrespectful 
behavior in my view, and hopefully someone from the PRC will back me
up on this.

For example, the restrictions placed on the use of the Internet in 
China are not secret. If you want to operate a website in the .cn 
domain, you need to be registered with a government agency, and you 
need to display a registration number on all of your webpages. And the 
registration has to correspond to a real physical address. This isn't 
a secret, you would be told this if your company set up shop in China 
and registered in .cn. The way Google works in China is also well 
known, and clearly spelled out. You could do a fascinating 
presentation comparing the results of various searches and tracing how 
the packets go. If that discussion focused on technology, I don't 
believe anyone would object. But if you did something for the sole 
purpose of embarrassing the host or the host country, I think it would 
be considered rude, regardless of venue.

Dean said:

"I've certainly found discussions on thwarting "the government's" will 
 to be a central part of a great many security-oriented discussions at 
 IETF. Specifically, we're been concerned with the individuals human 
 rights with respect to security of communications and privacy. We've 
 refused "government mandates" to require cryptographic back doors 
 time and again."

And I would not expect us to curb discussion of this topic at a 
meeting in China, if the topic came up. Disagreeing with (or simply 
documenting) a government's law or its rules governing the use of a
technology is not at all the same as inciting a riot or encouraging 
anyone to march on Parliament House (or whatever the building might be 
called).

Peter said:

"I'm talking about discussion of technical topics that impinge on the 
 political realm: things like the use of encryption to protect 
 personal privacy (especially from the prying eyes of Isaac and Justin), the 
 Internet as a technology that routes around censorship as damage, and 
 the simple human right to be *left alone* by government bureaucrats 
 and other such busybodies if one is going about one's business in a 
 peaceful manner."

Once again, I see nothing in the offending language that prohibits us 
from either discussing or using encryption in any way we see fit. If 
you want to host a BOF on how to circumvent certain rules and you want 
to invite people off the street to attend, then, yeah, maybe someone
might take you aside and suggest that isn's such a good idea, but I
would argue that such a BOF is quite outside the normal business of
the IETF.

Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week....

Ole

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:45:39 -0600

> would argue that such a BOF is quite outside the normal business of

Thank you for the clarifications.

> Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week....

It's worse if you digitally sign your messages...

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:11:58 +0100

> It's worse if you digitally sign your messages...

I always wondered why you did that.

Dave.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:28:17 -0500

On 9/22/09 22:42, Sep 22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> any government.

The problem is that you're looking for a needle in the portion of a 
haystack that happens to have been recorded; finding none, you declare 
the haystack needle free.

In my recollection, there is a semi-regular IETF participant who travels 
with a MacBook that has a Tibetan flag sticker prominently visible on 
the lid. Hopefully, someone with the political awareness to make that 
kind of statement also has the political awareness to recognize that 
bringing a laptop so decorated into the PRC is likely to cause an incident.

On the other hand, someone with the value system to make that kind of 
statement may welcome such an incident. The clause under discussion runs 
headlong into this kind of problem and amplifies it by potentially 
shutting down the entire event.

And that's just the needle in this haystack that I can remember, 
unaided, without the assistance of transcripts or surveillance of any 
kind. You're comfortable that it's the only needle?

You have lot of faith.

/a

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:45:02 -0700

At Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:31 -0500,
> having responsibility for the enforcement) is any part of the law.

This is exactly right.

Reasoning by analogy is always dangerous, but let me suggest an
analogy: say that we wanted to have an IETF in an area that had
a lot of hurricanes. Now, the likelihood of a hurricane is not
something we can control--I don't expect to negotiate with 
national law--but the extent to which it effects the IETF is
at least partly within the hotel's control. So, one could imagine
a number of clauses about what happens in the event of a hurricane
in which the hotel becomes unusable:

- The event is cancelled and lose all our money.
- The event is cancelled but the hotel refunds a prorated portion
  of our money.
- The event is cancelled but the hotel pays a large indemnity
  (thus allowing us to have a replacement event).

Note that we can't get rid of the risk of hurricanes, but we can
control who bears that risk. 

Now, this isn't a perfect analogy, since in the case of an IETF
meeting, we do have limited control of the risk of the meeting being
cancelled (though the IETF's control of it is really extremely
limited, since they have such limited control over their members) and
since the hotel's control over the situation is probably more limited
here--but whether they unilaterally cancel the meeting at any hint of
wrongdoing is likely to be in their control. However, I think the
basic point remains: this contract seems to make the host and the IETF
bear a large amount of risk which could be shifted to others.  It's
not at all clear to me that that point can't be negotiated with the
hotel. Why would that be dictated by the Chinese government?

-Ekr

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:47:56 -0700

At Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. 

I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our
activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say
that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so,
that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so
that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you.

> I have stated 

Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative
(b) above. 

Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't
prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties
can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find
objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly
comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several
analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions
rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe
practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled
(even if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of
money).

-Ekr

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:26:08 -0400

Adam Roach allegedly wrote on 09/23/2009 9:28 AM:
> the lid. 

Assuming you are correct, that is an individual statement.  It will not
be part of presentations, distributed materials, or even discussion
sponsored by the meeting.

> shutting down the entire event.

Based on the little I've seen of PRC government responses to impromptu
protests (I've never been in one but I have firsthand reports), they
haven't blamed the organization those people were part of (just the
individuals) unless it was significant, pre-planned, and the
organization expected something of that kind to occur.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)

> that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you.

A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first 
sentence in the clause says "...defamation against the Government 
of the People's Republic of China..."

Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo 
any government unless you set it up as laundry list of "what's wrong
with this country" (for any value of country) which isn't something
you typically do at the IETF.

> practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even 
> if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money).

Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to 
interpretation and judgement.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:38:49 -0700

At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT),
> you typically do at the IETF.

Uh, that clause is ORed with other clauses:

             ^^                                             ^^
                                                       ^^ 

So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, Ithink people
were arguing that it was a topic "regarding human rights".

With that said, it's not clear to me that saying "China's policy
of censoring the Internet sucks" isn't defamation. 

> interpretation and judgement.

Sure.

I'll rephrase my question then:
Is your claim that you believe that the contract would not be
found in a court of law to cover the described activities?

-Ekr

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people

I would say that this DOES border on defamation, BUT I am at a loss 
to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our 
technical discussion. The statement is an opinion about a topic which 
there is a lot more that can be said, but like the baby said "this 
isn't the venue." (Let's just say that it isn't well understood in
the west). "X policy sucks" sound like politics and not technology
particularly if X is a country.

If on the other hand you were to say: "I am upset about the way 
provider Y in country X does aggregation in BGP because this degrades 
performance of..." you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps 
a technical argument. I managed to shame a certain provider in India 
into fixing their issue after they showed up as "most unstable AS" for 
a number of months, and they ended up thanking me for it in the end 
after considerable finger pointing.

> found in a court of law to cover the described activities?

If by "activities" you mean "technical discussions" that are a normal 
part of any IETF meeting, then yes. If, on the other hand, you mean
using the IETF as a platform to publically criticize the host country,
then I would say we are needlessly pushing the envelope. 

(I don't a court would really enter into it, but that's another 
matter).

Ole

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:23:20 -0700

At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT),
> particularly if X is a country.

Sure, but I've heard plenty of stuff like this said in the IETF,
indeed in this very discussion. So, while you may not think
that those are appropriate statements, ISTM that we do in fact
have a situation in which common IETF speech potentially runs
afoul of this restriction.

> a technical argument.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is in fact defamatory
speech within the legal sense that prevails in the US. (That doesn't
make it illegal in the US. First Amendment, etc.)

> part of any IETF meeting, then yes.

In that case, can you please post your analysis of the other ORed parts
of the original clause that supports that conclusion?

-Ekr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:31:03 -0600

> performance of..." you would have little to worry about beyond perhaps 

Here's the rub. In the heat of the moment during a given technical
discussion, someone might come up to the mic and blurt out "it sucks
that countries like X enforce policy Y and IETF technologies need to
provide a way for end users to route around that kind of interference
with their sacred human right to freedom of unfettered communication".
But now that person probably won't come up to the mic for fear of being
carted away if they don't phrase things very carefully. People who show
up at IETF meetings are simply not in the habit of self-censoring in
this way, which means that they probably won't come up to the mic at all
if they fear that a topic might be forbidden or dangerous. This climate
of fear and self-censorship is a problem.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400

At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>BUT I am at a loss 
>technical discussion. 

And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in which is was said) should be a required part of an IETF meeting?

This isn't a China issue per se - this is about what we expect from and for ourselves in the context of the IETF.  We have a way of interacting that - while not pretty - mostly works.  It's unclear to me why we should accept restrictions on that way of interacting that are imposed from without.  If your answer is - "because there's some benefit to the IETF" - I would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other benefits and where should we draw the line?

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT)

Mike,

My answer is that this is a judgement call and it forms part of the 
decision making tree that the IAOC has to make when selecting any 
venue. We have asked for community feedback in this case, and we've 
received it (or we are receiving it I should say).

Personally, yes, I see the benefits and I also don't believe that we 
really WOULD run afoul of the "rules" and suffer any consequences,
but one can always come up with worst-case scenarios. If we all go
there with self-censorship and fear in mind, I'd rather we went 
somewhere else, but I don't believe we need to be fearful.

Ole

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Michael StJohns wrote:

> 
> And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or 
> ejecting an individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting 
> in which is was said) should be a required part of an IETF meeting?
> 
> This isn't a China issue per se - this is about what we expect from 
> and for ourselves in the context of the IETF.  We have a way of 
> interacting that - while not pretty - mostly works.  It's unclear to 
> me why we should accept restrictions on that way of interacting that 
> are imposed from without.  If your answer is - "because there's some 
> benefit to the IETF" - I would then ask what else should we be 
> willing to give up for other benefits and where should we draw the 
> line?
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:23:57 -0400

> of the original clause that supports that conclusion?

Dear Eric;

As far as I know, you are not a lawyer (please correct me if I am  
wrong). I am not a lawyer. Ole is not a lawyer. What use is any of us  
doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce  
a technical analysis of LISP-ALT. I don't think that this will get us  
anywhere.

Furthermore, my experience with lawyers is that they will rarely, if  
ever, in any legal system provide you with guarantees. They can point  
out problems, but you have to use judgement to decide what to do.

A long time ago, I learned that the letter of legal agreements is in  
many cases less important than the intent of the parties. There are  
always issues in any agreement, and you can always "war-game" possible  
breakdowns. The real question is, is there intent to do what is agreed  
upon (and, do you both agree what that is) ? I think there is intent,  
in inviting us to China, for us to have a good and productive meeting  
in China. I think that all parties (us, the host, the Hotel, and the  
government) want this result.

My judgement is therefore that we would not be found in breach of the  
contract by the hotel for any activities I have seen in 10 years of  
IETFs. That is not a legal analysis, but it is my considered opinion,  
based on all of the facts available to me, and my reading of the  
intent of the parties. Others, such as Ole, with much more experience  
with the PRC than I do have come to the same conclusion.

Everyone is of course free to come their own conclusions, but this is  
how I came to mine.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT)

That I can pretty much guarantee, plus a whole bunch of tasty 
alternatives to cookies and of course many variants of tea.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> said:
> 
> MS> If your answer is - "because there's some benefit to the IETF" - I
> MS> would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other
> MS> benefits and where should we draw the line?
> 
> If we give up our normal level of free speech then we should expect darn
> nice cookies in trade!
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:45:06 -0600

IAOC,

I'm trying to understand what is political speech in China. The  
Geopriv WG deals with protecting users' location privacy. The policies  
of more than one country have come up in geopriv meetings in very  
derogatory terms. There have been very derogatory comments made by  
people about the US's wiretap policy. Unless someone can point me at  
specifics of what is or is not OK, I would find this very concerning.  
We also regularly discuss issues around Taiwan/China, cryptography,  
wiretap, DNS root server location, reverse engineering, and so on.   
Clearly most the people involved with IETF would never want to break  
the laws of the country they are visiting but the question is do we  
actually understand the laws and what impact do they have on our  
technical work? To help us make informed decision about whether these  
terms are issues or not:

1) What is political speech in China? And can we explain that to IETF  
participants well enough that they know what is OK and what is not.

2) Are there any special rules about publishing and broadcasting? I  
note that the IETF, unlike most other groups having meetings,  
broadcasts the meetings live over the internet, which will be both  
publishing the material and exporting it outside of the PRC.

3) Are there any rules around discussion, publication, or export of of  
cryptography algorithms and technology? publishing weaknesses of  
national crypto algorithms?

4) Many of our participants use communications products (like jabber  
clients) that they helped develop and include strong cryptography. Do  
they need permission to use these in China?

5) When discussing what I think of as technical issues, many  
participants regularly treat Taiwan and PRC as two different countries  
and currently recognize both of them as separate countries in their  
own right. I'd actually venture a guess that there is strong IETF  
consensus they should be treated this way.  Could any discussions like  
this be viewed as political speech? What are the rules on this?

6) It is not core to IETF work but some of us do some interop of  
running code for IETF protocols under development sometimes at IETF.  
This would be about the right timing for running P2PSIP code, but that  
requires us to to run a local CA. Is any special permission needed to  
run a CA in China?

7) Would we be OK running a BOF on techniques for firewall advancement  
in general and in particular on getting around any firewalls China  
runs? [Seriously, you know someone will propose this BOF, the  
questions is could we run it or not?]

8) Given the Chairs for WG set the agendas and such, I am assuming  
that a reasonable person would consider all the presentation done by  
presenters at the front of the room to be things that are under  
control of the client. Is this the assumption the IAOC is working  
under too?

9) What is the IETF's potential liability here. If the meeting was  
canceled on Monday, everyone checked out of hotels early and paid a  
one day change fee, would the IETF be responsible for the hotel's loss  
of revenue for the Wednesday through Friday nights?

10) If the meeting is canceled, will the IETF be reimbursing the  
registration fees?

11) Given the IETF would be depending on the actions of the  
participants of the meeting to meet the contract, it would seem very  
prudent to me to make sure that each participant agreed to this. Will  
you be asking each participant to sign an agreement agreeing to these  
terms?

12) Do you all feel like you need a beer yet?

I'm trying to get to the bottom about what is legal and what is not in  
the PRC.  Ignorance is not an excuse for the law in any country and  
when I don't know if something is legal or not, I don't do it. Right  
now I am looking for input from knowledgeable people on these  
questions. I imagine the IAOC has looked into many of these and would  
appreciate understanding what you have found.

Thanks, Cullen

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:50:02 -0600

> materials approved by the government in advance.

What is the approval process and how long should we expect it to take?

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:19:19 -0700

Pete Resnick wrote:
> And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and the 
> host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include words 
> indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch on human 
> rights issues are excluded from this clause.

Pete,

Simply crossing off the problematic text is an approach that is clean and 
simple, and returns the burden to the hotel.  Nevermind that some or all of the 
text is dictated by law.

Your suggested re-wording, however, is twice problematic.  First, it tries to 
guess what is acceptable to the hotel and government.  The second is that it 
tries to guess what is acceptable to the IETF community.

Guessing the former is reasonable when you really are in a negotiation and have 
some sense of the other side.  This ain't one of those cases.

And as a member of the IETF community, I think your proffered text constrains 
things too far.  "Discussion of technical topics" is not likely to cover 
discussion of the national and other policies that might affect or motivate use 
of the technology.  Yet that, for example, is entirely plausible material for 
some IETF groups.

Of course, there is also the inherent humor of trying to contractually constrain 
speech by the entire participating IETF community, given our unruly history...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:08:02 -0400

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:23:57PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce a 
> technical analysis of LISP-ALT. I don't think that this will get us  
> anywhere.

I may not be a lawyer, but if there is a contract which says, "any
topics regarding human rights" must require prior approval of the
Chinese government, the plain reading of the contract is pretty clear,
and if lawyer told me, nah you don't have to worry about the obvious
wording of the contract, it's just normal boilerplate, I think I would
be right to ask for a second (or third opinion).

I understand that it is very hard for a lawyer to tell us whether or
not there is a guarantee that we will be "safe", but if there is
something that is clear on the face that might be "unsafe", I think it
takes a fairly large amount of handwaving to say, "that's not
something you need to worry about in the contract".  In fact, lawyers
are usually telling us the opposite!

Given that a number of people have already observed that comments of
the form of how our protocols can be used to ensure human rights are
certainly not unknown within the IETF, and it's not even clear such a
comment would not be considered inappropriate, and there's a clear
cause that seems to indicate that we should not even *mention*
anything related to human rights without the prior approval of the
Chinese government, it's clear that there will be some restriction on
discussions that would otherwise legitimately take place at other IETF
venues.

Against that, we weigh the argument that the IETF would somehow become
"irrelevant" if it doesn't meet in China.  Personally, I have trouble
buying that.  

Perhaps the cost of restricting legitimate discussions about how
protocols might be used when it involves human rights or freedom is
slight (although some might disagree with that; some might view this
as a principle that's not worth compromising); but it's not clear the
benefits of going to China are that great, either.

> many cases less important than the intent of the parties. 

Maybe, but at the end of the day, "the law is the law".  The intent of
the host and hotel may be good, but good intentions have never
overruled law in a civil society which is governed by the rule of law.
And the argument for why the statement *must* be present in the
contract is that it is required by Chinese national law.

I'm not sure which is worse, the argument that we don't need to worry
about the law (thus implying that maybe China isn't actually a society
where the rule of law is important), or that the law actually *does*
impose these restrictions and is for real.

My two cents,

						- Ted

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:57:16 -0400

>specifics of what is or is not OK, I would find this very concerning.

Anything we think is a speculation, the ways of governments and
hotels have their own logic that may not make sense to technical people.

As for restrictions on topics that border technical and political sphere,
there are different restrictions in different countries.

I propose an experiment, lets have a meeting if it gets shut down
we will never return to China.

         Olafur

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:08:18 -0400

> we will never return to China.

Sounds good.

Cullen, you are looking for clear boundaries, but you're not going to
get them.  As in many countries, what is tolerated depends on time,
place, the particular people involved (on both sides), the weather, and
external factors such as whether there was an accidental gaffe from
Obama the day before.  The best thing to do is to depend on guidance
from the people who know the subtleties of the situation best.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:14:42 -0400

Ole,

Just want to make sure I understand this response fully.

On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval
> process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed)
> meeting.

The question about approval was generated based on this part of the  

>> all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.

Does your above response mean that the host would not consider slides  
and oral presentations made during working group sessions to be part  
of "the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at the  
conference"? Or does your response mean that the host is going to take  
the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having to do with  
slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved by the  
government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the content of  
working group sessions falls under the category of "topics regarding  
human rights"?

Thanks much.
Alissa

---

From: Alan Clark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:25:03 -0400

Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the Chinese
government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF does have open
discussions in these areas, hence provided they accept this then IETF would
be delighted to have the opportunity to meet in Beijing.  If China is not
willing to allow IETF to have the same level of open discussion that other
countries would - then reconsider the venue.

IMHO China is an excellent country to visit however IETF should select
meeting locations that allow open discussion within the normal agenda/
topics

Alan

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:05:39 -0700 (PDT)

Cullen,

You've asked a bunch of good questions which deserve to be answered, 
but we need a little time to craft a response. Stay tuned.

Ole

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:57:11 -0700

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:57:31 -0700 (PDT)

Alan,

The most obvious answer to your question is that it is not at all 
clear if the government would even reply or if they did, how long
it would take for them to reply, and even then, how much information 
you would be able to take away from the reply apart from "don't break 
the law".

Do you think any other government of any other country would provide
an answer in a manner and timeframe that would be at all be useful?

But really, we do not believe that an IETF meeting would be breaking 
any laws if we are conducting our normal IETF business.

Ole

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Alan Clark wrote:

> 
> Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the 
> Chinese government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF 
> does have open discussions in these areas, hence provided they 
> accept this then IETF would be delighted to have the opportunity to 
> meet in Beijing.  If China is not willing to allow IETF to have the 
> same level of open discussion that other countries would - then 
> reconsider the venue.
> 
> IMHO China is an excellent country to visit however IETF should 
> select meeting locations that allow open discussion within the 
> normal agenda/ topics
> 
> Alan
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:17:54 -0600

> process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) 

What do we mean by "third party" here? It seems risky to *not* have some
review process for the slides and oral presentations made during working
group sessions, plenaries, and other official meetings, since those sure
seem to fit the definition of "the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference", which are explicitly covered by the
restrictions described in the original email. Perhaps that review would
not be completed by a "third party" but by a team of IETF participants
who have been specially instructed in what does or does not count as
"defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China",
"disrespect to the Chinese culture", "violat[ion of] any laws of the
People's Republic of China", or "topics regarding human rights or
religion". But to not perform any kind of review seems to open the IETF
to additional risk.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:19:15 +0300

Ted,

> are usually telling us the opposite!

Yes, because those lawyers are on a CYA mode. If you are lucky, they may 
advice what your safest option is, but you need to make the final call 
yourself.

But more generally, there are no absolutely safe options, not in China 
and not elsewhere. I pretty much agree wit Marshall's analysis on the 
motives of the various parties in this particular case, and I'd have no 
problem with going over there with the IETF.

Jari

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:35:55 -0400

> problem with going over there with the IETF.

Granted, no place is absolutely safe.  But it does seem like China is
more un-safe that other potential venues with respect to free speech,
if we are to take Chinese National Law at their word (and the
argument, "don't worry, Selective Prosecution is the order of the day
in China, and they won't bother us", isn't terribly comforting).

And as others have already pointed out, discussions about how our
protocols are used, and issues around privacy *are* regularly
discussed in IETF mailing lists and meetings.  It's not just about
bits and bytes.  The attitude, "Once the rockets go up, who cares
where they come down?  It's not my department says Wernher von Brown",
while it does exist in the IETF, certainly isn't the only, and perhaps
not even the majority, position.

					- Ted

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> What do we mean by "third party" here?

I mean any government agency, the local host or even "ourselves".

As others have said, there are no absolutes or guarantees, this is 
something we all know when we board airplanes for example, but an 
evaluation based on the available evidence would suggest that this 
issue isn't going to come up or cause problems. If someone really 
wants to prove me wrong, that is another matter, but I have always 
considered this community to be fairly friendly and cooperative even 
if we occasionally have strong disagreements.

Ole

Our assumption, and now I really AM repeating myself, is that our
normal technical topics (including those that have "political 
implications") do not fall into a category that would require review 
and/or pre-approval.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:03:07 -0700

> we will never return to China.

What about the multiple references to "chilling effect" and other possible 
negative effects of the contractual constraints?

Your "experiment" ignores these.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT)

Dave,

By the time everthing is said about this I suspect the "chilling 
effects" will be minimized. There will probably still be people
not wanting to go "on principle," but I at least hope that the
number will not be so great as to impact the success of the meeting.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:41:47 -0700

> number will not be so great as to impact the success of the meeting.

And here I was thinking it was already /increased/, not reduced.

For example, I've enjoyed the meetings I've had in China -- and the anti-spam 
topic ran directly into potential sensitivities, of the sort discussed here, and 
with no problems.

But this contract clause and ensuing discussion now have me fully expecting 
serious problems I wouldn't otherwise have thought much about...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:57:58 -0400

> an answer in a manner and timeframe that would be at all be useful?

When I worked for the US Government, it was drilled into me that we  
did not and
could not speak for the US government. Any advice we would give was  
just that, and
did not constrain the government in any way whatsoever.

The list of people who can speak authoritatively for the US Government  
is limited and (except for the
President) the ways in which they can do so is very constrained. I  
would assume that
the situation for the Chinese government is very similar, so unless  
one of us has a
friendly relationship with President Hu Jintao we are highly unlikely  
to get
anything definitive.

+1

Marshall

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:21 -0500

At 12:41 PM 9/24/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>For example, I've enjoyed the meetings I've had in China -- and the 
>anti-spam topic ran directly into potential sensitivities, of the 
>sort discussed here, and with no problems.
>
>But this contract clause and ensuing discussion now have me fully 
>expecting serious problems I wouldn't otherwise have thought much about...

so -- here's another (compound) question to ask in this vein

*IF* somehow the meeting gets shut down (for whatever reason), does 
that mean we IETF participants are to leave the country immediately, 
or can we remain in the country -- conceivably at the same hotel -- 
conceivably at the same hotel that shut the meeting down -- or do we 
have to then immediately find new accommodations?

This would impact everyone of us attending, even if the incident that 
caused the meeting to shut down was a single individual not near 
where the rest of us were at that time.

I know this is extreme, but Alissa's quoted paragraph (from Ole's) 
doesn't make that unlikely, it states that this is a probability (if 
the meeting were to be shut down).  In other words, it seems that 
"any offense" can cause this action, even if most of us aren't 
involved. I don't like that uncertainty (that if I keep my nose 
clean, I can still be in a pickle because of some other (single?) offender).

I personally don't know why the "contract" can't be rewritten to say 
something like

         "If an individual is offending China, that individual is kicked out
         of the country (or goes to jail).

         If a group offends China, that group is kicked out of the country
         (or goes to jail).

         If the offense occurs during a plenary (the only time we are all
         together really), then the whole meeting is shut down, we are
         all going to jail or kicked out of the country."

This would be more concrete for me, and something I could evaluate 
the risks of.

James

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:26:39 -0400

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:57:58PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> did not and could not speak for the US government. Any advice we
> would give was just that, and did not constrain the government in
> any way whatsoever.

True, but you probably *could* say that you (and every other Federal
employee, including the president) that to execute an oath to
preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States,
and that one of the previsions in the Bill of Rights was this thing
guarantee of "Freedom of Speech".  Similarly, European officials could
point to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its guarantees of
"Freedom of Expression".

So in answer to Ole's question, other governments of other countries
*could* provide an answer in a manner (the US Bill of Rights and/or
the CFR) and timeframe (immediate) in a way which is immediately
useful --- and which apparently, China can not.

						- Ted

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:31:11 -0700 (PDT)

> useful --- and which apparently, China can not.

Gee. If only every country in the world had a political system as good
as yours.... :-)

Not wishing to defend China's government or policies, but it "is what 
it is" and the world of business seems to be happily engaged. Most of 
the Apple products I own were built in China and shipped from there 
directly to me. Other organizations and businesses have meetings in 
China "all the time." There is little, if any anecdotal evindence that 
anyone has encountered heavy-handed interference and shutdowns.  If we 
have to curb our right to public protest for 5 days is this really the 
end of the IETF as we know it? We brag about being a global 
organization and how we're all connecting people together with our 
technology, but the minute we encounter a slightly ominous sounding 
clause we're going to just walk away? I find this attitude very 
depressing if it's prevalent.

I fully understand what our principles are, and we should strive to 
make others accept and adopt them, but I don't agree that this is best 
done through a boycott.

To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having 
our meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be 
deemed in violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in 
China to be just like any other IETF meeting and we will be saying
more about this soon. Stay tuned.

 Ole

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:41:17 -0800

On Sep 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> We brag about being a global
> clause we're going to just walk away?

I don't think that's a particularly fair characterization
of what's been said.  I think the issue is that there's a
lot that's really not known, that the wording of the
contract is unclear but a little threatening around stuff
that's known to happen at IETF meetings, and so on.

Looking at it from a threat evaluation framework, it seems
to me that the actual likelihood of something happening
along these lines is pretty small, but the impact of it,
if it did happen, would be enormous, and it's the enormity
of the consequences that makes this look more risky than
meetings in other places where the hotel contract doesn't
include clauses about shutting the meeting down if attendees
criticize the local government.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:53:40 -0700 (PDT)

OK, fair enough. I should try for a narrower brush, it's been a long 
week :-)

The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by 
the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown. 
So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical
arrangements for the meeting. There is more to come.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:54:40 -0700

Hi Ole,
I don't understand your last two sentences.  Are you suggesting that what's
left to do is to arrange the China meeting within the constraints of the
contract, as proposed?  Or are you suggesting that you need to go back and
attempt to re-negotiate that part of the contract?
Also, what precisely is there "more to come"?  I hope its not more
unpleasant surprises :-)
Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:09:07 -0700 (PDT)

What I meant was that it remains for the IAOC to let the survey run 
until October 1st as Marshall said in the original message. Then, 
shortly thereafter, we need to make a decision, based on a number of 
factors, including feedback received on this list, private feedback 
and of course the survey itself, and issue a statement which provides 
more details and addresses concerns, regardless of the outcome of our 
decision.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:56:09 -0700

Melinda,

> criticize the local government.

On the other hand, to put this into perspective, some people might
argue that the chance of a huge winterstorm on the sunday before an
IETF meeting in cities like Minneapolis/Chicago causing the airport to
close for three days, an earthquake striking the bay area/Japan/LA
basin right before/during a meeting or something mundane like a hotel
roof collapsing due to rainoverload and flooding of a hotel are risks
that are perhaps much more worthy to keep the secretariat&IAOC members
up late at night.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:50:50 -0400

> arrangements for the meeting. There is more to come.

I'm confused now.  I thought earlier it was asserted that the clause
was non-negotiable because it was mandated by Chinese National Law?
That's different than saying it was a "deliberate step to protect its
economic interest".

One of the things which seems to be very clear is that China is not a
place where the rule of law holds way.  

To quote Wikipedia, "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law,
means that the law is above everyone and it applies to
everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is
above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant
exemption to the application of the law."

When we hold a conference where the rule of law doesn't hold sway, it
means that things are not predictable.  Maybe the prospective hosts
have enough sway with powerful people that the plain reading of the
law of what is prohibited will be bent, and a blind eye will be turned
to IETF's working group's discussions, even if they violate the very
broad proscriptions in the hotel contract, and perhaps Chinese
National Law.  All we have is the word of the host that things will be
OK.  Maybe the IAOC, having worked with the host more closely, is
confident that things will be OK.  

>Gee. If only every country in the world had a political system as good

I was pretty careful to make my statement non-U.S.-centric.  Certainly
Europe has a strong tradition of Rule of Law, and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights is a declaration which is not US-centric; indeed,
it goes far beyond the rights guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights in
some instances.

The existence of Rule of Law and guaranteed rights of Speech or
Expression seems to be fairly common feature of all or nearly all of
past IETF venues.  So perhaps it isn't fair to state with that
insisting on this means that we are somehow assuming some kind of
US-centric exceptionalism.  Looking at the list of past meeting venues
(Sweeden, Canada, US, Ireland, Czech Republic, France, South Korea,
Austria, Japan, UK, Australia, Norway, Germany, etc.), China's
characteristics are definitely new and unique for the IETF meeting
venues.

Regards,

					- Ted

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:18:03 -0700

Hi Ole,

  "This is an attempt to stop a war.  I hope it is not too late
   and that somehow, magically perhaps, peace will prevail again.

   Note that the Lilliputians'camp includes all the who's-who of
   the communication world, unlike the Blefuscuians' camp which
   is very much oriented toward the computing world.

   Both camps have already adopted the slogan "We'd rather fight
   than switch!".

   I believe they mean it."

The quote is from IEN 137.

>anyone has encountered heavy-handed interference and shutdowns.  If we

I'm self-censoring myself to avoid getting into politics.  That's my 
choice and I do not ask you or any other participant to do so.

The IOC and 3GPP have been mentioned as examples.  The IOC does not 
have a bottom-up approach like the IETF and it does not operate at 
the same level.  The 3GPP is a partnership between telecommunications 
standards bodies.  The "processes and social contracts that worked 
for fifty engineers have managed to sustain the IETF in dealing with 
a community of thousands of engineers and a greatly expanded 
technology and market space".

Let's see what the social contract is.  As far as I am aware, 
well-known companies that "participate" in the IETF do not have a 
special say in the decision making.  It is done that way so that one 
or a group of companies do not control the IETF.  The business 
interests are channelled through individuals where each individual 
can voice their opinion in a manner where their boss cannot pressure 
them to follow the company line.  The contract has also helped in 
side-stepping the political swamp where illusory or short-term 
benefits are the order of the day.

Some cultures view harmony and the "greater good" as more important 
than favoring the individual.  The somewhat political stance taken by 
some people involved in this discussion may seem strange to people 
within that culture especially as there isn't always a clear reason 
why technical discussions should breach the political realm.

As Dave Crocker [1] pointed out:

   "Technical discussions often must discuss usage policies and, as has
    been repeatedly noted, some legitimate IETF topics run smack into
    national privacy and human rights issues. Take this simple fact and
    match it with our indelicacy and the odds are high that there will
    be comments that violate multiple terms of the contract."

>end of the IETF as we know it? We brag about being a global

That fact that it comes to that choice is troublesome.

>depressing if it's prevalent.

The attitude is not about China.  It is about a clause that has never 
been in any contract before.  If there was a clause which prevented 
participation from any country on a "enemy list", I'd say that the 
arguments you have heard would have been the same because it is 
important that everybody can participate in the technical 
discussions.  If you have followed the discussions about languages, 
you might notice that the input from individuals from a country, 
which the United States of America does not like, is taken into 
account.  You will also notice that the nationalistic issues about 
languages have been avoided by taking a practical approach to the problem.

You said that the "chilling effect" will be minimized.  After all, 
there is no harm in not saying for five days that the Irish are 
disrespectful and the Germans complain about Italy.  An IETF meeting 
may lose its flavor without those flamboyant comments.  We all know 
the code words to say it differently.  And some people will probably 
use that to get away with murder.

David Morris asked [2] about Internet connectivity.  The network 
requirements specify that:

   "The transit provided in support of the IETF MUST be capable
    of providing access to the IPv4 and IPv6 default free zones
    without the imposition of content filtering (e.g., URL, Site,
    application, port, or DPI based filtering)"

If it is all about connecting people, we can live without the "MUST" 
in there for five days.  After all, the experiment must reflect 
operational practice for us to understand how the Internet works in 
different countries.

Alan Clark asked [3]:

  "Why not provide a list of the potential problem topics to the Chinese
   government (maybe via MIIT or SAC) and say that the IETF does have open
   discussions in these areas, hence provided they accept this then IETF would
   be delighted to have the opportunity to meet in Beijing."

That is like asking governments for authorization about what can be 
discussed.  If this was about Internet governance where having 
variable principles is a strong requirement to get governments to 
back you, then you could do that.  One of the advantages of not being 
funded by governments is that they cannot use that to influence the decisions.

Cullen Jennings asked [4] what was OK and what was not in terms of 
political speech in China.  This is about using your judgement.  It 
is better to avoid any discussion that may be misinterpreted as 
political to avoid offending anybody.  If remote participants are 
using Jabber to misbehave, you can always bring down the Jabber 
server and say that it is due to some technical problems.  As the 
Jabber server has gone down previously during meetings, this would 
not considered as censorship.

Michael StJohns asked [5] where do we draw the line.  I wonder 
whether it is up to the IAOC to draw that line.

As Dave Cridland pointed out [6], the rules and regulations may seem 
bizarre to Western eyes.  China has been around for a few thousand 
years.  It takes more than one IETF meeting to learn about China.

Hong Kong and Macau (Macao) has been suggested [7] as alternative 
locations.  If you want to be closer to China, you could go there.

I hope that the IAOC web site will be updated to provide the 
community with timely details of the IAOC's discussions about this 
topic and more information about the administrative side of the IETF.

I think that you deserve a round of applause for the replies you have 
provided on this topic.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58745.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58787.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58760.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58751.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58741.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58693.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58775.html

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:55:59 -0700 (PDT)

SM,

Thank you.

I'll respond to only one point this time, since it's Friday and since 
I did break the 10% barrier this week, sorry:

"If it is all about connecting people, we can live without the "MUST" 
 in there for five days. After all, the experiment must reflect 
 operational practice for us to understand how the Internet works in 
 different countries."

To which I can say: Experiencing how the net works in any country can 
usually be accomplished by wandering down the street to the nearest 
Cyber Cafe or <American Brand Name #1 for coffee> or <American Brand 
Name #2 for so-called fast food> both of which exist in great 
abundance in most parts of the developed world, and OK, I will add 
"sadly".

What service we should expect at the venue itself is a different 
matter. We have, as you point out, a requirements document, which the 
host is expected to follow. One might even call it the Host 
Requirements Document, but then only the Grey Beard people on this 
list would get the pun.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:49:12 +0800

Dave,

This was priceless ... thanks for sharing :-)

Spencer, who survived the Dallas flood IETF ("gee, look at the pretty 
waterfall down the wall in the IAB breakout room"), and is, oddly enough, 
posting this from Shenzhen

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:04:55 -0500

> particularly if X is a country.

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.

The question: does meeting in China do more to further the goal of
getting past PRC (and others) deplorable policies than does meeting
elsewhere AND LETTING THE WORLD KNOW WHY WE ARE NOT MEETING IN CHINA.
That's an open question, I'm not at all certain of the answer, and we
have to analyze financial risk of that hotel contract given the
situation. We also have to analyze the financial risk with regard to
agents who may try to turn an IETF meeting into a political incident.

--
Dean

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:09:20 -0700

> elsewhere AND LETTING THE WORLD KNOW WHY WE ARE NOT MEETING IN CHINA.

Dean,

Sorry, but that is very much *not* the question.  As a group the IETF has no 
such goal.

We have a goal of doing excellent technical work that enables new capabilities 
and better reliability and performance.  We have no goals of "getting past" any 
government's policies. The closest we come to such an issue is the goal of 
equally not counting government policies as dictating particular technical 
choices in our work.

What is distinctive about the IETF's culture for pursuing its work is how 
grossly undisciplined our process is, in the trenches.  Over the years, we have 
packaged it nicely with higher-level rules, but the moment-to-moment exchanges 
are by random folks who make random statements.  We tolerate the certainty of 
entirely inappropriate statements that are misguided, offensive, political 
and/or personal for the occasional wonderfulness of spontaneity. 
Signal-to-noise has always been poor in the IETF, but we've seen enough benefit 
in its unruliness to warrant retaining the model, rather than embracing the far 
more staid and structured style of other standards groups.

With respect to making an organizational decision, the problem with the contract 
language is its import with respect to this basic way the IETF does its work.  I 
think it essential that we not confuse this with anyone's views about a 
country's politics.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT)

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?

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?

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?

> agents who may try to turn an IETF meeting into a political incident.

Understood. I think the financial risks (in the event of a shut down)
are low due to my reading of that probability, but I am also concerned
about what effect this will have on (at least some people's) behavior.
We should not, I agree, not have to change our normal way of doing the
work of the IETF and we should not put ourselves in a situation where
a substatial people stay away from the meeting regardless of their
reasons for doing so.

Regarding "agents" I have no way of evaluating that possibility and I 
am not sure anyone can.

This is why we asked you.

Ole

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:30:49 -0400

Regarding the potential clause in the contract that has caused this discussion, which includes the text: 

>    ... Should there be any financial

Again, speaking as an individual, I have a question:

I understand that it is unlikely that anything bad will happen as a result of this clause in the contract. However, I am wondering what the worst downside could be. 

Suppose that some IETF participants (whether regular participants or people who just show up this one time) were to wage some sort of demonstration that was bad enough to get the meeting stopped in the middle. Suppose that as of the time that the IETF meets several other groups have reserved the hotel for conferences later in the year. Suppose that one or more of these other groups hears about our meeting being stopped, and decides to cancel their meeting (and presumably move it somewhere else). Would whomever signs the contract (whether IAOC or ISOC or the host or whatever) be responsible for the losses that the hotel would suffer as a result of the cancellation of these other meetings? To me this seems like it *might* be covered by "financial loss" and "damage to the hotel's reputation". Just who would be at risk? 

I am not a layer. I don't play a lawyer on TV or via email or anywhere else. However, this looks to me like an unlikely outcome but one that could be very bad. Thus this would at least seem like a good question to ask the IETF's lawyer. 

Ross

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:11:29 -0400

Dean Willis allegedly wrote on 09/26/2009 1:04 PM:
> that policy. 

rfc3935 says

   The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
   technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
   design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
   Internet work better.  These documents include protocol standards,
   best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.

Individually we may feel a desire to work on changing government
policies on Internet availability, but that is not an IETF activity.
The IETF may decide not to pursue technology simply based on the
aggregate of individual participants deciding not to, but the IETF does
not itself take positions on the ethics of various governments, just on
whether technologies support the mission statement above.  I and the
United Nations support the goal of open access to the Internet (although
I think you are oversimplifying the situation with both China and the
rest of the world), but scope and venue are important, otherwise it
becomes difficult to make progress.

> getting past PRC (and others) deplorable policies 

Personally I don't think it would have any effect.  They have far bigger
fish to fry.

Meeting in China furthers the IETF's goals by better integrating the
work China is doing on technology and standards with what the IETF is
doing -- while if you/we don't go, China continues as it has been.

There are no solid, black-and-white, deterministic answers here.  We're
dealing with people and cultures.  All we can do is predict likelihood.
 Personally, I believe that unless someone organizes a demonstration
(and I do know someone who went to a meeting, demonstrated on Tiananmen
square, and was told not to come back), there is very little chance of
repercussions for talking the way we do in meetings.  As long as a WG
agenda is not purely political -- as long as the main issue is what
technology to use and its implications for IETF goals -- I don't think
there will be any trouble.  If you want to look for trouble you can
easily find it, but imho the likelihood of trouble looking for you is
very small.

Scott

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:24:35 -0500

> we will never return to China.

Unfortunately, if my math is right, if the meeting were shut down and
the IETF paid out the damages that such a contract would appear to
require, we'd be bankrupt and China would be our last meeting ever.

Do you really, really want to run this risk? If so, I suggest we go out
with a bang by making sure we say some really important things, things
worth remembering and telling our grandkids about should we survive to
have any. I'd go to that meeting!

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:32:41 -0700 (PDT)

It may be academic since lawsuits can sometimes "cascade", but it is 
still worth pointing out that the IETF (or its legal arm ISOC), will
NOT be signing the agreement, the local host will.

I won't comment on the suggestion.

ole

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:53:51 -0600

> This is why we asked you.

Yes, but ever since the IAOC asked us, there has been a sense of "and 
here is the correct answer to give," which itself feels a bit like a PRC 
election.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:05:07 -0500

> 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.

> 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. This requires a technical response from the IETF to
counter. Yet these technical discussions are against the law of the PRC
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.

> 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.

...

> This is why we asked you.

Having some background in direct political action, I can assure you we'd
be juicy targets for agents provacateurs. Heck, I'm on the IETF's side,
and even I am tempted to take a whack at it since it's such a big, fat,
easy, obvious target that would generate relatively high political
yields for not all that much effort. We're like a cash-laden pinata
hanging from the ceiling over a hockey rink where EVERBODY has a stick.

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)

Sorry if you feel that way. My intent, and I am sure I speak for the 
rest of the IAOC, has been to provide as much clarification as we can
at this stage while acknowledging that many of the comments and 
questions require further work with host etc.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Doug Ewell wrote:

> Yes, but ever since the IAOC asked us, there has been a sense of "and here is
> the correct answer to give," which itself feels a bit like a PRC election.
> 
> --

---

From: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:17:10 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ole Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a futuremeeting of the IETF

> they're participating earnestly and honestly in our work. If not, I

Since IETF includes Chinese, why can you say that " if they're participating earnestly and honestly in our work"?

Our work means your work?

Why can you say that "If not, I suggest they leave now."

Chinese contributing to IETF is a power.  you want to deprive it?

IETF is intending to include every contributor.

my question is :

Who is IETF? you?
who gives you the right to do "If not, I suggest they leave now."?

> Internet work worse.

how do you know that? how do you prove that?

political issue and technical issues are totally different.

China's internet  implements most RFC protocols.

> This requires a technical response from the IETF to

why, I never seeing such thing?

 example?

> meeting there, we should be focusing on the problem at hand, which is

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.

> workings of the Internet are clearly directly within our scope and mission.

you try to re-charter IETF from technolgy body to political body?

> ..

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:11:30 -0500

On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Health wrote:

> futuremeeting of the IETF
>
>
>> Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Since IETF includes Chinese, why can you say that " if they're  
> participating earnestly and honestly in our 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.

There are several of those groups that we could probably do without,  
and the note takers don't worry me much.

> 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. 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.

> 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?

> 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.

As for who gives me the right to say anything, it's called Free  
Speech. That's something some localities have, and others do not. 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.

> how do you know that? how do you prove that?

Censorship, massive national firewalls, route restriction, web site  
blocking, deep packet inspection with filtering, 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.

> political issue and technical issues are totally different.

Political issues often drive technical issues. It's an unfortunate fact.

> why, I never seeing such thing?

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.

> 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. We don't have to support  
their game by showing up to play in their yard.

> 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. 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.

--
Dean

---

From: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:19:47 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
To: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ole Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>; "IETF-Discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning afuturemeeting of the IETF

> back, some with influencing technical directions towards national  

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".

> locations, are hard-working, serious contributors to the IETF. 

+1.

>Others,  

is every technology supported by every comany?
does every technology  have same priorities in every comany?

> 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"; 

+1

> 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  

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.

> 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  

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?

> the Internet from working the way it should. 

some love icecream; some do hate it.

>We don't have to support  

you can not say "we", you are just one of IETFers.
you'd better say "I".

> 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  

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.

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:39:00 -0500

> I have enjoy many IETF meetings, I have no discussion viloations of  

I'm tempted to ask "Are you sure? Or have they just not arrested you  
yet?" but that would be far too melodramatic, so I'll let it stand  
without comment.

> do you think that Chinese government will allow the chinese  
> participants to join the IETF meeing which often has the violation  
> of Chinese law?
>

That's actually a very good argument in favor of the point that Ole  
and Marshall have been making; that the PRC government is very aware  
of what happens at the IETF and isn't worried about anything we're  
likely to say or do at an IETF meeting. They know us, they've been  
there with us, and think we're OK. Thank you for bringing it up.

One might counterpoint, however, with a quote from Shakespeare: "Keep  
your friends close, and your enemies closer". It's possible that all  
those IETF attendees from PRC-government affiliated companies have  
been there to keep an eye on us and to move IETF technology in a  
direction favorable to the positions of the PRC government.

I suspect (I'm always suspicious) or perhaps even expect that both are  
true. I believe that the top-level government in China is watching the  
IETF carefully, doesn't expect any major political issues to come out  
of a meeting in China, and hopes to influence the IETF's  work in a  
direction favorable to its agenda. This is probably true of the  
national government in any country hosting an IETF, although I expect  
the PRC is paying closer attention than most.

It's also possible, but I think extremely unlikely, that the whole  
meeting-in-China thing is just an exercise to set somebody up for some  
sort "making of an example". Really, the PRC government has too much  
at risk for this sort of thing.

What I'm most worried about is involvement by overzealous lower-level  
of government types, or by hotel management that doesn't understand  
this relationship between IETF and the government, and that such  
involvement will cause financial hardship to the IETF. I'm also  
worried about third parties that might use the opportunity presented  
by the IETF in China to achieve their own political ends. As I've  
noted, the IETF (and IETFers in general) are pretty naive about this  
sort of thing. We'd be easy targets. This might be okay, as long as it  
doesn't generate substantial financial hardship for the IETF. However,  
the proposed hotel contract still scares me, as it places essentially  
no limits on the IETF's liability.

This is aggravated by the escalation of liability across national  
legal boundaries. For example, the IETF could potentially be held  
liable in a US court for damages suffered by US participants if the  
meeting is cancelled by action under the hotel contract, under the  
basic idea that signing such a contract (or allowing the host to do  
so) is an act of gross negligence on the IETF's part.  This could mean  
that not only would the IETF have to pay the hotel contract for the  
missed meeting and pay the hotel for any future damages resulting from  
the cancellation, but they might have to refund the meeting fees and  
travel expenses of every participant. That's potentially a LOT of  
money, in the tens of millions of dollars, and would probably bankrupt  
the IETF.

So, maybe the PRC government will sign a second contract whereby they  
agree to indemnify IETF for losses under the terms of the venue  
contract? That would go a long way towards ameliorating my concern  
about this meeting location.

> massive national firewalls, route restriction, web site blocking are  
> technologies, some are also discussed in IETF.
>

Are you absolutely sure that discussing them in China, perhaps in very  
heated terms loaded with emotional phrasing, is not illegal?

> I am sure that these technolgy is not only used by China.

True. However, it is the PRC government that is most frequently "in  
the news" for their use of such obstruction technologies. And we're  
discussing meeting in China. If we were discussing meeting in Thailand  
(as proposed by Glen Zorn), I'm sure we'd have an entirely different  
set of worry items. Certainly we worry about different things when a  
US site is proposed; namely visa restrictions, border-crossing  
searches of computers, warrant-less wiretaps, and crypto exports. No  
location is worry free, and new locations bring new worries that may  
need to be thoroughly discussed.

...

> you forget the "running code" again.

I perhaps was unclear. The PRC government is interfering with the  
Internet through imposing operational policies that make the Internet  
not work as well as the IETF would like. It is therefore the IETF's  
responsibility to "push back" by developing technology that overcomes  
the attacks launched by the PRC government's agents. This obviously  
requires identifying, categorizing, discussing and analyzing the  
specific attacks, and it requires some analysis of the PRC  
government's rationale for teach such policy.

> if you are truly IETFer and focus on technolgy, I do not believe  
> that you will have a violation of any chinese law.
>

I hope you are right. Can we get that in a contract?

> information to update it.

Quiet true. China is a truly amazing place, and the general level of  
hospitality is very high. The culture is vibrant, the people  
enthusiastic, and it is clearly a place where things are "happening".  
The atmosphere is now very different from what I've been told it was  
like during the Cultural Revolution of my childhood, a time when many  
educated people were unfortunately executed or sent to re-education  
camps.  China's progress has in many ways far surpassed that of  
western countries over the same time frame. I hope every IETF  
participant gets a chance to visit. On the flip side, it's still a  
very scary place to be during any kind of epidemic, so I certainly  
hope nothing like that happens during anyone's visit.

However, I remain unconvinced that it is a good location for an IETF  
meeting, due to the poorly-defined financial risk and the open  
question of what sorts of relationships IETF should have with a  
government that has a reputation of opposition to the proper operation  
of the Internet. Should we be able to resolve some of those questions  
(and the IAOC is working on that), my opinion may well change.

And after all, changing opinions and developing a consensus is exactly  
why we're having this discussion. We question, we examine test cases,  
we learn, and then we repeat the process. Somewhere along the process,  
actually having a meeting in China is probably one of the test cases  
we'll try out, although it may be later rather than sooner.

--
Dean

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:43:48 -0700 (PDT)

> The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract
> that Marshall originally quoted:
> 
> 
> Does your above response mean that the host would not consider 
> slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to 
> be part of "the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at 
> the conference"? Or does your response mean that the host is going 
> to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having 
> to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved 
> by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the 
> content of working group sessions falls under the category of 
> "topics regarding human rights"?
> 
> Thanks much.
> Alissa
> 

If I have to choose only one of your questions it would be the final 
one: I do not think that our normal way of conducting business would
run afoul of these rules. If you were planning to include blatant 
politicial propaganda in your presentation, then getting prior 
approval would be a good idea, but I cannot foresee a topic within
the scope of what the IETF does to require you to use such material.
The assumption is that the material is just "normal IETF documents,
presentations etc" and thus no approval is required.

Does our technology border or real-world uses, including "human 
rights"? I hope so, but that's a far cry from the type of action
that these rules prohibit. Do I expect careful monitoring and various 
colored lights to light up tracking the conversations? No.

The IAOC will be making more detailed statements in the near future.
In the meantime, the survey is still open.

Ole

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:07:17 -0700

Folks,

A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language 
is standard, and required by the government.

It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used 
for meetings by other groups like ours.

      If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful.

      If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful.

Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:44:42 -0700

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:

> A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract
> language is standard, and required by the government.
>
> It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language
> used for meetings by other groups like ours.

I think the exact language is entirely irrelevant.  This is after all
an authoritarian government that historically just doesn't operate in
a rules-based manner.  The language we've seen is extremely vague. De
facto, if a political threat is perceived, a strong unpleasant
reaction is to be expected, and lawyers won't be invited to table to
construe the finer meanings of the rules.  My impression is that it's
highly unlikely that the doings of the IETF will be perceived as
politically threatening, but if I'm wrong on that, an appeal to
section 3.8.7(a) of the agreement is unlikely to be material.

 -T

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:20:53 -0500

> section 3.8.7(a) of the agreement is unlikely to be material.

However, if consequences of the language spill over into lawsuits in  
other domains (for example, US attendees suing IETF to recover meeting  
fees and trip expenses after IETF screws up and gets the meeting  
canceled), then the exact wording of the agreement may be significant  
in deciding IETF's liability (unless the US court just says "You KNOW  
they have no rule of law in China, why did you go there?", which I  
think we can argue against.) . So Dave's suggestion is very good, even  
if it doesn't help us with the ground truth in China.

OMA held a plenary there in 2006, and an interop summit in Beijing  
also in 2006. I'll make inquiries with them (as the IETF liaison  
manager to OMA) and see if they have something they can share.

--
Dean

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500

On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Folks,
>
> A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft  
> contract language is standard, and required by the government.
>
> It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact  
> language used for meetings by other groups like ours.
>

As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA  
board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing  
them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large  
meetings as well as smaller  interop events in China in the past.  
Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as  
unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to  
negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that  
we attempt to restrict the "right to terminate" to just the affected  
session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting.  Clearly the  
government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they  
want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract  
was more generous to the venue than government rules might require.

OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be  
prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong  
visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa  
difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with  
equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations.  
Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and  
required "in the field" repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we  
should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come  
apart.  Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up  
shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to  
transport difficulties.

OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to  
have been very successful, and that they had and expected no  
difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local  
regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered  
DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the  
past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China.

--
Dean

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:58:44 -0500

On 9/24/09 18:31, Sep 24, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having our meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be deemed in violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in China to be just like any other IETF meeting and we will be saying more about this soon. Stay tuned.
>
>    

Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a 
representation of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails 
imply (or, as above, expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of 
the IAOC.

If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of 
several dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I 
completely understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind 
the scenes to pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved 
in that work without becoming deeply emotionally invested in the 
outcome. I honestly sympathize with your position, and completely 
understand why you would hold it personally.

However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a 
formal statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the 
IAOC's motives in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the 
"request for community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma 
approval of the IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC 
representative, then your goal in this thread appears to have been 
exclusively aimed at attempting to refute or dismiss the community's 
concerns, rather than listening to them.

I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for 
your position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this 
question, it would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant 
community concern about this provision."

Your statement that I quote above is a continuation of your pattern of 
interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has 
raised on the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position. 
However, you are now attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to 
the IAOC.

In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not 
willing to accept community input, it should not have solicited it.

/a

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:11:50 -0400

Just so some of the gallery is heard from on the list, I am presuming 
that they are also counting the input from the survey.
I have no idea how many people responded to that, nor what they said.
I know that I indicated that I thought this was reasonable as long as 
certain specific risks had been evaluated by the IAOC.  (With the 
implication that I trusted them to make that judgment.)

The only reason I am posting this is so that it is clear to folks that 
not all the input has been on this list.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:03:52 -0700 (PDT)

Adam,

Not quite. I think we have heard the comments of the community loud 
and clear and we are working hard to deal with the issues. I also 
should state that we have not formally made a decision about this 
proposed meeting. The survey is still open, and comments are still 
coming in, both on the public list and in private. That is why I said 
"stay tuned, there is more to come."

And, no I wasn't speaking formally for the IAOC, just expressing a
snapshot, rough-consensus opinion. If my comments were interpreted
as dismissing the feedback, then I apologize. My goal has only been
to clarify. I have no personal stake in whether we go to China or
not. I just want to make sure that our decision is based on an overall 
evaluation of the facts as we know them, and very much with the input
of the community.

We're not done yet, and we hear you.

Ole

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a representation
> of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails imply (or, as above,
> expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of the IAOC.
> 
> If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of several
> dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I completely
> understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind the scenes to
> pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved in that work without
> becoming deeply emotionally invested in the outcome. I honestly sympathize
> with your position, and completely understand why you would hold it
> personally.
> 
> However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a formal
> statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the IAOC's motives
> in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the "request for
> community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma approval of the
> IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC representative, then your goal
> in this thread appears to have been exclusively aimed at attempting to refute
> or dismiss the community's concerns, rather than listening to them.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for your
> position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this question, it
> would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant community concern
> about this provision."
> 
> interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has raised on
> the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position. However, you are now
> attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to the IAOC.
> 
> In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not willing to
> accept community input, it should not have solicited it.
> 
> /a
> 
>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:39:37 -0400

On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote:

> Does this survey still work?,
> I failed to do anything over there.

Yes it does.

What problems did you experience?
We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old  
Browser.
Otherwise 343 have completed the survey successfully.

Ray

>
> -Hui
>
> > From: [email-masked]
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 -0400
> > CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >
> > Greetings;
> >
> > has reference to public political statements or pr otest marches,  
> which
> > of China, or show any disrespec t to the Chinese culture, or
> > participants to lea ve the property immediately. While we do not
> Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows  
> Live Spaces. It's easy! Try it!

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:41:31 +0800

-Hui
 
> help us to make an informed decision.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy!
http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:17:31 +0800

excuse me for previous sending wrong email.

Hello, all

I have to say something before the deadline of this survey.

To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China 

for the long time, and would like to clarify several 

different concerns about China and Beijing.

1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as

3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security 

or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem.

2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess.

3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff.

4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see 

what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Hui

 
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500
> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> 
> 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/

---

From: Gene Gaines <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:32:50 -0400

Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue
of a meeting in China.
Re-read the Tao.  The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an
Internet available to all.  It is people, not governments.  If you,
personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go there and hold out your
hand.

I cannot think of a more excellent challenge to the IETF at this time than
to meet in China, and meet 1,000 new friends.  And to make 1,000 new friends
for the IETF and for the continuation of a cooperative, open development of
the Internet.

Gene Gaines

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Hui Deng <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ------------------------------
> check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes
> way beyond your inbox. More than messages<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/>
>

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:37:54 +0800

Thanks Ray,
Now I remember that I forget I have done that once already.

that will be fine for me.

Regards,

-Hui

2009/10/1 Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>:
> We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old Browser.
>> meeting of the IETF
>> has reference to public political statements or pr otest marches, which
> ________________________________
> Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
> Spaces. It's easy! Try it!
>