Subject: Re: China venue survey

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:40:18 +0300

Hi Ole,

I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative. The one pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a meeting in China, then asks if the respondent, as an individual, would prefer to attend it. This is very different from asking if we, as a community, should hold such a meeting given that we, as a community, are required to sign away our right to free speech.

For your reference, the question is: You may have other reasons for not attending the meeting, but would this contract provision by itself prevent you from attending the meeting?

Thanks,
	Yaron

> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a
> 	future	meeting of the IETF
> To: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Which is why we asked you :-)
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 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
> 

Email secured by Check Point

Email secured by Check Point

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:06:44 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:

> Hi Ole,
> 
> I'm afraid that results of the survey will *not* prove informative. 
> The one pertinent question in the survey assumes that we have a 
> meeting in China, then asks if the respondent, as an individual, 
> would prefer to attend it. This is very different from asking if we, 
> as a community, should hold such a meeting given that we, as a 
> community, are required to sign away our right to free speech.

Perhaps my use of the phrase "rough consensus" in another message
led you to conclude that we are trying to get the IETF to take a 
moral or political stance. That's not the intention and should not
be the intention as kre points out.

As organizers of a meeting for the IETF we have an obligation to
determine if a bunch of conditions are met in advance, including
such things as suitability of venue, access, cost, safety, etc.
There is even an Internet Draft that outlines these requirements.
Free speech and other politicial matters are not part of the
Draft, but that doesn't mean we should not consider them.

At the end of the day, if a majority of the community (who would 
otherwise attend) would stay away from location X for whatever reason, 
then it would make little sense for us to hold a meeting there. Not 
only do we need "critical mass" in order to make it a productive 
meeting, we need a certain attendance level to make the budget work. 
(Yes, the budget is based on predicted attendance levels which do vary 
based on a number of factors, but I think you would agree that holding 
meetings in places where we expect extraordinarily low levels of 
attendance would not be good for anyone).

In this case "the community" really means each individual. We have
already determined that the venue meets our requirements for a
successful meeting, that's not what we're asking about.

> 
> For your reference, the question is: You may have other reasons for 
> not attending the meeting, but would this contract provision by 
> itself prevent you from attending the meeting?
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> 

I don't see why the answer to that question would not be informative.
I would say the feedback received so far has been very informative.

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

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:52:52 +0300

Hi Ole,

The IETF is highly ideological. Probably more so than most other SDOs.

We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality, and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about security. Many of our members care a lot about IPR and its effect on open source.

So why when it comes to free speech, which is clearly related to our open way of making standards, we suddenly shy away from taking a moral stance and instead resort to budgetary calculations?

And regarding the survey: most people, myself included, would bend a principle or two to go somewhere as interesting and exciting as China. But you would get a radically different answer if you asked: should the IETF hold a meeting in a country that mandates a non-free speech commitment, or should we prefer an alternative where no such commitments are required.

Thanks,
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 16:07
> To: Yaron Sheffer
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: China venue survey
> 
> 
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:23:25 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Yaron Sheffer wrote:

> We care deeply about the end to end principle, about net neutrality, 
> and (at least in the community I'm a member of) about security. Many 
> of our members care a lot about IPR and its effect on open source.
> 
> So why when it comes to free speech, which is clearly related to our 
> open way of making standards, we suddenly shy away from taking a 
> moral stance and instead resort to budgetary calculations?
> 
> And regarding the survey: most people, myself included, would bend a 
> principle or two to go somewhere as interesting and exciting as 
> China. But you would get a radically different answer if you asked: 
> should the IETF hold a meeting in a country that mandates a non-free 
> speech commitment, or should we prefer an alternative where no such 
> commitments are required.
> 
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> 

You might get a different answer, but it's ultimately up to the 
individuals who answer the survey. How would you expect our large and 
growing contingent from China to answer that question? Should we ask 
about the policies of the United States, France or Germany on a long 
range of topics (visa, wars, death penalty...)? Where do we draw the 
line?

Don't get me wrong, I have every respect for anyone who wants to avoid 
going to China for political/moral reasons, and if that collection of 
people is large enough to seriously impact our ability to run a 
successful meeting then I agree that another location would be better. 

[Insert philosophical comment about where most of our electronic
products are produced these days, and maybe a shopping boycott would
be in order too?].

I continue to believe, from personal experience, that we would have a 
great meeting and that none of the draconian stipulations in the 
contract would even come close to affecting us, but that doesn't 
matter if only a handful of people show up! The survey will tell us 
something about that, provided we get enough responses.

Ole

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:30:05 -0600

Given that the the current Location for IETF 79 is listed as Canada/ 
China, the correct questions to ask is would people prefer IETF 79 be  
in Vancouver of Beijing.

On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:

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

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT)

Cullen,

Well, nobody has officially announced that the proposed venue is 
Beijing, although a lot of people seem to have assumed so and yet
more people copied the assumption. The announcent of the venue
is expected soon, within say 30 days.

But to the core of your question: The rotation would normally put us 
in Asia, so you can think of Vancouver as a backup plan. We're not 
really asking you if you prefer Vancouver over X city in China (at
least not in this survey).

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> Given that the the current Location for IETF 79 is listed as Canada/China, the
> correct questions to ask is would people prefer IETF 79 be in Vancouver of
> Beijing.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:56:20 -0800

On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Beijing,

Or Vancouver either, right?  I assumed that Cullen
threw the city names out as straw proposals and that
the broader question is still valid - IETF 79 is only
a year off.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:00:45 -0700 (PDT)

Yes, sorry I wasn't paying attention to that part.

"Canada" --- there are several options.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:06:23 -0600

Levity alert!

> "Canada" --- there are several options.

Indeed, Canada is a big country. How about Yellowknife? The famous "ice
road" would be open in November for IETF 79:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowknife_Highway

/psa

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT)

I think we should meet in Tromsoe, Norway in January or February some 
year. The lack of sunlight would make us more productive, the weather
would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.

(I think I will get a high Narten score this week :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:20:39 +0200

Well, that's part of the problem in answering the survey ...

Doing half a question is not a good question !

If you ask me, you want to got to Vancouver or Quebec, but you don't inform
about the possible venues, it is USELESS, because I may have preferences
depending on the venue itself (for example fitness facilities).

If you ask me, about China, but don't provide the venue (same question as
per Vancouver/Quebec) and the city (flight cost/combination) may me to take
a different decision.

Regarding the question of the China specific issue, I've been there for
several meetings, and never got a problem.

But despite my preference, and my willingness to go to China, I believe is
unfair, to complain about the US issues if everybody will need to get a visa
for China. So in the case we opt for that option, definitively the average
cost for each attendee should be lower enough to compensate for the extra
cost of obtaining the visa (so let's say, the hotel cost 20% lower than in
US), AND we need some warrantee that the visas will not be denied ... (I'm
assuming that China doesn't deny visas, but someone may have a different
view).

BUT PLEASE, next time you start a thread like this, a survey or whatever,
provide ALL the information, and not just bits of info. Otherwise, please,
avoid the noise and extra time slices from everybody.

Regards,
Jordi

> Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:37:40 -0400

> would prevent people from wandering off and missing sessions.

Dear Ole;

Why stay so far South ?

I helped in the design and building of the VLBI site in Ny Alesund,  
Spitzberg, Norway. I feel certain
that room could be found for an IETF meeting there - albeit, probably  
outside - and there might be other benefits besides the ones you  
listed. At certain times of the year, everyone is encouraged to carry  
45 caliber pistols, in case the Polar Bears get too inquisitive. That  
could make for a memorable plenary.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:55:36 -0500

>range of topics (visa, wars, death penalty...)? Where do we draw the

Actually -- the US is being openly questioned every time a meeting is 
held here due to Visa issues.  At the plenaries - there are robust, 
heated and sometimes emotional debates about this.  Could this same 
level of debate be had about free speech *during* the China IETF?

If not, then I have a problem with what you're offering as an explanation.

Also, from a free speech country looking out, the topic of free 
speech isn't political to most here.  From a non-free speech country 
looking, I gotta believe it is a political topic.  So all of this is 
from a certain perspective.

One thing we know we are in the IETF is full of speech, so it would 
be taking something away from what we already enjoy (some to the 
point of not really wanting to control what we say "because we're at 
the IETF where it has always been safe to talk like this").  The idea 
that a meeting could get shut down, or a person could go to jail for 
doing what we have done for the previous 78 meetings in a row seems 
like a stretch to handwave away.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:00:39 -0500

At 12:47 PM 9/22/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>in Asia,

err, what?

the rotation is 3-2-1, and we're going to Asia this November. How 
does that mean we go back to Asia next November as normal?

>so you can think of Vancouver as a backup plan. We're not

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:02:05 -0600

> range of topics (visa, wars, death penalty...)? Where do we draw the 

I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.

Peter

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

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:52:30 -0400

I wonder if the situation deserves a look from another angle. 

I'm certainly _not_ arguing that the restriction should be there. My
contention is that the restriction of  "don't criticize the Chinese
government and/or the Chinese culture" (however that's defined) is not
such a high threshold. Except for those who are determined to explore
the various political issues at the podium, which are arguably
non-technical in nature, I  submit that participants and speakers at
IETF meetings already practice self-censorship regularly. I would love
to be proven wrong.

Would you be speaking out about events during World War II - what
happened in China and Southeast Asia and what you think Japan's role is
in them when you attend the November meeting?

Did you make a point of speaking out at the podium about Native
Americans at any of the meeting in the Americas, say in San Francisco or
DC ? War on drug? And the current "unpleasantness" in the Middle East
(to borrow from Robert De Niro)?
 
Did you make a point to speak about Nazi's in a meeting in Germany IETF
39), or IRA in Dublin?

The answer is probably 'No'. And that would be a correct answer because
IETF meeting and podium are not the proper platform for such
discussions. I hope the Chinese government softens the stance on the
restrictions but that's neither here nor there. My point is that we do
self-censor and I don't understand how self-censor is being mentioned in
these emails as if it has never happened before. 

I don't speak for anyone else or any entity, just for me.

Thanks,
Jerry
--
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
Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Ole Jacobsen
Cc: [email-masked]; Yaron Sheffer
Subject: Re: China venue survey

Peter

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:58:03 -0800

On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote:
> discussions.

Actually, the correct answer is "no" because
those are all historical actions.  The issue
under discussion is the consequences of
discussing/criticizing contemporary practices
and policies.  And like it or not, the IETF's
work does overlap with policy questions -
telecomm, crypto, etc.

Melinda

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT)

Jerry,

I agree with you, and just to inject a little humor, I also agree with 
the e-Trade baby when he says "it's not the venue":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:16:44 -0400

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
It seems to me that there have been multiple examples  of IETF work that 
can't be done in the PRC based on the plain meaning of the restrictions.  I 
haven't really seen any response to this that doesn't add up to "I'm sure 
they don't really mean it".

That seems like a very poor basis for planning to have a good meeting.

Scott K

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:44:21 +0100

> I think we draw the line at restrictions on our freedom of speech.

There are a huge number of locations where freedom of speech is  
restricted. Arguably, depending on how precisely one defines it, the  
UK and much of the EU falls into this category, since many places  
will prosecute for "incitement" of various flavours.

I'm generally unfussed by these things, since I'm quite happy to live  
in the UK, and don't consider inciting people to violence, terrorism,  
or racial hatred a thing I want to do or permit others to do. I admit  
that incitement to democracy is, at the least, something I'd want to  
permit others to do, but probably not in the IETF, where, after all,  
we reject voting, right?

Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated, and disruptive  
influences can be, and are, removed from mailing lists. (I have no  
clue if there's an equivalent to PR actions for physical meetings,  
but I can imagine that we might make one up if we needed to).

So if you're going to take a moral stance, I think you need to be  
careful about exactly what morals you're standing on. Or possibly  
for. To avoid getting as muddled as me on that front, it seems safer  
not to argue on that basis. Or for it.

On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some  
people have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the  
PRC impose may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF  
typically engages in. I suspect that it may not be so, and would hope  
that this can be determined, clearly, and in advance of any decision.

However, I would note that I'm still concerned about the possible  
effects by and on remote participation. But you'll all have read my  
other comments, right?

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: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:54:27 -0500

>that this can be determined, clearly, and in advance of any decision.

Dave -- I'll note that most of this thread started over confusion 
about the provision within the agreement, and folks asking "what's 
that mean"?  If more of us knew what the provision meant, we'd be 
more informed to make a more knowledgeable choice in the matter. 
Lacking that additional meaning leaves many of us flopping in the wind...

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:14:26 -0600

On 9/22/09 4:44 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> restricted. Arguably, depending on how precisely one defines it, the UK
> and much of the EU falls into this category, since many places will
> prosecute for "incitement" of various flavours.
> 
> I'm generally unfussed by these things, since I'm quite happy to live in
> the UK, and don't consider inciting people to violence, terrorism, or
> racial hatred a thing I want to do or permit others to do. 

I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this thread, 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.

> I admit that
> incitement to democracy is, at the least, something I'd want to permit
> others to do, but probably not in the IETF, where, after all, we reject
> voting, right?

Don't tell the NomCom.

> Indeed, our own meetings are scoped and moderated, 

You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.

> and disruptive
> influences can be, and are, removed from mailing lists. (I have no clue
> if there's an equivalent to PR actions for physical meetings, but I can
> imagine that we might make one up if we needed to).

Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never before signed a contract that lets the government of
the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for
discussion.

> careful about exactly what morals you're standing on. Or possibly for.
> To avoid getting as muddled as me on that front, it seems safer not to
> argue on that basis. Or for it.

If you would like to become less morally muddled, I can recommend a full
course of study in ethical philosophy, from Socrates on up. Come to
think of it, look where questioning the authorities got him!

> On the other hand, I can accept as valid the suggestion that some people
> have made that the particular restrictions of speech that the PRC impose
> may restrict the scope of discussion that the IETF typically engages in.

We don't know if they do or if they don't, without studying the laws of
the People's Republic of China.

> I suspect that it may not be so, and would hope that this can be
> determined, clearly, and in advance of any decision.

Determined by whom, and to whose satisfaction?

> effects by and on remote participation. But you'll all have read my

The XMPP technology that is used to run jabber.ietf.org includes methods
for room moderation, and I suppose that such methods could be invoked.

Peter

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

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:57:30 -0500

> the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for

No, it cedes the definition to a hotel who might know less about the  
local law than we do. It's not the "big boss" that's likely to take  
offense at IETF; it's the piranha a little lower on the food chain who  
thinks he has something to prove that is dangerous, or the even-lower  
ranked person who is just afraid of what the superiors might think and  
therefore over-reacts.

I'd be much less worried if the Ministry of State Security were  
running the whole show directly and overtly, including providing  
escorts for every bar-bof and going-to-dinner group, like they did in  
the bad old days.

Although the undertone I'm getting from people who have talked to the  
organizers seems to hint that MOSS is already actively engaged in the  
IETF event planning, which is probably a good thing as it means a lot  
fewer headaches.

Perhaps we could get the contract amended so that we'd have a  
designated government office or official making the pull-the-plug  
decision instead of of hotel bell-hops, house security, bar managers,  
housekeepers, or whatever? To my mind, that would lower the perception  
of financial risk we're taking on.

--
Dean

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:11:49 +0100

> You clearly weren't at the Codec BoF.
Well, heavy weaponry was declared out of scope. As was reaching any  
kind of useful decision.

> the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for
As other people have said, the much more worrying aspect is that this  
is a contract with the Hotel.

But in the scenario I was suggesting, a person is generally regarded  
as disruptive as defined by a comparitively small group of people,  
not including the disruptors themselves. The people we entrust this  
decision to have, we hope, fairly acceptable views on what disruption  
is.

> people

True, but we can find out by simply asking the government and  
authorities of the People's Republic of China.

> Determined by whom, and to whose satisfaction?
Determined by the PRC, to our satisfaction.

> for room moderation, and I suppose that such methods could be  

Yes, but again, we have to ensure that the PRC is prepared for  
potential abuse of this facility, and we have to ensure that the  
methods for coping with disruption are themselves minimally  
disruptive, and are acceptable to the PRC. As well as that, we have  
to ensure that the PRC accepts that the potentially borderline  
discussion that occur in meetings may also be occuring via the XMPP  
service, and this nevertheless need to remain available.

I don't think - and this is purely my sense of reading the mailing  
list - that the majority of people would object to a meeting where we  
couldn't wave political placards demanding whatever. What we do want  
is to discuss, openly, those topics we have previously been known to  
discuss, without having to curb the technical content of our  
discussions purely because of the location.

I'm hoping, as I say, that we can obtain clear guidance on these  
issues directly from the authorities in the PRC. Moreover, I agree  
with the sense of Pete Resnick's comments, and Dean Willis's, that we  
should push for clarification and close contact, and remove the Hotel  
from the chain of enforcement.

Dave.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:56:26 -0500

> is going about one's business in a peaceful manner.

Concrete example:

Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on  
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under  
the terms of the agreement?

That would sound like a perfectly appropriate and timely plenary  
presentation. And it seems to me to violate the plain language of the  
agreement concerning "human rights".

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:26:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
> presentation. And it seems to me to violate the plain language of 
> the agreement concerning "human rights". 
>

I am going to assume that such a presentation would be largerly 
technical, a case study with some political overtones, but technical 
nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.

Now, if you were to call the China Daily in advance and announce that 
you intented to reveal (new) methods for circumventing state laws and 
you declared this an open BOF where members of the public were invited 
to come and listen to your (I am assuming) perfect Mandarin, then I 
can imagine you would politely be asked to refrain from this activity.

I am sure we can dream up other scenarioes, but at the risk of 
repeating myself: in the 68 meetings of the IETF that I have attended, 
I've never observed activity that would cause concern in the context
that we are discussing.

Ole

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:45:25 -0400

Speaking just for myself.

> the terms of the agreement?

I don't see why not. We have been invited to come. IETF's talk about  
these sorts of things as part of our technical discussions. Our hosts  
know this, and must be prepared for it. I would have no hesitation in  
giving such a talk myself, if I felt it was appropriate on technical  
grounds (and if the topic was appropriate in terms of the IETF  
process, WG charter, plenary session topic, etc.).

Note, by the way, that technical knowledge is almost always a double  
edged sword. What you see as a survey of
means to escape censorship others might see as a survey of means to  
improve censorship. When I gave talks about arms control, I always saw  
people from "the other side" in attendance. I would assume that the  
same is true here.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:26:27 -0700

> nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.

A very basic problem with these sorts of assurances is that they are being made 
by people who do, and cannot, not speak for the government or hotel management.

We really need to avoid the tendency to idealize what can go wrong or right, 
particularly in the absence of serious information.

We need to avoid the desire to interpret the language or possible actions 
according to what we, ourselves, might do.  We need to interpret things from the 
perspective of the folks who will be the principal actors, defined in the 
agreement.  These actors are have hugely different perspectives and priorities 
from most of the rest of us.

We also need to assume that reality will be more nuanced than an organized 
public demonstration or a platoon of police shutting the meeting down.  Problems 
are likely to be more individual and more quiet.  That does not make the 
problems less or more serious.  Just serious.

What we have in front of us is some pretty plain language:

    contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
    presentations...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
    ...
    Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event
    ...
    Hotel will claim compensation from the Client

Some of the assurances folks have offered are based on conditions not required 
or covered by this language.  For example, this does not refer to, or imply, an 
organized protest, as some folk have tried to suggest.

Let's be very clear:

    This allows the Hotel to shut the meeting down, according to its 
interpretation of things -- not ours or the government's -- and to charge the 
IETF for having done it.

Let's also be clear:

    1.  We often are highly disrespectful.  As a group, we really suck at being 
careful.

    2.  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.

As with others, I cannot fathom the line of logic that says this unique set of 
contract conditions will be ignored.

I also cannot fathom claims that the legitimacy or utility of the IETF depends 
upon where we hold our meetings.  I don't recall seeing that in any of our 
documents and I don't recall its being discussed over the last 15 years.  Over 
these many discussions about venue, concerns about venues have /always/ reduced 
down to preferences of the host, rather than utility or legitimacy of the IETF.

The fact that some folk are now casting things in terms of utility or legitimacy 
-- or in terms of the IETF's being some sort of ambassador of the Internet -- 
appears to be spontaneously generated.  That reduces both their utility and 
their legitimacy.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:07:38 -0500

> can imagine you would politely be asked to refrain from this activity.

I've seen plenary presentations mentioned in the local news before,  
both before and after the fact. Our plenary agendas are usually  
published in advance. And we _broadcast_ them across the entire  
internet.

> I've never observed activity that would cause concern in the context

Okay, let's dream up one:

Let's assume it is largely technical, but has a section touching on  
the larger human contexts that our technologies effect. Further,  
assume it takes an explicit position that technological facilitation  
of human rights is a Good Thing, and that freedom of speech is a  
"basic human right." Heck, lets even assume it contains anecdotes of  
individuals who have been punished for speech over the internet, and a  
list of governments known for censoring speech over the internet, all  
to reinforce the presenter's opinion that such technologies should be  
high priorities for the IETF.

And for the cherry on top: Assume the presenter is a well known  
international human rights advocate.

So, Do you think _that_ would get us in trouble? Would it be  
appropriate at some other venue?

My biggest concern is not that the authorities or even the hotel will  
shut us down. It's the chilling effect of self-censorship that others  
have mentioned.