Subject: One level up on the IAOC decision in re: China.

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:58:17 -0700

Howdy,

I'd like to take one step up on this discussion.  When the discussions
were going on about how the IETF would look when the IAOC/IASA process
was in place, my sense of the intent was that the decisions taken by
the IAOC were not intended to have any impact on the technical content
of the work of the IETF.  The sense of that is captured in RFC 4071 in
section 2.2, especially bullet point 2.

I commend the IAOC on the community consultation in which they are
engaged, and I believe that it has shown pretty clearly that some
folks believe that this meeting venue could or will have an impact on
the technical work of the IETF.  The work of GEOPRIV has been called
out at least twice, and it is my personal understanding as a
participant in that working group that the questions raised there are
reasonable.  It likely would *not* have an impact on many groups (as
AD, for example, I supported an interim meeting of LEMONADE in
Beijing, and I think there was no issue there).  But the point remains
that there may be an impact on both existing working groups and
plenary discussion.  My question is: if the IAOC shares the conclusion
that there is a potential impact, does it still believe it is the
right body to make this decision?  If not, is it a plenary decision of
the IETF or is there some other body or process needed to make this
decision?

Every decision made by the IAOC has some impact, obviously, and Fred
and others have been very persuasive in the past on the impact that
making it possible for participants to attend can have.  I think their
efforts to make it easier for colleagues from China to attend are
generally intended to alleviate a long-time problem in that regard,
and I support them.  But I think we have reached a gray area in our
decision making process, where the lines of what the community wanted
the IAOC to do when the IASA process was created don't quite match the
impact of this particular decision.

My personal take on the resolution of this is that the Chinese
government has provided a long-recognized way of routing around the
problem.  The "One Country/Two Systems" formulation created by Deng
Xiaoping sets aside special administrative regions that clearly are
part of China and yet do not share the characteristics which have been
of concern in this community consultation.  If we can make
participation easier for our Chinese colleagues by meeting in Hong
Kong or Macau, I think we should do so, and I think so even if that
means the meeting must be unsponsored.

Note that I lived in Hong Kong on two separate occasions, and I retain
friends there, so this easily could be influenced by own feelings for
the territory.  我是美國人； 我也是一點香港人 (I am American, but also a bit of a
Hong Kong belonger).

Again, I want to commend the IAOC on their consultation, and I hope
that we can find some way forward that meets the community's needs as
equitably as possible.  Speaking only for myself,

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:00 -0700

> means the meeting must be unsponsored.

+1

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:25:36 -0700

> I'd like to take one step up on this discussion.  When the discussions
[elided]
> impact of this particular decision.

	hum...  from a strictly social POV, this whole argument
	seems to hinge on  an   "us" v. "them" mentality.  At what
	point do participants and colleagues become part of tthe
	"community"?  This (not so) subtle split between our
	engineering colleagues not blessed/cursed with living in
	or under out own particular (comfortable) rules is  demeaning
	at best and outright harmful at worst.

> means the meeting must be unsponsored.

	hum... (again).  There is this right of sovreigns to make
	rules (my house, my rules) - Frankly, I'd be a bit more
	concerned holding mtgs in France or the US than in China,
	if only due to crypto rulings or electronic confiscation rules.

	Its not a perfect world kids. Being kind, polite and respectful
	goes a long way.

> equitably as possible.  Speaking only for myself,

	for the -whole- community ...  :)

--bill
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:53:24 -0700

>        at best and outright harmful at worst.

I disagree; the rules of discourse within an IETF are the same for all
comers.  Those of the home country apply only in so far as the participant
brings them along. That might be self-censorship issue to which others
have alluded, or it might be concern that statements made at the mic
or in email are archived and available to those in the home country.
But the bar bof discussions and informal interactions are the same,
and we can't really challenge the other issue without losing some
other key parts of how the IETF operates.

>        rules (my house, my rules) -

It is China, as a sovereign country, that created "One Country/Two Systems".
I am merely pointing out that fact as a potential way to route around
this rathole (if you do not agree it is a problem).
>        Its not a perfect world kids. Being kind, polite and respectful

Agreed.

>        for the -whole- community ...  :)

Whole-heartedly agreed.

regards,

Ted Hardie

Still speaking, of course, as an individual

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:24:28 +0200

Bill Manning writes:
>         hum...  from a strictly social POV, this whole argument seems 
>         to hinge on  an   "us" v. "them" mentality.

To me half the participants sound like Germans going on vacation to 
Italy and wringing their hands because of all the horrible things that 
could happen if the Italians ever enforced their laws.

Arnt

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:28:02 -0600

> could happen if the Italians ever enforced their laws.

You have just shown disrespect to both the German and Italian cultures.
I suppose we won't be able to hold any meetings in those countries now,
either... ;-)

/psa

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:32:55 -0700

> I suppose we won't be able to hold any meetings in those countries now,

Depends on whether they impose a contractual clause against such statements.

Some cultures treat such disrespect as a sign that you care.  Others view it at 
boorish, but tolerate it.

Mileage really /does/ vary.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:18:41 -0400

At the risk of over-generalization, one of the best selling books in China while I was there (before 1990) was "The Ugly Chinese" (丑陋的中国人, by 柏扬, for those read Chinese). The author is from Taiwan. The book is now in the 16th printing, latest in 2008 shortly before his death (according to http://baike.baidu.com/view/31751.htm). It's published by the People's Literature Press (人民文学出版社), as close to a state/party run press as you can get. I had that book and another by him back then. Note that the theme of the book is that there are -many- ugly artifacts in the Chinese culture (I won't list them here) and he made a point of pointing all of them out, unapologetically. I am going to venture to guess that the China 20-years ago is a lot less open than she is now. So I would say that provocative thought is not something Chinese haven't be exposed to.

Notwithstanding the letter (or the intent) of the quoted contract language, many people here have pointed out that all sides (IETF, Chinese government, the Hotel, and participants in China/Asia) want to have a successful IETF meeting in China - if we are having a meeting in China. IMO It's going to take a lot of agitation to get the locals riled up to upset/break up the meeting. 

Technical discussions on crypto, privacy, 'route around censorship', etc., should not be problematic at all, don't think that they are not discussed in China today. Some people will point to the uncertainty surrounding that as reason not to do it, that's fine. On the other hand, if some of us are determined to lecture the locals on freedom of speech, human rights, religion, Tibet, or Taiwan issues, please take some time, go and see for yourself before settling on a rigidly set opinion or another. We sometimes lose historical perspective to see how far China has moved towards democracy in how short a time. Think US history, when were Blacks given (back) their "inalienable" right to vote - 1966(?)?

My personal opinions only, as they were.

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 Dave CROCKER
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:33 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: One level up on the IAOC decision in re: China.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:38:39 -0700

HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS wrote:
> Notwithstanding the letter (or the intent) of the quoted contract language,
> many people here have pointed out that all sides (IETF, Chinese government,
> the Hotel, and participants in China/Asia) want to have a successful IETF
> meeting in China - if we are having a meeting in China. IMO It's going to
> take a lot of agitation to get the locals riled up to upset/break up the
> meeting.

Jerry,

Alas, the letter is, in fact, standing and present.  It says what it says, and 
it is unique in our history.  It cannot be ignored.

Also alas, nothwithstanding your excellent intentions, I suspect that you cannot 
speak for the government or the hotel, and we cannot know what behaviors will 
cause what damaging impact, nor can you reassure us about the limits that we 
must stay within.  The issue is not one of strictly technical topics, but the 
ability of our community to navigate within those unknown limits.

We /can/ know that as a community, the IETF is often socially inept and even 
offensive.  Some of us are proud of that.  Others of us are chagrined.  But our 
behavior has been quite consistent over two decades and there is no sign if its 
changing.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:00:43 -0500

At 03:38 PM 9/24/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>Alas, the letter is, in fact, standing and present.  It says what it 
>says, and it is unique in our history.  It cannot be ignored.
>
>Also alas, nothwithstanding your excellent intentions, I suspect 
>that you cannot speak for the government or the hotel, and we cannot 
>know what behaviors will cause what damaging impact, nor can you 
>reassure us about the limits that we must stay within.  The issue is 
>not one of strictly technical topics, but the ability of our 
>community to navigate within those unknown limits.
>
>We /can/ know that as a community, the IETF is often socially inept 
>and even offensive.  Some of us are proud of that.  Others of us are 
>chagrined.  But our behavior has been quite consistent over two 
>decades and there is no sign if its changing.

some will rightly argue "nor should we have to"

I'm not sure I'm one of them, but I'm conscious of the impact of 
"having done it once (looking as if IETF79 were in the past), we 
can/should do it again in the future..."

a pattern will emerge that many don't want to start

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:46:57 +0700

> > means the meeting must be unsponsored.

My understanding is that it is actually more difficult for citizens of the
PRC to obtain a visa to HK or Macau than to for example, Sweden.  However,
this may be a fruitful line of thought: I believe that it is quite easy to
travel between China and the ASEAN countries (Viet Nam, Thailand, etc.).  I
have suggested Bangkok as a site for an IETF several times before; it has
many large hotels, good air and adequate Internet connectivity, a
tourist-friendly environment, etc.  The only drawback seems to be its
reputation as offering entirely too many opportunities for wholesome fun
;-), which runs afoul of the Calvinist tendencies of the IESG.  I think that
this could be largely overcome by scheduling the meeting during the hot
season, however: few will venture outside the air-conditioned hotel...

Hope this helps.

~gwz

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:52:04 -0400

Speaking just for myself.

On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:00 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

>> Alas, the letter is, in fact, standing and present.  It says what  
>> it says, and it is unique in our history.  It cannot be ignored.
>>
>> that you cannot speak for the government or the hotel, and we  
>> cannot know what behaviors will cause what damaging impact, nor can  
>> you reassure us about the limits that we must stay within.  The  
>> issue is not one of strictly technical topics, but the ability of  
>> our community to navigate within those unknown limits.
>>
>> and even offensive.  Some of us are proud of that.  Others of us  
>> are chagrined.  But our behavior has been quite consistent over two  

> some will rightly argue "nor should we have to"

And I would agree.

> "having done it once (looking as if IETF79 were in the past), we can/ 
> should do it again in the future..."
>

But if we have a normal and successful meeting without significant  
changes to our behavior or culture, that sets a different, more
positive pattern. And that's the outcome I would hope to see here.

Regards
Marshall