Re: China venue survey

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 23 September 2009 20:25 UTC

Message-ID: <4ABA8473.6000603@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:26:27 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: China venue survey
References: <mailman.3221.1253327041.4737.ietf@ietf.org> <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC80190AD328350@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909190545070.7372@pita.cisco.com> <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC80190AD328358@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909190906000.25425@pita.cisco.com> <4AB93B4D.8010704@stpeter.im> <24280.1253659461.605754@puncture> <4AB99292.9070402@stpeter.im> <166033BE-DAD6-4E90-ABDE-AB127084BD55@estacado.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909230709160.7191@pita.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909230709160.7191@pita.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net

> 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.


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

RE: China venue survey Yaron Sheffer
Re: China venue survey Yaron Sheffer
Re: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
RE: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
Re: China venue survey Cullen Jennings
Re: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
Re: China venue survey Melinda Shore
Re: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
Re: China venue survey Peter Saint-Andre
Re: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
Re: China venue survey JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Re: China venue survey Marshall Eubanks
RE: China venue survey James M. Polk
Re: China venue survey James M. Polk
Re: China venue survey Peter Saint-Andre
RE: China venue survey HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS
Re: China venue survey Melinda Shore
RE: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
RE: China venue survey Scott Kitterman
Re: China venue survey Dave Cridland
Re: China venue survey James M. Polk
Re: China venue survey Peter Saint-Andre
Re: China venue survey Dean Willis
Re: China venue survey Dave Cridland
Re: China venue survey Ben Campbell
Re: China venue survey Ole Jacobsen
Re: China venue survey Marshall Eubanks
Re: China venue survey Dave CROCKER
Re: China venue survey Ben Campbell