Re: China

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Fri, 08 April 2016 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB0012D58D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hnoXRTcE0eLD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858CB12D0FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D958D1E83B; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:39:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:39:14 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
Subject: Re: China
Message-ID: <20160408133914.GB17588@pfrc.org>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net> <20160407182936.GA21340@pfrc.org> <CAB75xn780nNDjGa_Cc222J20-+1CCHt09Xp8KHzaK=n0xx51pg@mail.gmail.com> <5706B100.9040509@mnt.se> <CAB75xn6fmj84ROUtG5eUB3GerHx83hrEr3w5vSADY_g=BRg5FA@mail.gmail.com> <5706BA40.3060005@mnt.se> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604072157240.31096@uplift.swm.pp.se> <A9B63A6D-3102-482F-8FFC-2E57A5FD8336@nic.cz> <CC16B445-2B74-4182-BC58-F9D4BFFA1CCF@chopps.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604080420470.36488@rabdullah.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1604080420470.36488@rabdullah.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1mwcWgnHBVq0xEe0XnR2j8LcetQ>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:35:04 -0000

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:28:18AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> I will just add that "engagement" is often seen as a better strategy
> than "boycott" in many circles, but we don't need to have that debate
> here and now :-)

This also covers much of my opinion.  In the absence of outright impact to
safety, it's better to engage.  Such engagement might imply an inquiry by
the IETF (potentially via either IAOC, IAB or whatever portion of IETF
"management" is deemed appropriate) to the host government as to the
concerns of the IETF for the welfare of its membership.

Laws and social norms shift at speeds even slower than our RFC process.  But
similarly, legal consensus is shaped by participation.  "We're concerned,
could you please clarify" may help refine the opinion of the host government
while simultaneously clarifying membership welfare issues.

-- Jeff