Re: GitHub blockage in Spain

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, November 2, 2019 08:02 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> IMHO we should not discuss here any aspect except the narrow
> technical one whether a successful IETF meeting in Madrid in
> July 2020 is possible. In fact it seems to be the
> responsibility of IASA, and the meeting planners in
> particular, to check this and let us know if there are any
> risks.
> 
> I certainly don't want to enter into political debates here,
> on matters where most of us are ill-informed and not
> personally affected.

Brian,

While I almost entirely agree, I note that we've had discussions
on this list about IETF participants being harassed or arrested
because of personal behavior or various "preferences" (aspects
of their lives that may not be discretionary choices, and hence
not preferences in the usual sense at all).  If there were
significant risk of IETF participants being harassed or arrested
because of their views on the relationship between Catalonia and
the rest of Spain (I note Jordi's description used the terms
"criminal activities" and "trying to break Spain and circumvent
our laws" ... and, before this turns into precisely the debate
you want to avoid, also note that I said "rest of Spain").

I also agree with Diego, and presumably you, that this list is
not a good place for discussions of "politics, fake news, and
deliberate exaggerations" and not just because most of us are
ill-informed.

I wouldn't expect us to avoid holding a meeting in California
because some of our participants might believe the state should
be divided in two or to avoid a meeting in Montreal because
there are people there and further to the north and east who
believe Quebec should withdraw from Canada.  And, of course, the
US and Scotland were, historically, both involved in rather
nasty wars over who has the right to secede from a country and
under what terms (including whether such beliefs or actions
taken to support them were appropriately classified as criminal
acts).  One might draw some analogies to the former Soviet Union
as well.  There are obviously differences among those examples
and between them and the Spanish case.  Your last paragraph
clearly would apply to debates about those situations or the
distinctions on this list.

At the same time, it is not clear to me whether the meeting
planners consider it part of their mandate to evaluate the
relevant tensions and any possible resulting interference with
the ability to hold a successful meeting and for any active IETF
participant to attend without having significant concerns about
what they would define as mistreatment (remember that we have
set interesting precedents about meeting in the US that might or
might not be relevant).  It would be useful to get a statement
from them --sooner rather than later-- about where they think
their responsibilities begin and end.   If they end before they
would get to evaluations of local tensions (including whatever
might be classified as criminal by relevant authorities) and
whether they might pose a threat to however we (and affected
participants) might define as a successful meeting, then I think
that boundary, and who or what does have responsibility for
those discussions, are probably an appropriate topic for this
list.  So is who is accountable to the community for whatever
decisions are made and how they are accountable.

Obviously not an easy line, or set of lines, to draw.  But
dismissing the need to do so by making inflammatory statements
(such as a few in this thread.. but nothing in your note) is
probably not a helpful way forward.

best,
   john