Re: Concerns about Singapore

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 10 April 2016 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 F02F512D10C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 GDF_iZqXydZs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1153212D105 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3AKLgHC004787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
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> <16925.1460122349@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m27fg77zst.wl%randy@psg.com> <57097077.7040703@comcast.net> <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com> <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <570AB5D0.5060004@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/woMjzMXlpc14rxSxTE_hoc_RJ7E>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:21:49 -0000

On 4/10/2016 1:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I repeat - "where" have the local hosts/laws specified conditions that resulted in the IETF network content access being
>> >markedly different than that accessible to the random local citizen?
> Why is that relevant? The criterion is: can the IETF do its work properly?
> Of which a sub-criterion is: will there be clean unfettered Internet at
> the meeting site?


A great deal of IETF work gets done away from the meeting site.  Having 
state-imposed restrictions away from the meeting site invites basic 
productivity limitations.

It also is oddly dissonant with the IETF's general call for open and 
unfettered access.  We risk sounding a tad elitist if it means something 
like "open and unfettered for us, but we're not concerned about you 
other folk"...

To offer an intentionally extreme comparison, imagine having a desire 
that children not be recruited to be soldiers.  (Yes, I know, that's a 
controversial point of view and many reasonable people think it's ok to 
have children be slaughtered and do slaughtering in war...)  But then 
imagine choosing to go to a country that uses children that way, 
formally.  Is it reasonable to go there with the view that it's ok, as 
long as they don't recruit any of /our/ children to be solders?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net