--On Friday, September 18, 2009 21:29 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
<henk@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John, (and others),
>
>> The difficulty is
>> that, from things I've heard informally, the proposed Host
>> ("Client") isn't the government or a government body.
>
> The (possible) host is not a government body. However, the
> host must
> have permission from the government to organize the meeting,
> they asked for it and got it.
I was nearly certain of that.
> I think it is safe to assume that the government did run some
> checks
> on what the IETF is doing and, if we did keep ourselves busy
> with
> things they do not like, then I seriously doubt that they would
> have given the host permission to invite us in the first place.
I am at least as certain of that as Fred is.
My concern is not "catching the government by surprise about our
being there" in any way. I think we have a fairly clear
understanding of what we are getting into in that area and
assume that they (both government and prospective hosts) pretty
much do too. Within the IETF, some people are going to be happy
about what that understanding implies and some people aren't,
and I'm really glad that you folks are the ones who have to
figure out where the consensus lies (and not me).
The specific issue I was trying to address was whether there was
any risk of one of our loose cannons (or
politically/environmentally-insensitive individuals) triggering
a reaction from some mid-level hotel staffer who was
oversensitive and overly risk-adverse as a matter of
personality, or as the result of conditions beyond anyone's
control, and having the combination trigger a situation that
would not exist with a combination of calmer heads with more
inclination to try to defuse a situation than to escalate it.
And, if that risk existed, whether there was anything that could
be done to mitigate it.
An example might include trying to change the provisions for
unilateral action by the hotel or Host, into a requirement that,
if a problem was perceived, it went into some sort of
problem-understanding and resolution review team that involved a
few of our senior folks and representation from the government
as well as the hotel and Host people. I assume that such a
team, if organized in advance, could move quickly enough to meet
any reasonable need.
I think that, if we were going to do this, that sort of model
would benefit everyone. From our standpoint, it would help
lower the risk of a misunderstanding turning into a crisis.
>From theirs, even a public hint of inclination to shut down an
IETF meeting or start kicking participants out would, as others
have pointed out, have long-term bad consequences that would
spread well beyond a particular hotel or Host.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf