On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before (by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full financial responsibility for any costs that result, if some number of participants are perceived of as being out of line... and perceived by a process in which the IETF has no voice, no right to state an opinion or defend itself, etc.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but the IETF has not been asked any of this; the Host is the one signing the agreement and bearing the full financial responsibility. We haven't yet heard what the agreement between the IETF/IAOC and the Host is.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition, sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation".
So long as we have assurances that crypto isn't a problem, and assurances that technical discussions which happen to touch on political issues (IDNs, crypto, privacy, etc.) are OK, I'm willing to roll the dice. But it seems silly to sign a contract like the one outlined.
pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf