On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying: (a) No, they don't prohibit those activities. (b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually be enforced that way. If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion), violates a number of the terms.What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I have stated what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, namely prevent political protest at the meeting.
One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly that and no more.
I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean literally what it says.
/a _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf