On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
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.
The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is intended
to put the Host and group on notice of such.
If the language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.
Ray
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf