On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Disruptive as defined by whom? It seems to me that the contract we
might
sign cedes the definition of disruptive to a government about whose
laws
we know very little. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know
the IETF has never before signed a contract that lets the government
of
the host country define what is and is not an allowable topic for
discussion.
No, it cedes the definition to a hotel who might know less about the
local law than we do. It's not the "big boss" that's likely to take
offense at IETF; it's the piranha a little lower on the food chain who
thinks he has something to prove that is dangerous, or the even-lower
ranked person who is just afraid of what the superiors might think and
therefore over-reacts.
I'd be much less worried if the Ministry of State Security were
running the whole show directly and overtly, including providing
escorts for every bar-bof and going-to-dinner group, like they did in
the bad old days.
Although the undertone I'm getting from people who have talked to the
organizers seems to hint that MOSS is already actively engaged in the
IETF event planning, which is probably a good thing as it means a lot
fewer headaches.
Perhaps we could get the contract amended so that we'd have a
designated government office or official making the pull-the-plug
decision instead of of hotel bell-hops, house security, bar managers,
housekeepers, or whatever? To my mind, that would lower the perception
of financial risk we're taking on.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf