At Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT), 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'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so, that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you. > I have stated > what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract, > namely prevent political protest at the meeting. I have now attended > 68 out of 75 IETF meetings, but I have never seen "political protest" > of the form that I think might lead to a meeting being shut down in > China. Yes, we are a rowdy bunch at times, and we discuss a lot of > technical things that spill over into layer 9, but let me repeat what > I said earlier: There is no way the host, with the understanding of > the government, would invite us to meet in China if they expected us > to: > > a) Not discuss our usual topics > b) Stage a political rally > > The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b. Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative (b) above. Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money). -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf