OK, fair enough. I should try for a narrower brush, it's been a long week :-) The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown. So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical arrangements for the meeting. There is more to come. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Melinda Shore wrote: > On Sep 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > We brag about being a global > > organization and how we're all connecting people together with our > > technology, but the minute we encounter a slightly ominous sounding > > clause we're going to just walk away? > > I don't think that's a particularly fair characterization > of what's been said. I think the issue is that there's a > lot that's really not known, that the wording of the > contract is unclear but a little threatening around stuff > that's known to happen at IETF meetings, and so on. > > Looking at it from a threat evaluation framework, it seems > to me that the actual likelihood of something happening > along these lines is pretty small, but the impact of it, > if it did happen, would be enormous, and it's the enormity > of the consequences that makes this look more risky than > meetings in other places where the hotel contract doesn't > include clauses about shutting the meeting down if attendees > criticize the local government. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf