|
excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui > From: dean.willis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 > CC: iaoc@xxxxxxxx; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft > > contract language is standard, and required by the government. > > > > It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact > > language used for meetings by other groups like ours. > > > > If indeed the language is identical, that probably means > > something useful. > > > > If our draft language is different, that also probably means > > something useful. > > > > Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? > > As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA > board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing > them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large > meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. > Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as > unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to > negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that > we attempt to restrict the "right to terminate" to just the affected > session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the > government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they > want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract > was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. > > OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be > prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong > visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa > difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with > equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. > Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and > required "in the field" repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we > should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come > apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up > shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to > transport difficulties. > > OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to > have been very successful, and that they had and expected no > difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local > regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered > DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the > past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. > > -- > Dean check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messages |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf