Dave,
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
Steve
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Hui,
Hui Deng wrote:
1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such
as
3GPP and 3GPP2 in China,
Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them
productive and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct
their business in a way that is significantly different from the
unruly style of the IETF.
3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be
involved in political stuff.
This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate
technical work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly
prohibited by the contract language. Second, the style of IETF
discussions often includes individual comments which are likely to
violate the contract. This unruly speech is a consequence of a core
principle in the open style of IETF work.
4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come
here and see
Hui, this really has little to do with "China".
Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we
would never accept for any other venue.
The only reason we have a debate about this because
we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China!
Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft
contract, because it will not be enforced, except under extreme
circumstances. First, it is never appropriate for people signing a
contract to assume that it won't be enforced, especially when they
cannot really know the exact conditions that will cause it to be
enforced. (The term "fiduciary responsibility" covers this.)
Second, these assurances are coming from people who cannot speak for
the hotel or the government. Hence, they are merely guessing.
Let's be specific:
"Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain
Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and
speech by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the
material or speech of /anyone/.
any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic
Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of
us do not know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I
suspect most of us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the
US, or any other country...)
So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing
what is permitted and what is prohibited.
of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or
Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with
"culture" which could mean anything having to do with the country's
government, history or population, and could even cover reference to
Chinese people anywhere in the world.
Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish
they weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF
conducts its business. So the IETF really is being required to make
guarantees that change its basic style of operation.
violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature
Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is,
of course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone
violating them has a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in
the contract -- but it probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or
rather, the only reason to include it is to set the stage for the
financial consequences, specified later...
any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior
approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China,
As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that
necessarily requires discussing topics that are relevant to human
rights. And again, we also have the problem of trying to restrict
spontaneous comments that might violate these conditions; yet we
have never done that.
the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot
and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or
all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.
This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down
according to its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely
vague. That's not a reasonable contract condition for us to agree
to. (Here's where "fiduciary responsibility" becomes the real
focus, when making an agreement.)
The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary
actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial
loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's
reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel
will claim compensation from the Client."
Again, this appears to make us financial responsible for the hotel's
actions. And the financial exposure is not limited. We cannot
reasonably know how large the financial risk is.
Some folk keep noting that the agreement is with the host, not the
IETF. Nonetheless, it is the IETF that is expected to honor the
conditions of the agreement. So the IETF must decide whether is /
can/ and /should/ agree to such conditions.
Would the IETF agree to such contract language were the meeting to
be in Singapore, Amsterdam or Seattle? I believe we wouldn't.
The problem, here, is with contract language, not a country's
culture or government.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf