At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >(Personal opinion) > >>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >>>While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating China unfairly in this discussion... > >I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto >as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were >legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the >local policy would not notice. China is not different in this respect. Let's parse your statement a bit closer. Actually, so far all of our discussions etc have been legal in the countries in which we've met - or at least we've never been told they are unlawful. Or do you have a specific list of countries in which such discussions or development were prohibited by law or contract? Unlike you I, and I expect many (most) of us would never assume that "local policy would not notice". If I were a fiduciary for the IETF I would expect to be sued for failure to exercise due diligence if I took this position and "someone noticed". If I were told that a specific act or topic of discussion was illegal or could lead to civil or criminal penalties I would have to evaluate whether that specific act or topic were core for the purpose of the meeting or event. I would then have to make a decision to either refrain from the act or topic (difficult if it was core to the meeting), or (if responsible for the meeting) move the meeting somewhere else. I would not assume I could blithely ignore local law. Hopefully, TPTB are doing this. For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract, b) that the penalties for (any of us collectively) breaking the law or terms of the contract could result in meeting termination in addition to any individual penalties. To my knowledge, this is unique to our experience. I haven't seen any comments to the contrary in this discussion thread In the PRC, the certain prohibited acts and topics are acts and topics that have not - to my knowledge - been prohibited either by contract or law at any other venue to which we've been. The acts may be and some of the topics are certainly core to every IETF meeting we've held prior to this and probably prior to every meeting we will hold before any possible future PRC meeting. So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too high or too disjoint from the normal set of standards and practices for IETF meetings. Mike >>>Perhaps this is something that we could expect our host to help us determine? > >The IAOC is in contact with the host about all the issues raised on >the list (and then some more). > >Henk > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku >P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf