Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco dot com> wrote:
If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have
not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to
clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues
might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements
were read otherwise, then I apologize.
I'd suggest reading your posts again.
It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks
are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people
will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that
nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a
banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post
this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion,
because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee
is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results
without bias.
(And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable,
at least if taken literally).
How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post,
individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast
as they want, but the organization cannot.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf