On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:13:55PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 06:15 PM 3/19/2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >I read "local law" as meaning the law where the interaction is taking place. While that can get very complicated for electronic interaction, for the example you chose to cite it is very clear. If Charlie Hebdo's cover violates local law where you are reading it, you have chosen to ask for more trouble than just a discussion with the IETF harrasment ombudsman. > > Except the document does not say "local law" and does not say "local > law at the place where the IETF occurs during only the time the IETF > is in session". > > The phrase was "applicable law" and that is NOT equivalent to "local > law" in any way, shape or form. But "applicable law", today, has to be local to some physical jurisdiction. We're still living in a world of politics with sharp physical borders. We don't have law creation and enforcement entities divorced from physical political entities. Therefore "applicable law" is "local law" in some sense, at least for now. What is not clear is which localities shall seek to apply their laws to specific cases of harassment at the IETF, or which localities' laws a Reporter and/or the Ombudsteam shall seek to apply to such cases even when the localities bring no legal complaint to any forum qualified to hear it. Nico --