On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our
activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say
that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so,
that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so
that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you.
A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first
sentence in the clause says "...defamation against the Government
of the People's Republic of China..."
Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo
any government unless you set it up as laundry list of "what's wrong
with this country" (for any value of country) which isn't something
you typically do at the IETF.
a) Not discuss our usual topics
b) Stage a political rally
The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b.
Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative
Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't
prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties
can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find
objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly
comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several
analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions
rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe
practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even
if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money).
Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to
interpretation and judgement.
Ietf mailing list