OK, fair enough. I should try for a narrower brush, it's been a long
The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by
the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown.
So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical
arrangements for the meeting. There is more to come.
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Sep 24, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
We brag about being a global
organization and how we're all connecting people together with our
technology, but the minute we encounter a slightly ominous sounding
clause we're going to just walk away?
I don't think that's a particularly fair characterization
of what's been said. I think the issue is that there's a
lot that's really not known, that the wording of the
contract is unclear but a little threatening around stuff
that's known to happen at IETF meetings, and so on.
Looking at it from a threat evaluation framework, it seems
to me that the actual likelihood of something happening
along these lines is pretty small, but the impact of it,
if it did happen, would be enormous, and it's the enormity
of the consequences that makes this look more risky than
meetings in other places where the hotel contract doesn't
include clauses about shutting the meeting down if attendees
criticize the local government.
Ietf mailing list