On 9/18/09 at 5:35 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
But, at least to my knowledge, the IETF has not been asked before
(by any country) to agree to having the meeting stopped, having all
participants being kicked out of the country, and bearing full
financial responsibility for any costs that result, if some number
of participants are perceived of as being out of line... and
perceived by a process in which the IETF has no voice, no right to
state an opinion or defend itself, etc.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but the IETF has not been
asked any of this; the Host is the one signing the agreement and
bearing the full financial responsibility. We haven't yet heard what
the agreement between the IETF/IAOC and the Host is.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Host (and the IAOC if faced
with similar text in a contract they need to sign) should simply
cross off the portion, say that they don't agree to the condition,
sign the rest of it, and see what comes back. Call it "negotiation".
So long as we have assurances that crypto isn't a problem, and
assurances that technical discussions which happen to touch on
political issues (IDNs, crypto, privacy, etc.) are OK, I'm willing to
roll the dice. But it seems silly to sign a contract like the one
outlined.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf