At Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:28:06 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I don't think the rules were written with a group like the IETF in
mind. I also don't think, in fact I am pretty certain, that the hotel
staff would be the ones who decide to shut down the meeting or take
other action. I am sure what would happen, in practice, is that the
*local host* would intervene, warn the offender and that would
probably be the end of it. This assumes there was ever anything for
the hotel or host to complain about in the first place which is
something I also doubt, ---- unless someone in our community decides
that they want to push the boundaries and prove a point. That is
frankly my ONLY worry about this matter. The Chinese government is, by
now, well aware of what a typical IETF meeting looks like and would
not have granted permission for the meeting to take place if they
expected us to stage a political rally, but just in case we should be
so inclined, there is a set of rules spelled out (albeit broadly) in
the text we are discussing.
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
(a) No, they don't prohibit those activities.
(b) Yes, they do prohibit those activities, but they won't actually
be enforced that way.
If you're saying (a), I'd be interested in seeing your analysis
of why that is the case, since my own analysis indicates the
contrary. Indeed, it seems to me that this very discussion
we are having now (which clearly is an appropriate IETF discussion),
violates a number of the terms.
If you're saying (b), then I have to say I don't find that very
reassuring.
I assure you that there is no intention to have WG materials
pre-screened or anything of the sort, heck they're never ready on time
anyway ;-) And I honestly do not think that anyone should plan on
being more careful than usual about what they say in general WG
discussions or plenaries. The meeting should be like any other IETF
meeting in terms of content.
So, we can do what Steve Crocker suggests, go to China with a positive
attitude or stay home and wonder what might have happened.
I'm a little puzzled by "stay home". It's not like the world
is divided into "China" and "Home". In what way are Hiroshima,
Anaheim, and Maastricht, to pick three random examples any more
"Home" than China?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf