On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
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.
What I am saying is (c) that you have listed a set of topics and
concluded that they violate the contract, I don't agree. I have stated
what I believe to be the INTENTION of the language in the contract,
namely prevent political protest at the meeting.
One of the points that I've had drummed into me by lawyers is that when
the language of a contract doesn't clearly match the intention of the
parties to the contract, then the language needs to be rewritten. So if
the intention is to prevent political protest, it needs to say exactly
that and no more.
I think Eric is being reasonable in interpreting the language to mean
literally what it says.
/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf