A couple of things so as not to lose sight of what's actually being discussed:
On 9/20/09 at 5:13 PM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Pete Resnick wrote:
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".
We already asked if this condition could be removed and the answer
was a sound no with no room for discussion.
You'll note that nowhere in my message did I suggest that you ask
(and I'm not at all surprised that the hotel said "No"). I have never
heard of a contract negotiation where one party asks the other such
things. I said that the host should simply cross it off and sign the
remainder and see what happens. Better yet (and I've done this sort
of thing in contract negotiations myself), "reword" the paragraph
such that it still expresses the constraints of the law, but gives
the hotel and the host no enforcement duties, and say, "We've
reworded this and we believe it still captures the necessary
requirements." See what happens.
And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and
the host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include
words indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch
on human rights issues are excluded from this clause.
On 9/22/09 at 2:50 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is
intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the
language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.
Certainly the part about "defamation", "show any disrespect", and
"violates any laws" (which, according to Marshall's original message,
includes certain politicial statements and protest marches) are
clearly a statement of the law as others have explained in this
thread. I've heard nothing so far that indicates that the rest of the
clause (with regard to terminating the event or the hotel or host
having responsibility for the enforcement) is any part of the law.
On 9/22/09 at 11:52 AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't
typically get to negotiate clauses that are required by national
law. We'd obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this
would remove any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.
Ray did not say that the clause is required by national law, nor has
anybody else as far as I have read. All Ray said was the the clause
was putting the IETF on notice of the law. Let's not start this
discussion from a point of amateur lawyering (as if this discussion
is different than every other). Someone should find out what the law
really requires and whether this is just a clause in a contract from
an overly vigilant hotel.
For the record, I said in the survey that this language wouldn't stop
me from going (because it's no money out of my pocket if the
conference gets cancelled midweek, and I don't *think* I would be
restrained in anything I might say, but I think contracting this
meeting with such a clause is kind of nuts and I wouldn't do it if I
were on the IAOC.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf