ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

2009-09-23 13:16:04

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our
activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say
that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so,
that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so
that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you.

A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first 
sentence in the clause says "...defamation against the Government 
of the People's Republic of China..."

Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo 
any government unless you set it up as laundry list of "what's wrong
with this country" (for any value of country) which isn't something
you typically do at the IETF.


a) Not discuss our usual topics
b) Stage a political rally

The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b.

Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative
(b) above. 

Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't 
prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties 
can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find 
objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly 
comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several 
analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions 
rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe 
practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even 
if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money).

Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to 
interpretation and judgement.


-Ekr

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>