On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:23:57PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As far as I know, you are not a lawyer (please correct me if I am
wrong). I am not a lawyer. Ole is not a lawyer. What use is any of us
doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce a
technical analysis of LISP-ALT. I don't think that this will get us
anywhere.
I may not be a lawyer, but if there is a contract which says, "any
topics regarding human rights" must require prior approval of the
Chinese government, the plain reading of the contract is pretty clear,
and if lawyer told me, nah you don't have to worry about the obvious
wording of the contract, it's just normal boilerplate, I think I would
be right to ask for a second (or third opinion).
I understand that it is very hard for a lawyer to tell us whether or
not there is a guarantee that we will be "safe", but if there is
something that is clear on the face that might be "unsafe", I think it
takes a fairly large amount of handwaving to say, "that's not
something you need to worry about in the contract". In fact, lawyers
are usually telling us the opposite!
Given that a number of people have already observed that comments of
the form of how our protocols can be used to ensure human rights are
certainly not unknown within the IETF, and it's not even clear such a
comment would not be considered inappropriate, and there's a clear
cause that seems to indicate that we should not even *mention*
anything related to human rights without the prior approval of the
Chinese government, it's clear that there will be some restriction on
discussions that would otherwise legitimately take place at other IETF
venues.
Against that, we weigh the argument that the IETF would somehow become
"irrelevant" if it doesn't meet in China. Personally, I have trouble
buying that.
Perhaps the cost of restricting legitimate discussions about how
protocols might be used when it involves human rights or freedom is
slight (although some might disagree with that; some might view this
as a principle that's not worth compromising); but it's not clear the
benefits of going to China are that great, either.
A long time ago, I learned that the letter of legal agreements is in
many cases less important than the intent of the parties.
Maybe, but at the end of the day, "the law is the law". The intent of
the host and hotel may be good, but good intentions have never
overruled law in a civil society which is governed by the rule of law.
And the argument for why the statement *must* be present in the
contract is that it is required by Chinese national law.
I'm not sure which is worse, the argument that we don't need to worry
about the law (thus implying that maybe China isn't actually a society
where the rule of law is important), or that the law actually *does*
impose these restrictions and is for real.
My two cents,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf