On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:53:40PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
The contract clause is indeed broad, I think as a deliberate step by
the hotel to protect its economic interest in the event of a shutdown.
So, what remains for us to do is to set forth the actual practical
arrangements for the meeting. There is more to come.
I'm confused now. I thought earlier it was asserted that the clause
was non-negotiable because it was mandated by Chinese National Law?
That's different than saying it was a "deliberate step to protect its
economic interest".
One of the things which seems to be very clear is that China is not a
place where the rule of law holds way.
To quote Wikipedia, "The rule of law, also called supremacy of law,
means that the law is above everyone and it applies to
everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is
above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant
exemption to the application of the law."
When we hold a conference where the rule of law doesn't hold sway, it
means that things are not predictable. Maybe the prospective hosts
have enough sway with powerful people that the plain reading of the
law of what is prohibited will be bent, and a blind eye will be turned
to IETF's working group's discussions, even if they violate the very
broad proscriptions in the hotel contract, and perhaps Chinese
National Law. All we have is the word of the host that things will be
OK. Maybe the IAOC, having worked with the host more closely, is
confident that things will be OK.
Gee. If only every country in the world had a political system as good
as yours.... :-)
I was pretty careful to make my statement non-U.S.-centric. Certainly
Europe has a strong tradition of Rule of Law, and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights is a declaration which is not US-centric; indeed,
it goes far beyond the rights guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights in
some instances.
The existence of Rule of Law and guaranteed rights of Speech or
Expression seems to be fairly common feature of all or nearly all of
past IETF venues. So perhaps it isn't fair to state with that
insisting on this means that we are somehow assuming some kind of
US-centric exceptionalism. Looking at the list of past meeting venues
(Sweeden, Canada, US, Ireland, Czech Republic, France, South Korea,
Austria, Japan, UK, Australia, Norway, Germany, etc.), China's
characteristics are definitely new and unique for the IETF meeting
venues.
Regards,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf