On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft
contract
language is standard, and required by the government.
It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact
language
used for meetings by other groups like ours.
I think the exact language is entirely irrelevant. This is after all
an authoritarian government that historically just doesn't operate in
a rules-based manner. The language we've seen is extremely vague. De
facto, if a political threat is perceived, a strong unpleasant
reaction is to be expected, and lawyers won't be invited to table to
construe the finer meanings of the rules. My impression is that it's
highly unlikely that the doings of the IETF will be perceived as
politically threatening, but if I'm wrong on that, an appeal to
section 3.8.7(a) of the agreement is unlikely to be material.
However, if consequences of the language spill over into lawsuits in
other domains (for example, US attendees suing IETF to recover meeting
fees and trip expenses after IETF screws up and gets the meeting
canceled), then the exact wording of the agreement may be significant
in deciding IETF's liability (unless the US court just says "You KNOW
they have no rule of law in China, why did you go there?", which I
think we can argue against.) . So Dave's suggestion is very good, even
if it doesn't help us with the ground truth in China.
OMA held a plenary there in 2006, and an interop summit in Beijing
also in 2006. I'll make inquiries with them (as the IETF liaison
manager to OMA) and see if they have something they can share.
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf