excuse me for previous sending wrong email.
Hello, all
I have to say something before the deadline of this survey.
To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China
for the long time, and would like to clarify several
different concerns about China and Beijing.
1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as
3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security
or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem.
2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess.
3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in
political stuff.
4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and
see
what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do
it.
Thanks for your consideration.
-Hui
From: dean(_dot_)willis(_at_)softarmor(_dot_)com
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future
meeting of the IETF
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500
CC: iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
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.
If indeed the language is identical, that probably means
something useful.
If our draft language is different, that also probably means
something useful.
Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings?
As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA
board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing
them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large
meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past.
Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as
unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to
negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that
we attempt to restrict the "right to terminate" to just the affected
session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the
government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they
want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract
was more generous to the venue than government rules might require.
OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be
prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong
visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa
difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with
equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations.
Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and
required "in the field" repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we
should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come
apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up
shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to
transport difficulties.
OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to
have been very successful, and that they had and expected no
difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local
regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered
DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the
past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China.
--
Dean
_________________________________________________________________
More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf