Hui,
Hui Deng wrote:
1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as
3GPP and 3GPP2 in China,
Many of us have attended meetings in China and we have found them productive
and enjoyable. However all of those other groups conduct their business in
a way that is significantly different from the unruly style of the IETF.
3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved
in political stuff.
This has been explained repeatedly. First, there is legitimate technical
work in the IETF that touches topics which are explicitly prohibited by the
contract language. Second, the style of IETF discussions often includes
individual comments which are likely to violate the contract. This unruly
speech is a consequence of a core principle in the open style of IETF work.
4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here
and see
Hui, this really has little to do with "China".
Rather, the problem is with contract language that I believe we would never
accept for any other venue.
The only reason we have a debate about this because
we are so /eager/ to have an IETF meeting in China!
Some folk say that we should ignore the language in the draft contract,
because it will not be enforced, except under extreme circumstances. First,
it is never appropriate for people signing a contract to assume that it
won't be enforced, especially when they cannot really know the exact
conditions that will cause it to be enforced. (The term "fiduciary
responsibility" covers this.) Second, these assurances are coming from
people who cannot speak for the hotel or the government. Hence, they are
merely guessing.
Let's be specific:
"Should the contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations at the conference,or printed materials used at the
conference (which are within the control of the Client) contain
Note how extensive this is. We are required to control material and speech
by everyone, yet the IETF has never really controlled the material or speech
of /anyone/.
any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic
Defamation is really a rather vague word, especially among most of us do not
know how it is actually used in China. (Let's be fair. I suspect most of
us do not know how it is used as a legal term in the US, or any other
country...)
So we need to be afraid of violating this, without really knowing what is
permitted and what is prohibited.
of China, or show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or
Disrespect is an even more vague term and it is coupled with "culture" which
could mean anything having to do with the country's government, history or
population, and could even cover reference to Chinese people anywhere in the
world.
Worse, comments made in the IETF are often disrespectful. We wish they
weren't, but again, this is a consequence of how the IETF conducts its
business. So the IETF really is being required to make guarantees that
change its basic style of operation.
violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or feature
Language that says that we won't violate the host country's laws is, of
course, not necessary -- the laws are the laws and anyone violating them has
a problem, no matter whether it is referenced in the contract -- but it
probably doesn't hurt to include it. Or rather, the only reason to include
it is to set the stage for the financial consequences, specified later...
any topics regarding human rights or religion without prior
approval from the Government of the People's Republic of China,
As has been noted by several folks, the IETF does work that necessarily
requires discussing topics that are relevant to human rights. And again, we
also have the problem of trying to restrict spontaneous comments that might
violate these conditions; yet we have never done that.
the Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event on the spot
and/or ask the person(s) who initiates or participates in any or
all of the above action to leave the hotel premises immediately.
This gives the Hotel complete freedom to shut the meeting down according to
its own interpretation of conditions that are extremely vague. That's not a
reasonable contract condition for us to agree to. (Here's where "fiduciary
responsibility" becomes the real focus, when making an agreement.)
The Client will support and assist the Hotel with the necessary
actions to handle such situations. Should there be any financial
loss incurred to the Hotel or damage caused to the Hotel's
reputation as a result of any or all of the above acts, the Hotel
will claim compensation from the Client."
Again, this appears to make us financial responsible for the hotel's
actions. And the financial exposure is not limited. We cannot reasonably
know how large the financial risk is.
Some folk keep noting that the agreement is with the host, not the IETF.
Nonetheless, it is the IETF that is expected to honor the conditions of the
agreement. So the IETF must decide whether is /can/ and /should/ agree to
such conditions.
Would the IETF agree to such contract language were the meeting to be in
Singapore, Amsterdam or Seattle? I believe we wouldn't.
The problem, here, is with contract language, not a country's culture or
government.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf