On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between (a) and (c). Either our > activities violate the language of the contract or they don't. You say > that you don't agree that our activities violate the language. If so, > that's good news, but it would help if you shared your analysis so > that people who are concerned can come to the same conclusion as you.
A litte bit of context is always helpful. Notice that the first sentence in the clause says "...defamation against the Government of the People's Republic of China..." Discussing encryption and its uses, for example, is not defamation fo any government unless you set it up as laundry list of "what's wrong with this country" (for any value of country) which isn't something you typically do at the IETF. > > > a) Not discuss our usual topics > > b) Stage a political rally > > > > The offending hotel clause, simply put, is a reminder of b. > > Now I'm really confused, because *this* sounds like my alternative > (b) above. > > Perhaps what you're saying here is that (1) the contract doesn't > prohibit these activities and (2) even if if did, our counterparties > can be trusted not to interpret it in a way we would find > objectionable. If so, I have to say I don't find this particularly > comforting: as I've seen no analysis to support (1) [and several > analysis which suggest the contrary], and (2) relying on intentions > rather than contract language seems like an extraordinarily unsafe > practice given the costs to us of having a meeting cancelled (even > if we're not on the hook for paying the hotel a bunch of money). Any language in any law or contract in any context is subject to interpretation and judgement. > > -Ekr > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
