> Ole, > > Just want to make sure I understand this response fully. > > On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > >There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval > >process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed) > >meeting. > > The question about approval was generated based on this part of the contract > that Marshall originally quoted: > > > Does your above response mean that the host would not consider > slides and oral presentations made during working group sessions to > be part of "the Group's activities, visual or audio presentations at > the conference"? Or does your response mean that the host is going > to take the risk of having the event terminated for reasons having > to do with slide or presentation content that was not pre-approved > by the government? Or does it mean that you do not think that the > content of working group sessions falls under the category of > "topics regarding human rights"? > > Thanks much. > Alissa >
If I have to choose only one of your questions it would be the final one: I do not think that our normal way of conducting business would run afoul of these rules. If you were planning to include blatant politicial propaganda in your presentation, then getting prior approval would be a good idea, but I cannot foresee a topic within the scope of what the IETF does to require you to use such material. The assumption is that the material is just "normal IETF documents, presentations etc" and thus no approval is required. Does our technology border or real-world uses, including "human rights"? I hope so, but that's a far cry from the type of action that these rules prohibit. Do I expect careful monitoring and various colored lights to light up tracking the conversations? No. The IAOC will be making more detailed statements in the near future. In the meantime, the survey is still open. Ole _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
