On 10/11/09 8:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and
requirements for discussing meeting venues and that many of the
postings are moving towards a precedent that the IETF really does not
want to set.
I strongly agree. I think mixing up
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto
as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were
legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the
local policy would not notice.
Henk, just
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed that discussions on crypto
as well as writing, testing and using code during the meeting were
legal in the country. And if they weren't, we'd assume that the
local policy would
Hi Ole,
At 16:56 10-10-2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question.
Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued
that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there
for reasons ranging from Internet policies
Hi Doug,
I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself
as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the
PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free
speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it
Syephan,
You said:
I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I
would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on
which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a
private capacity.
If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the
Hi Ole -
Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of
boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent
messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.
I'm not all that bothered about it per se, but it has been hard to tell when
its Ole the
Mike,
Then I am afraid you really misread my comments. There are indeed
folks who are suggesting that China should be avoided for political
reasons (see the list for examples, I see no need to repeat it here),
and I would characterize that as a boycott.
This is completely separate from the
Hi Ole,
Yes, my email was aimed at your frequent postings on this subject in
combination with your current ISOC position. Let me note that most of your
postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a
preference for a PRC IETF meeting.
That said, it's good that you
Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi Ole -
Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of
boycott and what sort of message would we be sending in your recent
messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.
I'm not going to comment on whether Ole has been appearing to
Stephan Wenger stewe at stewe dot org wrote:
I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count
myself as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not
go to the PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable
human rights, free speech, and Internet
Dave CROCKER wrote:
I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the
basis of political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it
for matters of logistics and cost, but not social policy.
On the one hand I agree with you that determining where the IETF
should or
Ole Jacobsen ole at cisco dot com wrote:
If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have
not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to
clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues
might be with respect to holding a meeting in
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Doug Ewell wrote:
I'd suggest reading your posts again.
And I suggest you read the original message that started the whole
discussion again, let me quote the relevant section:
The members of the IAOC, speaking as individuals, do not like this
condition as a matter of
At 02:32 PM 10/11/2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of
political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of
logistics and cost, but not social policy.
I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us
From: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
I can certainly remember times in the US in which discussions of
certain types of cryptographic topics with foreign nationals present
was treated as export of cryptographic technology and subject to all
sorts of restrictions as a
You said:
(Let me apologize to the non-US people in the IETF for the US-centric
nature of this part of this post. It's necessarily US-centric because
the example cited in the message I'm replying to was US-centric.
FWIW, I'm not a US citizen - I'm acturally Bermudian - so I am
personally
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 04:56:43PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Since I am also not a US citizen, let me ask you a related question.
Objectionable hotel clauses notwithstanding, some folks have argued
that we should basically boycott China and not hold a meeting there
for reasons ranging
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
[snip]
Perhaps a better way of putting things is that the IETF has various
requirements for holding a successful meeting, and the question is how
much of a guarantee we need that we can have a successful meeting, and
hold certain conversations
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
In propaganda, your statement would probably be considered a black and
white fallacy. In symbolic logic, it would just be a fallacy.
For your statement to be always true, the first clause would have to read
Since the IETF ONLY discusses how
Hi David,
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:30 PM, David Morris wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was
no contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in
arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting.
That is a good point. The
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Patrick Suger wrote:
I never thought it could be understood differently: anything different would
be rude for ISOC. So, what you personnalité want is to be sure that whatever
off topic you may want to discuss it will be permitted by the local law?
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in
fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which
apparently makes illegal many things which normally would be
discussed at IETF metings, maybe it wouldn't be a good
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
For the PRC we've been told (in black and white as part of a legal
document - not as anecdotal information) that a) certain acts and
topics of discussion are forbidden by law or contract ...
...
With respect to ... any of
Theodore,
you will excuse me. I am afraid this discussion is not real. I am only
interested in the Internet working better, all over the place, including in
China and in the USA.
1) this lasting debate decreases the credibility of the IETF to be able to
build such a network, at least in its
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Patrick Suger wrote:
2) it also shows the lack of international experience of IETF. This is
embarassing since it is supposed to keep developping the international
network. It also seems that there is a particular lack of coordination with
its sponsors. What is worrying
--On Friday, October 09, 2009 17:03 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Interesting point. I can recall a number of countries with
_export_ restrictions on some things, and perhaps one with a
_use_ restriction, but I can't think of one where
discuss[ion] or design[ing]
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:44:17PM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
I don't think anyone is actually saying this. What folks are in
fact saying is that out of _respect_ of Chinese local law, which
apparently makes illegal many things which normally
(g) many hurt Chinese engineers participate to the IETF and very
politely do not react: have them been invited to comment?
Everyone on the IETF mailing list has been invited to comment and that
certainly includes Chinese engineers.
Indeed, I wonder if there is something to be learned from
At 04:07 AM 10/7/2009, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
(Personal opinion)
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are treating
China unfairly in this discussion...
I
2009/10/9 Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net
So no, we're not treating China unfairly in this discussion. We're not
holding China to a higher standard, we're questioning - as we must for due
diligence - whether the standard to which they want to hold the IETF is too
high or too disjoint
In propaganda, your statement would probably be considered a black and white
fallacy. In symbolic logic, it would just be a fallacy.
For your statement to be always true, the first clause would have to read
Since the IETF ONLY discusses how to make the Internet better and nothing
else and
I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should
have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can
argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we
certainly need to establish that such speech would not get us in
trouble.
All that is happening
At 09:55 PM 10/8/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I think there is general agreement that no normal IETF topic should
have to be off limits for any IETF meeting in any location. We can
argue about the finer details of what normal implies and we
certainly need to establish that such speech would not
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Michael StJohns wrote:
To rephrase in a way that you may not agree.
We certainly need to establish that the environment of the site,
host or country would not cause us or tend to cause us to modify our
behavior away from that common to normal IETF meetings.
It
(Personal opinion)
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of the potential legal
implications of where we hold our meetings, I wonder if we are
treating China unfairly in this discussion...
I agree. So-far, we have always assumed
To the best of my knowledge, in the countries you mention, there was no
contractual risk that normal activities of the IETF would result in
arbitrary cancelation of the remainder of the meeting.
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
While I do think that the IAOC should be aware of
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
...
Perhaps the latter suggests a way for the IAOC to think about
this. Assume that, however unlikely it is, the meeting were
called off mid-way and that every IETF participant who attended
sued the IASA to recover the costs of leaving China
On Fri, October 2, 2009 3:55 pm, Noel Chiappa wrote:
It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem
from
an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is
the
PRC government using this meeting for propoganda purposes (either
internal,
or
Dave,
Thanks for your clarification, now I understand this has converged to
a more contract language issue.
At this stage, I may not be able to help on the detail languages since
I guess the hoster or IAOC already
have been deeply involved in it.
Anyhow, I apprecaite that you make everybody more
From: Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com
Lastly, I think that everybody have to self-censor about what he does.
It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst problem from
an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be most concerned about is the
PRC government using this
--On Friday, October 02, 2009 11:55 -0400 Noel Chiappa
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
It's not clear that (self-)censorship is going to be the worst
problem from an IETF in the PRC. One of the things I would be
most concerned about is the PRC government using this meeting
for propoganda
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
Dave,
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
Steve
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Hui,
Hui Deng wrote:
1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings
Steve Crocker wrote:
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
Wow. No. In fact, it completely misses what I said.
Given how thoroughly I parsed the problems with the contract language, this
Scott,
Your comments align very much with others that we have received
privately, on the list, or through the survey. All of it is being
considered very seriously and you can expect a progress report
soon.
As for alternative venues: since most IETF meetings depend on a
host, we're not in a
Steve Crocker said:
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere.
However, IETF participation is open, so that attempting to predict
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Steve Crocker said:
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
The IETF as an organization is mature enough to meet anywhere.
However, IETF participation
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
Hi,
Four remarks:
This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host
sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation
to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing
assurances in writing, to the IETF, the
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
Yes it does.
What problems did you experience?
We have had one other complain of Java problems, but he had an old
Browser.
Otherwise 343 have completed the survey successfully.
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
-Hui
From: t...@americafree.tv
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org
Subject: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting
of the IETF
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00
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)
Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue
of a meeting in China.
Re-read the Tao. The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an
Internet available to all. It is people, not governments. If you,
personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go
Thanks Ray,
Now I remember that I forget I have done that once already.
that will be fine for me.
Regards,
-Hui
2009/10/1 Ray Pelletier rpellet...@isoc.org:
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
Does this survey still work?,
I failed to do anything over there.
Yes it does.
What
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
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
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
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.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
On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.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
Dean Willis allegedly wrote on 09/26/2009 1:04 PM:
Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have a
moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available despite
that policy.
rfc3935 says
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have
a moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available
despite that policy. If this requires technology changes, then that
technology is within our
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic regarding human rights.
With that said, it's not clear to me that
Dean Willis wrote:
The question: does meeting in China do more to further the goal of
getting past PRC (and others) deplorable policies than does meeting
elsewhere AND LETTING THE WORLD KNOW WHY WE ARE NOT MEETING IN CHINA.
Dean,
Sorry, but that is very much *not* the question. As a group
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Because China's policy on censoring the Internet sucks, and we have
a moral and ethical responsibility to make the Internet available
despite that policy. If this requires technology changes, then that
technology is within our purview. If it
Regarding the potential clause in the contract that has caused this discussion,
which includes the text:
... 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
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:23:57PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As far as I know, you are not a lawyer (please correct me if I am
wrong). I am not a lawyer. Ole is not a lawyer. What use is any of us
doing this analysis ? I might as well ask the IETF Counsel to produce a
technical
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
Cullen,
There is absolutely NO intention or requirement to have any approval
process for agendas or materials by a third party for this (proposed)
meeting.
You've asked a bunch of good questions which deserve to be answered,
but we need a little time to craft a response. Stay tuned.
Ole
On
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:48:36 -0400, Michael StJohns
mstjo...@comcast.net said:
MS If your answer is - because there's some benefit to the IETF - I
MS would then ask what else should we be willing to give up for other
MS benefits and where should we draw the line?
If we give up our normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, 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.
What do we mean by third party here? It seems risky to
Ted,
I understand that it is very hard for a lawyer to tell us whether or
not there is a guarantee that we will be safe, but if there is
something that is clear on the face that might be unsafe, I think it
takes a fairly large amount of handwaving to say, that's not
something you need to worry
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 07:19:15PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
But more generally, there are no absolutely safe options, not in China
and not elsewhere. I pretty much agree wit Marshall's analysis on the
motives of the various parties in this particular case, and I'd have no
problem with
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/09 10:05 PM, 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.
Hi
At first when I read the terms posted by Marshall Eubanks I sort of wanted to
react with my reptile brain and boycott the whole thing.
Looking in perspective however the idealistic part of me wants to believe that
the Chinese people gains a lot more than they lose if the IETF visits China,
On Wed Sep 23 04:45:39 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Sigh, I will get a high Narten score this week
It's worse if you digitally sign your messages...
I always wondered why you did that.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
-
On 9/22/09 22:42, Sep 22, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
I see absolutely NOTHING in the transcript of the IETF 75 session on
net neutrality that I would consider disrespectful or demfamatory of
any government.
The problem is that you're looking for a needle in the portion of a
haystack that happens to
At Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:22:31 -0500,
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/22/09 at 2:50 PM -0400, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The language in the contract is a statement of the law and is
intended to put the Host and group on notice of such. If the
language were not in the contract, it would still be the law.
At Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
Adam Roach allegedly wrote on 09/23/2009 9:28 AM:
In my recollection, there is a semi-regular IETF participant who travels
with a MacBook that has a Tibetan flag sticker prominently visible on
the lid.
Assuming you are correct, that is an individual statement. It will not
be part of
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
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
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
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic regarding human rights.
With that said, it's not clear to me that saying China's policy
of
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic regarding human rights.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/09 12:17 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were arguing that it was a topic
At 02:17 PM 9/23/2009, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
BUT I am at a loss
to understand why such a statement would be a required part of our
technical discussion.
And I'm at a loss to understand why censoring such a statement (or ejecting an
individual who says it, or terminating the IETF meeting in
Mike,
My answer is that this is a judgement call and it forms part of the
decision making tree that the IAOC has to make when selecting any
venue. We have asked for community feedback in this case, and we've
received it (or we are receiving it I should say).
Personally, yes, I see the
On Sep 23, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT),
Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
So, this isn't really that useful context for the rest of the
paragraph. To take the example of encryption, I think people
were
That I can pretty much guarantee, plus a whole bunch of tasty
alternatives to cookies and of course many variants of tea.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
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)
Pete Resnick wrote:
And I'll also note again that this contract is between the hotel and the
host. The IAOC contract with either should explicitly include words
indicating that the discussion of technical topics that touch on human
rights issues are excluded from this clause.
Pete,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com wrote:
At 5:45 PM +0800 9/21/09, Peny Yang wrote:
However, IMHO, your
experience may be the story 10 years ago. I am a smoker. When I would
like to smoke, I always go find the smoking corner.
Now, in Beijing, smoking is
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are not much worse then for other countries, and an internet
connection not hampered by a
On 9/18/09 14:33, Sep 18, John G. Scudder wrote:
[T]here would also seem to be a risk of loss of productivity due to
self-censorship by people who do choose to attend.
+1
/a
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Applying the usual disclaimer- this is my personal opinion, and doesn't
reflect the views of any organization with which I may be affiliated:
I do believe this provision is counter to the values and spirit of
contribution toward the evolution of the Internet as a tool for open
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during IETF. Are you saying:
(a) No, they don't
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:10, Adam Roach a...@nostrum.com wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul
The conversation would be equally valid (and probably contain many
of the same arguments) if we were being asked to make a
substantially similar agreement to meet in, say, Ireland.
Should the
On Sep 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/21/09 09:01, Sep 21, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not really following you here. I've read the stated contract
terms and I'm concerned that they prohibit activities which may
reasonably occur during
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/22/09 12:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/18/09 14:02, Sep 18, Paul Wouters wrote:
Pre-emptively excluding countries based on culture, (perceived) bias,
or other non-technical and non-organisation arguments is wrong. So if the
visa issues are
I'm sure that's great advise from the lawyers, but you don't typically
get to negotiate clauses that are required by national law. We'd
obviously love to have it removed or reworded since this would remove
any (some?) concern, but as Ray says, it's the law.
Ole
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Adam Roach
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
