I am going to assume that such a presentation would be largerly
technical, a case study with some political overtones, but technical
nonetheless. I would not expect this to get you in trouble, no.
A very basic problem with these sorts of assurances is that they are being made
by people who do, and cannot, not speak for the government or hotel management.
We really need to avoid the tendency to idealize what can go wrong or right,
particularly in the absence of serious information.
We need to avoid the desire to interpret the language or possible actions
according to what we, ourselves, might do. We need to interpret things from the
perspective of the folks who will be the principal actors, defined in the
agreement. These actors are have hugely different perspectives and priorities
from most of the rest of us.
We also need to assume that reality will be more nuanced than an organized
public demonstration or a platoon of police shutting the meeting down. Problems
are likely to be more individual and more quiet. That does not make the
problems less or more serious. Just serious.
What we have in front of us is some pretty plain language:
contents of the Group's activities, visual or audio
presentations...contain
any defamation against the Government of the People's Republic
of China, or
show any disrespect to the Chinese culture, or
violates any laws of the People's Republic of China or
feature any topics regarding human rights or religion
...
Hotel reserves the right to terminate the event
...
Hotel will claim compensation from the Client
Some of the assurances folks have offered are based on conditions not required
or covered by this language. For example, this does not refer to, or imply, an
organized protest, as some folk have tried to suggest.
Let's be very clear:
This allows the Hotel to shut the meeting down, according to its
interpretation of things -- not ours or the government's -- and to charge the
IETF for having done it.
Let's also be clear:
1. We often are highly disrespectful. As a group, we really suck at being
careful.
2. Technical discussions often must discuss usage policies and, as has been
repeatedly noted, some legitimate IETF topics run smack into national privacy
and human rights issues. Take this simple fact and match it with our indelicacy
and the odds are high that there will be comments that violate multiple terms of
the contract.
As with others, I cannot fathom the line of logic that says this unique set of
contract conditions will be ignored.
I also cannot fathom claims that the legitimacy or utility of the IETF depends
upon where we hold our meetings. I don't recall seeing that in any of our
documents and I don't recall its being discussed over the last 15 years. Over
these many discussions about venue, concerns about venues have /always/ reduced
down to preferences of the host, rather than utility or legitimacy of the IETF.
The fact that some folk are now casting things in terms of utility or legitimacy
-- or in terms of the IETF's being some sort of ambassador of the Internet --
appears to be spontaneously generated. That reduces both their utility and
their legitimacy.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
