On 1/31/2010 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

Thanks.  I think I understand your position clearly now.

Russ

On 1/31/2010 3:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 14:20 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley <at> vigilsec.com>  wrote:

...
I agree with your observation about "norms".  You seem to
think that coming to consensus on words that describe them is
not going to be easy.

Actually, I don't have an opinion about that.  It would
certainly be easy to say "no harvesting", for example.

I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the
consensus.

I agree with that position.  I also agree with you that
complaining, or even making suggestions, in the absence of an
I-D that proposes specific changes and that could be considered
for adoption as a BCP is a waste of everyone's time.

The problem is that as the management of the IETF you are responsible for intentionally putting grossly incompetent practice into place whether it was voted in by a bunch List Members of not.

Todd

However, I was trying to reason another step ahead and consider
what steps we might take if such an I-D were actually written.
I was suggesting that, however easy it might be to formulate
words, generating a BCP (or other clear evidence of consensus)
inevitably takes considerable resources.  Let me try to say that
differently.

I  believe that

    (1) It would not be useful to expend those resources
    unless we had a reasonable expectations that, e.g., a
    change to the Note Well would actually change behavior
    of anyone who is deliberately and consciously ignoring
    the unwritten norms today.
    
    (2) Those who have been harvesting names from the IETF
    lists are almost certainly aware of those norms and are
    deliberately violating them for what they consider more
    important purposes.
    
    (3) That implies that our trying to adjust the Note Well
    (presumably by formulating a new BCP) is not worth the
    effort --no matter how difficult or easy we believe
    finding the right words would be-- unless the Trust
    and/or ISOC were committed to litigation against those
    who were harvesting the IETF (or WG) list(s) and had
    already concluded, on advice of Counsel, that such
    litigation had good odds of success if the Note Well
    text were changed.

To summarize, I do not believe that the IESG should either
assign the task for creating such a BCP to this WG or another
one, or consider a Last Call for an individual submission BCP,
unless a conclusion has first been reached that such a BCP would
be a good foundation for litigation and that the IETF (or
someone on the IETF's behalf) would, in fact, litigate.

Is that more clear?
    john

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 01/31/10 06:39:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On 2/1/2010 11:32 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, tglassey wrote:

On 2/1/2010 9:35 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

   "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

Lucy do you and the rest of the TRUST members accept formal legal liability for this decision and any damage it causes relying parties? Because if the answer is NO then I put it to you that you in fact are liable as an officer of the Trust... and since NO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS policy can be put in place to cover damages from unenforceable contracts you have a sua sponte responsibility to get it right the first time.

Todd -

I'm no longer a member of the IAOC and hence no longer an officer of the
IETF Trust. I'm just another volunteer - speaking with no hats on.

Unfortunately your fiduciary role doesnt end there - I suggest you speak with Jorge about this formally.

Todd

- Lucy

Todd Glassey

This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On 2/1/2010 9:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 09:15 -0800 tglassey <tglassey <at> glassey.com> wrote:

... Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise they cause. ...

Todd, I think the paragraph above exactly captures where we disagree. I can think of no possible way by which the IETF would acquire, or could reasonably claim, enough legislative authority to "outlaw" anything, much less enough of the right sorts of authority to enforce such laws.

John this is the problem it doesnt take any legislative authority to tell people that cannot harvest addresses from IETF Technology Publications and you know it. This IS THE REAL PROBLEM THE IETF HAS and its about where the organizations collective head is placed not - let me say a little more - it is doubtful that a window crank would do any good here either IMHO.

If there were a legal context that said 'if an organization says "don't use our mailing list for so-and-so", it is a crime to do so and the state will enforce violations', we would be having a very different conversation. But, as far as I know --and, unlike, e.g., some anti-harassment statutes about uses of the PSTN-- there is no such statutory context.

Which means that it is formally within the USES AUTHORIZED by the IETF to send any email to any of those addresses for any purposes. It is the IETF who as a collective and the IPR WG in particular that made this decision for all of the IETF and it is now in place. That says a lot of really bad things about the IETF and the people here in this WG and its pretty much cut in stone - the issue is how to fix it and whether it will take litigation against the people in management here at the IETF to wake you folks up.

I suggest that it may be closer than you think and that you all are accountable for the damages you have done with what I consider to be this WG's grossly incompetent actions. Sorry but accountability is something new for many here but its a thing that is going to stay with us all.

Todd

Without that context --or somehow declaring the Internet as a country that we govern and raising an army to support that claim-- I think the most we could possibly do (even with consensus and a BCP) would be to scatter statements around that indicate that we consider certain kinds of behavior abusive and as violating terms and conditions that people implicitly agree to by subscribing to, or looking at the archives of, our lists _and_ then trying civil litigation against anyone who violated those norms. My opinion on that subject is probably clear from my prior notes. But "outlawing" something requires the ability to make laws, doing it meaningfully requires the ability to enforce laws, and the IETF just doesn't have that sort of power or authority. john _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On 2/1/2010 9:35 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

   "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

Lucy do you and the rest of the TRUST members accept formal legal liability for this decision and any damage it causes relying parties? Because if the answer is NO then I put it to you that you in fact are liable as an officer of the Trust... and since NO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS policy can be put in place to cover damages from unenforceable contracts you have a sua sponte responsibility to get it right the first time.

Todd Glassey

This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On 2/1/2010 9:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 09:15 -0800 tglassey <tglassey <at> glassey.com> wrote:

... Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise they cause. ...

Todd, I think the paragraph above exactly captures where we disagree. I can think of no possible way by which the IETF would acquire, or could reasonably claim, enough legislative authority to "outlaw" anything, much less enough of the right sorts of authority to enforce such laws.

The problem John is that the IETF cannot change legal standards because they offend the technology crowd herein.

If there were a legal context that said 'if an organization says "don't use our mailing list for so-and-so", it is a crime to do so and the state will enforce violations', we would be having a very different conversation.

There is if the IP rights specified do not allow for it. The problem is that the people who designed the participation and use process ignored the issue of the EMAIL ADDRESSES - it was specifically brought up and in bringing it up I earned one of Harald's unwarranted and un-opposable suspensions which the IESG supported so the issue here is liability and it doesnt matter whether you personally claim you are not liable you in fact are.

Sorry but the IETF cannot put its head in the sand and claim "It wasn't our fault - we said we were not liable and you cannot touch us because we are technologists" - which from my perspective is why the IETF is in the position its in here...

Todd Glassey

But, as far as I know --and, unlike, e.g., some anti-harassment statutes about uses of the PSTN-- there is no such statutory context. Without that context --or somehow declaring the Internet as a country that we govern and raising an army to support that claim-- I think the most we could possibly do (even with consensus and a BCP) would be to scatter statements around that indicate that we consider certain kinds of behavior abusive and as violating terms and conditions that people implicitly agree to by subscribing to, or looking at the archives of, our lists _and_ then trying civil litigation against anyone who violated those norms. My opinion on that subject is probably clear from my prior notes. But "outlawing" something requires the ability to make laws, doing it meaningfully requires the ability to enforce laws, and the IETF just doesn't have that sort of power or authority. john No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On 2/1/2010 12:38 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations.

The *-honest lists are not outside the purposes of the WG's operations. Instead, they facilitate WG operations by preventing dishonest censorship from interfering with communications among WG members. --Dean

DEAN - you are to permanently cease and desist from sending me anything. No email, no SMS messaging, no phone calls, or I will seek a TRO against you for spamming me and refusing to stop those actions after being thrown out of the group. You are not allowed to harvest my name from any IETF Lists or use it for anything.

Are we clear?

Todd Glassey

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg