Subject: Response to appeal from Todd Glassey dated 26-Nov-2007

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:38:43 -0500

Mr. Glassey is appealing a two-week suspension of his ability to post to
the IPR Working Group mail list. (The appeal mentioned a three-week
suspension, but the suspension was stated to be, and in fact was, only a
two-week suspension.)

The IESG has considered the messages posted by Mr. Glassey in the three
days preceding his suspension. The IESG believes that it is important
for chairs to have relatively wide latitude in how they manage their
working groups. The IESG believes that the IPR Working Group Chair's
decision to suspend Mr. Glassey for two weeks falls within this
latitude.

Working Group Chairs need significant latitude in managing off-topic
postings to working group mail lists, because off-topic posts can
disrupt the working group. It is difficult to handle off-topic posts
according to strict rules, because some digressions are harmless and
some are beneficial (e.g. when a scope-expanding proposal is accepted).
Working Group Chairs judge when postings are disruptively off-topic.
Some ideas and guidance for Working Group Chairs can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-01-23-2008.txt.

A participant has many recourses when a discussion is ruled off-topic:
- ask briefly for broad support for the discussion, which if found
might change the chair's decision,
- document a proposal in I-D form in sufficient detail to convince
other participants of the proposal's feasibility and merit,
- raise an issue during IETF Last Call on an IETF-wide mail list,
and/or
- start a new mailing list.

In this specific case, the IESG recommends that Mr. Glassey write up any
proposals he wants the IETF to consider as Internet-Drafts before the
IPR Working Group documents reach IETF Last Call. Over the years
several people have told Mr. Glassey that his proposals will not be
considered seriously unless he writes them down in sufficient detail to
evaluate.

It is the IESG's understanding that the IPR Working Group has already
reached a consensus incompatible with the direction Mr. Glassey would
like the IETF to take. Continuing to bring up his direction as part of
other ongoing discussions in the IPR Working Group is likely to be
disruptive and unlikely to advance Mr. Glassey's cause.

The appeal and its suggestion of disciplinary action for Harald
Alvestrand are denied.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:16:53 -0800

God I haven't laughed this hard in ages.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "IESG Secretary" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:38 PM
Subject: Response to appeal from Todd Glassey dated 26-Nov-2007

> suspension, but the suspension was stated to be, and in fact was, only a

Unfortunately for the IESG this failure to address this matter PRIOR to the 
expiry means that the IESG's appeal process is useless since it cannot 
restore those lost instances of participation nor is the party who appeals a 
matter allowed any process of participating in those matters which they were 
excluded from making the appeal process a total waste of time and a lie, 
since it cannot prevent the damages from happening to anyone.

Since the Appeal process doesnt block those matters and provides NO recourse 
for the participation lost, the process is more than broken, its a lie.

> disrupt the working group.

Because you have formally stated here that the IESG allows WG Chairs 'a 
large leaveway' in deterimining what is and is not "off topic" you WILL need 
to prove in a court of law how this disruption costs the group and whether 
the expressing of opinions which are contrary to those of the WG 
Management's actions

> It is difficult to handle off-topic posts

Apparently according to the above language this is irrelevant since the WG 
Chair can rule that matter off topic and prevent the vote on that from 
taking place.

> other participants of the proposal's feasibility and merit,

Again - with the IETF's current process this isnt possible and is more of 
the IETF's Lie's about its Appeal Process and its effectivity.

> - start a new mailing list.

Starting a New Mailing List is also impossible without a formal sponsor at 
the IESG level or AD level since that would require a number of approvals 
from people's who's empires would be lessened by allowing others to build 
Mailing Lists and WG's from efforts that violated the intent of other WG 
Chairs as to their empires.

> IPR Working Group documents reach IETF Last Call.

> Over the years

What has that to do with proposals to extend or change the focus of the WG? 
Also since the IETF has no duty to publish and filing means that the loss of 
the Ownership of the IP is also done as well, then this makes no sense - nor 
will it when we get this matter to a court if that is necessary.

> like the IETF to take.

The problem with the IPR-WG is that they dont want to be bound by US Law... 
they have made that abundantly clear. This is an instance where the IETF is 
fostering instances where US IP Law is being violated and its time that 
those IETF Members and the IESG were held accountable for this IMHO.

> Continuing to bring up his direction as part of

meaning that any discussing of an opinion which is contrary to the WG Chairs 
qualifies as "Disruptive"... I suggest you get your lawyers ready folks.
> The appeal and its suggestion of disciplinary action for Harald

Then I will need to have formally defined ALL of the votes on this, who 
those IESG member's represent formally, and who are their points of formal 
service.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:18:29 -0800

Oops typo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Todd Glassey dated 26-Nov-2007

> Unfortunately for the IESG this failure to address this matter PRIOR to 
> the expiry means that the IESG's appeal process is useless since it cannot 
> restore those lost instances of participation nor is the party who appeals 
> a matter allowed any process of participating in those matters which they 
> were excluded from making the appeal process a total waste of time and a 
> lie, since it cannot prevent the damages from happening to anyone.
>
> Since the Appeal process doesnt block those matters and provides NO 
> recourse for the participation lost, the process is more than broken, its 
> a lie.
>
>>
> large leaveway' in deterimining what is and is not "off topic" you WILL 
> need to prove in a court of law how this disruption costs the group and 
> whether the expressing of opinions which are contrary to those of the WG 
> Management's actions

is enough to have one excluded from an effort or a WG.

> What has that to do with proposals to extend or change the focus of the 
> WG? Also since the IETF has no duty to publish and filing means that the 
> loss of the Ownership of the IP is also done as well, then this makes no 
> sense - nor will it when we get this matter to a court if that is 
> necessary.
>
>>
> The problem with the IPR-WG is that they dont want to be bound by US 
> Law... they have made that abundantly clear. This is an instance where the 
> IETF is fostering instances where US IP Law is being violated and its time 
> that those IETF Members and the IESG were held accountable for this IMHO.
>
> meaning that any discussing of an opinion which is contrary to the WG 
> Chairs qualifies as "Disruptive"... I suggest you get your lawyers ready 
> folks.
>>