Subject: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:21:05 -0500

IESG Response to the claim of Continued Abuse of Process by IPR-WG Chair

Introduction

   On Wednesday, December 26, 2007, Dean Anderson issued an appeal
   claiming continued abuse of process by the IETF IPR WG Chair, Harald
   Alvestrand.

   The appeal is terse to the point of making it difficult to
   understand.  The IESG believes that the appeal covers the following
   points.

   1.  The IPR WG Chair has declared one side of a debate off-topic
   within the IPR WG.  The appeal cites messages addressed to Todd
   Glassey and Simon Josefsson from Harald.

   2.  The IPR WG Chair suspended Todd Glassey for asserting reasonable
   arguments contrary to the viewpoints of the IPR WG Chair and Brian
   Carpenter.

   3.  The IPR WG Chair suspended Dean Anderson for asserting reasonable
   arguments contrary to the viewpoints of the IPR WG chair and Brian
   Carpenter.

   4.  That the two suspensions are contrary to the law governing
   corporations, since a vote of the membership to suspend or expel
   members was not taken.

   5.  The listed actions by the IPR WG Chair represent a pattern of
   harassment and intimidation.

   Dean also proposes a remedy.  Dean suggests the removal of Harald as
   IPR WG Chair.

   Each of these points in addressed in turn.

Declaring one side of a debate off topic -- Todd Glassey

   When the IPR WG was formed, it was an appropriate place to discuss
   the transfer of rights to the IETF.  This topic was discussed at
   length, and it is listed in the IPR WG Issue Tracker as issue #1197.
   The issue was raised by Todd Glassey in February 2006, received
   advice from counsel in March 2006, and was closed in April 2006 after
   an IPR WG Last Call.

   It is clear that the IPR WG considered Todd's alternate model for the
   transfer of rights to the IETF, and that after sufficient discussion,
   Todd's proposal was rejected.  This decision is reflected in the
   current IPR WG documents.

   Despite this history, Todd's postings to the IPR WG mail list
   indicate that he has not accepted the idea that rights are not
   transferred to the IETF; rather, Todd's postings indicate that it
   ought to be self-evident that rights are indeed transferred to the
   IETF.  Todd has expressed this view in multiple ways in many
   messages.  The IESG supports the IPR WG Chair in his decision that
   this issue has been adequately discussed and declaring further
   discussion to be counterproductive and off-topic.

Declaring one side of a debate off topic -- Simon Josefsson

   On the IPR WG mail list, Simon Josefsson has been strongly advocating
   that the IETF should grant licenses in its documents.  Simon wants
   the text and code in IETF document to be easily incorporated in works
   released under open-source licenses, including the GPL.  Simon gained
   a lot of support for his position regarding code, but there was an
   equal and opposite concern.  Unless code can be shown to be free of
   restrictions in license, such as the GPL "copyleft" requirement,
   implementers who were not willing to use copylefted code would be
   unable to use the code given as examples in IETF documents.

   The issue was debated on the IPR WG mail list for a long time, and
   many issues were revisited during the discussion.  Eventually a
   compromise emerged.  Under the compromise, text and code are treated
   differently.  The document text can be copied, extracted, and
   translated, but it cannot be modified.  The code contained in
   documents can be copied, modified, and used without restriction.  To
   offer this capability, code included in IETF documents must be
   unencumbered.  As a result, the doctrine of "no additional copyright
   statements" was upheld by the IPR WG, and the language was clarified
   to state that the submitter must ensure that they are able to warrant
   that no restrictions exist on them being able to make the grant of
   rights involved.

   The IPR WG documents that contain this compromise went to IPR WG Last
   Call, and no issue was raised against this compromise position.
   However, Simon resumed his argument that the IETF should allow GPLed
   code to be included in IETF documents, which would violate the
   compromise.  The IESG supports the IPR WG Chair in his decision that
   this issue has been adequately discussed and declaring further
   discussion to be counterproductive and off-topic.

Suspension of Todd Glassey from IPR WG mail list

   The suspension of Todd Glassey from the IPR WG mail list is the
   subject of another appeal to the IESG.  That appeal will be handled
   separately.

Suspension of Dean Anderson from IPR WG mail list

   Dean Anderson posted messages to the IPR WG mail list containing
   extreme accusations on matters that are not enlightening for the IPR
   WG's active topics.  Following these messages, Harald suspended
   Dean's posting rights.  The suspension message included these words:

   > I have noted that a few messages sent by Dean Anderson
<[email-masked]>
   > to this list were not in a tone expected for conversation on IETF
lists.
   >
   > Dean Anderson is also the subject of an in-power PR-Action:
   >
<
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html>

   >
   > Under the procedures of RFC 3683, I have suspended his posting
   > privilleges to the IPR-WG mailing list.

   As indicated in the message from Harald, Dean is the subject of an
   in-force PR-Action for the IETF mail list.  This action was taken by
   the IESG, following the procedure in RFC 3683, which also states in
   Section 2:

      If approved by the IESG, then:

      o  those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
         that IETF mailing list removed; and,

      o  maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
         also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.

   RFC 3683 imposes no preconditions for removing the posting rights.
   Nevertheless, this action was taken only after Dean posted
   inappropriate messages to the IPR WG mail list.

   The IESG believes that the IPR WG Chair acted properly.  Dean was
   making personal attacks, making convoluted legal arguments, and
   threatening legal action.  The PR-action was instituted to stop these
   derogatory messages.

Contrary to the law governing corporations

   Dean's assertion is based on a theory that the IETF is a membership
   corporation.  Of course, the IETF is not a membership corporation, so
   no such vote is possible.  The IETF has no members.

Pattern of harassment and intimidation

   The IESG finds the actions of the IPR WG Chair, Harald Alvestrand, to
   be consistent with IETF policies and procedures.  All of the listed
   actions were very public.  The IESG finds no harassment or
   intimidation.

Conclusion

   For the reasons provided above, the appeal is denied.

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:33:10 -0800

This is pretty close to what I expected. Will the vote of the IETF and IESG 
members be made public so that we can see who is voting what way or will 
other actions be necessary to gain that disclosure.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:05:02 +0100

todd glassey wrote:

> This is pretty close to what I expected.

Did you bother to read it anyway ?  Quote:

| Of course, the IETF is not a membership corporation,
| so no such vote is possible.  The IETF has no members.

> Will the vote of the IETF and IESG members
> be made public so that we can see who is
> voting what

IESG appeal discussions aren't public, they're
excluded from the "narrative minutes", compare
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.html>
for older examples.  JFTR, I figured this out
wrt SenderID and LTRU appeals two years ago.

 Frank

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:20:16 -0500

Todd:

All Area Directors were present for the discussion, and the appeal 
response was approved unanimously.

Russ

At 05:33 PM 1/15/2008, todd glassey wrote:
>This is pretty close to what I expected. Will the vote of the IETF 
>and IESG members be made public so that we can see who is voting 
>what way or will other actions be necessary to gain that disclosure.
>
>Todd Glassey
>----- Original Message ----- From: "IESG Secretary" <[email-masked]>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:11:20 -0800

Russ,
thanks for your response but I think you missed the point of the question. 
It was not who was present for this particular vote but how does the 
IETF/IESG document the actions of its Board?

What we need a process which document's the votes of those in control of the 
IETF/IESG/IAB and the Oversight Committee's for "any and all matters" & that 
is something that is not negotiable IMHO.

As to why - The IETF and its management needs to be 100% accountable for its 
actions and as a "transparent organization" licensed under the ISOC 
corporation umbrella to operate in the public interest, as such, any and all 
matters submitted to the Management including Complaints MUST be public. The 
reason is that ARIN and the IETF (and to a large extent) the ISOC entity 
exists because of the NTIA MOU, and that means that this entity, and ALL of 
the ISOC is subject to Qui Tam provisions as well.

It also means that the IETF 's operations must comply with the new Federal 
Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in all its 
operations...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

>>This is pretty close to what I expected. Will the vote of the IETF and 
>>IESG members be made public so that we can see who is voting what way or 
>>will other actions be necessary to gain that disclosure.
>>
>>Todd Glassey

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:29:01 -0500

Todd:

The fact that this action was approved will appear in the minutes for 
the meeting that took place last Thursday.  The minutes for that 
meeting will be approved on January 24th, and they will posted 
shortly afterwards.  The discussion associated with all appeals takes 
place in executive session, so there are no minutes of the deliberations.

Russ

At 06:11 PM 1/16/2008, todd glassey wrote:
>Russ,
>thanks for your response but I think you missed the point of the 
>question. It was not who was present for this particular vote but 
>how does the IETF/IESG document the actions of its Board?
>
>What we need a process which document's the votes of those in 
>control of the IETF/IESG/IAB and the Oversight Committee's for "any 
>and all matters" & that is something that is not negotiable IMHO.
>
>As to why - The IETF and its management needs to be 100% accountable 
>for its actions and as a "transparent organization" licensed under 
>the ISOC corporation umbrella to operate in the public interest, as 
>such, any and all matters submitted to the Management including 
>Complaints MUST be public. The reason is that ARIN and the IETF (and 
>to a large extent) the ISOC entity exists because of the NTIA MOU, 
>and that means that this entity, and ALL of the ISOC is subject to 
>Qui Tam provisions as well.
>
>It also means that the IETF 's operations must comply with the new 
>Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
>in all its operations...
>
>Todd Glassey
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:52:14 -0500

--On Wednesday, 16 January, 2008 15:11 -0800 todd glassey
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> The reason is that ARIN and the IETF (and to a large extent)
> the ISOC entity exists because of the NTIA MOU, and that means
> that this entity, 
>...

An interesting theory, given that ARIN, the IETF, and ISOC all
existed, and operated essentially the way they do today, long
before "the NTIA MOU" (by which I presume you mean the agreement
between NTIA and ICANN, which is not an MOU).  ARIN is somewhat
affected by ICANN's coming into existence (a tad over ten years
ago), but the others were not and are not, except in the
extremely narrow respect of where the IANA is housed.

    john

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:59:25 -0800

Ahahahaha - you crack me up with your technical response - I guess that 
Technology is exempt from the Law - eh John... We will see.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>; 
"Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

> between NTIA and ICANN, which is not an MOU).

That's funny, J. Beckwith Burr, the NTIA's counsel who signed the agreement 
called it that a number of times.  So did ICANN's Attorney who also signed 
it (Joe Sims).
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm

> ARIN is somewhat

Except that they are all managed through the operations of the IETF and 
administered in policy and process through the submission of RFC's by 
member's of the IETF which are then applied by the IESG,  as is the IANA 
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt) so guess what - I am betting you 
are wrong.

This *** is *** a house of cards and it will all topple sooner or later 
IMHO.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:43:13 -0800

Russ - Dean and I disagree on a number of things here, but not on 
accountability. The IETF and IESG needs to be civilly and possibly 
criminally liable for the laws and policies it breaks. Being technology 
wizards doesn't give the IETF or the IESG the sanction or right to step on 
rights from others or break the law.

More inline below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

> Todd:
>
> The fact that this action was approved will appear in the minutes for the 
> meeting that took place last Thursday.

"That is to say 'approved without any accountability'".

> The minutes for that meeting will be approved on January 24th, and they 
> will poFrom [email-masked] Wed Jan 16 21:00:52 2008
From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>, "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>,
	"Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:59:25 -0800
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>; 

> extremely narrow respect of where the IANA is housed.

Excsted shortly afterwards.

Ah yes - the secret procedings  sorta creates the IETF's own "FISA Judge's 
Tribunal" which IMHO that is very inappropriate unless all the votes and a 
record of the discussion leading up to the vote is made available.  It is 
those conversations and what takes place inside them that is what those who 
those conversations are about are entitled to know.

The fact that this information is formally withheld from all those its 
applied to is another issue and a liability for this IETF and its 
successors.

> The discussion associated with all appeals takes place in executive 
> session, so there are no minutes of the deliberations.

It makes the content of those actions secret and that is unacceptable. The 
question is what it takes to bring the responsibility of accountability to 
the IETF and how long it will be before that happens.

> Russ

SNIP

Todd 

ept that they are all managed through the operations of the IETF and 
administered in policy and process through the submission of RFC's by 
member's of the IETF which are then applied by the IESG,  as is the IANA 
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt) so guess what - I am betting you 
are wrong.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:43:13 -0800

More inline below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Response to appeal from Dean Anderson dated 26-Dec-2007

> will posted shortly afterwards.

SNIP

Todd