Subject: RE: [Ltru] Last call: IANA adaptation of the UN disclaimer

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:55:58 -0700

Yes, I think Randy's findings on the lack of this type of text in other 
registries validates our initial gut instinct that this was a political 
rather than technical statement -- whether we generally agree with its 
content or not. If there is a disclaimer to be made, I think that 
IANA/ICANN is the one to draft the text and perhaps it should be in the 
context of all registries managed by the organization. 

+1

Karen Broome

"Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/15/2005 02:51 PM

        To:     <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [Ltru] Last call: IANA adaptation of the UN disclaimer

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn

> As a technical contributor, I think there adding this text contributes
no value
> to the document, and could in the longer term be harmful, regardless
of
> its benign intent and content.

I'll gladly defer to your judgment on this.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:46:48 +0200

At 00:55 16/07/2005, [email-masked] wrote:
>rather than technical statement

Dear Karen,
The matter of the RFC 3066 is political. And it is qualified as such. The 
question is: is it technically necessary. The response is obviously "no". 
Multiple specialised tags would far better address the need. The langtag 
only introduce an arbitrary correlation not wanted by the ISO Members.

The IETF system makes that in the WG you cannot remove text, just add text. 
Since I cannot remove the whole text, I just keep proposing correct things. 
When they oppose they build a good case to refuse the whole thing 
afterward. I am sorry for that, but there is no other way foreseen by the 
Internet standard process to kill a detrimental proposition.

>-- whether we generally agree with its
>content or not. If there is a disclaimer to be made,

There is a disclaimer to be made. No one expect it to be perfect (see next 
comment). My target was just to illustrate the doctrine of this WG.  This 
WG documents an absolute Registry (the Registries quoted by Randy are 
absolute: they create their codes). Randy, Peter and you show that you do 
not care about the copyrights of ISO and UN. As if you were removing the 
copyright mentions when you paste an Open Source piece of code.

>I think that IANA/ICANN is the one to draft the text and perhaps it should 
>be in the context of all registries managed by the organization.

Do not worry: this is exactly what will happen. The Registry will be 
published by the new IANA director (Doug Barton is quitting) under legal 
responsibility of ICANN and ISOC (IASA). So, there is a long, long legal 
debate ahead. This particular response about the UN disclaimer will 
probably be an important point for the lawyers of IANA, ISOC and ISO.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:23:17 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 5:46 PM
...
> The IETF system makes that in the WG you cannot remove text, just add text.

False.  There have been proposals to delete specific text, and some have
been adopted by this WG.

> Internet standard process to kill a detrimental proposition.

False.  For example, a WG can request that an item be removed from its charter.
This has happened in the past.

...
> copyright mentions when you paste an Open Source piece of code.

False.  If we were imitating the structure of the ISO or UN directories, such
a claim might almost be plausible.  With a differing organization of data,
the omission of some elements, the addition of other elements,
and a differing scope of application, any claim of copyright infringement
would be rather far-fetched.  If you have experts in IPR law who would
like to opine on this topic, please forward the mailing list address to them.

> probably be an important point for the lawyers of IANA, ISOC and ISO.
...

Out of scope.
This (if it exists) is not our problem solve.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:27:29 +0200

Dear Randy,
Half reading or constantly misconstruing what I say helps me a lot with 
reviewers.

>False.  There have been proposals to delete specific text, and some have

"A is not possible"/"Yes AB is possible" is usefull for me with legal 
reviewers.

>This has happened in the past.

"AB is not possible"/"Yes B is possible" is good too.
All the more than you take as an example my ignorance of a procedure I 
proposed (you ... oppose) in the next mail.

>would be rather far-fetched.

Thank you for so exactly describing your intent to tamper with the intended 
usage of the codes.

>If you have experts in IPR law who would like to opine on this topic, 
>please forward the mailing list address to them.

I described many times my policy and my reasons. Each thing in its time, 
and budget.

>This (if it exists) is not our problem solve.

Thank you for acknowledging this. You just saved hours of legal demonstration.
jfc