Subject: [MORG] Re: Welcome to the "MORG" mailing list

From: Dave <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:54:12 +0000

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:13:15PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

> Welcome to the [email-masked] mailing list!
> 
> To post to this list, send your email to:
> 
>   [email-masked]

okay

>                                 Note Well
> 
> Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication
> as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made
> within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF
> Contribution".  Such statements include oral statements in IETF
> sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any
> time or place, which are addressed to:
> 
>      - the IETF plenary session,
>      - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
>      - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
>      - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
>      - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any
>        working group or design team list, or any other list
>        functioning under IETF auspices,
>      - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
> 
> All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3978 (updated
> by RFC 4748) and RFC 3979.
> 
> Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
> function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
> activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context
> of this notice.
> 
> Please consult RFC 3978 (and RFC 4748) for details.
> 
> A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules
> of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG
> Statements.
> 
> A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio
> and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the
> public.

I'm not prepared to locate and read all the documents mentioned above
(especially since some don't even have their identity - much less
location - spelled out) before participating in this list.  In other
words, contrary to whatever the mysterious documents alluded to above
may have to say on the topic, this email is copyright 2007, and all
rights other than [1] are retained by the copyright holder.  You may
still have certain other rights with respect to this message granted to
you by applicable law.

If there are certain other rights that the IETF would like me to
surrender, I'm prepared to consider them on a one-by-one basis.  I can't
be expected to blindly agree to a bunch of statements referencing some
numbered RFCs, some unnumbered RFCs, and "IESG Statements," just to find
out what rights I'm being "deemed" to surrender.

Note to moderator: Please note that this message was not intended for
the list itself (although [1] allows you to post it to the list, if you
really want to for some reason), but rather for the list's RP, i.e.,
the entity "deeming" me to have agreed to a whole bunch of unnamed terms.
Unfortunately, I could not find any mention of an email address for the
list's RP, so I'm forced to use the standard list email address instead.
(The -request address is a bot, and not a very smart one at that: in
particular, it doesn't understand "Take me to your leader.")  It is my
hope that this message may be intercepted by its intended recipient,
in order to avoid OT traffic on-list.

Thanks,
 - Dave

[1]
The copyright holder expressly gives perpetual, irrevocable permission
to republish this message in its entirety (including but not limited to
the From: and Subject: headers) in any medium for any purpose.

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

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 13:14:03 +0100

On Wed May  2 21:54:12 2007, Dave wrote:
> location - spelled out) before participating in this list.

As list administrator, I'd just like to make things very clear on 
this point.

The Note Well text - which is stock text that's presented in 
sessions, on the website, and on subscription to a mailing list - is 
very clear in what it says. This isn't the right place to discuss it.

If you don't want to read the RFCs it cites, DO NOT POST.

If you read them, but don't understand them, DO NOT POST.

If you read them, but do not agree, DO NOT POST.

You may need to seek legal advice, or your employer's permission, in 
order to submit to the rules.

This is an IETF Mailing List, and any post you make to it - including 
Dave's I quote here - can be taken as an explicit agreement to the 
rules, which aren't particularly onerous, and don't just affect 
copyright, but IPR and Trademarks, too.

As for other process documents which might affect us as we work, I'll 
do my best to draw people's attention to these as and when they 
impact us - I've been trying to pull in people outside the usual IETF 
suspects, so we've hopefully got some new IETF participants here not 
well-versed in the IETF's ways.

In the meantime, since those who disagree with the Note Well can't 
post without explicitly agreeing to it, I'm assuming this topic will 
be naturally dropped. :-)

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Dave <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 00:54:35 +0000

> On Wed May  2 21:54:12 2007, Dave wrote:

Executive Summary:
Unfortunately, a legal claim made by the RP is unenforceable, if for no
other reason than the fact that I never agreed to it.  (Exercising my
Constitutional right to free speech doesn't count as "explicit agreement"
to anything other than exactly what I say, contrary to your claim below.
In just the same way, if I made a "Note Well" that by speaking within
earshot of me you "explicitely agree" to forfeit your IP interests in
anything I hear, I'd be making an equally incorrect statement that'd
be equally unenforceable (unless you actually agreed to it, of course,
in which case it'd be an unwritten contract - which is clearly not the
case here).)

> very clear in what it says. This isn't the right place to discuss it.

Correct, that's why I preferred to get in touch with the RP of the
list instead of posting to the list itself.  I'm forced to respond
on-list because it has been brought to my attention that certain legal
claims made by you on the list are incorrect, and cause me grievence by
possibly attempting to incite others to rob me of certain interests in
IP in which I lawfully hold certain interests.

> If you read them, but do not agree, DO NOT POST.

That's your prerogative as the list administrator.  The only problem is
that I may need to make this post in order to explicitely establish my
disagreement to the verbal contract presented to me when I joined, and
to warn people against attempting to unlawfully circumvent my lawfully
acquired IP rights (i.e., to break the law) in reliance on your errant
legal advice.

> order to submit to the rules.

That's true before signing any contract.  (Just so we're absolutely clear,
I never signed (verbally nor otherwise) any contract with this list nor
with any of its representatives.)  What makes this contract different
is the fact that it references certain policy documents without giving
proper reference (in fact, without even giving clear guidance on how to
identify and/or obtain said documents).  Signing open-ended contracts
is quite dangerous, since if the IETF wants a million dollars from you
tomorrow, all it needs to do is create a "Best Current Practices RFC"
or "IESG Statement" signing a million dollars of yours over to the IETF,
and then sue you for breach of contract when you refuse to pay.

> copyright, but IPR and Trademarks, too.

Note well:
If you rely on the incorrect legal advice quoted above, you may get sued.
(Infringing on somebody's lawfully acquired intellectual property rights
is not only illegal, but it can also be serious business; don't say I
didn't warn you.)

> which aren't particularly onerous

Again, since the terms of the contract aren't spelled out (or even
directly referenced, for that matter), I'd be stupid to take your word
that they "aren't particularly onerous" in your (subjective) opinion.

> well-versed in the IETF's ways.

It's very nice of you to agree to a best-effort attempt at "drawing
attention" to terms that were unnamed in the verbal contract that a
bunch of people apparently signed.  I'd be scared to sign a contract
that didn't even name all of its own terms, though, so don't expect me
to post here again, except as necessary in my judgement to safeguard
remedies available to me by applicable law (for example, to prove that
I haven't abandoned certain interests in my lawfully acquired IP).

> post without explicitly agreeing to it,

An explicit agreement to a contract requires a proactive response for the
primary purpose of expressing agreement to said contract.  It's ridiculous
to argue that anybody here explicitely agreed to the "Note Well" you
mentioned.  You may want to argue that I implicitely agreed by posting,
but my explicit disagreement is verifiable proof to the contrary.

> I'm assuming this topic will 

I'm assuming it will, too.  People who don't appreciate IP thuggery will
naturally take their IP elsewhere.

 - Dave