Subject: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:27:36 -0700

I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that
talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and
RFC's.

I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety.

Todd Glassey

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:09:41 -0400

--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 12:27 -0700 todd glassey
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and
> the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the
> reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's.
> 

To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or
as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which "ISO"
would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or
agreement.  For such a thing to exist, there would almost
certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and
either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist
either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted
to make it happen).

Where do you get these ideas?  

And please see my earlier comments about your "rights" in these
issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the
agreement and documents did exist.

   john

---

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:20:51 -0700

John,

Please remember with me back to the mid-1990s when ISO sent official
liaison reps to the IETF. The way I recall (perhaps incorrectly) things
working back then was that from the ISO perspective, these were official
liaison reps formally sanctioned according to ISO processes but from our
perspective they were technical people representing themselves just like
anybody else in the IETF. 

We still have liaison activities happening today. For example, at the
NSIS WG meeting in Montreal, individuals mentioned the actions they were
personally taking to keep NSIS in synch with specific 3GPP activities.
My point being that just because we don't formally recognize liaisons
doesn't mean that individuals do not perform informal liaison services
on their own volition.

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF 
> that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF 
> Standards and RFC's.
> 

To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a
member of one or two of the mailing lists on which "ISO" would have
needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement.  For such
a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal
liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that
agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the
years, attempted to make it happen).

And please see my earlier comments about your "rights" in these issues
generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and
documents did exist.

   john

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:08:45 -0700

Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's Corporate-Government Liaison,
who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to
ask.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to
see it...

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:36:27 -0700

Eric I proposed a long time ago that we create a new IESG Role and was a
Director of Liaisons and it of course, was shot down. Maybe in this more ...
tolerant climate today (nasbcih) it should be reviewed again. Its likely to
be one of the more powerful and long-term IETF/IESG role's as well IMHO...

As to ISO people being here, ISO has always been friendly to the IETF but
there does need to be a formal bridge between the entities.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF- I want to
see it...

John,

--Eric

-----Original Message-----

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:19:38 -0400

--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 14:08 -0700 todd glassey
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's
> Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable
> attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask.

I am not questioning the reputation of whomever you talked with
or heard from.  But, if the question is about a formal
relationship or agreement between the IETF and ISO, at the ISO
level, whomever gave you that information (while popping up or
otherwise) is either confused or mistaken.  I can't begin to
speculate on which of those two it is without knowing either the
context in which the information was given or the question that
was asked which produced it, or both.  Even then, I'm unlikely
to do so because I really, personally, don't care.

Let me try to say this again, in a different way:

* You don't "have to ask".  You can certainly decide to ask, and
have obviously done so but, to my knowledge, no one has imposed
that requirement on you in a way that leaves you no choice.

* You don't have any inherent "right" to this information.  You
might reasonably take the position that, unless  the information
is supplied, you will decline to participate further in any
IETF-related processes or to contribute to IETF mailing lists,
but that possible decision to not participate is the limit of
your "rights", at least absent a court order to the IETF to
disclose documents.  If you believe you need such a court order
to obtain information, please go get it and find someone on whom
to serve it: at least in this area, threats are largely wasted
on most of us.

* Independent of issues about "rights", the IETF has made a
voluntary commitment to openness about its processes and
agreements.  You have the same right as any other interested
party to seek information out in RFCs, on the website, etc.
And, insofar as you are an IETF participant, you have the
"right" to make suggestions about how access to that information
might be improved. 

* In large measure, I believe, because of concerns that others
might be similarly confused or interested in the answers, I, and
others, have voluntarily tried to respond to many of your
questions and to attempt to correct various of your
misconceptions.  We -- neither those who are part of the IETF
leadership nor those of us who are not-- are not in any way
obligated to do so and, at least in my case, my inclination to
respond is in spite of your insistence on rights that I don't
believe exist and a sometimes-demanding and/or abusive or
accusatory tone, not because of them.   The fact that various of
us have sometimes, indeed often, responded constructively and
with tutorial or equivalent information to your comments does
not give you any "right" to personalized tutorials or
corrections of your misconceptions.  At the level of our
obligations to you, if you have misconceptions, you are welcome
to them, at least absence evidence that you have diligently done
your homework before making strong assertions (or, for that
matter, giving legal advice).

   john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:24:16 +0200

I apologise for this message having reached the list,
since the person who sent it is currently supposed to have
his posting rights suspended. An administrative issue.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:50:46 -0700

> who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to
Google searching seems to indicate that this role belongs to Michael 
Aisenberg. I suggest that anyone who cares to pursue this rumour go 
verify with him what he tried to say.

There are Verisign people on this list who can ask him for clarification.

(Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly 
what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared 
text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU; 
it's an ITU description of its internal procedures.  It's possible that 
ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.)

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:47:03 -0400

> ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.)

Err, no, I wouldn't call RFC 3356 a Memo of Understanding.  (Remember,
you're answering a question that was posed by someone who tends to be
extremely legalistic and who likes to issue legal advice without being
a lawyer.  So, you have to be very careful about your terms.)

In general, a Memorandum of Understanding is generally understood to
be documenting points that were made after some negotiation which
generally has the force of a contract.  It is sometimes thought of a
as a simple contract, and the term probably started as a way of
evading legal review by a company's legal department by not calling
itself a contract, but just "a memo of understanding" between to
company's representatives.  But over time it has acquired the
connotation of something fairly formal and generally legally binding.
For example of this, take a look at RFC 2860, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority", which was written in the style of a contract and
signed by Fred Baker (IETF chair), Brian Carpenter (IAB chair), and
Mike Roberts (President, ICANN) as such.

In contrast, RFC 3356 is not legally binding, and in fact describes
itself as a document providing "guidance to aid in the understanding"
--- where understanding is generally of mapping the meaning of words
and organizational structures between the two organizations' cultures
("you say lorry, we say truck"), and suggestions about how to work
together ("mailing Word documents to an IETF list is discouraged").
However, it is NOT a legal document that is formally agreed-to by both
sides, but rather an explication of each party's existing policies and
procedures so the two organizations might be able to work together
effectively.

If you look at the tenor of RFC 3356 and RFC 2860, you will hopefully
see there is a massive difference between the intent and style of thw
two documents, and in fact RFC 3356 says nowhere that it is a MOU.

						- Ted