Subject: Question about the folks providing the WG Mailing List services?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:04:19 -0700

I want to ask some questions about the 3rd parties who are providing the
IETF's WG's with their Mailing List services... (This posting is appropriate
to both lists since the Mailing List Archive represents a considerable
amount of the IETF IP that it claims it is controlling here in IPR). So...
about that IP and its management:

    1)    Are there contracts between the IETF and the Mailing List
providers with a SLA for their services?
    1a)    If so how was this setup; who reviews these contracts; and what
is in them?
    1b)    How is oversight for the list and its publications done?

    2)    What are the email and standards process retention records
    2a)    are there setup requirements for email??? - for example: reverse
address resolution as a basic authentication for submissions?

    3)    What constitutes those materials which are subject to Retention.

    4)    Is there a standard set of List Participation Rules for the IETF
and for specific lists?
    4a)    who is responsible for the Stakeholder Disclosure and how is it
accomplished and documented?

    5)    When participation in List Processes is changed by the IETF or the
List Provider
    5a)    who is responsible for the Stakeholder Disclosure and how is it
accomplished and documented?

Todd Glassey

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

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:10:06 -0700

Todd:

 From www.ietf.org, click on "mailing lists", and you will find (as  
you look around) a number of things about our mailing lists.

The secretariat offers services under a contract managed through ISOC/ 
IASA, as described in BCP 101. I'm sure if you ask the IAD, he can  
discuss that contract with you.

Many IETF working group and BOF lists are handled independently from  
the secretariat's services.

RFC 3878/3879 tell us some things about these mailing lists. In  
general, these are open lists, although many of them are moderated.  
The moderated lists will generally allow list members to post to  
them, use a simple nuisance procedures to discourage spam sites from  
joining them, and when posts are made that are on-topic by non- 
members the posts are forwarded to the list by the moderator. List  
archiving is encouraged and is carried out on all IETF-maintained lists.

As to the rest of this, I think I need to know where you're trying to  
go with the discussion before I attempt to discuss "good will"  
further. The IETF fundamentally operates on good will, but I  
sometimes get the idea that this concept is somewhat foreign in legal  
circles - and this note seems to really want list management to not  
be a matter of good will.

On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:04 AM, todd glassey wrote:

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:13:28 -0700

Fred

This is not an answer to the questions asked - but I assume those answers
are "Gee Todd no such documents exist between  the Mail Providers and the
IETF"... so lets just attack the insanity that is IETF BCP101 ...  The idea
behind the IETF needing an operational framework and the documents to
support that are critically right and Gee Fred - that's what I do for
company's these days too

So IMHO the IESG and the IETF are doing their business in the absolute most
stupid manner possible. They are letting technical people vote on what needs
to be in a legal contract... It would be different if the Technical People
were defining what needed to be in the contract and then someone else went
off and designed the clauses and T's and C's with proper intent and
language... but that might scare the techies away right?

What a crock of m*rde. Talk about managerial incompetence, BCP101 creates
liabilities you don't know you have including the one to magically meet ALL
of the world's privacy requirements - something the IETF cannot possibly
afford financially to do, so I think your management Bozo's  really screwed
the pooch this time.

Do you know what the IETF is liable for??? some idea may pop to life in
understanding what others rights are relative to the IETF's publishing
process and the IETF's random denials to people it doesn't want to allow to
participate.  I suggest you start with basic contracts and then read Theofel
v Fare-Jones from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals here in SF. Theofel v.
Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004)... Also notice in Theofel the
Appellate Court's Decision in overturning the dismissals of the District
Court.

How this all fits together is the DMCA which the IETF refuses to put in
place controls such that it can retract the publications rights per the
TAKEDOWN requirements of DMCA compliance models, so it has no possible
protection from the litigation's from people who's IP was compromised in the
IETF's one-way-ride into print.

Further there is corporate liability for any and all members of those WG's
with regard to their own sponsor's IP rights and possibly contaminating
those players with IP from some controlled and unauthorized source. The
possible damage here is a court order from the Federal Court over DMCA
violations to the IETF and any and all parties involved with the IETF and
the development of those IP's. And if there is ANY DOUBT of this ask Jorge -
otherwise - take it for wrote.

In the IETF's case it has HUGE liabilities because it relies on Email
Servers which are all subject to the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2701)
and any damages which could be codified under an individuals rights per the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) especially as defined per
Thoefel.

What you folks in IETF/IESG management need to get is that ANYONE who
depended on the IETF's publication process and participation in the IETF
could sue the IETF for damages ass well as press criminal charges for
withholding those from those individuals and if the IETF is too stupid to
read the rulings of the courts or ask its lawyer if this applies formally to
it, then the management team needs summary-replacement.

The IETF is IMHO sitting on a powder keg with an already lit fuse - the
problem is that none of us have any idea how long the fuse is... and the
really funny part is that anyone could pull the fuse out at any time to
prevent this eventual demise of the IETF over IP and IP Contamination
Processes within Controlled and Regulated Public Entities.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Question about the folks providing the WG Mailing List
services?

> IASA, as described in BCP 101.

Ahahahahah -  come on Fred - you are a BRILLIANT FELLOW there at Cisco...
dont try and flush this one down the loo it wont go... BCP101 is at best
incomplete and is missing any number of critical key controls regarding
reliance and law, retention periods and any number of other key aspects
which any SANE provider including your employer Fred, requires for any
contractual operations.

This is the problem with letting a bunch of technical geniuses create a
legal-compliance framework - the first problem is that they are sure that
they are more powerful than the law and its process which is the best reason
I can think of for b*tch-slapping them into next week, the second is that
they really believe that their Sponsor's are going to back them... and
neither are true when their actions start becoming a threat to those
sponsers.

> I'm sure if you ask the IAD, he can

yeah right - Fred - this is an Open Standards entity??? - So why is there
any problem getting copies of the formally executed remote-email providers
contract? - I want to see them and understand their oversight and retention
requirements for the lists... Which we are probably both pretty sure dont
exist.

In fact I am betting that most all of the formal agreements between the
Email Providers and the IETF or ISOC also dont exist and are 'simple verbal
agreements' in most instances. Unfortunately that violates what the
company's that are participating are allowed to be involved with.

> the secretariat's services.

That becomes a problem for the IETF and its management of IP The IETF
cannot make any testimony to as to the accuracy of the mailing list archives
or whether in fact those entries in the lists were actually sent out.  Which
means then at best the IETF breached its responsibilities per the statements
of Open and Fair actions and operations of the IETF.

> general, these are open lists, although many of them are moderated.

yes - that says that there IS NOT consistency across the lists, and this is
a problem in re Fair and Open. All lists MUST be operated under the same set
of terms and conditions since they are evidence of what vetting and what
harassment happened in that WG... Both critical things of interest to the
IETF. Also the RFC change process doesnt work for contracts... those Use
Contracts that are in place must generally speaking be formally modified by
"all parties" in writing  who are signatories to the original work before
changes to the amended agreement are binding, and if Jorge didnt tell you
that you need a new lawyer.

> members the posts are forwarded to the list by the moderator.

So this is part of the SLA - there is Spam Filtration... what about the rest
of the SLA?

> List

How and to what extent? - How is the archive of the list available - and how
does one attest that the integrity of the List is unimpugned???

> further.

I asked a specific list of questions - why not just answer them directly
instead of with some hurdle to disclose why I want to know. I want to know
and that is all that is necessary - "Produce the Body" please...

> The IETF fundamentally operates on good will, but I

No - the IETF is a global standards enetity which means it MUST operate
fairly for one and all and if there are problems with that and the ideas
that "good will" is not enough, then we have a much larger issue.

The IETF has numerous contracts in place and as you noticed there is a
formal one between the EMail List Providers and the IETF. I want to see it -
and any executed instances of it. Also any oversight attched to that process
including review of the performance of the providers and the lot.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:17:14 -0700

Fred my apologies on the sticky S key that turns "As" into "Ass" which was
certainly not my intention... You know professionally speaking I think you
and the other Cisco fellows all walk on water... but this is about corporate
process and policy.

Again my apologies for the typo.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: WAS Re: Question about the folks providing... IS now - BCP101 -What
a freaking JOKE...

> could sue the IETF for damages ass

as  - sorry its dyslexia and something not caught by spell checkers...

> well as press criminal charges for