Re: I know I am dumb stupid but I am also dumb stubborn [was IETF Trust

Dear Brian,
thank you for your response. It calls for remarks (in the text).

At 11:09 06/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> > At 15:50 05/12/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I don't understand the context of your question. All the announcements
> about the draft Trust agreement have contained the relevant URL,
> which is http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/.
It is current IETF practice _not_ to quote the URL of Drafts each 
time one refers to them. This leads to wasted time and lost comments 
in not permitting readers to click the URL and get the discussed 
text. I see no advantage to this. If anyone was doing the same for 
any other document he would be reminded the courtesy to provide its URL.
> > 2. I never saw anyone granted rights without corresponding duties. 
> > I beg in vain from you and the IAOC who is legally responsible if 
> > an RFC is judged a legal offense? Who is to pay the fine? Who will go to jail?
> Not being a lawyer, I can make no attempt to answer this question.
You have indicated that you are in relation with lawyers on this 
question. I think everyone is interested by the response. May I 
remind you that RFC 3935 establishes a new mission of the IETF: to 
influence others' design, use and management, making it potentially 
responsible of their errors - all the more than RFC 3935 lists 
resulting constraints (competence, responsibility) the IETF may have 
difficulty to match, what would aggravate the cases.
> > Only this will tell who really owns the IETF IPRs. I know the RFC 
> > 3066 bis rises this issue: is it why no one wants to answer? or is 
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/05/minc_icann_letter/ too near 
> > an issue to risk addressing anything associated with the issue?
> I fail to see the relevance of this news story to the IETF.
IESG has now adopted RFC 3066 bis. This Draft establishes a IANA de 
facto monopolistic control over language identification. MINC's Chair 
says that ""de facto monopolistic control" over the internet [] could 
"lead to serious forms of balkanisation"". The comments you make 
further on, shows that this control would be exercised through IPRs.
> > Why my last IESG appeal with its consequences is not addressed?
> Currently you have an appeal addressed to an Area Director (hence 
> not published) about suspension of posting rights, which is being 
> considered. I am not aware of any other appeals.
I am afraid this is partly incorrect. Today this appeal is in limbo.

More than two weeks ago I appealed to an AD who declined due to a COI 
and for no AD being assigned to the concerned mailing list (you 
indicated a part of the IETF). He said you would assign another AD. I 
reminded it to you more than one week ago. That AD indicated then you 
were collecting positions, showing you had escalated it to the IESG level?
Due to the context of this appeal, its outcome - whatever it is - is 
important as it will tell the IESG position IRT multilingual support 
by the IETF. And where the langroot registry I work on should fit. I 
have no position. But we need to know.
> > 3. I have real difficulty understanding why an Internet 
> > user/developer needs to beg an IETF license to use, quote, change, 
> > work on an RFC?
> I have never noticed anyone begging.
I will drop this point. We could dispute for hours. I will look at 
this practical issue:
> > If I copy all the RFCs, sort their content, add a legal blabla 
> > paying my respects to all those who contributed through the IETF, 
> > make an open use e-book from them all, class their proposition in 
> > some orders, updating it when they change, mixing them with other 
> > SSDOs propositions, etc. translating parts in various languages, 
> > adding comments on their usage cons and pros and testing, linking 
> > the various comments people may have made on them, etc. quoting 
> > available open source/commercial libraries and their variations, 
> > etc. and the various registry repositories where they can find the 
> > values of the related parameters, i.e. what the users long for a 
> > while, will the IAOC sue me and send me to jail as the US DMCA and 
> > the French DADVSI would do?
> Somehow, I doubt it. But on the other hand, if you used RFC text as 
> the basis for a non-interoperable, slightly distorted Internet-like
> protocol specification that started to damage the Internet 
> operationally, the copyright might come into play.
This is a _very_ important statement. Can you confirm it? Can I quote 
it? Or is it only deterrent wording for other purposes?
I have no objection, but we need to understand what this implies. You 
say that a collective copyright could be used for another purpose 
than to protect the rights of a collective author. That use would 
help fulfilling the RFC 3935 defined IETF mission to "influence" the 
"design, use and management" of the Internet (as an aggregation of 
physical systems having their own owners) by others. Most probably 
upon the non consensual (by necessity) - ie. non transparent - 
"decision" process defined by that RFC. That decision would concern:
- the evaluation that the change is a damage and not an improvement. 
In a competitive world this is a way to block competition.
- the conduct of a multimillion dollars legal case. By who? Where? Or 
may be to legitimate a press campaign.
You understand that your implied reference to DMCA, EUCD or DADVSI, 
and the resulting threat of 30 years in jail, call for more 
information on the exact IETF position.
jfc










_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf