ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]

2006-07-21 06:45:54
Jeffery

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>; "Sam Hartman"
<hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>; "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>; 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Jeffrey
Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...]




On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:

By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or
Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT???

Heh.  "Network" isn't an IETF working group; the phrase "Network Working
Group" at the top of RFC's is a historical nod to the group that started
the series.

In this particular case, we expect the appeals process to be binding upon
ISOC and it's board because it was approved by that board, as all IETF
process documents must be.

As documented where??? and where are the records of the BOT meetings that
put these in place? Sorry but this doesnt meet the disclosure requirements
for
modifying the contract.



Before you start spouting audit-speak at us and quoting practices which
were not intended for an organization like the IETF and are not relevant
to
it, you could at least do your homework.

you and many others seem to be suffering from some weird dementia that
because you say so, the laws of the world don't apply to you. Or to the IETF
or to the ISOC.


-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA



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