ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Flaw in the design of NoteWell makes Notewell Not Well.

2006-09-17 06:30:53
I have concerns about NoteWell but these are due to the Rambus judgement rather 
than this particular issue.

I have no problem with someone participating in IETF if their company happens 
to have an undisclosed patent that they are unaware of and their immediate 
management concerned with their involvement are unaware of. It is simply not 
practical for an employee of Microsoft or IBM or Cisco to participate if they 
have to do a full patent search first.

What I do have a big problem with is patent trolls where the involvement is not 
accidental and neither is the failure to disclose.




-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Strahm [mailto:bill(_at_)strahm(_dot_)net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 3:00 PM
To: todd glassey
Cc: chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Contreras, Jorge; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Flaw in the design of NoteWell makes Notewell Not Well.

I don't know about the rest of you - but my sponsor tells me 
to participate and gives me the right to abide by the Note Well.

This is a simple thing for most sponsors to do - so this 
whole analysis is based on a participant that is working 
without their sponsors knowledge.

Now I am officially done feeding the trolls Bill todd glassey wrote:
By the way all and Jorge, you should take this as a formal 
challenge 
to refute - I don't think you can.  I found what I think is 
a massive 
flaw (AKA a "Catch 22") in NoteWell as to how it applies to 
corporate 
participants ad unfortunately, I think it means that the IETF's 
processes IP induction process need to be shut down until 
NOTEWELL can 
be formally fixed since it by my take its broken and 
solicits fraud's 
in a large number of the IP's it claims "it owns based" on 
email submissions.

This email constitutes formal notice
--------------------------
If Jorge, the IETF's Advisory or General Counsel as a licensed 
attorney wants to pop up and formally for the record say 
this analysis 
of the NoteWell Process ISN'T TRUE then the rest of this 
post can be 
ignored, BUT otherwise this memo constitutes a formal notice of my 
concerns about the IETF's Participation Agreement. A very complex 
contract spread across numerous documents  which I characterize as 
"unenforceable based on numerous frauds it forces 
Participants who are 
using their Company Email services and the ownership of the IP 
submitted, which must be represented to it through its design";

So Jorge please formally advise your client as to whether 
this is true 
or not, and instruct them appropriately. I.e. If this post 
is accurate 
and these concerns are real then please instruct your client to 
immediately cease any NoteWell type assignment's to the IETF until 
this matter is resolved. By the way this also eliminates any 
submissions to the Editor too for the same reasons through 
Corporate 
Email Gateway's,

Let me explain:

Corporate Entities and their AUP's
--------------------------
Corporate Entities who are public or constrained by civil 
'standard of care'
laws like SOX or other legislation generally all have a 
formal HR rule 
that each and every employee signs an IT AUP agreement.  Think back 
folks - did you sign one of these? The reason is that usually these 
AUP's contain an Email specific agreement that says "that 
the Company 
owns any and all emails emanating through their email system" & you 
folks who are sponsored by some third party who is 
constrained under 
commercial law all probably signed one of these.

The AUP you signed
-----------------------------
If you did, I suggest that you READ IT CAREFULLY. If the 
AUP says the 
company/entity owns all the IP that flows through its email gateway 
then YOU cannot legally speaking assign those rights to the 
IETF since 
YOU DONT OWN THEM. That means without specific agreements 
between the 
Your Sponsor, a Public Entity, and the IETF, as well as an 
amended AUP 
between you as an Employee  and your Employer, you (the Employee) 
should not be posting from the Work address/domain  or system. That 
also means that without some specific agreement between the 
Employer 
and the IETF there can be no transfer of IP rights into the IETF.

The IETF's faking this by creating boilerplate which claims 
that you 
also must represent to the IETF that you have these legal 
capabilities 
is also an inducement to commit fraud IMHO since it is very likely 
that any and all management of the IETF signed one or more 
of these IP 
and AUP controlling agreements with their sponsors.


NoteWell's Failing
-------------------------
NoteWell as it stands today has a statement that any and all email 
sent to the IETF becomes the property of the IETF. So then 
the problem 
is that the person sending IP to the IETF through the Corporate GW 
doesn't own that IP to assign it to the IETF. Only the 
Sponsoring Entity could do that.

Knowing that this is true and continuing to violate the 
agreement may 
be fraud by wire
-------------------------
This is where it gets messy; the current boiler plate says that to 
participate you have to turn over IP you don't own... and per the 
agreement you likely signed with your corporate sponsor, to 
participate in the IETF through the employer's Email GW you have to 
convey IP that you NO LONGER have formal rights to. Further, to 
protect the IETF you MUST represent to the IETF that you have this 
contractual authority; which as it turns out only very few if any 
actually do and the misrepresentation of may be a federal crime.


NoteWell - Private Company's and their IETF participation
-------------------------
This makes the IETF's NoteWell provisions ineffective because no 
matter what the "Sponsored Employee or Contractor" says 
once they sign 
that AUP they would then  need another specific 
agreement/exemption to 
set aside the claims of the Sponsor to those IP's they were 
to contribute to the IETF.

No one would issue such a Email Release
-------------------------
No one in their right mind would issue such a release against their 
Email servers. It would make the internal IP much more 
difficult to protect.
Likewise, no company sending staff to participate in the 
IETF except 
those that have formal Standards Practices would likely have any 
assignment of rights provisions for their Standards 
Practice Staff to 
be excluded from other IP controls within that Employer's 
Operations.


The IETF mandates that its participants all formally hold 
an Enduring 
Power of Attorney
-------------------------
The problem is that NO COMPANY with possible exclusion of 
its formal 
Standards Initiative Staff have actually given those staff members 
real releases to represent their interests. I.e. without 
specific and 
particular Employee Management Policies there is likely no 
conveyance 
whether NoteWell says there is or not, further most 
Corporate Sponsors 
realize that their Internal IP becomes at risk with any 
other policies 
in place... so the provisions to allow one to use the Email GW for 
conveying property to the IETF are very iffy at best.

Does this make a Fraud? - I say YES.
-------------------------
The IETF is aware of these constraints and it has built technical 
practice models to sidestep the law herein. That is very probably 
technically illegal under US Law then to operate the IETF in this 
manner and is arguably a fraud by wire between the IETF and 
the Participant with the Sponsor as the victim.

You can blow this off as a technical "oh well" but I don't 
think this 
is going to go away... So my claim is that NoteWell doesn't 
work from 
Corporate Email Gateways IMHO as it sits now.

Jorge if you want to argue differently please do, but I 
don't think you can.

Todd Glassey




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




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



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>