--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 14:08 -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf