On 1/22/2010 9:51 AM, endre(_dot_)walls(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
Todd,
Question - would this interpretation still count if the emails specified they
were from the ietf and gave the recipient the ability to unsubscribe? I can
think of tons of instances where a nonresponding address would need to be used.
Great question and no - the problem is that the sender has to be
physically identifiable. from my reading of the law and this ruling it
means we MUST have a functional return address for everything and many
people in the IETF use addresses like "NoDelivery(_at_)Domain(_dot_)COM" as their
RETURN TO addresses and the FROM address is equally toast. That makes
the IETF responsible for formally certifying and ensuring the positive
service of any notice. Also there has to be a legally created point of
contact available so IP Notices can be sent to the parties. The IETF
fails this miserably and bluntly its probably the ISOC managements fault
they they have operated under these failings for so long IMHO. Now its
time to do something about this and fix these processes so that all
parties are properly defined and all points of contact properly
enumerated so that things like Cease and Desist or Patent Infringement
Notices can be sent. The IETF's direct intent to hide that contact
information makes it and its management liable as well in my opinion,
something that is a real issue and that will cause litigation at some
point if the IETF doesnt get its act together.
I'm not a lawyer, but when I read this it seemed to say that the court felt it
was a violation when you (a) concealed your identity using a private
registration and (b) used a shadow email address with no option for
self-removal. I might be wrong on that, just trying to understand how that
ruling relates to ietf practices.
It means ANY cooperative contractually controlled group process (like
the donation of IP to the IETF through NoteWell or other submission
models) needs full disclosure on the IP Owners and their commitment to
the use of that IP in the IETF. It also means that the refusal to
actually disclose the true sponsor is also a 'hiding of contact
information' as well. All parties to any contractual process MUST be
properly identified in order for the contract's provisions to be
enforceable IMHO...
Todd
Endre
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: tglassey<tglassey(_at_)glassey(_dot_)com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:26:01
To: Russ Housley - IETF<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>;
chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Fred Baker<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; IETF
Discussion<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: All IETF posted email addresses MUST be real.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2638 - Release Date: 01/22/10
07:34:00
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf