Todd,
This is totally confused and you are completely wrong.
Under the Federal Election Campaign
Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act>,
an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions
or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a
federal election
[Source Wikipedia]
Since neither the IETF nor ISOC has any interest in influencing a federal
election, nor does it engage in any activity intended to do so, it is not a
political committee under the terms of the act.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM, todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>wrote:
On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote:
The IETF can only address the technical problems.
This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot
see technology in isolation.
Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the original design
and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was built to advance protocol
standardization and not to decide what protocols it would allow on the
Internet and which it wouldn't. But lately many have forgotten this and
are using the IETF as a formal lobby for technological policy advancement
and that's a no-no.
Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively
politically and this statement is based on IAB and other publication on what
the IETF does and does not allow through its frameworks. In doing so their
statements about allowing protocols or not allowing protocols to be
standardized based on their stated perception of "what damages the Internet"
or what they personally want to see as a "free access to all information and
ideas" model, creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice
this organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed clearly
to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice.
However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment, business
aspects, and the social context gets mixed together.
No Hannes - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning that the
Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to be fielded (filed
in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I am already filing a formal
complaint with the Treasury about ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its
locking out protocol efforts based on its own desires therein...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that the IETF
is a-political and will not do anything but standardize technology. Also
that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted since the IETF is part of ISOC
and not registered as a political PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly
has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its
ARIN) the real power.
Todd Glassey
Please have a look at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
Ciao
Hannes
Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of flaming
idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform Agency, nor is it a
freaking political action group since its financial filings prevent this.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf