On 9/21/2012 4:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Joe,
While I've somewhat sympathetic to your position -- I don't
think the IETF should be supporting a public archival collection
of expired I-Ds, especially older ones, either-- I think you are
getting a little over the top. Specifically...
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 13:54 -0700 Joe Touch
<touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Hi, Russ,
FWIW, you seem to be conveniently ignoring at least two issues:
1) all the IDs before March 1994
which should not be published at all until
permission is given (opt-in)
While I agree, I think that most of the reason for that has to
do with implicit or explicit IETF commitments to individuals
rather than legal constraints. That is not to say the legal
constraints aren't there. IANAL, much less a judge, and have no
opinion on that which anyone else should pay attention to.
IMO, the IETF should not set an example of "post what you want, and take
things down only on legal threat".
It's reasonable to post what the IETF has rights to. Posting things that
the IETF *wants* but does *not* have explicit rights too seems a
non-starter.
Suppose that, as a modified form of opt-out under the latest
proposed policy, you were to send a note to the IESG asking that
all of your old I-Ds be taken down from the public archive on
the grounds that having them public is abusive of commitments
you have good reason to believe were made to you. If the IESG
said "nope, not abusive enough", you could then either appeal
(probably a more constructive way of airing things under our
rules than involving the legal process) or claim that the IETF
had no rights to keep a document posted to which you believe you
have retained copyright and get a DMCA take-down request issued.
Such a request would give the IESG and IETF Trust the
"opportunity" to consider how much risk they wanted to assume to
keep your documents posted and possibly to discuss that with the
community. Sadly, they might consider the odds that you would
actually choose to sue in their risk assessment (see below).
I expect that might be what transpires here, but if we're in an
organization that does that I would seriously reconsider writing future
contributions.
That wouldn't let you made document availability decisions by
default for anyone else (e.g., by forcing opt-in), but would,
IMO, focus the discussion in a way that increasingly heated
comments on the IETF list would not.
Sure, having the IETF step on authors' rights certainly focuses the
discussion. I sincerely hope this organization understands its
responsibility to the community better, and respects the rights of
others in its action (not merely the cost of legal entanglements).
...
And, ultimately, this won't be determined by analysis, but by
a court.
Well, it would be determined by a court only if someone felt
strongly enough about a particular document or set of documents
to go to the expense of going down that path.
Agreed; I'm only noting that this is all conjecture, not fact.
...
If no one feels mean-tempered enough to launch such a court
case, then the policy won't be settled by a judge, it will stand
because no one challenges it.
Perhaps. Perhaps those of us who feel the IETF is setting a bad example
should just walk away. That solves the problem, right?
Joe