Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:19:34 -0500 (EST) From: Dean Anderson To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: rms@gnu.org Subject: Continued Abuse of Process by IPR-WG Chair In the Mime attachment are three "ADMIN" messages from Harald Alvestrand against Todd Glassey and Simon Josephsson declaring one side of a debate offtopic, and threatening improperly to suspend members who merely advocate arguments contrary to Harald's and Brian Carpenter's viewpoints. Harald previously (improperly) suspended Todd Glassey (for two weeks) and myself permanently for merely asserting reasonable arguments contrary to Harald's and Brian Carpenter's point of view. These suspensions are both contrary to the law governing corporations, which require, among other things, a vote of the membership to suspend or expel members of a membership corporation. A knowing disregard for the law is a key factor for finding criminal intent. In November, I wrote: Further, in fact, this document is in no way a "rough consensus of the IETF" because the IETF community hasn't even seen the document outside the IPR working group, and also because significant stakeholders on the policies of patents and copyrights haven't been _allowed_ to contribute to the document or the working group, and dissenters have been silenced. What is going on here is an attempt to mislead people about the level of community approval and community involvement in the production and contents of this document. Instead of the IETF community producing this document, and instead of "rough consensus" supporting the document, it has actually been produced by a small number of people who have been either directly involved in, or have promoted disregarding, a serious fraud on the IETF. These same persons have been directly involved in silencing dissenters in the IPR working group until mainly pro-patent persons, or persons with seriously compromised intregrity, were able to obtain a majority. This is nothing but a charade to alter RFC 3979 with the purpose to enable more deception of the public and the membership of the IETF. The charade should be ended. Things have gotten even worse since November, when the above was written. On each day, from December 20, 21, and 22 Harald has claimed that merely contrary arguments are offtopic, while the arguments supporting Harald's preferred views are "on-topic". Harald has threatened more people with suspension for merely responding to reasonable discussion topics, with reasonable contrary arguments. This is a pattern of harassment and intimidation meant to promote a particular viewpoint (Harald and Brian Carpenter's), and does not constitute fair refereeing. There can be no fair consensus called in the face of such threats and intimidation by the Working Group Chair. I ask the IESG to intervene, and replace Harald with a Chair who will be more fair and will not use the powers of the chair to unfairly advance his own agenda. Dean Anderson President of the LPF President of AV8 Internet, Inc -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 >Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:34:17 +0100 >From: Harald Alvestrand >To: Simon Josefsson >Cc: Frank Ellermann , > Brian E Carpenter , ipr-wg@ietf.org >Subject: ADMIN: Dead horse beating is not on-topic (Re: Sample code) > >Simon, > >you have raised your argument. The WG has declared consensus otherwise. > >Please stop wasting the bandwidth on the list; save your breath for >IETF Last Call >(if you REALLY want to have all the arguments repeated once more). > > Harald > > >Simon Josefsson wrote: >>Brian E Carpenter writes: >> >>>>The >>>>current IETF license is an example of such a license (fixed by >>>>incoming+outgoing though). There has been source code examples in RFCs >>>>with nasty licenses; if I recall correctly, some does not even permit >>>>redistribution. >>>> >>>>Further, I think the point is that it happens often that the copyright >>>>holder on some code haven't released code under IETF's licenses, and it >>>>is useful to include the code in an RFC. The current situation works >>>>against the IETF's goal of facilitating wide implementations of >>>>standards. This situation is bad, and your suggested solution isn't >>>>realistic. >>>> >>>Why not? We've just done it (twice) for a draft I reviewed. >>> >> >>Which drafts was that? In the latest example that Russ asked the IPR WG >>about, draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-ldpc, after discussions, I was told the >>solution will be to remove code from the document. >> >> >>>It would only fail in the case of an uncooperative author, and in that >>>case we're stuck anyway. >>> >> >>No, that's missing the point. In draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-ldpc and the >>base64 draft, external copyright owners own the copyright on code that >>is useful to include in the document. To be over-precise: it is useful >>for the _IETF_, it is not necessarily useful for the copyright owner. >> >>In the cases where the copyright owner(s) >> >> 1) can't be identified or reached, >> 2) is unwilling to re-license the work, >> 3) is never approached to resolve the issue >> >>it can still happen that it is useful for the IETF to be able to include >>code. The code may be licensed under a widely permissible license. >>Still, given how the IETF rules work now (and in the future too), this >>is impossible. >> >>The requirement to not include external copyright notice has been >>violated several times in RFCs, and I haven't seen an argument that the >>requirement is more important than allowing the IETF to work better. It >>makes it impossible to include freely licensed code that would help >>documents. I think the policy should be modified here. >> >>/Simon > > > >Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:12:13 +0100 >From: Harald Alvestrand >To: TS Glassey >Cc: Simon Josefsson , > Brian E Carpenter , ipr-wg@ietf.org >Subject: ADMIN: Offtopic warning > >The idea of rights "transfer" for contribution is outside the scope >of this WG. > >The method that the IETF has used is licensing, and there is WG >consensus that we will continue to use that method. > >Further atttempts by the same individual to raise the issue of >"transfer" will result in a suspension for offtopic posting. > >TS Glassey wrote: >>Harald - that description is one of an intentionally weak transfer process >>and its the WG Chair's responsibity to see that this WG's actions meet all >>legal requirements, this is not a technical thing that is being vetted its >>the contractual structure for participation in the IETF and that brings >>liability into the mix (whether you like it or not). > > > >Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:20:12 +0100 >From: Harald Alvestrand >To: TS Glassey >Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org >Subject: ADMIN: Offtopic warning (second topic) (Re: #1539 proposed >resolution) > >Todd, > >TS Glassey skrev: > > > > This DOESNT work. It MUST certify that all of the key documents are > > read and agreed to. That means the language MUST read something to > > closer to > > > >> 5.1. General Policy > >> By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the > >> Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, certifies that they > >> have read and agree to the terms and conditions for submitting IP for > >> vetting to the IETF. >you have been insisting that the WG should use the term "vetting" at >least since 2003, with zero indication that the WG agrees with you. > >I'm adding "vetting" to "transfer" as subjects that will get your >privilleges suspended for off-topic posting. > > Harald