>From: "TS Glassey" >To: , >Subject: Appeal over suspension - Fw: ADMIN: Suspension of posting >rights for Todd Glassey (fwd) >Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:34:52 -0700 >Cc: Dean Anderson , "Contreras, Jorge" > > >Folks -Mr. Alvestrands suspension of my posting rights is yet >another harassment for my trying to force the controls US Patent Law >brings to play into the IETF's operations. The IETF has been kicking >and screaming for years about how it has no effect on patents which >is a bold faced lie which we all know now. The IETF's actions cause >considerable financial damage to myself (in the GEOPRIV case) and >others in their initiatives. > >Claim A: >----------- >With regard to the claim that I continuously posted offensive >material that was off-topic, the reality is that the material was >exactly on-topic for that WG but apparently not something that the >WG Chair wanted to acknowledge or have in the Standards Process >archive for these materials. > >As to the sheer number of responses - there were any number of >retorts and responses which required answers as well. That is why >the volume of responses which Jorge would complain about. The >reality is that any Email Based system which is used to argue or >negotiate passionate matters will contain this type of content. The >real issue is whether each response is treated like a new offense or >not, and the reasoning is that the IETF Subject Lines are important >to the Thread Management so that they shouldn't be changed making >the repeated seeing of a title line that some individuals feel is >offensive is a by-product of the IETF's process since it doesn't >have a formal indexing system. > >According to Mr. Alvestrand it is OK to respond to a posting which >is directed at you personally, and that you are allowed to respond >to these individually. > >Claim 2: No Warning >--------------------------- >IETF Suspensions require formal warning. In this matter no warning >was given, the Chair just responded to make a unilateral action >without involving the parties being disciplined. Since there was no >warning or ability to respond to the matter prior to the >Suspension's being enacted its pretty clear its a punitive matter >and one which is about to cause the IETF a world of hurt if this >matter does wind up in litigation. > >I suggest that since the Suspension Process formally requires a >Cease and Desist type warning which never came that this Suspension >should be immediately set aside. Further since there is no formal >process in the Suspension's process to insure that an individuals >posting rights are restored when the period is ended, that the use >of the IETF's Suspension Process itself is formally put on hold >until its actual mechanics can be mapped and proper controls setup. > >Claim 3: Threatening >-------------------------- >As an individual who has personally suffered IP Infringement from >the IETF this is a serious claim. The threats I have made are not in >actuality threats - they are statement's that there will be no other >choice but to litigate damage claims against IP that the IETF is >intentionally trying to 'IETFize' - a process which in actuality >makes that IP impossible to patent. > > > >Summary >------------- >When an individual is working on a contract with others and the >others say "We want to put stuff in this contract to make the >contract weaker and harder to enforce" I start to have problems with >that group. When they do it over an electronic transport across >multiple sponsor's and across national boundaries, I start to have >real problems with it. > >That is what I assert is happening here, i.e. that US IP Law is >being ignored by the IETF and being done so intentionally. That MUST >stop, and IP law (Patent, Copyright and Trademark's) be embraced so >that the totality of what the IETF does can properly be modeled and controlled. > >In submitting this appeal, I suggest that I didn't in fact violate >any of the rules Mr. Alvestrand claims I violated and that his >actions and the process he used violated the suspension process as >well as documents Mr. Alvestrand's reaction to me. > >Thanks for your hearing this appeal. > >Todd Glassey > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Anderson" >To: >Cc: "TS Glassey" ; "Harald Alvestrand" >; "'Contreras, Jorge'" >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:19 AM >Subject: ADMIN: Suspension of posting rights for Todd Glassey (fwd) > > >>Mr. Glassey only threatened proper civil action. No improper threat made >>by Mr. Glassey. Furthermore, the subject matter of the questions, the >>impact of IETF IPR policy on patent holders, is on-topic for the IPR >>working group. Mr. Glassey's statements, while insistent, were >>reasonably insistent civil demands, and were not unnecessarilly >>offensive. Mr. Glassey did apologize for any offense taken. >> >>As has been the case in the past, Mr. Alvestrand has again made a >>material false statement that has deceived the IETF working group >>members. I note that deception is a predicate act for RICO. >> >>--Dean >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:07:06 +0200 >>From: Harald Alvestrand >>To: IPR WG >>Subject: ADMIN: Suspension of posting rights for Todd Glassey >> >>After considering the number of recent postings by mr. Glassey that fall >>into the categories: >> >>- Offensive >>- Off-topic >>- Threatening >> >>I have suspended his posting privilleges to the IPR WG list until August >>26, 2008. >> >>Given that previous suspensions have utterly failed to moderate mr. >>Glassey's behaviour, I will discuss with the IETF Chair what other >>measures can be used to preserve an open, civil forum of discussion >>without incurring excessive administrative overhead. >> >> Harald Alvestrand, IETF Chair >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Ipr-wg mailing list >>Ipr-wg@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg