Subject: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700

<hat wg-chair="on">

  This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
  meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
  Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
  objections, but as always, decisions at face to face meetings are
  subject to confirmation on the mailing list.

  Absent strong objections, I'll ask Peter and his co-author (to be
  appointed, we already have a list of volunteers) to submit the next
  version as draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-00.

  Please send any comments on this subject within the next week, so
  that Peter and his co-author have time to rev the document before
  the 2 July submission cutoff.

</hat>

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400

>   meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.

Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg 
activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier 
by you (ref 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?

Thanks in advance for clarification.

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:54:46 -0700

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:54:46 -0700

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:01:51 -0400

Rob Austein wrote:
> [[ some url pointing to wikipedia material, hence subject to change ]]

This question is serious, to the extent that the DNSOP activities are 
worth the effort devoted to it by participants. So let me re-prhase the 
question (actually the question had two facets):

Is this proposed wg activity open (i.e. "The IETF has basic requirements 
for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of 
technical alternatives." from RFC2418 section 3)?

Is this proposed wg activity already limited by the message archived at 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:01:51 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:08:37 -0400

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?

I actually support such a limitation, because it is constrained this
way:

        [. . .] at least until M. Moreau has filed his IPR statement
        and it is possible for a disinterested person to reach an
        independent opinion on the extent, relevance, and validity of
        M. Moreau's IPR claims.

I seem to recall that there was some additional discussion of the idea
of "directing" WG members, but I don't think the details in that
discussion are relevant.  The problem is that nobody is in any
position to evaluate an allegedly encumbered technology as long as we
don't know the details of the encumbrance.  In the absence of those
details, which would be provided by an IPR disclosure according to the
IETF practices, I'm opposed even to discussing the ideas.  DNS is too
close to the centre of the Internet's functioning to be subject to
various IPR limitations.

So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it (at
which time, the constraint I note above comes into play).  I just
tried looking in the IPR pages, and I found nothing.

(As for adoption of the draft, I support that.  I have read it; I have
no comments except that the parts in braces need to be expanded; but
that seems to be why those notes are there, and I presume the next
version will perform that expansion.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:08:37 -0400

A

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Jun 2007 20:02:57 +0000

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?

i'm not a wgchair or anything, so this is just my opinion.  anyone who is
going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered
IPR.  if i can't implement an RFC in BSDL F/OSS, then it's a bad RFC.  if
folks can't fetch, compile, build, install, derive from, and make money
from the BSDL F/OSS that results from implementing an RFC, then it's a bad
RFC.  if i see a "bad I-D" then i will object to it becoming a "bad RFC".

i think this means that the answer to t-m's questions amount to "no" even
though asullivan's answer ("it depends") is probably more accurate.  t-m
has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so
that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it.  i
think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am opposed to it.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Jun 2007 20:02:57 +0000

---

From: Phil Regnauld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:43:28 +0200

> think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am opposed to it.

	Nah, they'll just go the way of other encumbered RFCs: they'll be
	labelled as such, ignored, worked around, and something better will
	be designed and standardized upon.  Waste of IETF resources and time
	though.

---

From: Phil Regnauld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 23:43:28 +0200

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:40:33 +0200

[Warning, this seems an issue for the IPR WG, not for dnsop.]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:02:57PM +0000,
 Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> anyone who is going to submit proposals for dns technology should
> not include encumbered IPR.

This leaves open the issue of futile patents. If we decide "We will
never standardize a technology for which there is a patent somewhere
in the world, no matter how futile it is", then, we will standardize
nothing. Everything is already patented.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:40:33 +0200

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:38:11 +0000

> nothing. Everything is already patented.

true.  but t-m's takrem patent does not sound futile to me.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:38:11 +0000

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:24:21 -0400

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 
> So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it

It's done. See 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:24:21 -0400

It's done. See 

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:32:12 -0700 (PDT)

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856

Can there be a clarification as to if "implementor" extends to any
user of the software that has implemented the relevent parts of that
draft that patent is being claimed for? Because as you know with
GNU licensed software any user must have the same rights to use
or modify software as person(s) who wrote software.

-- 
William Leibzon
[email-masked]

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:32:12 -0700 (PDT)

-- 
William Leibzon
[email-masked]

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0400

Dear dnsop participants:

Mr. Paul Vixie made an off-topic post which falls into the IPR rathole
category. Being personally attacked, I take the liberty to povide
background information to dnsop participants, with the hope that Mr.
Paul Vixie's bias is better understood.

> I'm not a wgchair or anything, so this is just my opinion.

I bring your attention to the common affiliation of Mr. Rob Austein and 
Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be 
inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.

Also, Mr. Paul Vixie has an overwhelming influence on IETF 
standardization activities in the field of DNS.

> Anyone who is
> IPR.

This is an ideology statement. Patents apply in very diversified fields
of human activity. In the case of DNS, according to public records,
Verisign filed patent applications in the provisioning protocol area
(e.g. by the inventor name Hollenbeck); UltraDNS did the same in the
area of load balancing for DNS nameservers; an inventor by the name
"William C. Manning" of El Segundo, California also has an application
related to DNS.

> If I can't implement an RFC in BSDL F/OSS, then it's a bad RFC.  If
> RFC.

That's a way to put the ISC business model at the center of the
ideology: proprietary Unix vendors qualify as "folks" per above, and
some proprietary Unix vendors are funding the ISC activities.

> If i see a "bad I-D" then i will object to it becoming a "bad RFC".

Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF. The scope of dnsop activities are perhaps
already restricted by this attitude, without much notice by the
IPR-adverse participants.

In his post, Mr. Paul Vixie then goes on with a personal attack against
me which is not worth replying, except for the observation that Mr. Paul
Vixie is perhaps counter-productive given the simple need for a
consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0400

Dear dnsop participants:

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:47:01 -0400

> or modify software as person(s) who wrote software.

This is standard text used by the IETF for IPR disclosures. I am not 
going to delve into discussions of this nature.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:47:01 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:57:52 +0000

> "William C. Manning" of El Segundo, California also has an application

	Mr Thierry Moreau,

	It is true that my name is on a patent regarding DNS load balancing.
	It is also true that we NEVER attempted to ramrod our technology
	down the IETF standards track and in not doing so, we left open
	the market to select other choices on how to perform load balancing.

	From here, it seems that your patented ideas are designed to inhibit
	standardization of useful and most likely implementable ideas that
	a patent fight would discover as being valid by way of prior art.
	However the cost of performing patent litigation detracts from 
	the standardization effort.  Weighing the cost, most folks will
	not fight.  Some may use your patented ideas and pay you the fees 
	you desire.  Others will likely go the less costly route of NOT
	implementing, generally weakening the overall system.  

	The end game, as seen from here, is that the DNS overall, will be a 
	weaker, more vulnerable system - BECAUSE you have chosen to extract
	(recognition/cash) from the gulible and prevented others from doing
	work by legally claiming ownership and persisting on pushing these
	encumbered ideas in/through the standards process.  
	
	Do you care that the DNS will be weak?  Certainly you do. It allows
	you to push your IPR-encumbered solutions.  And by claiming IPR
	on most of the IETF work, you restrict any other options from being
	available...  even if they are technolgically superior and even if
	they are only tangentially related to your IPR-encumbered ideas. So you
	are the benificiary of a weak DNS.  And the Internet world suffers.

	Just my 0.02 yuan.

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:57:52 +0000

Mr Thierry Moreau,

	

	Just my 0.02 yuan.

--bill

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:35:50 -0700

On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> entities other than the IETF.

Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people  
patenting the technology and asking for royalties on what they have  
patented.   It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if  
more and more people did this, but that would be an economic result  
of the activity of those people.   Calling the functioning of an  
ecosystem "ideology" is just a way of pretending that something you  
are doing to destroy and replace that ecosystem is "fair."

It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some  
other gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has  
grown around the IETF.   You could say that someone who would prefer  
not to have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an  
ideologue, but in so saying you are making yourself into an ideologue  
as well.   And then the question becomes, which ideology do we  
prefer?   So using the term "ideology" to describe a person's  
position that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing  
to the conversation.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:35:50 -0700

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:28:09 -0400

Ted Lemon wrote:

> patented.   It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if  more 
> and more people did this, but that would be an economic result  of the 
> activity of those people.   Calling the functioning of an  ecosystem 
> "ideology" is just a way of pretending that something you  are doing to 
> destroy and replace that ecosystem is "fair."
> 
> It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some  other 
> gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has  grown 
> around the IETF.   You could say that someone who would prefer  not to 
> have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an  
> prefer?

Like it or not, the current patent regime is somehow rooted in the US 
constitution, well-entrenched national laws, and treaties both for the 
fundamental patent system characteristics (e.g. WTO), and for the 
facilitation and harmonization of patent applications in multiple 
countries (e.g. PCT).

Indeed, there is an ideology behind the current patent regime. You may 
feel it's "gruesome". See the conclusion of a committee chaired by late 
Georges Washington at 
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.8
Unfortunetely for the opposing view, the comment period for this 
committee is closed.

So, it's neither a matter with me, nor with a new definition of "fair" 
that would apply to a specification merely because it is published as an 
IETF RFC. These conflicting views has been discussed at length in many 
fields of human activites. Yet the patent regime is still up and running.

> So using the term "ideology" to describe a person's  position 
> that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing  to the 
> conversation.

It is in its fight against the well rooted foundations of the patent 
system that the IPR unemcumbrance ideology is counter-productive in the 
present instance.

By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC 
root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:28:09 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:17:14 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:

> By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
> priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.

You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one of the participants will then go around and try to
patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion. You
are forcing discussions to happen in private, to be presented to the IETF
"as is", so that no IPR claims can be made based on freely shared ideas
on the IETF lists.

What do you want? Colaborating on internet standards, or building
proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one.

Paul

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:17:14 -0400 (EDT)

Paul

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:38:55 +0000

> root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.

	it is not possible at the present due to IPR claims on	
	the table.

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:38:55 +0000

--bill

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:47:38 -0400

Paul Wouters wrote:

> patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion.

It's a basic characteristic of the patent regime that an inventive idea 
that is disclosed can not later be appropriated by someone as an 
invention of his own.

So, the above "one of the participant" would be a bad faith patent 
applicant. You and I are not aware of such behavior, are we?

> You

I respectfully disagree: I am not forcing anything. There is no 
different status, with respect to the effect of a disclosure in the 
patent regime, between an idea disclosed in the course of discussion and 
the end result of discussion.

> proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one.

In the present instance, see 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05450.html
and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
.

A general discussion is out of topic.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:47:38 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:20:33 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> 	Mr Thierry Moreau,
> 
> 	[...]
> 
> 	From here, it seems that your patented ideas are designed to [...]
>
> 	Some may [...] pay you the fees you desire.
> 
> 	BECAUSE you have chosen to [...]
> 	
> 	you to [...]
> 	[...] you restrict [...]
> 	So you are the benificiary of [...]
> 
> 	Just my 0.02 [...].
> 

OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic. 
Counter-productive. Not worth replying.

I agree with your other post that such (IPR related!!??) discussions may 
prevent dnsop from addressing the on-topic issue, i.e. a consensus-based 
DNSSEC root priming specification.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:20:33 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:24:41 -0400

> Counter-productive. Not worth replying.

Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to,
you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the
obvious non-action?

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:24:41 -0400

A

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:53:02 +0000

> you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the

	actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of 
	(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
	believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards
	development, are being patented by others and then used as 
	leverage to force particular outcomes.  

	Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process
	and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in
	todays environment.  

	So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust.

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:53:02 +0000

--bill

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:00:54 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856

Thanks.

Having read the disclosure, having quickly read the referenced draft
draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 including the Appendix A, and
having re-read draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00, I conclude that
draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00 is discussing priming _in
general_ rather than explicitly in a DNSSEC context.  I believe that
the DNSSEC issues are important ones, and that that some document
related to them would be valuable, but I also think that too much
discussion of the DNSSEC context would be a distraction to the overall
effort in draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00.  Therefore, I do not
think it critical to add much more DNSSEC discussion, either with
reference to draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 or any other
source.  

Best,

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:00:54 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Thanks.

Best,

A

---

From: Phil Regnauld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:25:57 +0200

> 	So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust.

	s/IETF/W3C/ and it's mostly valid as well.

---

From: Phil Regnauld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:25:57 +0200

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:48:57 -0400 (EDT)

> DNSSEC root priming specification.

It is not the "IPR discussion" that is preventing this. It's the IPR. The
discussion is on addressing the IPR problem.

It is clear that your interest is to not have an IPR discussion and to continue
like there is no issue so you can cash your IPR claims. Your claim that this
discussion should not be helt because it prevents talking about the real issue
is not addressing the problem created by your IPR claims - dropping your IPR
claims however, would resolve this issue - at least temporarilly until the
IETF can find a structural solution to the problem of IPR poisoning in general.

Paul

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:48:57 -0400 (EDT)

Paul

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:54:05 -0400

Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive 
answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill:

> 	and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in

Answer: better understanding of the patent regime, which suggests two 
obvious avenues:

(A) Publish something, e.g. an individual draft -00, on the subject area 
about which the concern applies, where (every) concievable paths towards 
a solution are disclosed: existing, adapted from other contexts, on the 
design bench, or just envisioned. In patent examination terminology, the 
latter two categories "teach" innovations directions, so that many 
potential refined schemes, although not exactly in the publication, are 
"obvious" given this publication (e.g. combined with other knowledge 
from the art). No big worry that the -00 draft expires; it should be 
still a publication with an acknowledged publication date.

I.e. inflate the public domain prior art beyond what is desirable 
technically.

Note: Your mileage may vary depending on who signs the paycheck of this 
document author. In the free market economy, a genuine invention is an 
asset that finance management may not want to give away. This is part of 
the global ecosystem in which IETF operates.

(B) Whenever a patent application becomes public (usually 18 months 
after filing date), bring the inventor or his/her patent agent's 
attention to whatever prior art exist in the field (you don't need to 
defer this to litigation). The onus is on the inventor or agent to take 
such prior art into account (typically making the patent claims less 
generic as the more general schemes are more likely to be disclosed 
somewhere).

I.e. use the cheaper routes to challenge patent applications.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but the above are elementary IPR management 
strategies. Many patent agents may not insist on these: their 
professional activities are centered where (A) is avoided in favor of 
potential patent applications by the document author, and/or (B) occurs 
later in the process, once the paperwork exchange is started between the 
agent and the patent examiner.

Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about 
IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:54:05 -0400

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:26:41 -0700

On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions  
> about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.

Thierry, when people much smarter and more experienced than you have  
to defend themselves from you by doing work in a way that excludes  
you from participating, there are two ways to interpret this.   One  
is that they are doing something inappropriate.   The other is that  
you have done something inappropriate.

You seem bound and determined to consider only the first of these two  
possibilities.

However, what you are doing, you are doing to people who *invented*  
the Internet as we know it today.   People who did that and gave  
their work to the public, because they knew that for their inventions  
to be useful, they had to be freely available.   People without whose  
work you would not even be able to exchange email with a wide group  
of people all over the world.   And now, we are hearing that because  
of your efforts, open participation in the working group is broken -  
in order to continue to make their work freely available, it seems  
that they have to exclude you, because you believe that it's okay to  
patent whatever you do to participate in the working group, and you  
want to make a living by so doing.

So it could be that it is you who are right, and they who are  
wrong.   But please, consider the other possibility just a bit.

It is possible for Thierry to be in the wrong.   Really, it is.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:26:41 -0700

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:13:04 -0400

>priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.

Participation in the IETF is voluntary.  Nothing "needs (as in 
has-must)" to be done, anything that is done is because the 
participants are willing to work together.  Based on the long-running 
(months-years) tilting over IPR claims, I am not willing to 
participate in any such discussion.

I've been silent on this topic as I have little to add.  My silence 
is not because I don't care, it's that I don't think it is worth 
getting involved given the atmosphere.

I know it takes two to tango, that it may appear that I am 
discouraged because of the back-and-forth over this, but it is the 
IPR claims that started it.  The push back is understandable.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:13:04 -0400

Sarcasm doesn't scale.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:51:36 -0400

I don't usually bother with refuting slander against me, as I have
better things to do with my time than argue with fools, but one
specific point in a recent posting does call for a response to the WG:

> inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.

Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and
clearly understands the obligations that go with my position.  Paul
also knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if
he ever did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but
the issue has never come up and I don't expect it ever will.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:51:36 -0400

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Jun 2007 16:11:19 +0000

> clearly understands the obligations that go with my position.  Paul also
> knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if he ever
> did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but the issue has
> never come up and I don't expect it ever will.

assuming for a moment that because rob and i are in the same management
chain my instructions were ever different than "use your own best
judgement" even in matters internal to isc (which would indicate that i had
more time than i actually do, and that rob had more tolerance for
foolishness than he actually does), i wonder if the above inference would
also apply to suzanne woolf in her position on the icann board and arin
advisory council, or keith mitchell in his position on the nanog program
committee and executive director of uknof and programme manager of oarc, or
any of the other times when isc employees do external public service work.

i don't know if t-m's "inference" is meant as "isc employees are shills" or
perhaps "all employees are shills", but the idea certainly conflicts with
my own vision that "whatever it is about someone that makes them useful at
isc probably makes them useful elsewhere, and if isc's mission is public
service, then encouraging this kind of public service would be a good
company policy."
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Jun 2007 16:11:19 +0000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:15:01 -0400 (EDT)

None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions 
Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know.

The considerations for conflict of interest are well established:

In the case of a conflict with an employment interest, the employee must 
recuse themselves to avoid the conflict of interest, and must also avoid 
the __appearance__ of a conflict of interest.

In this case, Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. The
entire defense by Austein and Vixie are entirely irrelevant: Austein's
employer's instructions are irrelevant, as is how well Austein has
followed those instructions.

Its quite simple: Austein has to avoid the appearance of conflict of
interest. He has to recuse from such activities that would place him in
a conflict. This is one function for co-chairs and Area Directors.

More inline

		--Dean

On 9 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:

> foolishness than he actually does), 

> i wonder if the above inference would

Yes. This is called "conflict of interest", and serious violations are
bad faith to the organizations being harmed by the conflict.
> service, then encouraging this kind of public service would be a good

One doesn't prove anyone is a shill to show conflict of interest. One
just shows that the interests are in conflict, and shows someone
benefited.  "shill" isn't a required element, or even a concluded 
element.

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:15:01 -0400 (EDT)

More inline

		--Dean

---

From: Evan Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:24:29 +0000

[...]
> Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect
> his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers.

Is this just a statement of general principles, or are you suggesting
that in the particular discussion at hand, Paul Vixie's having expressed
opinions about IPR claims, their effect on the RFC process, and the
desirability for RFC's to be implementable in free/open-source
software, constitutes a conflict of interest?

Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email
about?  What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately?
Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything?

--
Evan Hunt -- [email-masked]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

---

From: Evan Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:24:29 +0000

[...]

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:48:17 +0000

> Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything?

i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the finances of
any of rob's coworkers.  is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS
software than what we already don't make?

i think it's time to declare "troll alert!" and move on.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:48:17 +0000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:53:43 -0400 (EDT)

> > Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything?

I didn't see the whole message with the above comment in it, so I don't
know who said it or what else they said.  However:

Rob should avoid discussing DNSOP issues with ISC. ISC people should
take up their DNSOP issues with the non-conflicted co-chair.  If they
don't, Rob should inform them of his conflict of interest, and direct
them to discuss the matter with someone who isn't conflicted.  In the
case where both co-chairs are conflicted, that conflict should be
unmistakeably disclosed to the WG and discussed carefully and with the
guidance of the disinterested Area Director or disinterested IESG
members.

> software than what we already don't make?

These aren't the question at issue, unless someone asserts actual fraud.  
The ethical question is whether ISC's interests are different from those
of the IETF DNSOP WG. The answer is:  "Yes".  So a conflict of interest
exists.

There is a difference between appearance of self-dealing and actual
fraud. 

There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.  Austein appears
to be self-dealing. That mere __appearance__ is evidence of an ethical
deficit.  Whether ISC benefited more, or whether IETF benefited more, or
whether the transaction was actually fair is irrelevant to the question
of __appearance__ and self-dealing.  Actual unfairness justifies the
assertion of actual fraud.  The mere appearance of self-dealing is
merely unethical.

It is Austein who promoted the appearance by failing to recuse himself
from issues in which he is conflicted. Austein should know better than
to be on both sides of a transaction, and should have avoided that.

> i think it's time to declare "troll alert!" and move on.

I'm sure you do want to ignore the issue. A common clue or hint of a
unethical activity is the unwillingness to discuss ethics. Unethical
people hate ethics. Dislike of ethics isn't a necessary and sufficient
condition for concluding unethical behavior but, in my experience, has
been a common, co-incident feature with unethical behavior.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:53:43 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:18:42 -0400

This is getting silly, where Rob works, who Rob works with, who Rob
talks to, are all irrelevant.

Rob is a co-chair of the working group and serves at the pleasure of the AD,
he can be terminated at any moment, if he engages in anything that the AD
perceives as un-professional, un-ethical or just does not like something
about Rob.

Lets stop discussing possible conspiracy theories and stick to facts.
It would be impossible to fill all IETF WG chair and/or AD slots if
none of them worked for (or had stock in) a company that could
possibly gain something by the work produced in a working they chair/oversee.
In that world no one from Cisco could be a chair of any IETF working
group, just to take one example.

Dean, if you or anyone has problem with anyone's actions as CHAIR of any
IETF working group:
         step zero:  bring it to the WG attention
         step one:   ask the co-chair to intervene
         step two:   if that fails complain to the AD.
         step three: if that fails complain to the IESG
         step four:  if that fails complain to the IAB

Disclaimer: I have been a victim of allegations similar to this one in the
past so I feel Rob's pain and agony of having his name dragged into
the mud for no reason other than trying to make a living and at the
same time give back to the community by serving as a volunteer in a
job that does not get many thanks.

For the record:
Rob and Peter you are doing fine job and I see no problem with your 
associations
         or actions.

Dean, You have made important contributions in the past, but people 
would listen
         more closely to you if your volume of mail was less and you 
restricted
         your commentary to technical points.

Paul, I feel your pain too and applaud your well reasoned polite response.

         Olafur

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:18:42 -0400

For the record:

         Olafur

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:03:13 -0400 (EDT)

I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,
informally. 

What Olafur says below is just complete nonsense. I also make a living,
consult to companies that seek patents, and serve a non-profit
anti-patent organization.  My company also does IT consulting to
companies that we provide Internet Service to. (IT usually selects the
ISP). These occasionally lead to conflicts of interest, and I avoid
being on both sides of transaction by defering to others when I have a
conflict of interest and by proper disclosure. Nearly everyone who
volunteers or works for several organizations will find themselves in a
conflict position at one time or another.  Tens of thousands of people
do the right thing every day. It is never impossible to act ethically,
and ethical standards do not cut down on the number of volunteers to
non-profit organizations.

There are no conspiracy theories. There is a fact that Rob Austein is on
both sides of the transaction, and there is a fact that Austein hasn't
recused.

Austein's name is where it is only because Austein is on both sides of a
transaction, and Austein knew he was on both sides, and Austein didn't
do the right thing. It's that simple.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:03:13 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:18:23 +0200

> I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,

Let me personally add that I find this a very sad moment in the already
sorry history of DNS standardisation...

	Bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS Software 
http://netherlabs.nl              Open and Closed source services

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:18:23 +0200

Bert

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:28:10 +0200

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:18:23AM +0200,
 bert hubert <[email-masked]> wrote 

> sorry history of DNS standardisation...

On the other hand, it is just yet another stupid troll, nothing to
really worry about. The IETF survived to other trolls. Just ignore
D... A... and everything will be fine.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:28:10 +0200

---

From: Alan Barrett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:37:34 +0200

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.

What "transaction" are you referring to?  Please be specific.  I was
not aware of any exchange of services, money, patents, trademarks, or
anything else, between ISC and the DNSOP working group.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---

From: Alan Barrett <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:37:34 +0200

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:34 -0400 (EDT)

> anything else, between ISC and the DNSOP working group.

The transaction here is the business before the WG. In this WG business,
ISC (includes Austein) opposes an addition to the draft (one side), and
ISC (Austein) is "directing" WG decisions to reject the addition to the
draft (the other side).

The ethics of the transaction is independent of the value of the
transaction.  The issue of transaction value and fairness of the value
would be the subject of a claim seeking restitution of a fraud. I don't
have any opinion on whether fraud has actually occurred and I don't know
that fraud has occurred. Often, the details establishing a value and
fairness are discovered as a result of investigation of the ethical
issue.

I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute. I'll put
this on the web, but I haven't decided a URL yet. There are some curious
and interesting things in the dispute.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:07:34 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:10:51 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:34PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:

> I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute. 

I'm becoming frustrated by this discussion for two reasons.

First, there is precious little discussion in this thread of the
proposal on the table -- whether to adopt the draft in question as a
WG document.  It seems to me that getting past that hurdle is the task
at hand, and it'd be real nice if we could make such a determination.
A subsidiary issue is the one of whether another draft should be
partially subsumed under the draft in question.  Those actually seem
to me to be two different questions, and they could surely be handled
separately.  But even if we suppose that they should be handled
together, I imagine that discussion of the proposed text(s) would be
better than long, unguided discussion on the meta-issues.

Which brings me to my second problem.  As nearly as I can tell, there
are no clear conflict of interest guidelines for working groups in
general, and the IETF has previously concluded that such a state of
affairs is a good thing.  Instead, the principle has been that working
group members (i.e. everybody participating) should make their
arguments and see whther they get the support of the WG community; and
then follow the usual chain of appeals in the event they are
unsatisfied.  I spent only a few hours doing that research, so I may
well have overlooked something; but that was the general view I was
able to put together.  Information to the contrary would be welcome.

If I'm right about this, then this is an internal matter for the
working group, and so far I'm not seeing a lot of support for the idea
that there is a real conflict of interest in this particular case.  A
strong argument that interests in _fact_ conflict, rather than in
principle (which principle I don't so far understand in its
application, but that's a detail), would perhaps convince me of an
alternative point of view.

I observe at the same time that I support the state of affairs as I
understand it to be; that is, I don't think it possible that
meaningful work on technical standards in the (almost entirely
volunteer) IETF is even possible without a great deal of in-principle
conflict of interest in the usual, political way.  Everybody here had
_better_ be deeply interested in the outcomes, or we're producing
garbage.  I suppose this is why there is a traditional supposition
around the IETF that people are speaking for themselves and not their
employers, and why affiliation declarations are often not made at the
microphone during meetings.

Therefore, if I am correct that there are not current guidelines in
respect of conflicts of interest in working groups, and some people
think there should be, I encourage those people to make a
process-change submission to the IETF generally in the form of an
Internet Draft.  It will then be up to the wider IETF community
whether we want such a change to happen.  Since some of those bringing
complaints have lately joined the group of people willing to prepare
I-Ds, I am eagerly anticipating the publication of such a draft.

If there is just a disagreement within the working group, then
presumably the relevant structures of the community (in this case, the
AD, since one Chair is the object of the accusation and the other has
already recused himself on the topic) should be brought to bear on the
topic, either here on list or in whatever fora appropriate according
to IETF tradition.  Without that, I can't see that even longer
discussion about the accusations and reasoning for them is a topic for
this list.

Best regards,
A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:10:51 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Best regards,
A

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:06:12 -0400

<hat wg-chair="on">

>   the 2 July submission cutoff.

  The stated interval having passed without any anyone posting an
  objection to adoption, the decision made in Prague stands.

  We were fortunate to have several volunteers for the role of
  co-author.  From that pool I've selected Matt Larson to work with
  Peter on this draft.

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:06:12 -0400

<hat wg-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400

Dear Andrew and all:

Thanks to Andrew for looking at this. I guess I completely agree with 
your analysis.

I regret that a discussion about "conflict of interest" started after 
Rob asserted his independence in his wg co-chair role [1].

As far as I am concerned, I presume Rob's good faith when making this 
assertion.

Moreover, thanks to Andrew's analysis (e.g. excerpt below), I am 
convinced that the circumstances do not justify any stronger criteria of 
"conflict of interest".

Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work 
item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob 
to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and 
retract it. Thanks for looking into this.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> unsatisfied.  [...]
> [...] so far I'm not seeing a lot of support for the idea
> that there is a real conflict of interest in this particular case.
> [...]
> 
> [...]
> 
> Best regards,
> 

Same,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05546.html

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856

[3] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400

Dear Andrew and all:

Same,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:45:19 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> affairs is a good thing.  

I don't know where or when the IETF concluded that self-dealing was a 
good thing.  Maybe you could post that RFC.

One doesn't need explicit conflict of interest guidelines to know that
self-dealing is unethical.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:45:19 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:30:13 -0400

<hat wg-chair="on">

  To date I have seen no support for M. Moreau's suggestion from
  anyone other than M. Moreau, nor have I seen anyone other than
  M. Moreau disagree with my analysis that his suggestion is only
  peripherally related to the topic of Peter's draft.

  If anyone other than M. Moreau -does- wish to see Peter's draft
  incorporate M. Moreau's suggestion, please say so, and state:

  a) Why you think that the topic belongs in this draft, and

  b) Whether M. Moreau's IPR disclosure addressess whatever concerns
     (if any) you might have with respect to the IPR issues related to
     M. Moreau's suggestion (if you have no IPR concerns, say so).

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:30:13 -0400

<hat wg-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:48:29 -0400 (EDT)

There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had
been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially
directed the authors to disregard the proposal. 

All of the opposition has been FUD and false claims. I have a longer
report in progress detailing these issues.  I am inclined to be
concerned about the FUD and irregularity opposing Moreau's proposal, and
I think the proposal therefore deserves greater attention.  As a general
rule, its my experience that bad ideas have obvious technical problems,
while good ideas cannot be so opposed, and so are opposed by FUD and
process irregularities. I'd say the odds are that Moreau has a good
idea.

Mr. Moreau, in his first message of April 30th, disclosed his patent and
offered free, universal, and unlimited terms [though I must qualify
this, as we haven't yet seen the actual license. It may yet turn out to
not actually be as good as it sounds now.] Speaking as President of the
LPF and as an ISOC member, there can be no better patent terms than
free, universal, and unlimited. I applaud his license terms, and his
immediate disclosure and forthright approach.

Some people, offlist, have suggested to me that it is Mr. Moreau who has
acted unethically. Mr. Moreau has not acted unethically, but his actions
in this particular subject have been exemplary.

I also note the people who raised patent issues recently aren't usually
anti-patent advocates; most of them have participated in (at least two
incidents that I know of) discussions in which they either supported
drafts with patents with onerous terms, or were not opposed to
non-disclosure of patents in drafts, or were opposed to RFC3979
anti-patent provisions. Or they've explicitly told me they supported
software patents. Most/all of what they stated was incorrect or FUD.  
[incorrect/FUD, btw, does not promote an anti-patent agenda.  Facts
promote an anti-patent agenda. The pro-patent opposition would quickly
discredit FUD. Some facts can be found at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu or
http://progfree.org].  While I'm always pleased to have new converts to
the LPF cause, I am uncertain if their opinions represent a change of
view or just convenient ammunition.

Particularly, I would like to say that non-participation in the IETF (or
W3C, etc) does not prevent patents. Only __publication__ prevents
patents.

The law [in the U.S. and most countries] strongly encourages patents and
strongly disadvantages those without patents. [That is one reason the
law must be changed.] We (the LPF) do not expect people not to get
patents.  We encourage people to __publish__ rather than patent, but we
understand that this isn't always possible.  The LPF works to educate
people so that the patent laws will get changed. People with patents are
urged to forgo using patents for profit, and to make those patents free
with a free, universal, and unlimited license. Those that do, like Mr.
Moreau, are applauded.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:48:29 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Alan Barrett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:37:40 +0200

> directed the authors to disregard the proposal. 

I see only one message from Rob Austein dated 10 May 2007.  In that
message he did not direct any authors to do anything.  He made a
prediction about his own future behaviour if there was not "strong
support from disinterested WG participants".

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---

From: Alan Barrett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:37:40 +0200

--apb (Alan Barrett)

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:58:03 -0400 (EDT)

> support from disinterested WG participants".

Rob Austein wrote on May 10th, 2006:
 "Absent strong support from disinterested WG participants for having
  Peter's draft explore M. Moreau's putatively encumbered idea, I will
  direct Peter to decline M. Moreau's suggestion, at least until
  M. Moreau has filed his IPR statement and it is possible for a
  disinterested person to reach an independent opinion on the extent,
  relevance, and validity of M. Moreau's IPR claims."

If you mean this text from Austein's May 10th, message, then there is a
element of future tense about it.  However, Jeff Schiller has outlined
the conditions for such direction: The inability of a working group to
make a decision. By contrast, Austein's condition is "absent strong
support".  Austein's direction is inappropriate in both the future and
past, so the tense is irrelevant.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:58:03 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean