Subject: 7th, 8th, 9th, & 10th issues, and commentary on why the other 6 havent been posted to the ISSUES list?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:20:59 -0800

Steve B - per your offlist limits commentary to me on my posting to this
list, this is "Todd's Daily New Post" -

Harald -
I didn't notice your posting any of the SIX new ISSUES I identified - when
will that happen?

& here is the seventh issue in 5 parts
-------------------------------------
What was it that is what qualified any of the parties named as trustee's to
the IETF's IP Trust?

a) - Who in that group has legal experience with IP and IP Confirmation or
IP Management, including the development of reliable IP Licenses? No one I
saw

b) - How many people in that list own patents? or have had to defend IP
rights in a court of law? Any ???

c) and now the key commentary - who in the IP Trust has any experience
valuing IP - have any of them worked at any of the IP valuation firms who
license or sell off IP?

Hey I bet I could probably get any of you folks a stint as an apprentice
with my buddy Joe Popolo From IPAuctions.COM if you want...

d) - since IP has value - what happens to the "Submitter" of the IP to the
IETF when that happens.

e) also - since IP has value - What happens in the Standards Process to that
Valuation as well... What happens in a WG when one or two people decide to
torpedo an IP because its a threat to them now that Value is a question...

By the way - as a patent rights holder in six global jurisdictions I have to
ask these questions... So what was it?

Oh hell - lets add these two as well - since we are all wondering...
Issue #8
Is the trust a free-standing Corporate Entity? and if not when will it be.

Issue 9#
The IETF - Will it be spun off of ISOC and if so when and how - will it also
become a 501.3c or will it remain 'legally undefined' per se.

Issue #10
In the Oversight Model for the IETF there is really no control or process
for implementing any damage control based of egregious acts. Likewise since
there is no possible way to overturn already published documents within the
IETF's broadcast-only publishing model, there is no possible Oversight based
relief that participants can expect from the Oversight Committee,
essentially making them useless.

So how is oversight and respect for civility, equal access, and standards
practice fairness for all going to be enforced. Clearly this IETF has failed
that one so far. The existence of this WG is evidence of that  based on
everything published to date. Its not that the work is wrong its just that
from a process-model basis only half of the processes are there - the ones
that talk about what to do when everything works right - the problem is the
orientation with 'only the processes in re to those "when things work right"
model' meaning there is no damage control - and in fact only control on
processes when things do work right.

Its a fundamental flaw in the IETF writing style and every single IP or IP
Governance document within the IETF... There are no SHOULD's in IP
Management.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<[email-masked]>; "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: 5th ISSUE - Re: OFFLIST RESPONSE TO EMAIL HARASSMENT - Re: posting
volume

> Issue #5 - I haven't responded to this one yet...
>
> Harald - that's the problem... and of course its an ISSUE too -
>
> Last Calling something only discloses to that WG if they are in fact
getting
> the email - which there is no proof of  since it comes through Email
Servers
> not administered by the IETF, the IESG, or ISOC. Factually speaking you
can
> prove squat...  and because the contract is real, not disclosing to all
> affected that the mods to existing IPR rules, or newly created and
published
> IPR rules contractually changes, or that you intend for it to
contractually
> change existing relationships, and under US Law this REQUIRES an approval
> process for all of those parties that the IETF entered into those
> relationships with.
>
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: OFFLIST RESPONSE TO EMAIL HARASSMENT - Re: posting volume
>
>
> > todd glassey wrote:
> > > Ah - so maybe we should begin here - how was 3934 ratified and how
were
> the
> > > members informed of its 'now being in effect on the relationships
> already
> > > defined between us' - i.e. how is it that this IETF got any approval
> that
> > > the members agreed with this.
> > RFC 3934 was Last-Called and processed in the usual fashion for IETF BCP
> > documents: Through announcements on the ietf-announce list and
> > discussions on the IETF list, with determination of IETF consensus and
> > approval by the IESG, according to the rules of RFC 2026.
> >
> > If you wish to challenge the IETF's right to make its own rules, please
> > take it to the IETF list. It is not a topic for the IPR list.
> >
> >                     Harald
> >
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:14:39 +0100

> I didn't notice your posting any of the SIX new ISSUES I identified - when

When I get around to it. Hopefully before the meeting.

So far, the community interest in pursuing your issues seems negligible, so 
it doesn't seem urgent.

                 Harald

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:47:38 +0100

In regard to Todd Glassey's issues:
> become a 501.3c or will it remain 'legally undefined' per se
I have not added these as issues, since the first one is clearly 
answered by the incorporation papers of the IETF Trust, and the second 
one is clearly answered (in the negative) by BCP 101.