Subject: IPR WG Rules MAY NOT VIOTALE THE Code of Conduct of the ISOC

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:15:00 -0800

Harald -
Since the IETF is not a free-standing entity it seems to me that the IPR-WG 
*** MUST *** implement the ISOC Code of Conduct in its participation rules, 
which means to me that many of the IETF's punitive and its other working 
rules in BCP78 and BCP79 violate these directly.

How this all fits together is that ALL of the IETF's processes must be 
constrained to directly meet the requirements of the ISOC Code of Conduct 
and any that dont open the IESG member's and the IPR member's who enacted 
them to direct litigation as well as their sponsors one would think.

Further, unless the ISOC has granted the IESG the ability to be in violation 
of the ISOC's disclosed Ethical Actions Policy,  the IESG *** cannot *** 
elevate document's to operational that violate those rules either or the 
IESG would be liable there one would think for violating the disclosed 
constraints. Further any protection that the ISOC put in place would be void 
and the ISOC itself would be forced formally to step in and take immediate 
action to avoid litigation against it as well...

So let me ask, will you now inform the WG that it is to embrace all of the 
ISOC's Code of Conduct in all of its operations?

http://www.isoc.org/members/codeconduct.shtml aka the COC.

The reason I ask this is that
------------------------
A) the "No Obligation to Publish" rule violates rule #1 of the COC - period. 
Refusing to allow an Initiative into a WG also violates this and possibly 
Rule #8 as well.

B) The process you and many others use in ignoring various voices violates 
Rule #11, or Rule #3 when you refuse to look at the effect's of your 
refusing to take input or analysis on your actions.

C) The fact that you refuse to put in place a set of Mirror or WG operations 
requirements violates the Integrity of Stored Info requirements of Rule #5

D) But the key issue is the violation of ISOC Rule #12 since it means that 
YOU MUST SUPPORT AND OBEY ALL IP Laws here in the US since the ISOC is a US 
Corporation - this is not arguable as far as I can tell.

E) And to close this list out, the ISOC is real clear that NO ONE MAY 
VIOLATE THESE RULES UNDER IT, meaning in the IETF and IESG too - see Rule 
#13 and 14 for more info on this.

Hell we could go on for days here but this is enough to get this ball 
rolling.

Todd Glassey 

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 02:10:33 +0100

todd glassey wrote:

> it seems to me that the IPR-WG *** MUST *** implement the ISOC
> Code of Conduct in its participation rules

Copy and paste it into a proposed BCP, or maybe only a proposed
ION.  IMHO it is a good text, in no way limited to the IPR WG,
and normally I have a "thing" with any kind of "netiquette".

> many of the IETF's punitive and its other working rules in 
> BCP78 and BCP79 violate these directly.

NAK

> ALL of the IETF's processes must be constrained to directly
> meet the requirements of the ISOC Code of Conduct 

NAK   

That is not the case for all participants, unless you put it 
into a BCP and get consensus for it.

The proposed s/member/participant/g in the next TAO is more 
important.  BTW, you could also propose to paste the text into
a new TAO appendix, that might be more straight forward.

> the ISOC itself would be forced formally to step in and take
> immediate action to avoid litigation against it as well...

NAK.  You are certainly free to share your concerns with them.

> So let me ask, will you now inform the WG that it is to embrace
> all of the ISOC's Code of Conduct in all of its operations?

NAK.  How should he trick me into sending their "international
member application form", unless I really want it ?  And if you
think that there was *no* consensus to write "participant" in
the drafts I *strongly* disagree.  

> YOU MUST SUPPORT AND OBEY ALL IP Laws here in the US

NAK
 
> this is not arguable as far as I can tell.

NAK

> this is enough to get this ball rolling.

Harald already noted your "1F", nothing to do.

 Frank