Subject: New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:30:26 -0700

Guys - with regard to the IP Laws in the US there is this thing called 
spoliation and it pertains to NoteWell and how NoteWell content is 
administered herein.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/sanctions0815.pdf

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is necessary I will leave it 
to your discretion since the fee rulings in a production matter would likely 
rest with the IETF and our sponsor's. Personally I think this means that to 
insure proper management that NO external resources can be relied on and 
that may mean IETF libraries.

It also means that I would suggest adding some digitally signed bar-code to 
the cover of the I-D or the RFC or STD or BCP identifying it. But that's 
just my two cents.

Todd

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:00:36 +0200

Todd,

you have failed to show evidence that competent legal counsel (not you) 
has looked at this document, looked at the IETF's procedures, and thinks 
that this ruling (which involves the destruction and non-production of 
court-requested evidence subsequent to a case being brought to court) is 
relevant to the IETF.

Until such evidence is brought, this will not be an IPR WG issue.

(For those who did not know - the IETF's procedures for responding to 
subpoenas is available online at http://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoena.html)

                   Harald

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:31:16 -0700

Harald -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: New Topic: US Law/Precedent on Spoliation of Data

> court-requested evidence subsequent to a case being brought to court) is

No Harald - I havent failed to do that - you personally and others within 
the IESG have tried to discredit myself and others who looked at these 
precedents and then made commentary.

You have asserted that this document means something other than what I 
represented it as. Since you personally are running a group who is crafting 
formal legal agreements for the IETF, if you do not understand the text of 
this document then you are NOT competent to perform that role and need to be 
formally removed from the IETF until such time as you can read english.

If you find this offensive think of how offensive I find your continual 
effort to prevent the IETF and your own culpability for your actions herein.

>
> Until such evidence is brought, this will not be an IPR WG issue

I am in the process of arranging that right now, and I dont think you are 
going to like how this turns out.

> subpoenas is available online at http://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoena.html)

Which implies Harald that since you wrote this that you are competent to 
read and understand the implications of Spoliation and the editing of IETF 
Archives. Meaning that your actions herein are about being adversarial and 
that also demands your immediate removal from the IETF and IESG as well.

Todd

>> the cover of the I-D or the RFC or STD or BCP identifying it. But that's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release Date: 9/4/2008 
6:57 AM