Subject: Re: [tlp-interest] IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:33:37 -0400

--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 15:42 -0700 IETF
Administrative Director <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Greetings;
> 
> The IETF Trust has considered the appeal by John C Klensin on
> July 18, 2009 and has posted a response at the Trust appeals
> page, http://trustee.ietf.org/trustappeals.html
> 
> The Trustees request that discussion of this response be on the
> tlp-interest list, [email-masked], with cc to
> [email-masked] .
> 
> The entire response has been posted to the tlp-interest list.

While I sincerely hope that this does not have to become the
subject of another appeal, and while I believe it is quite
reasonable for the Trustees to request that discussion of
properly-formulated license policy drafts be moved to the
tlp-interest list, the appeal was not significantly about the
_content_ of the latest TLP draft.  Instead, it was about the
behavior of the Trustees and their interactions with the IETF
Community.  _That_ discussion is better carried out on the IETF
list, in plain sight of the community, even that portion who do
not feel personally compelled to track the of IPR policies. 

    john

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:28:09 -0700

John,

On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 07:33:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> Instead, it was about the

While you seem to imply that you can determine for the rest of us on
the IETF list what is, and what is not a topic of general interest for
the IETF community, I would not like to let this statement pass
unchallenged. 

I fully support the idea of moving this discussion to another public
mailing list.

Thanks,

David Kessens
---

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:22 -0400

Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.

I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether
the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
forthcoming.

Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the
appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just
move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.

IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with
clarity.

Thomas

---

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:21:02 +0200

>>
>> The entire response has been posted to the tlp-interest list
Why wasn't it send to the ISS? It may be easier ...

Please copy the response to the IETF list

Thanks

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:46:54 +0200

> IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with

You saved me the time to compose a lengthier response, and instead I can
just +1 yours.

/Simon

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:58:11 -0400

--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:28 PM -0700 David Kessens 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Community.  _That_ discussion is better carried out on the
>> IETF list, in plain sight of the community, even that portion
>> who do not feel personally compelled to track the of IPR
>> policies.
>
> While you seem to imply that you can determine for the rest of
> us on the IETF list what is, and what is not a topic of
> general interest for the IETF community, I would not like to
> let this statement pass unchallenged.

David, I meant to imply no such thing.   Let me explain a little 
better the distinction I am trying to draw.  I think it is 
perfectly reasonable for the Trustees to move a discussion of 
the content of the Trust Licensing Policy, or other such 
matters, to a separate list.  They have done so and I have no 
objection at all.

On the other hand, the appeal addresses issues of whether the 
Trustees/IAOC and their behavior are in compliance with BCP 101, 
especially its provisions about openness, transparency, and 
responsiveness to the community.  That issue affects the entire 
community and as such, IMO, ought to be visible to the same 
community that approved BCP 101, authorized the creation of the 
IASA, and laid down the rules by which it is supposed to 
operate.  For the Trustees to decide (i) to not respond in 
specific terms to the appeal (see Thomas Narten's note) and (ii) 
to take the discussion to a place where few people will see it 
essentially preempts that appear and the right to appeal.   I'm 
not making any determination for anyone about what traffic they 
should read, or even what is of general interest.   I do, 
however, object strenuously to a decision by the Trustees to 
move discussion of that sort of appeal against their behavior to 
a list where the discussion will presumably be drowned by legal 
hairsplitting about the TLP itself.

YMMD, of course, but that was my reasoning and intent.

> I fully support the idea of moving this discussion to another
> public mailing list.

While I would not be enthused, I would consider moving the 
discussion to a dedicated public mailing list, or a mailing list 
focused on BCP 101, to be plausible.  I believe that moving it 
to a list dedicated to discussions of the TLP to be dismissing 
the entire point of the appeal.

Again, YMMD.
best,
    john

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:23:46 -0400

Dear Trustees,

I agree with the message from Thomas Narten, cc:ed below.  I expected,  
and request that you provide, a reply to John Klensin's appeal that is  
more directly responsive to the issues that John raised.

Also, I agree with John's concerns about discussion of this appeal  
being moved to the tlp-interest list.  I'm not on the tlp-interest  
list, because I don't have the time or interest to follow a discussion  
of the legal details of our licensing policy. I don't believe that I  
should have to read that list to know how the Trust plans to respond  
to the issues than John raised.

Margaret

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:07:20 -0400

Thomas:

I'm sorry that you read it that way.  The first response that was 
drafted was a point-by-point reply as you suggest.  It was extremely 
repetitive, with the same points being made over and over.  I found 
the reply cumbersome at best.  It was my suggestion that we take the 
points that were made over and over in that formulation of the 
response and structure it this way.

Russ

At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>Trustees mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:46:57 -0700

Hi Russ,
>response and structure it this way.

I do not have any doubt that you and the other individuals who are 
members of the IETF Trust are doing their best for the IETF Trust and the IETF.

I read the response of the IETF Trust to the appeal from John C. 
Klensin dated July 18, 2009 as described in the message posted by 
Thomas Narten.

There are a lot of discussions on the main IETF mailing list.  That 
mailing list is generally used to bring issues to the attention of 
the entire IETF Community and to discuss about them.  Some, if not 
most, of the issues and discussions may not be of interest to 
everyone in the IETF Community.  There has been complaints from IETF 
participants about amount of traffic on that list.  Maybe that's what 
prompted the IETF Trust to request that discussion of the response to 
the appeal be directed to the tlp-interest list.  An appeal is a 
serious matter.  The main IETF mailing list is the venue, in my 
opinion, to keep the entire IETF Community in the loop.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:34:37 -0500

On 9/7/09 at 3:07 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:

>>I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to 
>>be responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to 
>>whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is 
>>forthcoming.
>>
>>Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to 
>>the appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please 
>>just move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
>>
>>IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with clarity.

I agree.

>I'm sorry that you read it that way.

I'm sorry, Russ, but I didn't "read it that way." It *is* that way. 
It does not respond to the specific points and requests in the 
appeal. Saying that you are sorry that Thomas (and I) "read it that 
way" comes across as you saying "I'm sorry you were unable to read 
the true meaning." It's, frankly, a non-apology and a bit 
condescending.

>The first response that was drafted was a point-by-point reply as 
>you suggest.  It was extremely repetitive, with the same points 
>being made over and over.  I found the reply cumbersome at best.  It 
>was my suggestion that we take the points that were made over and 
>over in that formulation of the response and structure it this way.

I see nothing in the appeal that would require repetition, which 
indicates to me that perhaps the Trustees did not actually attempt to 
answer the points of the appeal, or that the repetetive answers all 
amounted to "no, we're not going to do that". How about answers to 
these questions:

On point (i) of the appeal: Will the Trustees cease taking action 
(except for "emergencies") until minutes are up to date? No answer 
was specifically given in the reply. If the answer is "yes", the 
Trustees will need a specific answer to (ii), since I have already 
seen the posting with regard to the new TLP due to go into effect 
September 12. Either the Trustees have hereby declared "an 
emergency", or the answer to point (i) is, "no, we will continue 
taking actions even though minutes are not up to date."

(For the record, the minutes wherein the decision to post the new TLP 
was taken are also not posted.)

On point (ii) of the appeal: Have the Trustees found that an 
emergency exists now (and if so, where is the explanation of that 
emergency)? In the future, will the Trustees explain to the community 
when such an emergency exists? I find neither answer in the reply.

On point (iii) of the appeal: Did the Trustees find that a proper 
Last Call was done on the TLP? Did the Trustees find that changes 
made to the proposed TLP were small enough as to not warrant a new 
Last Call? Neither of these questions is answered in the reply.

On point (iv) of the appeal: The reply answers this point, but starts 
with the sentence "The Trustees were proactive." Please answer the 
point in the appeal before patting yourselves on the back.

On point (v) of the appeal: The Trustees have not provided the 
requested "summary and review of comments made on the June 23rd 
version of that document, their decisions about each  comment, and 
the reasoning for those decisions" as far as I know. Have the 
Trustees agreed to or rejected this element of the appeal?

On point (vi) of the appeal: Have the Trustees agreed to "treat the 
authorities granted to themselves by the "Administrative Procedures" 
document as invalid and without force until that document is updated 
to contain specific provisions for openness, transparency, and 
accountability, including the provisions for review outlined above, 
and the rough consensus approval of the community is obtained for 
that revision"? I see no answer in the reply.

On point (vii) of the appeal: The reply answers this point in the 
paragraph which starts, "Second...".

Until the Trustees answer these questions directly, I (like Thomas) 
do not find the appeal reply adequate.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:17:47 -0700 (PDT)

I just had a chance to review this, and unfortunately I find myself in complete
agreement with Pete on all of the points he makes.

				Ned

> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:44:34 -0400

Pete & Thomas:

This response is my own.  I have not coordinated it with the Trustees.

>>>whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy 
>>>is forthcoming.
>>>
>the true meaning." It's, frankly, a non-apology and a bit condescending.

My reply was certainly not meant to be condescending.  I was trying 
to indicate the process that was used.  Point-by-point responses were 
formulated in a group discussion.  When they were written done, the 
same points were made over and over.  This did not seem to me to be a 
useful reply.  So, I suggested restructuring the response with the 
same material.

>>being made over and over.  I found the reply cumbersome at 
>>best.  It was my suggestion that we take the points that were made 
>>over and over in that formulation of the response and structure it this way.
>
>indicates to me that perhaps the Trustees did not actually attempt 
>to answer the points of the appeal, or that the repetetive answers 
>all amounted to "no, we're not going to do that".

I can tell you that is not the case.  In fact, the response indicates 
that the Trustees recognize places where they were deviation from the 
will of the community, and the actions that will be taken to 
improve.  They include no more proactive TLP changes as well as more 
timely and complete minutes.

>How about answers to these questions:
>

The appeal response indicates the actions that are being taken to get 
the minutes up to date.  There are several documents in the RFC 
Editor queue that were blocked waiting for TLP 3.0 to be posted.  I 
strongly encouraged the Trustees to proceed with the posting of TLP 
3.0 so that the real work product of the IETF was not further 
delayed.  This argument was persuasive to the other Trustees.

>(For the record, the minutes wherein the decision to post the new 
>TLP was taken are also not posted.)

Understood.

>emergency)? In the future, will the Trustees explain to the 
>community when such an emergency exists? I find neither answer in the reply.

As explained above, we did feel some urgency to unblock IETF stream 
documents in the RFC Editor Queue.  there are other non-IETF stream 
documents that need other actions to unblock.  However, direction 
from each of those streams is needed before any action can be taken 
by the Trustees.  That is, the Trustees are not going to take 
proactive actions here.  The Trustees are waiting on the direction 
from those streams.

>Last Call? Neither of these questions is answered in the reply.

This was not answered in the appeal response, but it was fully 
answered on the list.  With more than a week to go in the 30 day 
comment period, the Trustees listed the changes that would not be 
included based on the community comment, and the Trustees stated that 
several proposed changes had received no negative comment and the 
Trustees intended to implement those unless comments to the contrary 
were received in the remainder of the comment period.  Those changes 
were implemented in TLP 3.0.  The urgency for one of those changes 
has already been covered above.

>On point (iv) of the appeal: The reply answers this point, but 
>starts with the sentence "The Trustees were proactive." Please 
>answer the point in the appeal before patting yourselves on the back.

This was not a pat on the back.  Quite the contrary.  (Who is being 
condescending now?)  It was actually the thing the community told us 
to stop doing.  It was an admission that we were being proactive, but 
in the future we will wait for community direction.

>Trustees agreed to or rejected this element of the appeal?

The Trustees posted a fairly detailed process for the handling of 
changes to the TLP going forward, and the appeal response points to 
the process.  This is a statement about the future.

The Trustees had already posted a list of changes that would not be 
included in TLP 3.0 before this appeal was sent.  Rationale was 
provided, although it is clear to me that some community members 
would have preferred more depth and traceability.  The posted 
procedure will provide that going forward.  Significant proposed 
changes were not made; it is clear to the Trustees that the community 
did not want the Trustees to be proactive regarding the handling of 
non-IETF streams.  As stated in the appeal response, and several 
times in this highly redundant reply, the Trustees will wait for 
formal direction from the streams.

>that revision"? I see no answer in the reply.

The appeal response says that "the Trustees are abiding by the 
provisions of BCP 101."  This is the crux of the question being 
asked.  BCP 101 was written to cover the IAOC before the IETF Trust 
was formed.  Here, the Trustees accept BCP 101, including the part 
about appeals, as covering actions by the IAOC an the IETF Trust.

>do not find the appeal reply adequate.

I hope this clarifies the situation and alleviates your concerns.

Russ