Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[John Leslie]

Nick Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Also I meant to say this on my original post so there's no
> misunderstanding - just because I put this page up it doesn't mean
> I'm signing it (I'm signing neither)

   Hmm... I signed it, largely in support of Nick... :^(

   I was _very_ nervous about any appearance of putting the question
to a vote -- that would be totally inappropriate, especially at this
time.

   But, much though I'd be happy to live without Jefsey's posts, I
firmly believe that the PR-Action Harald proposes is a bad tactic,
and is poorly supported. I won't go into detail on this list. (It is
turning into a Denial-of-Service attack to _this_ list: perhaps
someone could divert the discussion elsewhere?)

--
John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Peter Dambier]

Randy.Dunlap wrote:


Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as
"Any IETF member" ?



Anyboy who has enough brains to share.

Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because
the contract does end.

There has been nothing that would suggest the contract will be lengthend.

Vint Cerf has gone.
Paul Vixie has gone.

It does not make sense to shy away everybody who still has got his own
working brain - especially if he is a critic.

WSIS/WGIG have produced a mess that cannot replace ICANN or IETF.
So somebody has to do it.

Who?
Why?

Did you notice right now the Public-Root is comming down? They will
not do this work!

Who else?
Turkey?
China?
Bin Laden?

Dont talk about Problems!
Dont vote for critics!
Leave the ship before it is sinking!

That is not my choice!

After signing, here is another P-R action you might want to see:

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/


Peter and Karin Dambier


--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Film at 11 (Re: Anyone not in favor)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On torsdag, oktober 06, 2005 09:06:38 +0200 Peter Dambier 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Randy.Dunlap wrote:


Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as
"Any IETF member" ?



Anyboy who has enough brains to share.

Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because
the contract does end.


I'm glad the IETF doesn't have an USG contract.

The IETF was here before ICANN. My bet is that it will be there afterwards.

But - today's Level3 spat may be more of a danger to the Internet at the 
moment than WSIS is; unlike WSIS resolutions, changes in peering policy 
affect real people in real time.


Harald


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On torsdag, oktober 06, 2005 02:59:49 -0400 John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



   But, much though I'd be happy to live without Jefsey's posts, I
firmly believe that the PR-Action Harald proposes is a bad tactic,
and is poorly supported. I won't go into detail on this list. (It is
turning into a Denial-of-Service attack to _this_ list: perhaps
someone could divert the discussion elsewhere?)


your wish is my command :-)

The list "pr-action-talk" 
 is awaiting 
subscriptions!


Note: This is not in ANY way, shape or form an IETF list. I've created it, 
I'm responsible for it, I'll shut it down if I feel like it.


But if Jefsey posts to it, I'm more likely to append his messages to the 
FAQ file for the list than to ban them


(In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for creating new 
mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering official IETF business over 
multiple lists that nobody ever could remember or find again. But now I'm 
no longer IETF chair, so what I do with mailing lists is entirely my own 
business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This isn't one.)


(btw:
number of postings with "PR-Action" in subject over the last 30 days: 41
Number of postings with "UN plan" in subject: 57
The UN has the power :-)


  Harald


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: a new DNS root for the world?

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:51:30PM -0400,
 Keith Moore  wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> IMHO it would make a lot more sense to distribute the (ICANN signed)
> root zone by multicast (or what the heck, even BGP) so that
> resolvers would never refer queries to the root.

It is distributed (and it is signed, by the real manager) by FTP,
which is more than enough for a file where it takes months to have
even a trivial change.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Film at 11 (Re: Anyone not in favor)

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:32:21AM +0200,
 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
 a message of 31 lines which said:

> The IETF was here before ICANN. My bet is that it will be there
> afterwards.

I don't bet but my hope is that you are right.
 
> But - today's Level3 spat may be more of a danger to the Internet at
> the moment than WSIS is; unlike WSIS resolutions, changes in peering
> policy affect real people in real time.

Do note that interconnection, peering, etc, is explicitely on the WSIS
agenda (and rightly so, for the reason you give). It does not mean it
will change anything, simply that we'll talk about it.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: a new DNS root for the world?

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 09:35 06/10/2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:51:30PM -0400,
 Keith Moore  wrote
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> IMHO it would make a lot more sense to distribute the (ICANN signed)
> root zone by multicast (or what the heck, even BGP) so that
> resolvers would never refer queries to the root.

It is distributed (and it is signed, by the real manager) by FTP,
which is more than enough for a file where it takes months to have
even a trivial change.


You are right. RIPE documented the figures we all know (see ISOC 
site). Less than 70 changes a year in the root. Up to 3 months delays 
or more.  The compressed version roughly 3 times smaller than the 
ISOC main page.


Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive a 
personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of root 
related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That the root server 
system works well, does not implies that the root servers system 
concept is still the best solution. We now have 1.5 billions (most of 
the Internet users and many more) who will access the NewStar root file.


jfc




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

I thank Nick for his intent. However I do not know if ad-hominem 
debates are the best for the IETF. As an IETF deliverable user, I 
wish the IETF to be pertinent and open to all, in my areas of 
concerns. Not to see it hurt. May be will Members want to consider 
there are three issues in this first reference to RFC 3683:


- an economic intelligence ad-hominem against me and a diversion IRT 
RFC 3066 bis now under IETF review.
- the exposure of an affinity group, making RFC 3774 and 3869 (1.2 
IAB Concerns) interesting rereads.
- the need to organise the RFC 3683 so it is not a way to lynch 
anyone you want or to destabilise competition.


I said I do not want to add drum beats to drum justice. I only engage 
everyone interested (a) to carefully read the WG-ltru Charter first 
paragraph (b) to read Harald's ad-hominem (c) to refer to the common 
sense propositions I made to Brian Carpenter to avoid justice cases 
and commercial feuds to mare the IETF (d) to get acquainted with 
networked languages issues.


Networked languages is a new issue for every SSDO. The RFC 3066 bis 
still confuses it with written languages issues (if you reread RFC 
3869, you noticed IAB does not even list it yet among R&D priorities 
and needs for non-commercial funding - like my team manages). The 
resulting inadequacies rise major security considerations: Harald 
recently apologised for having documented one in a way supporting my 
"platform". He documented the main other one, now increased by the 
new ABNF, in his RFC 3066 Security Considerations.


jfc

PS. I will certainly leave the IETF by my own move the day I do not 
fear anymore private interests might use it as a technical brake for 
disloyal commercial purposes, in my R&D and business areas. 



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP

[Gray, Eric]

Harald,

Yes, word-smithing is hard.  In this case, there was
one position that the majority of the number spaces might
be used for vendor specific applications (where "vendor" -
in this case - includes organizations in general and vendor
cooperative fora specifically).

The choice for "Standards Action" would eliminate at
least part of the number space from being used in this way
- even at the cost of going through the last call process.
It's hard to be both vendor proprietary and standard.

Most of the negotiation process in this case has been
with an awareness of RFC 2434 as Thomas Narten and no less
than two current ADs have previously referred discussion to 
this RFC at least a few times.

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:38 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric; Stewart Bryant; iesg@ietf.org
--> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo 
--> Wire Edge to
--> E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> --On onsdag, oktober 05, 2005 19:00:42 -0300 "Gray, Eric" 
--> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--> 
--> > Harald,
--> >
--> >   The trouble is - know it or not - this "language choice"
--> > is the result of a lot of wrangling.  Your comment is a late
--> > comer to the "party" as we have been round and round on this
--> > as well as other issues relating to this document.  What you
--> > see now is the current negotiated position, and it would be
--> > very nice if we did not have yet another round of negotiations
--> > because someone else is not exactly happy with what we have...
--> 
--> sure. When you say "are allocated through the IETF 
--> Consensus Process", 
--> I'm just not sure if you are referring to this from 2434:
--> 
-->   IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
-->consensus process. Specifically, new assignments 
--> are made via
-->RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
-->input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
-->(e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
--> 
--> It's been a troublesome choice in the past (at the moment, the IESG 
--> position is, I believe, that at least a Last Call is needed 
--> for such an 
--> assignment, but not necessarily an approved internet-draft, 
--> although that 
--> is preferred).
--> 
--> I'm happy to have PWE3 suggest what it wants to suggest - 
--> my worry is 
--> chiefly that the IETF has a shared understanding of what 
--> PWE3 is suggesting.
--> 
--> Wordsmithing is hard.
--> 
--> Harald
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Gray, Eric]

Harald,

You realize that this is like asking people to sign
up for torture.  Maybe anyone posting to _this_ list on the
subject of _this_ topic, should be auto-subscribed to your
list and required to receive mail for at least a week before
being allowed to unsubscribe.  :-)

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:33 AM
--> To: John Leslie; Nick Staff
--> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against 
--> Jefsey Morfin
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> --On torsdag, oktober 06, 2005 02:59:49 -0400 John Leslie 
--> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
--> wrote:
--> 
--> >But, much though I'd be happy to live without Jefsey's posts, I
--> > firmly believe that the PR-Action Harald proposes is a bad tactic,
--> > and is poorly supported. I won't go into detail on this 
--> list. (It is
--> > turning into a Denial-of-Service attack to _this_ list: perhaps
--> > someone could divert the discussion elsewhere?)
--> 
--> your wish is my command :-)
--> 
--> The list "pr-action-talk" 
-->  
--> is awaiting 
--> subscriptions!
--> 
--> Note: This is not in ANY way, shape or form an IETF list. 
--> I've created it, 
--> I'm responsible for it, I'll shut it down if I feel like it.
--> 
--> But if Jefsey posts to it, I'm more likely to append his 
--> messages to the 
--> FAQ file for the list than to ban them
--> 
--> (In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for 
--> creating new 
--> mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering official 
--> IETF business over 
--> multiple lists that nobody ever could remember or find 
--> again. But now I'm 
--> no longer IETF chair, so what I do with mailing lists is 
--> entirely my own 
--> business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This 
--> isn't one.)
--> 
--> (btw:
--> number of postings with "PR-Action" in subject over the 
--> last 30 days: 41
--> Number of postings with "UN plan" in subject: 57
--> The UN has the power :-)
--> 
--> 
-->Harald
--> 
--> 
--> ___
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

New lists (was: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against [...])

[Frank Ellermann]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for
> creating new mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering
> official IETF business over multiple lists that nobody ever
> could remember or find again. But now I'm no longer IETF
> chair, so what I do with mailing lists is entirely my own
> business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This
> isn't one.

Of course everybody incl. you is free to create new lists as
it pleases him or her, but it's IMHO a bad strategy, unless
the "original" list is clearly flooded by off topics.  Often
splitting or worse renaming lists (or newsgroups) is a way
to kill at least one of them.  Examples:

Now a part of the MASS traffic is on DKIM, MASS is essentially
dead.  The public PECSI traffic is apparently what used to be
NETWRK traffic.  ASRG has more sublists than total articles
per year.  Inspired by that stunt SPF is on its way to top it.

I really don't like this.  If the "hidden agenda" is to get
rid of RfC 3683 debates here I can understand your motivation,
but for this first plus second experiment with actually using
RfC 3683 I'd prefer to have it here.  And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
start with "obsoletes 3683".
  Bye, Frank

P.S.:  One of the Usenet "laws" (like Godwin's law), as soon
   as the name of a poster makes it into the subject the
   thread is dead.



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Sean Dorman]

I, frankly, feel that this is a waste of our time. All voices, regardless of what we may feel towards any given person, has a right to voice a concern. Ideas don't just come from someone voicing an opinion or insight that everyone agrees with, but also from the thought process initiated by our disagreeing with someone of a different viewpoint.
 
I say let Jersey stay. Half the time I ignore him, but some of his responses allow me to consider different viewpoints.Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy.Dunlap wrote:> Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as> "Any IETF member" ?> Anyboy who has enough brains to share.Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 becausethe contract does end.There has been nothing that would suggest the contract will be lengthend.Vint Cerf has gone.Paul Vixie has gone.It does not make sense to shy away everybody who still has got his ownworking brain - especially if he is a critic.WSIS/WGIG have produced a mess that cannot replace ICANN or IETF.So somebody has to do it.Who?Why?Did you notice right now the Public-Root is comming down? They willnot do this work!Who else?Turkey?China?Bin Laden?Dont talk about Problems!Dont vote for critics!Leave the ship b!
 efore it
 is sinking!That is not my choice!After signing, here is another P-R action you might want to see:http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/Peter and Karin Dambier-- Peter and Karin DambierPublic-RootGraeffstrasse 14D-64646 Heppenheim+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://iason.site.voila.frhttp://www.kokoom.com/iason___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: New lists (was: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against [...])

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Frank,

[Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934.  My views do 
not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the 
IESG or my employer.]


At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:

 And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
start with "obsoletes 3683".


RFC 3683 is quite different from RFC 3934.  RFC 3683 allows the IESG 
to suspend an individual's posting rights to all IETF lists (WG and 
non-WG lists) for an indefinite period of time in a single action, 
with no requirement for periodic review.  RFC 3934 allows WG chairs 
to suspend an individual's posting rights on a single WG mailing list 
(the one on which the abuse actually occurred) for no more than 30 
days.


I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as it 
is currently being discussed...


Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an 
awfully large hammer.  I don't feel comfortable with the fact that we 
have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might actually 
use it.   Use of this mechanism against an individual could be 
detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his or her 
career.  I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that we might 
consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or 
hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus 
process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of those 
categories from time-to-time.  I am also personally appalled by the 
fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this mechanism on 
the IETF discussion list.


IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and RFC 3934 
provides that there may be subsequent 30-day suspensions if there are 
further instances of abuse.


I do think that an update to RFC 3934 may be called for.  In 
particular, I would like to update RFC 3934 to indicate that the 
mechanism can be used by the owners of non-WG IETF lists, and to 
define "the IESG" to be the owner of the IETF discussion list.  I'd 
also like to make it clearer that repeat offenses can result in 
expedited action (i.e. no need for an addition round of 
private/public warnings if a repeat offense occurs within 90 days of 
reinstatement?).


I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 formally 
deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to "Historic".  However, it 
seems clear that some people do support the existence and use of this 
mechanism, so I don't know that we could reach IETF consensus to do 
that.


Margaret


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: New lists (was: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against [. ..])

[Gray, Eric]

I agree fully with Margaret except that I would suggest that people
might feel that a properly augmented version of 3934 would make it
possible to make 3683 obsolete.  The augmentation Margaret suggests
are probably needed, but would be just a start, given how little the
RFC currently says and how much more it would have to say in order
to do what is suggested.  

As it is, RFC 3934 is just an update to another RFC (2418) to extend
WG chair authority to include mailing list discipline.  What would
be needed is a separate RFC intended to define mailing list discipline
in general, including assigning the same authority to the WG chair as
is currently assigned by RFC 3934.

However, rather than go through a separate process of making RFC 3863 
an Historical RFC, wouldn't it be possible to have a new RFC (3934bis)
make both 3683 and 3934 obsolete?  It will be enough work as it is,
without making it harder...

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
--> Margaret Wasserman
--> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:12 AM
--> To: Frank Ellermann; ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: New lists (was: Anyone not in favor of a 
--> PR-Action against
--> [...])
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> Hi Frank,
--> 
--> [Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934.  My views do 
--> not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the 
--> IESG or my employer.]
--> 
--> At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
--> >  And so far I think that
--> >3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
--> >start with "obsoletes 3683".
--> 
--> RFC 3683 is quite different from RFC 3934.  RFC 3683 allows 
--> the IESG 
--> to suspend an individual's posting rights to all IETF lists (WG and 
--> non-WG lists) for an indefinite period of time in a single action, 
--> with no requirement for periodic review.  RFC 3934 allows WG chairs 
--> to suspend an individual's posting rights on a single WG 
--> mailing list 
--> (the one on which the abuse actually occurred) for no more than 30 
--> days.
--> 
--> I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, 
--> especially as it 
--> is currently being discussed...
--> 
--> Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an 
--> awfully large hammer.  I don't feel comfortable with the 
--> fact that we 
--> have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might actually 
--> use it.   Use of this mechanism against an individual could be 
--> detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his or her 
--> career.  I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that 
--> we might 
--> consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or 
--> hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus 
--> process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many 
--> of those 
--> categories from time-to-time.  I am also personally appalled by the 
--> fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this 
--> mechanism on 
--> the IETF discussion list.
--> 
--> IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and 
--> RFC 3934 
--> provides that there may be subsequent 30-day suspensions if 
--> there are 
--> further instances of abuse.
--> 
--> I do think that an update to RFC 3934 may be called for.  In 
--> particular, I would like to update RFC 3934 to indicate that the 
--> mechanism can be used by the owners of non-WG IETF lists, and to 
--> define "the IESG" to be the owner of the IETF discussion list.  I'd 
--> also like to make it clearer that repeat offenses can result in 
--> expedited action (i.e. no need for an addition round of 
--> private/public warnings if a repeat offense occurs within 
--> 90 days of 
--> reinstatement?).
--> 
--> I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 
--> 3683 formally 
--> deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to "Historic".  However, it 
--> seems clear that some people do support the existence and 
--> use of this 
--> mechanism, so I don't know that we could reach IETF consensus to do 
--> that.
--> 
--> Margaret
--> 
--> 
--> ___
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Bill Manning]

i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

--bill


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Peter Dambier]

Bill Manning wrote:


i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

--bill



Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.


Peter and Karin


--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:

> Bill Manning wrote:
> >
> > i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
> >
> > --bill
> >
>
> Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.
>
> Peter and Karin

I'm there too.

-- 
~Randy

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Avri Doria]

well said.  neither am i.

a.

On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:



i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

--bill



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Anita Kremer]

Same here

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Avri Doria
Verzonden: donderdag 6 oktober 2005 21:59
Aan: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

well said.  neither am i.

a.

On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:

>
> i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
>
> --bill


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Marc Manthey]

On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:


Bill Manning wrote:


i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill


me too

regards




Peter and Karin

--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason

--
"Wer die freiheit aufgibt, um sicherheit zu gewinnen,
 wird am ende beides verlieren." (benjamin franklin)

Les Enfants Terribles
C.V.O. Marc Manthey
Hildeboldplatz 1a
50672 Köln - Germany

main site: http://www.let.de
developer:http://www.cuseeme.de
http://www.applehelpers.com
my blog:http://brain.let.de

AIM ,MSN, MAC= macbroadcast





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Melinda Shore]

Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

Melinda

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Sean Dorman]

I am for freedom of contribution, regardless of whether or not I like the contributor or what is contributed.
 
I am against censorship of members who "fit" my first statement.Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be takingthe form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably moreappropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.Melinda___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Melinda Shore writes:
>Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
>the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
>appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>

Thank you.  I'm just as uncomfortable with the "let's sign a petition 
against the PR action" as I am with the "let's sign a petitition for 
it" postings.

I'm not opposed to PR actions in general; in fact, as a WG chair, I've
(successfully) asked my AD to suspend someone's posting privileges.
I've also had occasion to warn people that they face such sanctions, 
most recently today.  If someone is being disruptive and won't stop, 
after repeated warnings, I confess I don't see an alternative.  

Note that I am not expressing any opinions for or against any specific 
suggestions.

--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Nelson, David]

For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
against any person, let me suggest that rights of free expression are
not unlimited.  Any human right has practical limits when it comes into
direct conflict with the rights of another.

For example, consider two college roommates.  One wishes to exercise his
freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
(without the benefit of headphones, of course!).  The other wishes to
exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well rested for
the big exam the following morning.  Clearly, each roommate, taken
individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in this case they
have come into conflict.

While I have no opinion on the current case, it seems to me that the
basis for any such PR decision has to be based on the balance of rights.
Does the right of the allegedly abusive poster to express himself come
into conflict with the rights of the other mailing list participants to
conduct an orderly discourse?  If such a conflict exists, then is the
imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify limiting the rights
of the one?


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Nick Staff]

> Melinda Shore wrote...
> 
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be 
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's 
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
> 
> Melinda
> 

I'm against PR-Actions for anything that can pass a Turing test

nick


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

I've been following this discussion closely, as can be expected.

It's been a long road here; the first version of Marshall's draft was 
written in April 2003, based on a POISED mailing list discussion.


It took 8 months and a lot of email before the IESG approved the document 
(in December 2003), asserting that the IETF community had consensus on the 
document (and I believe it was true at the time).


This is the first serious attempt at invoking it, and in trying to do so, I 
wanted certain things to be true:


- The community should be aware of what's happening. I think that's been 
achieved!
- The request should be based on a grievance shared by a number of people, 
not on any individual's personal grievance. That's why I asked for help in 
drafting, and signatures on the petition.
- The process should be carried out in the open, by people prepared to 
stand up for their position. That's why I chose to publish the signatures.


I think I achieved my goals. In retrospect, it might have been better to 
gather my signatures quietly and let the IETF debate occur at IETF Last 
Call. But hindsight is always perfect.


Today (Friday), I'll pass the petition to the IESG for their consideration, 
and will leave it in their hands without arguing any more about it; I 
believe I have written enough about the specific case.


But the debate on the IETF list deserves comment.

To me, the positions people have taken on the IETF list about the PR-action 
seem to fall into roughly three groups:


- The behaviour described is egregrious enough that the extreme measure of 
an RFC 3683 PR-Action is warranted.


- The behaviour described is not egregrious enough to justify the extreme 
measure of a PR-Action, but we can imagine situations where such an action 
would be justified.


- Under no circumstances can I imagine that a PR-Action can be warranted; 
the circumstances of the case do not matter.


(There's also a set of people saying "no comment").

I think that Marshall Rose described the current way people handle 
irritating people well back in 2003 (POISED list, April 8):


 people who have a high tolerance to pain, ignore it, those who
 have a lower tolerance to pain implement a local solution, and
 those with less of a tolerance have simply left the mailing
 lists.

The logical consequence of the "nobody should be banned" position is that 
this is the way we want the IETF to be.


Some people will leave if we make that decision.
I think that these people leaving will make the IETF less able to carry out 
its mission.

I think that's an important consideration.

The next step is in the hand of the IESG.

   Harald










pgpbuOl46R50N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Gray, Eric]

David,

Let's put this all in perspective.  Every time I want to do 
something in the IETF, someone tells me I have to join at least
one more mailing list.  So I currently get more than a hundred
messages every day (usually quite a bit more than a hundred).  
That doesn't even include the ones I have to look at because I'm
the list administrator for one of those lists.

Excluding the ones for the MPLS mailing list, I have to get
rid of about 80-90% of the mail I get because it is frankly obscene
or obviously fraudulent.  Of the remaining 10-20%, I might have to
ignore 2 or 3 messages on any average day because - while supposedly
legitimate - those messages have no useful content.  Of course, that
is under normal circumstances when everyone is not on a rant about
everyone else.  It's not really comforting to know that other people 
have the same problem or worse, but they do.

Hence, for me at least, extending your analogy to fit - the
two students are both trying to sleep and listen to music with an
artillery barrage continuously pounding away at the vacant lot next
door.  Why don't we do something about the real problem and stop 
thinking of nasty things to do to our colleagues just because we 
know exactly who the offender is in those cases? 

--
Eric

--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
--> Nelson, David
--> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:59 PM
--> To: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against 
--> Jefsey Morfin 
--> 
--> 
--> For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
--> against any person, let me suggest that rights of free 
--> expression are
--> not unlimited.  Any human right has practical limits when 
--> it comes into
--> direct conflict with the rights of another.
--> 
--> For example, consider two college roommates.  One wishes to 
--> exercise his
--> freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
--> (without the benefit of headphones, of course!).  The other 
--> wishes to
--> exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well 
--> rested for
--> the big exam the following morning.  Clearly, each roommate, taken
--> individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in 
--> this case they
--> have come into conflict.
--> 
--> While I have no opinion on the current case, it seems to me that the
--> basis for any such PR decision has to be based on the 
--> balance of rights.
--> Does the right of the allegedly abusive poster to express 
--> himself come
--> into conflict with the rights of the other mailing list 
--> participants to
--> conduct an orderly discourse?  If such a conflict exists, 
--> then is the
--> imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify 
--> limiting the rights
--> of the one?
--> 
--> 
--> ___
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: a new DNS root for the world?

[Thomas Gal]

> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive 
> a personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of 
> root related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That 
> the root server system works well, does not implies that the 
> root servers system concept is still the best solution. We 
> now have 1.5 billions (most of the Internet users and many 
> more) who will access the NewStar root file.
> 
> jfc
> 

Is that the case? I think in fact you'd have a lot more data being
transmitted because everyone would be getting information they won't use as
opposed to just polling through various levels of DNS cache, which would
make it seem like very little traffic to the roots in the case of the
records which do not change.

-Tom


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: a new DNS root for the world?

[Nick Staff]

> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive a 
> personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of root 
> related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That the 
> root server > system works well, does not implies that the root servers
system 
> concept is still the best solution. We now have 1.5 billions (most of 
> the Internet users and many more) who will access the NewStar root file.
> 
> jfc
> 
The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file locally was back
around 1999 and I think .com alone weighed in at over 3 gigs (I think that
was uncompressed, but I've been hit in the head a lot in the last six years
so I don't quite remember).  I know you weren't serious, but at it's
uncompressed size in 1999 it would be bandwidth cost efficient to send the
root file to someone only if they were to perform approximately 6.3 million
queries per version of root file (which would of course become outdated
during transfer).  Now lets say it's only a one time transfer and after that
only updates are sent.  Well forgetting the bandwidth generated by the
updates, if a person performed 200 queries a night it would take them about
86 years to reach the 6.3 million needed to make the initial transfer cost
effective.

I'm sorry, one should never answer angry and I'm well...okay I just think
it's stupid to do away with the root and I think dns delegation has
exquisite scalability and near absolute empowerment to the people.  Any
possibility that the Internet might not be able to support DNS resolver
traffic because of a root server bottleneck is beyond my concept of reality.
If it truly is a bottleneck then maybe we need to seek the advise of some
adult webmasters and ask them how they manage to serve multiple terabytes of
porn a day without breaking a sweat or bringing down their ISP.  Considering
that when two technical people have a discussion you end up with 3 opinions
that neither one agrees with I feel somewhat better not "letting everyone
play" in the root.  In fact I'm all for fairness but I'm not about to agree
to tearing down a genius system just so foreign nationalists can have their
ego satisfied by sticking their finger in the pot (Jefsey the foreign
nationalist comment IS NOT directed at you at all - it's directed at the
politicians and delegates who live life like it's a game of push and
pushback).

My apologies for the rant, I'm sure I'll regret it when someone who knows
more than me replies explaining why I'm wrong.

nick.



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: a new DNS root for the world?

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 02:33 07/10/2005, Thomas Gal wrote:

> Should _every_ Internet user (let count one billion) receive
> a personal copy of the root file every month, the decrease of
> root related traffic on the Internet would be by 90%. That
> the root server system works well, does not implies that the
> root servers system concept is still the best solution. We
> now have 1.5 billions (most of the Internet users and many
> more) who will access the NewStar root file.
>
> jfc
>

Is that the case? I think in fact you'd have a lot more data being
transmitted because everyone would be getting information they won't use as
opposed to just polling through various levels of DNS cache, which would
make it seem like very little traffic to the roots in the case of the
records which do not change.


We did the computation during a diner at the ICANN meeting in 
Luxembourg, with people of different origins. Using the RIPE data 
they had on a leaflet there. You can do the computation yourself 
again. And use other sources.


Obviously the DNS is not the traffic. But when you recall that the 
problem with the Hosts file was the traffic load, it shows that time 
have changed, and what had to change once may have to change twice.


jfc


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

will a peace nobel price better help to understand what is at stake?

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

may be this will help some understanding why I here and oppose RFC 
3066 bis if it does not support the "0-" user space. He says 
"globalisation" when we say "internationalisation". We use 
multilingualism and multiculturation in the same way.


http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html
All the best.
jfc


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Nor am I.

Avri Doria writes:

> well said.  neither am i.

> a.

> On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:

>>
>> i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
>>
>> --bill




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Nelson, David writes:

> For example, consider two college roommates.  One wishes to exercise his
> freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
> (without the benefit of headphones, of course!).  The other wishes to
> exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well rested for
> the big exam the following morning.  Clearly, each roommate, taken
> individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in this case they
> have come into conflict.

The student listening to music need only put on headphones, then they
will both be happy.  It's a poor analogy.

> While I have no opinion on the current case, it seems to me that the
> basis for any such PR decision has to be based on the balance of rights.
> Does the right of the allegedly abusive poster to express himself come
> into conflict with the rights of the other mailing list participants to
> conduct an orderly discourse?  If such a conflict exists, then is the
> imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify limiting the rights
> of the one?

Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial
of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what
he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him.  Censorship
is disguised in many forms; many people like to practice it, but very
few are willing to call it what it is.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Anthony G. Atkielski]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:

> I think that Marshall Rose described the current way people handle
> irritating people well back in 2003 (POISED list, April 8):
>
>   people who have a high tolerance to pain, ignore it, those who
>   have a lower tolerance to pain implement a local solution, and
>   those with less of a tolerance have simply left the mailing
>   lists.
>
> The logical consequence of the "nobody should be banned" position is that
> this is the way we want the IETF to be.

Sounds good to me.  The intolerant thus exclude themselves
voluntarily, and the tolerant remain to engage in discussion.

> Some people will leave if we make that decision.

Is there a prize for having the highest possible membership numbers?

> I think that these people leaving will make the IETF less able to carry out
> its mission.

How?  People who cannot tolerate disagreement are very poor at
discussing most things, anyway, since they become upset as soon as
anyone expresses an opinion different from their own.  And if one
cannot express differences in opinion, one cannot discuss.

> The next step is in the hand of the IESG.

If it decides against you, what will you try next?








___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Ooops (NOTHING TECHNICAL, JUST A CORRECTION)

[Nick Staff]

Sorry for the noise, but before I blush through any more corrections (that
many have been kind enough to do offlist), let me say I for some reason
didn't realize Jefsey was refring to the root hints and for some reason
assumed he was suggesting everyone recieve a copy of the tld zones hosted by
the root servers.  Ooops.  

nick


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[kent crispin]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 06:46:22AM +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> How?  People who cannot tolerate disagreement are very poor at
> discussing most things, anyway, since they become upset as soon as
> anyone expresses an opinion different from their own.

Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it.  Instead, it's
more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a limited bandwidth channel.  If
you fill up a list with ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal
with drivel will go away, leaving the list to those who produce the drivel. 
That's the problem.  I've seen it happen many times. 

-- 
Kent Crispin 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Doug Ewell]

Anthony G. Atkielski  wrote:

> ... People who cannot tolerate disagreement are very poor at
> discussing most things, anyway, since they become upset as soon as
> anyone expresses an opinion different from their own.  And if one
> cannot express differences in opinion, one cannot discuss.

It has already been explained here that this has NOTHING to do with
tolerance for different opinions.  It has everything to do with the
obnoxious, abusive, disrespectful manner in which those opinions have
been expressed.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Nick Staff]

> Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it.  
> Instead, it's more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a 
> limited bandwidth channel.  If you fill up a list with 
> ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal with 
> drivel will go away, leaving the list to those who produce 
> the drivel. 
> That's the problem.  I've seen it happen many times. 
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

I really, really don't want to get into another one of these, but let's be
clear - no matter what you say, no matter how long you say it for, and no
matter who agrees with you, Anthony is right and you are not.  Let me
clarify - I absolutely am not commenting on the whole signal to noise ratio
thing.  I am not at all trying to tell anyone what a reasonable amount of
noise is for them to handle.

What I'm saying is, if this were Lord of The Flies some of you would be the
one who kills Piggy.

nick


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Approval of the 'BCP101 Update for IPR Trust' to BCP

[John C Klensin]

Hi.

I find the way in which this BCP change, and presumably the IPR
Trust itself, very disturbing.  This is not an appeal because I
suspect the action is the right one.  However, I believe there
are issues that require some community discussion, perhaps
leading to some changes.

Part of my theory of the IETF is that our more fundamental,
policy-oriented, procedural documents are representations of a
social contract between the community and various of its
components, expressed as best we can in procedures.  The debates
that spring up every time someone mentions the letters "IPR" are
representative of this: while there are some fundamental
disagreements about principles, each new document over the last
several years has been an attempt to "get it right" or "get it
more nearly right": to reflect a presumably-shared set of
community norms about what the right thing to do is and to do so
as accurately as feasible in a document or two.

After all of the debates and discussions of a year or so ago, I
think we reached a similar position and understanding with
regard to the IASA, its components, and its role.  BCP 101 is
recognized as an approximation to that understanding.  It does
not perfectly reflect it; there was rough consensus in the
community that making it more perfect was not worth the time and
investment.  I suggest, however, that there are two key
doctrines that underlie the IETF's agreement create that new
entity and to turn administrative responsibilities over to it:

(1) The IAOC is not the maker of any fundamental
policies, although it can, like anyone else, suggest
such policies to the community.

(2) While it may be necessary for the IAD or IAOC to
carry out some negotiations in private, and to keep some
detailed information, such as salaries, confidential
even after agreements are reached, the IAOC does not
approve secret agreements, nor does it make sweeping
changes to administrative structures, without the
opportunity for IETF review and debate.

The function of the "IPR Trust", as I understand it, is to
replace ISOC's role as nominal holder of IETF intellectual
property, particularly the copyrights in RFCs.  Some of us are
big fans of ISOC and others are not, some of us trust ISOC more
than others do, but the bottom line in this particular area is
that there have been no instances in which ISOC's role as holder
of those copyrights or other materials has acted to prevent any
of the things that we want to have happen under our social
contract with each other and with the Internet's users and
implementers.  Whatever the ISOC arrangement may be, it isn't
broken.No evidence has been offered to the community to the
contrary, nor has anyone come forward and said "there is a
fundamental problem that cannot be solved within the current
framework and to which the 'IPR Trust' is the answer".  When we
say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", those sorts of assertions
are the thing we look for as evidence that something is, in
fact, in need of fixing.

To a large extent, I still trust the members of the IAOC and
whatever members of the IAB and IESG (if any) have been fully
briefed on what is going on here.  If they believe that, despite
the above, there is a problem that needs solving and to which
the "IPR Trust" appears to be the solution, then I think it is
reasonable that they spend time, and even carry out private
negotiations, to see if that arrangement can be realized in a
way that will improve whatever situations need to be improved.

However, my understanding of the social contract between the
IASA and the IETF participants is that there need to be some
very significant limits on secrecy.  Before anyone agrees to an
"IPR Trust", I expect that the draft Trust Agreement, and any
draft Operating Documents, will be made public along with the
reasons for going down this path and that the IETF community
will have the opportunity to review those documents, to examine
them in the same detail with which we examine the IPR policies
that may ultimately depend on them, and to reach consensus about
whether this is a direction we want to go in, with those
particular operating details.  

Is this really important?  I don't know, because I have no idea
what is in those documents other than the very little bit that
has been made public.  Can the Trust make decisions that would
create encumbrances on IETF IPR, or constrain IETF actions, in
ways that don't reflect community consensus?  Do its Trustees
become the final approval source for changes in IETF IPR
policies?  Are we happy about that?  If we are, are we happy
that the IAOC members, who, as I understand things, are supposed
to have no policy role, have apparently appointed themselves (or
agreed to be appointed) as the Trustees, thereby assigning what
might be a key policy role to themselves.

While I am uncomfortable with the IESG's approving this BCP
change, my problem

RE: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Ole Jacobsen]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Nick Staff wrote:
> 
> What I'm saying is, if this were Lord of The Flies some of you would be the
> one who kills Piggy.
> 
> nick


Nick,

I always felt really sorry for Piggy and I thought it was wrong for them 
to kill him. He was smarter than any of the others and he spoke the truth 
against a frenzy inspired by fear. But he wasn't "voted off the island" in
a popularity contest, one could argue that he died by accident in a heated
exchange.

I don't quite see the current situation as analogous, but I am more than 
happy to go with the majority opinion. If the group feels that no action
should be taken, then fine. We have at least tested our mechanism, 
assuming we can agree that we actually have one...

Ole

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf