Re: NIST documents
except see for example http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries? Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States. best to be careful George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President GTW Associates -Original Message- From: Thierry Moreau Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:35 AM To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: NIST documents Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote: One draft I'm working on [...] (Of course I haven't been able to check the copyright on [NIST documents ...) As a author of IT-related documents, you should be aware that, by its constitution plus long lasting tradition, the US government works of authorship have no copyright claims on them. The principle being that we, the people paid for a civil servant to make a write-up, nobody can claim intellectual property. Maybe the openness of the Internet owes a lot to this tradition. So, NIST documents can be used as if in the public domain. Bizarrely, the RSA and early public key crypto patents were filed precisely because US government funding was involved, but that's part of a longer story. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, QC, Canada H2M 2A1 Tel. +1-514-385-5691
Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe
It seems to me that it would be good practice (for someone?) to invite or remind authors of RFCs of the requirements of BCP 78 and 79 ... but maybe not use the words the email as below describing confirmation as necessary in order to progress the document Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 for this document have already been filed. The confirmation from each of you is necessary in order to progress the document towards IESG approval. The text at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. contains this text (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why That text is a little different than the template saying confirmation is necessary I don’t see applicable text in RFC 4858 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858 Seems to me that authors may not really know whether any and all appropriate IPR disclosures have been filed and to ask them to confirm that this is the case asks authors to do something they really are not able to do without taking on some possible liability for such a confirmation. Authors may have personal knowledge and belief but to ask them to confirm something is more than that my two cents George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President GTW Associates -Original Message- From: Gonzalo Camarillo Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:03 AM To: Glen Zorn Cc: rai-...@tools.ietf.org ; ietf@ietf.org ; Shida Schubert ; Romascanu,Dan (Dan) ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe@tools.ietf.org ; Qin Wu Subject: Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe Hi Glen, as I mentioned in another email, that question is just a reminder. In the past, it has happened that even long-time IETF participants with a lot of experience had forgotten about a particular disclosure until they received the reminder. Responding with a yes, per the draft's boilerplate should take only a few seconds of your time. Cheers, Gonzalo On 16/09/2013 2:35 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: On 09/15/2013 11:06 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Hi, Qin is correct. Glen's way of responding does not help. Apparently there is no way that would be helpful (see below). The wording of this question is not a choice. As WG chairs we are required to answer the following question which is part of the Shepherd write-up as per the instructions from the IESG http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.txt: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. We have no choice but to relay the question to the authors. I see, just following orders. Glen, if you believe that this question should not be part of the write-up, I think that you should take the issue with the IESG. I have, and am continuing to do so (see the CC list). In the current situation, unless I receive different instructions from the ADs, I have no choice but to send this document to the IESG mentioning that I did not receive an explicit confirmation. Really? I have no idea, really, how to respond to that statement but I'll try anyway. The explicit statement of conformance to both BCP 78 and BCP 79 were clearly contained in each and every revision of the draft; of course, I know that you are a busy person, and the IESG is even busier, so you can't be expected to read every draft posted. I spent my time emailing the pertinent sections of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-00 through draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe-09 to ensure that you were aware that I and my co-authors had explicitly stated that the drafts in question conformed to the relevant BCPs in every case. As I'm quite certain that you can read, I believe that you _are_ aware of that, so how to understand your statement that I have no choice but to send this document to the IESG mentioning that I did not receive an explicit confirmation? It looks like I have no choice but to believe that you (and the IESG) think that we are liars who will confess only under direct questioning, like 8-year-old children suspected of some prank. This isn't merely obnoxious, it's insulting and highly offensive. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: Qin Wu [mailto:bill...@huawei.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:45 AM To: Glen Zorn Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr- qoe@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-qoe Hi,Glen: Would you like to not bother IESG to make confirmation? I am a little confused with what you sent. What's wrong with the IETF IPR policy? Your blame on this doesn't help solve the problem. Regards! -Qin
Re: [ANCP] Last Call: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-04.txt (Applicability ofAccess Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks)to Informational RFC
Ralph, for clarification ... is there more than the one IP disclosure at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ ? The term disclosures lead me to believe there may be more than one George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President GTW Associates -Original Message- From: Ralph Droms Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:53 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: a...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability ofAccess Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks)to Informational RFC Note that this last call is a second last call, to gather comments on the publication of the document considering the IPR disclosures that were published late in the previous IETF last call. - Ralph On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM 2/5/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Access Node Control Protocol WG (ancp) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks' draft-ietf-ancp-pon-04.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the Access Node Control mechanism to PON-based broadband access. The need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism is also extended for interaction between components of the Access Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism will ensure that the transmission of information between the NAS and Access Node Complex (ANX) and between the OLT and ONT within an ANX does not need to go through distinct element managers but rather uses a direct device-to-device communication and stays on net. This allows for performing access link related operations within those network elements to meet performance objectives. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ ___ ANCP mailing list a...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
. 20 and Annex 4. George T. Willingmyre, P.E. www.gtwassociates.com 301 421 4138 - Original Message - From: GTW g...@gtwassociates.com To: IETF ietf@ietf.org; IAB i...@iab.org; IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.org Cc: IAB i...@iab.org; IETF ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm I support the thrust of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm It is particularly timely as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU and CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the document embraces. I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a document. While I am content with the wording of the section on IP this text is nevertheless imprecise. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf 4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially where open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). end clip If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful. What are time constraints? The first sentence seems to be describing the availability of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees charged for copies of standards. Specifications have to be available to users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free. But the words are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems to describe that licenses to practice essential patent claims related to a standards are available under fair terms However the global patent policy concept generally is that such licenses should be available under reasonable and non discriminatory terms. The single term reasonable and non discriminatory covers the situation where there may be a fee involved or not. There may be non fee based terms in what other wise be called royalty free licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND are different from royalty free It is that royalty free falls under the overall condition of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term when there may be non royalty terms involved. Sometimes the royalty free situation is described as RAND(0) I am also curious about the IETF experience with its patent policy. What is further background to the statement that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. The comments below that the paragraph does not accurately describe the IETF experience are worrisome. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. Russ: Understand. Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So, some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way, you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal standards development organization in the world, and there are other organizations that get together and are doing something that is slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And that isn't
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support the thrust of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm It is particularly timely as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU and CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the document embraces. I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a document. While I am content with the wording of the section on IP this text is nevertheless imprecise. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf 4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially where open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). end clip If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful. What are time constraints? The first sentence seems to be describing the availability of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees charged for copies of standards. Specifications have to be available to users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free. But the words are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems to describe that licenses to practice essential patent claims related to a standards are available under fair terms However the global patent policy concept generally is that such licenses should be available under reasonable and non discriminatory terms. The single term reasonable and non discriminatory covers the situation where there may be a fee involved or not. There may be non fee based terms in what other wise be called royalty free licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND are different from royalty free It is that royalty free falls under the overall condition of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term when there may be non royalty terms involved. Sometimes the royalty free situation is described as RAND(0) I am also curious about the IETF experience with its patent policy. What is further background to the statement that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. The comments below that the paragraph does not accurately describe the IETF experience are worrisome. clip from http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse than that. Russ: Understand. Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So, some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way, you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal standards development organization in the world, and there are other organizations that get together and are doing something that is slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And that isn't an immature form. We are hoping not to grow up into the more traditional form. We are trying to make a statement so that more people understand that this is a real thing, and that it is valuable. Scott Bradner: I made some comments on this document to the authors. I think it is a very important thing to say, for the reasons that Leslie just described. But I
Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Please see Christian's relevant post I have reposted here. I side with those who focus on solving real problems not hypothetical problems, thus my original post to the list what was the source of concern; to which was responded as far as I can ascertain so far a case in current litigation see at link to press http://www.cellular-news.com/story/50118.php It would be interesting to see what exactly has been alleged to be the misbehavior by 3GPP and ETSI. Christian's post is consistent and relevant to my experience. Do we have the text of the allegations? Additionally have there been any actual experiences at IETF of litigation that might inform this discussion? Specific cases are be a better measure of behavior which could be problematic. My experience is that is more often mis behavior by not following rules by leaders or participants than it is inadequacy of the rules that leads to practical problems. Here is a GTW website to a few SDO patent policies which often include antitrust language as well http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/IPRpolicies.html From: Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com To: Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com; Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.com Cc: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com; IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org; IETF ietf@ietf.org; IESG i...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:44 PM Subject: RE: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF Note that the suit does not complain about the 3GPP and ETSI rules. It alleges instead that the rules were not enforced, and that the leadership of these organization failed to prevent the alleged anti-competitive behavior of some companies. I believe that our current rules are fine. They were specifically designed to prevent the kind of collusion described in the complaint. Yes, these rules were defined many years ago, but the Sherman Antitrust Act is even older -- it dates from 1890. We have an open decision process, explicit rules for intellectual property, and a well-defined appeals process. If the plaintiffs in the 3GPP/IETF lawsuit had been dissatisfied with an IETF working group, they could have use the IETF appeal process to raise the issue to the IESG, and the dispute would probably have been resolved after an open discussion. Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments, I would suggest a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal. Specific legal advice on the handling of a specific appeal is much more practical than abstract rulemaking. -- Christian Huitema Best Regards, George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive Spencerville, MD 20868 USA 1.301.421.4138 - Original Message - From: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org To: Marshall Eubanks marshall.euba...@gmail.com Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 12:50 PM Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Rather than trying to set up rules that cover all hypothetical developments, I would suggest a practical approach. In our process, disputes are materialized by an appeal. Specific legal advice on the handling of a specific appeal is much more practical than abstract rulemaking. +1 This has the admirable advantage of waiting until there is an actual problem to address, rather than trying to guess what has not happened in the past 30 years but might happen in the future. R's, John I must admit that I don't understand that reasoning at all, assuming that this discussion is still about anti-Trust policy. Once there is an actual problem to address, it will be because we are enmeshed in a lawsuit, and it will be much too late to change our policies. Just because we are enmeshed in a lawsuit doesn't mean that we need to change or create a policy. The lawsuit will be based on whatever they can hook us on, whether it is they have no policy and they should have, they had a policy but it was the wrong one, or they had a reasonable policy but were not enforcing it so we were harmed (the latter being the tone of the suit discussed earlier in this thread). Having a policy, even one that is enforced, does not necessarily prevent the damage of a lawsuit. In fact, it could make things worse. We just don't know. Now, I realize that that does not prove that we have to change our policies (I regard that as the output of this exercise), but saying you want to wait until there is a problem to consider changes is IMO akin to saying you don't want to consider putting in fire extinguishers until there is a fire. The message quoted above says nothing about wait until there is a problem to consider changes. It says that we don't know how to reduce our risks so we shouldn't flail around guessing. I would add because some of our guesses can make things worse than our current state
Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Dave, if the nature of current automotive practice and house construction and outside environment is such that the risks and the risk protection measures are fairly well known, the analogy I am suggesting is there is no need for new types of auto and home insurance, there is just the need for the automotive user and home dweller to purchase that insurance and the provider of that insurance to deliver when an incident occurs. This is the problem of not buying the insurance or not delivering on the insurance previously bought. It is the problem of addressing some new until now not thought of technology or risk. The former problems are different than the latter If there are already procedures generally in place to address whatever antitrust risks might arise then problems arise when the participants dont follow existing rules or the overseers of the process do not see to that the existing rules are followed. As far as I have been able to discern these are the issues that have been alleged in the case that is cited to justify why we need an antitrust policy. It seems to me that the threat of litigation that IETF has not followed its existing procedures is the proper analogy to draw if any from the litigation cited. Have there been any instances of litigation regarding IETF in this regard? Best Regards, George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive Spencerville, MD 20868 USA 1.301.421.4138 - Original Message - From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:54 PM Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF I side with those who focus on solving real problems not hypothetical problems, Does this mean that those who have not had a car accident should not carry auto insurance? Should those who have not had their house suffer damage from wind, rain, flood or fire or had someone sue them after slipping on the sidewalk should not have homeowner's insurance? I do not understand this reference to theory -- apparently with the goal of deferring any action -- about something that is already known to be a legitimate danger in the real world of standards organizations. Concern for an overly broad scope for the effort is another matter. Maintaining narrow focus is good for any effort... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF
Ted, I like your approach of enquiring what problem we are striving to solve and I like Russ's concise answer that it is Recent suits against other SDOs that is the source of the concern Russ, what are some of the Recent suits against other SDOs It would be good to pin down the problem we are addressing There is FTC and N-data matter from 2008 http://www.gtwassociates.com/alerts/Ndata1.htm But the solutions in discussion in various SDOs to the issues raised in that matter have to do with revisions to IP policies more than with antitrust policy. Best Regards, George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive Spencerville, MD 20868 USA 1.301.421.4138 - Original Message - From: IETF Chair To: Ted Hardie Cc: IETF ; IESG Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:10 PM Subject: Re: An Antitrust Policy for the IETF Ted: The IETF legal counsel and insurance agent suggest that the IETF ought to have an antitrust policy. To address this need, a lawyer is needed. As a way forward, I suggest that IASA pay a lawyer to come up with an initial draft, and then this draft be brought to the community for review and comment (and probably revision). I think a new mail list should be used for the discussion. Once the new mail list reaches rough consensus on the antitrust policy document, I suggest using the usual process for adopting the policy as an IETF BCP. What do others think? I am open to suggestions for an alternative approach. Sorry, can you expand on the threat model here? Are we developing one in order to defend against some specific worry about our not having one? Because it has become best practice in other SDOs? Because the insurance agent wishes to see something in particular? I hesitate to develop something that we have not needed in the past unless it is clear what benefit it gives us. In particular, if we develop one without some particular characteristic, do we lose the benefits of being where we are now? Recent suits against other SDOs is the source of the concern. The idea is t make it clear which topics are off limits at IETF meetings and on IETF mail lists. In this way, if such discussions take place, the good name of the IETF can be kept clean. Russ -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF privacy policy - update
my experience suggests that IETF WG mailing lists and participation lists in meetings will be used as evidence in litigation related to whether an individual or the organization which sponsored that individidual met the obligation of the relevant IETF patent policy now http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt my concept of an SDO that is not open is one that limits membership and disallows membership for some party with a potential material interest to benefit the interests of the existing members. What is the specific reference that ITU has made w/r to IETF not being open? I would like to see it. Best Regards, George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive Spencerville, MD 20868 USA 1.301.421.4138 - Original Message - From: Fred Baker f...@cisco.com To: Melinda Shore sh...@arsc.edu Cc: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu; Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org; IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:24 PM Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - update On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an open organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone can become a member (members of RIPE are companies and pay a fee), and are considered open to that class of membership. But the IETF isn't a membership organization - isn't that at least in part what's meant by open, and why at least in part we don't have voting (in theory)? We don't have voting because we don't have members, yes. Definitions of open vary, and boil down to a statement of what kind of actor an organization is open to. IETF is open to individuals. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
