Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
Title: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... Todd Those are not exactly the facts. The two notes I wrote and posted on the ABA InfoSec list yesterday (10/12-- a.m pdt) were both replies to jeff williams who was inquiring about the property status of domain names. Unless jeff williams is a pseudonym you use, my replies were not to you individually and I am unaware of any ABAISC list inqury from you yesterday. I was brought in to the IETF list thread 5 pm PDT when a VRSN colleague forwarded several notes of YOURS saying if there is an MoU I want to see it. I then responded on the IETF list with the cite and text from the 1995 IETF/ISO (N.B.-ISO, as I originally wrote, NOT IEEE as you have opined). Admittedly also, again, NOT an MoU but rather, a more significant CoOp agreement with a Mutual Recgnition provision. BUT I have to ask, why are we still doing this? By the way, I am an attorney. My title at VeriSign is Corporate Director of Government Relations. I am not in the VRSN law department, (we are corp. staff) though I have in the past been Government Relations counsel at Digital Equipment from 1981-1997 and Legis. Counsel at the FCC 1976-81, am a member of the DC Bar and a member of the Legal/Regulatory Task Force of the President's NSTAC. But why do you ask ? Regards, Michael -Original Message- From: todd glassey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 08:51 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Harald Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org; Aisenberg, Michael Cc: John C Klensin; Contreras,Jorge Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... Harald - you are right - the commentary came off the ABA Information Security Committee based on a question I had asked on IP issues for a matter not concerning the IETF per se, but when Michael popped up with the commentary that there was a formal MOU, I was intrigued and I wanted to see the document. And yes its Michael Aisenberg who made the statement who you will note is cc:d on this mailing (Morning Michael :-) For those of you who are unaware, Michael is Verisign's Sr. Attorney in its Federal Operations group as I recall - Michael - please correct me if I am wrong on the title! Todd - Original Message - From: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Contreras,Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:50 AM Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... todd glassey wrote: Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask. Google searching seems to indicate that this role belongs to Michael Aisenberg. I suggest that anyone who cares to pursue this rumour go verify with him what he tried to say. There are Verisign people on this list who can ask him for clarification. (Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU; it's an ITU description of its internal procedures. It's possible that ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.) - Original Message - From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... --On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 12:27 -0700 todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's. I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety. To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which ISO would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement. For such a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted to make it happen). Where do you get these ideas? And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. It wasnt a demand John. Just a statement. john ___ 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: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
I apologise for this message having reached the list, since the person who sent it is currently supposed to have his posting rights suspended. An administrative issue. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
todd glassey wrote: Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask. Google searching seems to indicate that this role belongs to Michael Aisenberg. I suggest that anyone who cares to pursue this rumour go verify with him what he tried to say. There are Verisign people on this list who can ask him for clarification. (Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU; it's an ITU description of its internal procedures. It's possible that ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.) Todd - Original Message - From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:09 PM Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it... --On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 12:27 -0700 todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's. I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety. To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which ISO would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement. For such a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted to make it happen). Where do you get these ideas? And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. john ___ 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: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:50:46AM -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote: (Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU; it's an ITU description of its internal procedures. It's possible that ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.) Err, no, I wouldn't call RFC 3356 a Memo of Understanding. (Remember, you're answering a question that was posed by someone who tends to be extremely legalistic and who likes to issue legal advice without being a lawyer. So, you have to be very careful about your terms.) In general, a Memorandum of Understanding is generally understood to be documenting points that were made after some negotiation which generally has the force of a contract. It is sometimes thought of a as a simple contract, and the term probably started as a way of evading legal review by a company's legal department by not calling itself a contract, but just a memo of understanding between to company's representatives. But over time it has acquired the connotation of something fairly formal and generally legally binding. For example of this, take a look at RFC 2860, Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which was written in the style of a contract and signed by Fred Baker (IETF chair), Brian Carpenter (IAB chair), and Mike Roberts (President, ICANN) as such. In contrast, RFC 3356 is not legally binding, and in fact describes itself as a document providing guidance to aid in the understanding --- where understanding is generally of mapping the meaning of words and organizational structures between the two organizations' cultures (you say lorry, we say truck), and suggestions about how to work together (mailing Word documents to an IETF list is discouraged). However, it is NOT a legal document that is formally agreed-to by both sides, but rather an explication of each party's existing policies and procedures so the two organizations might be able to work together effectively. If you look at the tenor of RFC 3356 and RFC 2860, you will hopefully see there is a massive difference between the intent and style of thw two documents, and in fact RFC 3356 says nowhere that it is a MOU. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
--On Friday, 13 October, 2006 13:37 -0400 Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John C Klensin wrote: And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. I would like to see your comments as well. I must have missed them. I note that, by law, Members of a non-profit have the same rights as shareholders of a for-profit, and therefore have a right to inspect documents. You are not a member of the IETF. Todd is not a member of the IETF. I am not a member of the IETF. Jorge isn't a member of the IETF either. The IETF has no members. Next? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
John C Klensin wrote: You are not a member of the IETF. Todd is not a member of the IETF. I am not a member of the IETF. Jorge isn't a member of the IETF either. The IETF has no members. Not only are you right, but per se, the IETF is not a non-profit. Further most people who participate in non-profits do not fit the legal definition of member. In the world of non-profits, that term has very specific meaning and carries very specific obligations. Hence most non-profits avoid it by having subscribers or the like who are not actually members. At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish topics, I thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term member. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:08:42PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish topics, I thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term member. Note that at this point Dean and Todd have been banned from the IETF list. While this means that their postings will not show up on the mailing list, if they send e-mails to a number of people and cc the IETF list, and that person makes the mistake of getting baited to respond, their response will go out to the IETF list. I would suggest, when replying to Todd or Dean, to remove the IETF list from the cc line, unless you are really sure that it would be of interest to all members of the IETF list. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 12:27 -0700 todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's. I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety. To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which ISO would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement. For such a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted to make it happen). Where do you get these ideas? And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF- I want to see it...
John, Please remember with me back to the mid-1990s when ISO sent official liaison reps to the IETF. The way I recall (perhaps incorrectly) things working back then was that from the ISO perspective, these were official liaison reps formally sanctioned according to ISO processes but from our perspective they were technical people representing themselves just like anybody else in the IETF. We still have liaison activities happening today. For example, at the NSIS WG meeting in Montreal, individuals mentioned the actions they were personally taking to keep NSIS in synch with specific 3GPP activities. My point being that just because we don't formally recognize liaisons doesn't mean that individuals do not perform informal liaison services on their own volition. --Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's. I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety. To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which ISO would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement. For such a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted to make it happen). Where do you get these ideas? And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF- I want to see it...
Eric I proposed a long time ago that we create a new IESG Role and was a Director of Liaisons and it of course, was shot down. Maybe in this more ... tolerant climate today (nasbcih) it should be reviewed again. Its likely to be one of the more powerful and long-term IETF/IESG role's as well IMHO... As to ISO people being here, ISO has always been friendly to the IETF but there does need to be a formal bridge between the entities. Todd - Original Message - From: Fleischman, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Cc: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:20 PM Subject: RE: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF- I want to see it... John, Please remember with me back to the mid-1990s when ISO sent official liaison reps to the IETF. The way I recall (perhaps incorrectly) things working back then was that from the ISO perspective, these were official liaison reps formally sanctioned according to ISO processes but from our perspective they were technical people representing themselves just like anybody else in the IETF. We still have liaison activities happening today. For example, at the NSIS WG meeting in Montreal, individuals mentioned the actions they were personally taking to keep NSIS in synch with specific 3GPP activities. My point being that just because we don't formally recognize liaisons doesn't mean that individuals do not perform informal liaison services on their own volition. --Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand that there is a formal MOU between the ISO and the IETF that talks about ISO's actions with regard to the reliance on IETF Standards and RFC's. I want to physically see a copy of the document - in its entirety. To the best of my knowledge from either an IETF perspective or as a member of one or two of the mailing lists on which ISO would have needed to see comment, there is no such document or agreement. For such a thing to exist, there would almost certainly have to be a formal liaison agreement between IETF and either ISO or ISO/IEC JTC1 and that agreement doesn't exist either (although several of us have, over the years, attempted to make it happen). Where do you get these ideas? And please see my earlier comments about your rights in these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even if the agreement and documents did exist. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...
--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 14:08 -0700 todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask. I am not questioning the reputation of whomever you talked with or heard from. But, if the question is about a formal relationship or agreement between the IETF and ISO, at the ISO level, whomever gave you that information (while popping up or otherwise) is either confused or mistaken. I can't begin to speculate on which of those two it is without knowing either the context in which the information was given or the question that was asked which produced it, or both. Even then, I'm unlikely to do so because I really, personally, don't care. Let me try to say this again, in a different way: * You don't have to ask. You can certainly decide to ask, and have obviously done so but, to my knowledge, no one has imposed that requirement on you in a way that leaves you no choice. * You don't have any inherent right to this information. You might reasonably take the position that, unless the information is supplied, you will decline to participate further in any IETF-related processes or to contribute to IETF mailing lists, but that possible decision to not participate is the limit of your rights, at least absent a court order to the IETF to disclose documents. If you believe you need such a court order to obtain information, please go get it and find someone on whom to serve it: at least in this area, threats are largely wasted on most of us. * Independent of issues about rights, the IETF has made a voluntary commitment to openness about its processes and agreements. You have the same right as any other interested party to seek information out in RFCs, on the website, etc. And, insofar as you are an IETF participant, you have the right to make suggestions about how access to that information might be improved. * In large measure, I believe, because of concerns that others might be similarly confused or interested in the answers, I, and others, have voluntarily tried to respond to many of your questions and to attempt to correct various of your misconceptions. We -- neither those who are part of the IETF leadership nor those of us who are not-- are not in any way obligated to do so and, at least in my case, my inclination to respond is in spite of your insistence on rights that I don't believe exist and a sometimes-demanding and/or abusive or accusatory tone, not because of them. The fact that various of us have sometimes, indeed often, responded constructively and with tutorial or equivalent information to your comments does not give you any right to personalized tutorials or corrections of your misconceptions. At the level of our obligations to you, if you have misconceptions, you are welcome to them, at least absence evidence that you have diligently done your homework before making strong assertions (or, for that matter, giving legal advice). john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
