headers
tglassey | 31 Jan 2010 17:34

Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

     "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces 
a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in 
those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. 
Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part 
of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third 
parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF 
itself."

This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and 
then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Housley | 31 Jan 2010 17:45

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else.  I do not think it is 
appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that does not come from a BCP.

Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for 
consideration as a BCP.

Russ

On 1/31/2010 11:34 AM, tglassey wrote:
> I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:
>
> "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a
> large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those
> may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those
> addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of
> IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third
> parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF
> itself."
>
> This will stop anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and
> then setting up subsidiary lists
>
> Todd Glassey
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John C Klensin | 31 Jan 2010 18:33

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.


--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:45 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote:

> The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else.  I do not
> think it is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that
> does not come from a BCP.
> 
> Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for
> consideration as a BCP.

Russ,

One additional observation.  List-harvesting and feeding one
list into another are already activities that are in bad repute
in the community or, in different language, violate
well-established community norms.  The creators of the "honest"
list, various commercial spammers, and others in the past have
fairly clearly known about those norms, but, for one reason or
another, have felt justified in defying them in order to serve
what they consider to be more important goals or objectives.

I have no doubt that, with community consensus to change the
Note Well or by some other mechanism, we could add legalize to
those community norms.  But, unless "we" (some entity with
appropriate standing) were actually willing to litigate against
list owners based on that new language and had reasonable
confidence that we could "win" and thereby stop the behavior, I
don't believe that even having a discussion about appropriate
language and where to put it would be a good use of time and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Todd Glassey | 31 Jan 2010 19:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 1/31/2010 9:33 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:45 -0500 Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote:
The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else. I do not think it is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that does not come from a BCP. Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for consideration as a BCP.
Russ, One additional observation. List-harvesting and feeding one list into another are already activities that are in bad repute in the community or, in different language, violate well-established community norms. The creators of the "honest" list, various commercial spammers, and others in the past have fairly clearly known about those norms, but, for one reason or another, have felt justified in defying them in order to serve what they consider to be more important goals or objectives. I have no doubt that, with community consensus to change the Note Well or by some other mechanism, we could add legalize to those community norms. But, unless "we" (some entity with appropriate standing) were actually willing to litigate against list owners based on that new language and had reasonable confidence that we could "win" and thereby stop the behavior, I don't believe that even having a discussion about appropriate language and where to put it would be a good use of time and energy.
I am

Todd Glassey
john _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10 19:35:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Todd Glassey | 31 Jan 2010 19:17
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 1/31/2010 10:03 AM, Todd Glassey wrote:
On 1/31/2010 9:33 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:45 -0500 Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote:
The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else. I do not think it is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that does not come from a BCP. Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for consideration as a BCP.
Russ,
John - the problem is in intentionally ignoring the liability. The IETF itself doesnt have to prosecute these matters but preventing the member's of the List from being able to do something about this liability puts the IETF itself and its sponsor's in a place where they are liable for the damages their unrestricted license to use that email address information as part of the IETF publications process. That's the issue not having a rule saying this is unreasonable and unauthorized makes the IETF  liable - and that is the issue.

Todd Glassey
One additional observation. List-harvesting and feeding one list into another are already activities that are in bad repute in the community or, in different language, violate well-established community norms. The creators of the "honest" list, various commercial spammers, and others in the past have fairly clearly known about those norms, but, for one reason or another, have felt justified in defying them in order to serve what they consider to be more important goals or objectives. I have no doubt that, with community consensus to change the Note Well or by some other mechanism, we could add legalize to those community norms. But, unless "we" (some entity with appropriate standing) were actually willing to litigate against list owners based on that new language and had reasonable confidence that we could "win" and thereby stop the behavior, I don't believe that even having a discussion about appropriate language and where to put it would be a good use of time and energy.
I am

Todd Glassey
john _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10 19:35:00

_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 01/31/10 06:39:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Housley | 31 Jan 2010 20:20

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

John:

>> The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else.  I do not
>> think it is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that
>> does not come from a BCP.
>>
>> Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for
>> consideration as a BCP.
>
> One additional observation.  List-harvesting and feeding one
> list into another are already activities that are in bad repute
> in the community or, in different language, violate
> well-established community norms.  The creators of the "honest"
> list, various commercial spammers, and others in the past have
> fairly clearly known about those norms, but, for one reason or
> another, have felt justified in defying them in order to serve
> what they consider to be more important goals or objectives.
>
> I have no doubt that, with community consensus to change the
> Note Well or by some other mechanism, we could add legalize to
> those community norms.  But, unless "we" (some entity with
> appropriate standing) were actually willing to litigate against
> list owners based on that new language and had reasonable
> confidence that we could "win" and thereby stop the behavior, I
> don't believe that even having a discussion about appropriate
> language and where to put it would be a good use of time and
> energy.

I agree with your observation about "norms".  You seem to think that 
coming to consensus on words that describe them is not going to be easy.

I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the consensus.

Russ
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John C Klensin | 31 Jan 2010 21:52

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.


--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 14:20 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote:

>...
> I agree with your observation about "norms".  You seem to
> think that coming to consensus on words that describe them is
> not going to be easy.

Actually, I don't have an opinion about that.  It would
certainly be easy to say "no harvesting", for example.

> I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the
> consensus.

I agree with that position.  I also agree with you that
complaining, or even making suggestions, in the absence of an
I-D that proposes specific changes and that could be considered
for adoption as a BCP is a waste of everyone's time.  

However, I was trying to reason another step ahead and consider
what steps we might take if such an I-D were actually written.
I was suggesting that, however easy it might be to formulate
words, generating a BCP (or other clear evidence of consensus)
inevitably takes considerable resources.  Let me try to say that
differently.   

I  believe that

	(1) It would not be useful to expend those resources
	unless we had a reasonable expectations that, e.g., a
	change to the Note Well would actually change behavior
	of anyone who is deliberately and consciously ignoring
	the unwritten norms today.
	
	(2) Those who have been harvesting names from the IETF
	lists are almost certainly aware of those norms and are
	deliberately violating them for what they consider more
	important purposes.
	
	(3) That implies that our trying to adjust the Note Well
	(presumably by formulating a new BCP) is not worth the
	effort --no matter how difficult or easy we believe
	finding the right words would be-- unless the Trust
	and/or ISOC were committed to litigation against those
	who were harvesting the IETF (or WG) list(s) and had
	already concluded, on advice of Counsel, that such
	litigation had good odds of success if the Note Well
	text were changed.

To summarize, I do not believe that the IESG should either
assign the task for creating such a BCP to this WG or another
one, or consider a Last Call for an individual submission BCP,
unless a conclusion has first been reached that such a BCP would
be a good foundation for litigation and that the IETF (or
someone on the IETF's behalf) would, in fact, litigate.

Is that more clear?
   john
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Housley | 31 Jan 2010 22:45

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

Thanks.  I think I understand your position clearly now.

Russ

On 1/31/2010 3:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, January 31, 2010 14:20 -0500 Russ Housley
> <housley <at> vigilsec.com>  wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I agree with your observation about "norms".  You seem to
>> think that coming to consensus on words that describe them is
>> not going to be easy.
>
> Actually, I don't have an opinion about that.  It would
> certainly be easy to say "no harvesting", for example.
>
>> I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the
>> consensus.
>
> I agree with that position.  I also agree with you that
> complaining, or even making suggestions, in the absence of an
> I-D that proposes specific changes and that could be considered
> for adoption as a BCP is a waste of everyone's time.
>
> However, I was trying to reason another step ahead and consider
> what steps we might take if such an I-D were actually written.
> I was suggesting that, however easy it might be to formulate
> words, generating a BCP (or other clear evidence of consensus)
> inevitably takes considerable resources.  Let me try to say that
> differently.
>
> I  believe that
>
> 	(1) It would not be useful to expend those resources
> 	unless we had a reasonable expectations that, e.g., a
> 	change to the Note Well would actually change behavior
> 	of anyone who is deliberately and consciously ignoring
> 	the unwritten norms today.
> 	
> 	(2) Those who have been harvesting names from the IETF
> 	lists are almost certainly aware of those norms and are
> 	deliberately violating them for what they consider more
> 	important purposes.
> 	
> 	(3) That implies that our trying to adjust the Note Well
> 	(presumably by formulating a new BCP) is not worth the
> 	effort --no matter how difficult or easy we believe
> 	finding the right words would be-- unless the Trust
> 	and/or ISOC were committed to litigation against those
> 	who were harvesting the IETF (or WG) list(s) and had
> 	already concluded, on advice of Counsel, that such
> 	litigation had good odds of success if the Note Well
> 	text were changed.
>
> To summarize, I do not believe that the IESG should either
> assign the task for creating such a BCP to this WG or another
> one, or consider a Last Call for an individual submission BCP,
> unless a conclusion has first been reached that such a BCP would
> be a good foundation for litigation and that the IETF (or
> someone on the IETF's behalf) would, in fact, litigate.
>
> Is that more clear?
>     john
>
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
tglassey | 1 Feb 2010 16:54

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 1/31/2010 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Thanks.  I think I understand your position clearly now.

Russ

On 1/31/2010 3:52 PM, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 14:20 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley <at> vigilsec.com>  wrote:

...
I agree with your observation about "norms".  You seem to
think that coming to consensus on words that describe them is
not going to be easy.

Actually, I don't have an opinion about that.  It would
certainly be easy to say "no harvesting", for example.

I am unwilling to add words to the NOTE WELL without the
consensus.

I agree with that position.  I also agree with you that
complaining, or even making suggestions, in the absence of an
I-D that proposes specific changes and that could be considered
for adoption as a BCP is a waste of everyone's time.
The problem is that as the management of the IETF you are responsible for intentionally putting grossly incompetent practice into place whether it was voted in by a bunch List Members of not.

Todd



However, I was trying to reason another step ahead and consider
what steps we might take if such an I-D were actually written.
I was suggesting that, however easy it might be to formulate
words, generating a BCP (or other clear evidence of consensus)
inevitably takes considerable resources.  Let me try to say that
differently.

I  believe that

    (1) It would not be useful to expend those resources
    unless we had a reasonable expectations that, e.g., a
    change to the Note Well would actually change behavior
    of anyone who is deliberately and consciously ignoring
    the unwritten norms today.
    
    (2) Those who have been harvesting names from the IETF
    lists are almost certainly aware of those norms and are
    deliberately violating them for what they consider more
    important purposes.
    
    (3) That implies that our trying to adjust the Note Well
    (presumably by formulating a new BCP) is not worth the
    effort --no matter how difficult or easy we believe
    finding the right words would be-- unless the Trust
    and/or ISOC were committed to litigation against those
    who were harvesting the IETF (or WG) list(s) and had
    already concluded, on advice of Counsel, that such
    litigation had good odds of success if the Note Well
    text were changed.

To summarize, I do not believe that the IESG should either
assign the task for creating such a BCP to this WG or another
one, or consider a Last Call for an individual submission BCP,
unless a conclusion has first been reached that such a BCP would
be a good foundation for litigation and that the IETF (or
someone on the IETF's behalf) would, in fact, litigate.

Is that more clear?
    john


No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 01/31/10 06:39:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
tglassey | 31 Jan 2010 18:15

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 1/31/2010 8:45 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else.  I do not think it is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that does not come from a BCP.

Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for consideration as a BCP.
Then the ANY AND ALL USES control is what is effective and that is the problem. You (the IETF Management), as I have said, by the unrestricted use of all of that content, have allowed for this abuse.

The other issue is I want to post formally to the IPR Page that my Email Address(es) are not to be considered part of the IETF licensed properties and it wont allow for that. So by the way the process works today you force any member to accept this spamming because you refuse to put these simple controls in place.

Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise they cause.

Why is it so difficult to see that a simple revision of the Note Well use guidelines is in place. Remember that there is nothing in the IETF's subscription process which warns the parties subscribing that the EMail Address they post through will become public and as such they may receive other emails to that address for which the IETF takes no responsibility... but that also doesnt exist...

So lets fix this one this time around. By the way you realize one of those suspensions from Harald I got was for arguing this very point. Why not bring Jorge in or at least formally ask him off list if the liability I point out is not accurate or not.

Todd

Russ

On 1/31/2010 11:34 AM, tglassey wrote:
I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

"While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a
large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those
may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those
addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of
IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third
parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF
itself."

This will stop anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and
then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10 19:35:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Russ Housley | 31 Jan 2010 20:12

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

Todd:

Authoring proposed BCPs is the way that community participants make 
policy changes.  If you want to see this proposed policy discussed and 
implemented, then you need to write an Internet-Draft, not just send 
email notes.  So far, I see complaining without any contribution to a 
document that make a policy change.

Russ

On 1/31/2010 12:15 PM, tglassey wrote:
> On 1/31/2010 8:45 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> The -honest mail list annoy me like everyone else. I do not think it
>> is appropriate to add any text to the NOTE WELL that does not come
>> from a BCP.
>>
>> Please feel free to post an Internet-Draft with your ideas for
>> consideration as a BCP.
> Then the ANY AND ALL USES control is what is effective and that is the
> problem. You (the IETF Management), as I have said, by the unrestricted
> use of all of that content, have allowed for this abuse.
>
> The other issue is I want to post formally to the IPR Page that my Email
> Address(es) are not to be considered part of the IETF licensed
> properties and it wont allow for that. So by the way the process works
> today you force any member to accept this spamming because you refuse to
> put these simple controls in place.
>
> Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use
> or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes
> outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow
> the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new
> list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background
> noise they cause.
>
> Why is it so difficult to see that a simple revision of the Note Well
> use guidelines is in place. Remember that there is nothing in the IETF's
> subscription process which warns the parties subscribing that the EMail
> Address they post through will become public and as such they may
> receive other emails to that address for which the IETF takes no
> responsibility... but that also doesnt exist...
>
> So lets fix this one this time around. By the way you realize one of
> those suspensions from Harald I got was for arguing this very point. Why
> not bring Jorge in or at least formally ask him off list if the
> liability I point out is not accurate or not.
>
> Todd
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> On 1/31/2010 11:34 AM, tglassey wrote:
>>> I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:
>>>
>>> "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a
>>> large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those
>>> may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those
>>> addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of
>>> IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third
>>> parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF
>>> itself."
>>>
>>> This will stop anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and
>>> then setting up subsidiary lists
>>>
>>> Todd Glassey
>>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2658 - Release Date: 01/30/10 19:35:00
>>
>>
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John C Klensin | 1 Feb 2010 18:55

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 09:15 -0800 tglassey
<tglassey <at> glassey.com> wrote:

>...
> Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw
> the use or compilation of IETF identities as member
> information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If
> the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another
> list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator.
> The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise
> they cause.
>...

Todd,

I think the paragraph above exactly captures where we disagree.
I can think of no possible way by which the IETF would acquire,
or could reasonably claim, enough legislative authority to
"outlaw" anything, much less enough of the right sorts of
authority to enforce such laws.

If there were a legal context that said 'if an organization says
"don't use our mailing list for so-and-so", it is a crime to do
so and the state will enforce violations', we would be having a
very different conversation.   But, as far as I know --and,
unlike, e.g., some anti-harassment statutes about uses of the
PSTN-- there is no such statutory context.

Without that context --or somehow declaring the Internet as a
country that we govern and raising an army to support that
claim-- I think the most we could possibly do (even with
consensus and a BCP) would be to scatter statements around that
indicate that we consider certain kinds of behavior abusive and
as violating terms and conditions that people implicitly agree
to by subscribing to, or looking at the archives of, our lists
_and_ then trying civil litigation against anyone who violated
those norms.  My opinion on that subject is probably clear from
my prior notes.  But "outlawing" something requires the ability
to make laws, doing it meaningfully requires the ability to
enforce laws, and the IETF just doesn't have that sort of power
or authority.

    john
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Todd Glassey | 1 Feb 2010 23:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 2/1/2010 9:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 09:15 -0800 tglassey <tglassey <at> glassey.com> wrote:
... Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise they cause. ...
Todd, I think the paragraph above exactly captures where we disagree. I can think of no possible way by which the IETF would acquire, or could reasonably claim, enough legislative authority to "outlaw" anything, much less enough of the right sorts of authority to enforce such laws.
John this is the problem it doesnt take any legislative authority to tell people that cannot harvest addresses from IETF Technology Publications and you know it. This IS THE REAL PROBLEM THE IETF HAS and its about where the organizations collective head is placed not - let me say a little more - it is doubtful that a window crank would do any good here either IMHO.
If there were a legal context that said 'if an organization says "don't use our mailing list for so-and-so", it is a crime to do so and the state will enforce violations', we would be having a very different conversation. But, as far as I know --and, unlike, e.g., some anti-harassment statutes about uses of the PSTN-- there is no such statutory context.
Which means that it is formally within the USES AUTHORIZED by the IETF to send any email to any of those addresses for any purposes. It is the IETF who as a collective and the IPR WG in particular that made this decision for all of the IETF and it is now in place. That says a lot of really bad things about the IETF and the people here in this WG and its pretty much cut in stone - the issue is how to fix it and whether it will take litigation against the people in management here at the IETF to wake you folks up.

I suggest that it may be closer than you think and that you all are accountable for the damages you have done with what I consider to be this WG's grossly incompetent actions. Sorry but accountability is something new for many here but its a thing that is going to stay with us all.

Todd
Without that context --or somehow declaring the Internet as a country that we govern and raising an army to support that claim-- I think the most we could possibly do (even with consensus and a BCP) would be to scatter statements around that indicate that we consider certain kinds of behavior abusive and as violating terms and conditions that people implicitly agree to by subscribing to, or looking at the archives of, our lists _and_ then trying civil litigation against anyone who violated those norms. My opinion on that subject is probably clear from my prior notes. But "outlawing" something requires the ability to make laws, doing it meaningfully requires the ability to enforce laws, and the IETF just doesn't have that sort of power or authority. john _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
tglassey | 1 Feb 2010 20:13

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 2/1/2010 9:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, January 31, 2010 09:15 -0800 tglassey <tglassey <at> glassey.com> wrote:
... Are you mad? This is lunacy and it's easily fixed. Just outlaw the use or compilation of IETF identities as member information for any purposes outside that WG's operations. If the WG Chair wants to formally allow the seeding of another list that is between the WG Chair and the new list operator. The issue is outside users and the amount of background noise they cause. ...
Todd, I think the paragraph above exactly captures where we disagree. I can think of no possible way by which the IETF would acquire, or could reasonably claim, enough legislative authority to "outlaw" anything, much less enough of the right sorts of authority to enforce such laws.
The problem John is that the IETF cannot change legal standards because they offend the technology crowd herein.
If there were a legal context that said 'if an organization says "don't use our mailing list for so-and-so", it is a crime to do so and the state will enforce violations', we would be having a very different conversation.
There is if the IP rights specified do not allow for it. The problem is that the people who designed the participation and use process ignored the issue of the EMAIL ADDRESSES - it was specifically brought up and in bringing it up I earned one of Harald's unwarranted and un-opposable suspensions which the IESG supported so the issue here is liability and it doesnt matter whether you personally claim you are not liable you in fact are.

Sorry but the IETF cannot put its head in the sand and claim "It wasn't our fault - we said we were not liable and you cannot touch us because we are technologists" - which from my perspective is why the IETF is in the position its in here...

Todd Glassey


But, as far as I know --and, unlike, e.g., some anti-harassment statutes about uses of the PSTN-- there is no such statutory context. Without that context --or somehow declaring the Internet as a country that we govern and raising an army to support that claim-- I think the most we could possibly do (even with consensus and a BCP) would be to scatter statements around that indicate that we consider certain kinds of behavior abusive and as violating terms and conditions that people implicitly agree to by subscribing to, or looking at the archives of, our lists _and_ then trying civil litigation against anyone who violated those norms. My opinion on that subject is probably clear from my prior notes. But "outlawing" something requires the ability to make laws, doing it meaningfully requires the ability to enforce laws, and the IETF just doesn't have that sort of power or authority. john No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lucy Lynch | 1 Feb 2010 18:35

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

> I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:
>
>    "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a 
> large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may 
> only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses 
> are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual 
> properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of 
> pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

> This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then 
> setting up subsidiary lists
>
> Todd Glassey
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Endre Jarraux Walls | 1 Feb 2010 19:09
Picon

RE: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

I certainly agree with Lucy on this one - the language that the addresses
are property of the IETF is misleading in my opinion. I believe there should
be language in terms of acceptable use policies, but I believe the fix to
preventing harvesting should be a technological one and not necessarily a
legal one. The masking of email addresses in group lists is popular in other
mailing systems, why not IETF's? Protecting the addresses should be more an
issue of privacy policy than just preventing spam - the IETF clearly has a
fiduciary responsibility in this regard.

On the legal side, I would not oppose language that set form terms of use
that all members and anyone joining the lists must adhere to. But I'm not
sure there's much we could do beyond that. Certainly "outlawing" people from
harvesting the addresses is impossible, IMHO.

Endre Jarraux Walls

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Lucy Lynch
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:35 PM
To: tglassey
Cc: Contreras, Jorge; chair <at> ietf.org; ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

> I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:
>
>    "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a 
> large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those
may 
> only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those
addresses 
> are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF
intellectual 
> properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation
of 
> pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

> This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and
then 
> setting up subsidiary lists
>
> Todd Glassey
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4824 (20100201) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4824 (20100201) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
tglassey | 1 Feb 2010 20:07

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 2/1/2010 9:35 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

   "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

Lucy do you and the rest of the TRUST members accept formal legal liability for this decision and any damage it causes relying parties? Because if the answer is NO then I put it to you that you in fact are liable as an officer of the Trust... and since NO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS policy can be put in place to cover damages from unenforceable contracts you have a sua sponte responsibility to get it right the first time.

Todd Glassey

This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lucy Lynch | 1 Feb 2010 20:32

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, tglassey wrote:

> On 2/1/2010 9:35 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:
>> 
>>> I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:
>>>
>>>    "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a 
>>> large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those 
>>> may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those 
>>> addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF 
>>> intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for 
>>> the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."
>> 
>> While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
>> bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.
>> 
>> - Lucy
>
> Lucy do you and the rest of the TRUST members accept formal legal liability 
> for this decision and any damage it causes relying parties? Because if the 
> answer is NO then I put it to you that you in fact are liable as an officer 
> of the Trust... and since NO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS policy can be put in place 
> to cover damages from unenforceable contracts you have a sua sponte 
> responsibility to get it right the first time.

Todd -

I'm no longer a member of the IAOC and hence no longer an officer of the
IETF Trust. I'm just another volunteer - speaking with no hats on.

- Lucy

> Todd Glassey
>> 
>>> This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and 
>>> then setting up subsidiary lists
>>> 
>>> Todd Glassey
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>>> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 
>> 12:37:00
>>
>> 
>
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Todd Glassey | 1 Feb 2010 22:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 2/1/2010 11:32 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, tglassey wrote:

On 2/1/2010 9:35 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, tglassey wrote:

I propose the following amendment to the NoteWell Use terms:

   "While IETF Technology Documents and their Vetting Process produces a large amount of communications between parties, email addresses in those may only be used in the furtherance of that specific initiative. Those addresses are the property of the IETF and represent the one part of IETF intellectual properties which are not made available to third parties for the creation of pre-built mailing lists outside of the IETF itself."

While I sympathize with the impulse, I would not like to see this text
bolted on to the NoteWell. Please record a No from me.

- Lucy

Lucy do you and the rest of the TRUST members accept formal legal liability for this decision and any damage it causes relying parties? Because if the answer is NO then I put it to you that you in fact are liable as an officer of the Trust... and since NO ERRORS AND OMISSIONS policy can be put in place to cover damages from unenforceable contracts you have a sua sponte responsibility to get it right the first time.

Todd -

I'm no longer a member of the IAOC and hence no longer an officer of the
IETF Trust. I'm just another volunteer - speaking with no hats on.
Unfortunately your fiduciary role doesnt end there - I suggest you speak with Jorge about this formally.

Todd

- Lucy

Todd Glassey

This will stop  anyone from harvesting the email addresses of people and then setting up subsidiary lists

Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00




_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 12:37:00 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane