Re: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity

Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Wed, 01 March 1995 16:10 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05153; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05147; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07785; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05140; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05135; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07780; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05128; 1 Mar 95 11:10 EST
To: stev@ftp.com
cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Mar 95 10:07:37 EST." <9503011507.AA05702@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 95 11:10:32 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-ID: <9503011110.aa05128@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>>   Motorola sent a letter to the IETF.  The IETF Secretariate has
>>   refused to disclose the contents of that letter, despite repeated
>>   verbal and written requests.

>> i was under the impression that we were sharing all correspondance
>> with the WG chair, is this true?  is there a reason we dont share it
>> with the WG?

Some time last year, Fred and I agreed to limit the participation to
the WG Chair, the I-D author, and the ADs. I'd have to go digging for
the actual message, but I believe you and Claudio were copied).

BTW, Bill's claim is inaccurate and disingenuous. He IS aware of the
contents of the letter; I personally read it to him over the phone and
gave him the patent numbers. What I did NOT do was send him a copy of
the letter, nor did I provide him with the name and address of
Motorola's IPR counsel.

What's irritating is that the IESG is not involved with the Motorola
patent issue (though I do provide status updates when they occur). The
Secretariat is (why is another story altogether), the Internet ADs are,
but this is not on the IESG plate. If Bill wants to complain about the
Secretariat, that's fine; but there's no reason to expand his net to
include the IESG.


Steve