Re: List moderator action

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon,
At 12:30 AM 04-05-2026, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>:-[ Section 5.3 is clear and uses well-defined terms, and according to the
>multiple legal advice I've gotten over the years, those are the terms
>that are binding.
>
>Regarding the entire section 3, consider that its title is:
>
>    3. Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are .........6
>
>The section is written informally and try to explain the legal words in
>other ways.  The introduction of the document re-inforces this:
>
>    Section 1 provides definitions used in these policies.  Sections 3
>    and 4 of this document explain the rationale for these provisions.
>    Sections 1, 2, 5, and 6 of this document are normative, the other
>    sections are informative.  RFC 3979 (BCP 79) [RFC3979] deals with
>
>Read that again: Section 3 has no normative bearing.
>
>It is unfortunate that the IESG made a statement that enforce a
>particular legal interpretation which is based on content in Section 3.
>That puts the IETF into legal jeopardy and opens up for anti-trust
>and/or anti-openness risks, and harms the reputation of the IETF as an
>open standardization organization.

Section 5.7 of RFC 5378 states that:

   "The IETF reserves the right to withdraw or cease using
    any Contribution that does not comply with the requirements
    of this Section 5."

Section 1 of that RFC included "electronic communications" in its 
definition of the term "Contribution".  That would, in my opinion, 
cover emails.

There is a notice near the bottom of web page at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/226  There 
is an explanation sent by the IETF Chair at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/d5tK-Ut1QZtgSaodWGC2MCgwqcw/ 
What I understand from that is that having such a notice could 
discourage "participants that lack the resources to assess such 
non-standard new, non-conformant legal clauses".  I presume that the 
word "resources" means money as legal experts generally expect 
payment for their advice.  I could rely on mailing list commentary to 
decide whether to follow or ignore the notice.  The question which I 
ask myself is whether the persons who sent the commentary will be 
there to help out if I end up in trouble.

The IESG modified a document which the appellant submitted, according 
to the appellant.  Let's assume that was the case.  It may be 
possible to fix that.  Some of the documents in the RFC Series were 
in PDF/A-1 if I am not mistaken.  It might be easier to accept the 
submission in that format as it is supposed to be an archival format [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://digitalpreservation.fi/sites/default/files/2024-05/File-Formats-v1.12.0.pdf