Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate

Michael Dillon <> Fri, 13 February 2009 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D280D28C183 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:22:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgUBfMB8KWjw for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD743A6C74 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:22:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f33so525205fkf.5 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:22:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=aYC3xT5Jbj2LCs4819oyfCPRq3qxvNqNESaFR+Bjx9E=; b=FdPfdotUcOfILp3xNxwnYQEqp8//vqW9s1yXKAMnIIzl+x0hKeHUKbfjmlIbCJdMQj 57RwVYahVzMC1nOsv3kEt7Y0dX5Zs9r7uvcO7GIGuOWTVp7N5nax/UtDMZhfa69bhagt zyhqv64x8oRGgHsq++bd6HGCxBSGSVoEjPnsw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=VGAcsYyE0hUqbGU+500hJK7/F4AidomDIa5kome31Ym+8LtTCIz/2T4yG+RlcyRuI0 rK3Hvsun4/vv7bxFeFRnl110OH/N6qDUZqCh/F6JsLloYfOAE6js+PxbaB7KBSsK0sep a56seNoJVyR78nhZHVSgU8tXCo44W5YPWrXI0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id s20mr661273bkh.184.1234520559411; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:22:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:22:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate
From: Michael Dillon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5b0656962f50462ca371c"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:22:35 -0000

> (For "Members of the IETF" we can substitute "People who are subscribed to
> the IETF Discussion list", if people think that is needed in place of the
> technically somewhat nebulous "Members of the IETF".)

If you really want to limit it to people subscribed to the list, forget the
boilerplate, just configure Mailman differently.

With the text above, don't be surprised when people learn that they can
become bona fide IETF members by subscribing to the IETF discussion list and
the new subscription volume swells exponentially. Given the contents of many
of the letters received on the patent issue, I would expect the majority of
those people to be willing, and capable of, subscribing to the IETF list in
order to submit a comment.

Also, don't be surprised when the next time this issue arises, the FSF
encourages people to join the IETF WG discussing the next patent-encumbered

Fundamentally, the IETF is a legislative body crafting legislation that
allows people to share intellectual property confident that they have the
legal right to do so and that the risks from such sharing are minimized.
Lobbying is fundamental to lawmaking. The roots of the IETF process are in
the 1960's when people enhanced western democratic models with native
American democratic models in which all voices are heard. Perhaps the
solution to this type of issue is to solicit those voices earlier in the
process, and then if there is no consensus, drop any further discussion of
the draft. Patent issues affect more than just the select few who
participate in IETF WGs and meetings.

--Michael Dillon