Re: Spam in the IETF's name?

As a hopefully constructive suggestion, perhaps people
can look at draft-hoffman-taobis-03.txt and see whether
it says enough in this whole area. Covering this in the
Tao seems right to me.

    Brian

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, 20 October, 2005 17:17 +0200 Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
> 
>>--On torsdag, oktober 20, 2005 17:09:21 +0200 Brian E
>>Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We do, however, pay quite close attention to ensuring that
>>>meetings that *haven't* been sanctioned by an AD don't use
>>>the IETF's name inappropriately. But statements such as "we
>>>are meeting in the same hotel as the IETF" are factual, and
>>>we can't complain at factual statements.
> 
> 
> Right.  But "meeting at the IETF" or "meeting at the IETF
> meeting" are, intentionally or not, deceptive in ways that
> "meeting in the same hotel as the IETF" or "meeting near the
> IETF" or "meeting at the same time as the IETF" are not.   I
> read the material Harald posted, as well as the material that
> touched off a similar controversy around our Paris meetings, as
> much closer to the first two statements than to the others.  And
> I am suggesting only that organizations or groups whose lists we
> choose to recognize, whom we give access to IETF mailing lists
> for distribution of announcements, etc., should, in turn, be
> required to take on an affirmative obligation to be
> extra-careful to avoid confusion with IETF-approved activities.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with whether statements are
> factual or not, only with whether the statements are presented
> in a form that is likely to create confusion with IETF
> activities while using IETF facilities or resources.
> 
> 
>>In the case of this particular person, he was using "we" quite
>>a lot, and without mentioning any organization but the IETF.
>>I think anyone who wasn't an "IETF insider" would assume that
>>the writer spoke on behalf of the IETF -
>>...
> 
> 
> And, again, I believe that a group that uses _any_ IETF
> facilities or that expects any IETF recognition, needs to take
> on an affirmative obligation to avoid that sort of confusion
> whether it is deliberate or not... and that we have some
> obligation to make that expectation, and models of ways to avoid
> the confusion, clear.
> 
>       john
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf