RE: Fwd: Complaint to IAB regarding IESG decisions

[IETF Chair <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 5:23 PM
To: Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>; Chris Box <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Complaint to IAB regarding IESG decisions


> Hiya,
>
> On 30/10/2025 21:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > 
> > There's enough ambiguity in the text and sentiment of rfc5378 that the 
> > IESG's interpretation of the document could be viewed as both 
> > legalistic and expansionist, and at best arguable.
> > 
> > This is not a defense of djb's general attitude on mailing lists or of 
> > the set of decisions that he's made that have led to his various 
> > claims being dismissed on procedural grounds. There's plenty of scope 
> > in what he's written over the last several months for moderation 
> > engagement of one form or another.
> > 
> > But given the ambiguity in RFC5378, and with due respect to the IESG's 
> > position on this, I am not convinced that attaching a Legend 
> > Instruction per se hits the mark for threatening to revoke posting rights.
> 
> +1

One implicit question raised above is why the repeated use of non-conformant notices that claim derivative rights are withheld could be disruptive.  The IESG position is that this behavior may be disruptive because it creates barriers to participation in the standards process in the following ways:

(a) increased complexity and process ambiguity – the IETF standards process operates on the premise of a defined set of rules to create a level playing field for participation.  New participants or those less familiar with IETF processes are likely to be disproportionately negatively impacted by misleading, inconsistent or false representations of the IETF process, and could feel the need to match what they perceive as the conventions of the community.

(b) increased cost of participation – RFC5378 reminds participants to “consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF Trust [RFC4371] in any Contributions they make.”  Such non-conformant text imposes a burden on participants to check with their legal counsel. 

(c) silencing of risk-adverse participants – participants that lack the resources to assess such non-standard new, non-conformant legal clauses will refrain from participating for fear of liability.  

Please also note the statement text says “_may be_ considered a disruption” (emphasis added) which leaves the decision on taking action on these clauses to the discretion of the administrators (e.g., WG Chairs, non-WG list owners, IETF Discussion List moderators) of the venue who best understand its dynamics.

Regards,
Roman Danyliw
(as IETF Chair)