Re: Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP))

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 26 August 2009 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B9E3A6B9C; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WvGn6dkCnRNl; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB5F63A6A00; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B018BF24021; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HemsYV0Mj4D5; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-96-241-154-102.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.154.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AFBF24026; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:14:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:13:54 -0400
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP))
In-Reply-To: <B5D081A6-2A0E-4E86-9D88-160841E52263@lilacglade.org>
References: <B7008260-2BA6-4529-B4F6-1D0D3D9E7AEA@americafree.tv> <84B53F27-BA76-4EEE-B02E-DC557CE0D9DC@americafree.tv> <CEEDB373107D5559B510618C@PST.JCK.COM> <B5D081A6-2A0E-4E86-9D88-160841E52263@lilacglade.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <20090826141409.98AFBF24026@odin.smetech.net>
Cc: Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, IAB <iab@iab.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:36:13 -0000

Margaret:

I do not want to speak for Bob or Marshall.  However, Bob is away 
from email, and I have not seen responses from Marshall to any email 
that I sent him recently, so Marshall is either away or swamped.

The Trustees have agreed to the points that will be made in the 
response to John Klensin's request for review.  The Trustees are 
waiting to see the final text.  Once that text is presented and 
wordsmithed, it will be posted.  I expected that to happen before 
now, but August schedules have interfered.

Russ

At 10:19 PM 8/25/2009, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>Hi Marshall and Bob,
>
>Could you please let us know the current status of this appeal?
>
>In the plenary in Stockholm, I understood you to say that you _do_
>consider the decisions of the IAOC and the Trust to be subject to the
>appeals procedure, which I think is a good decision.  However, it has
>been about 6 weeks since this appeal was sent, and I do not see a
>location on the IAOC/Trust web pages where the appeal text is posted,
>nor have I seen any response.
>
>I think that there are several very valid points in John's appeal, and
>I largely agree with it.  I note that the IAOC has already begun the
>process of bringing the minutes up to date, which I consider to be an
>important step.  Could you help me to understand how you are reacting
>or responding to other portions of this appeal?
>
>Thanks,
>Margaret
>
>
>On Jul 18, 2009, at 3:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>--On Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:55 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
>><tme@americafree.tv> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello;
>>>
>>>We (the Trustees) have received feedback on the proposed
>>>changes to the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP) and have agreed to
>>>take the following actions. Since the original call went out
>>>on the 23rd of June, the comment period is extended to the
>>>23rd of July.
>>>...
>>
>>Marshall,
>>
>>While I believe these changes are all improvements, I also
>>recall several additional sets of comments on the IETF mailing
>>list, including those that addressed the issues of:
>[...]
>
>>Consequently, by this message to you and copy of this note to
>>the IAOC Chair, and under the provisions of Section 3.5 of RFC
>>4071, I formally request that the Trustees review their actions,
>>that the IAOC review the actions of the Trustees as part of the
>>IASA process, and that the following actions be taken:
>
>[...]
>