Re: IESG Response to Official notice of appeal on suspension rights.

["todd glassey" <[e-mail]>]

I should have assumed as such - but what is it that this review actually
reviewed and who were the people involved... were they by chance the same
people that made the original decision?

more inline below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
To: "Todd Glassey" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <IETF-Announce:>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:54 AM
Subject: IESG Response to Official notice of appeal on suspension rights.


>      The IESG has reviewed the appeal by Todd Glassey on the
>      suspension of his posting rights to the IPR-WG mailing list
>      by Harald Alverstrand, AD for the IPR Working Group.
>
>  The appeal consists of three parts. The text is verbatim from Todd's
>  appeal (see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/todd-glassey-appeal.txt),
>  with labels A/, B/ and C/ added for later reference:
>
>  A/With regard to my posting 20% of the list's traffic, the 2418 clause
>      that calls this a Denial of Service Attack is in fact a smoke screen
to
>      allow the IETF to set limits on how many postings any one person can
make,
>      but only in arbitrary matters, clearly causing a tortuous
interference with
>      my participation since issues are being resolved that I cannot
participate
>      in. And unless the IESG or the IETF is going to formally place a
specific
>      limit on the number of responses that one can submit to postings,
then this
>      matter is clearly an act of prejudicial harassment of the IETF Chair
and the
>      WG Chairs to suppress that the IPR group is essentially not in my
opinion
>      fixing problems but rather making the process and the disclosure
issues more
>      painful.
>
>  B/Further, the Chair commented that I had "Threatened legal action"
against
>      several list members, and I would like to see specific evidence to
this
>      "fact" as it was used, since I clearly deny that this is true. Please
>      produce the specific commentary and explain how it was threatening.
What I
>      have asked several officers of the IETF and the IESG is whether there
is
>      financial coverage for them in operating the organization as any good
entity
>      would have. They have refused to answer this in any way. I have also
voiced
>      an opinion that the IETF's policies are bringing it head-on into
areas where
>      legal action will not be avoidable but I have not said specifically
that I
>      would sue anyone. I don't make silly threats, I act upon the
causative
>      actions in appropriate manners only.
>
>  C/Finally the commentary that "I have been warned" repeatedly by the WG
Chairs
>      to not post off topic mailings is ridiculous and contrary to the
IETF's
>      charter and operating process, and it must formally take notice of
this or
>      face the problems that this refusal to accept the obvious brings. By
their
>      very nature, the IETF WG' Lists MUST accept all postings or it is
impossible
>      to disclose new ideas on the list, making the process of submitting
an I-D
>      ***the only way that new ideas can be submitted*** or can be vetted
and for
>      WG Chairs to suppress is contrary to the IETF's operational models
(no
>      matter how hokey they are) as defined in RFC2026, RFC2223, and
RFC2418.
>
>  The answer to each part is as follows:
>
>  A/Todd is questioning the validity and fairness of RFC 2418. However,
that
>      RFC has a status of BCP and it describes "IETF Working Group
Guidelines
>      and Procedures". This document was explicitly created by the IETF to
>      provide clear documentation of our current WG Guidelines and
Procedures.
>      The fact that it is a BCP means that the document went through the
formal
>      IETF review and approval process (including IETF Last Call), and so
that
>      means that it has IETF consensus. The ADs and WG chairs are required
to
>      follow those guidelines and procedures.
>      If Todd (or anyone) feels that these Guidelines and Procedures need
to
>      be changed, then the normal IETF process needs to be followed to do
so.
>      Changes and interpretation cannot be forced via an appeal to the
IESG.
>      Note also, that RFC 2418 does not explicitly discuss a limit on the
>      percentage of email that is allowed by one participant. Instead, it
>      gives Guidelines to WG chairs and ADs on how to moderate a WG mailing
>      list. The amount of Todd's postings was just one factor in the
decision
>      to suspend his posting rights. Other factors are in points B/ and C/.
>
>  B/The IESG found at least the following email postings that we consider
>      enough evidence of "legal threats to working group members":
>
>      1.on public IPR-WG mailing list:
>
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01488.htm
l

You need to read the evidence that you cite. This posting points out a legal
liability that the WG Chairs face, and is not a threat of legal action
against any one person or group of named people.

>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01672.htm
l
>
>      2.in emails to individual members (chair(s)):
>
>          see [s3] and [s4] below
>
>      3.in private emails to AD [1] and [2].

Nothing that happens in PRIVATE EMAILS may be included herein since they are
not part of the public concensus.

>
>  C/Todd is challenging the validness of RFCs 2026, 2223 and 2418.
>      These 3 RFCs are all BCP documents, meaning that they have IETF
consensus.

NO that is not what it means. I am challenging the ambiguity of the content
of the documents, not the process itself.

>      These RFCs document procedures that WG chairs, ADs, and IESG must
follow.

NO it doesnt - it structures a loose process with so much wiggle-room at the
individual-iniative level that there is no possibility that any two
initiative will get the same treatment.

>      If Todd (or anyone) feels that they need to be changed, then the
normal
>      IETF process needs to be followed to do so.

Except that you and the IESG are desperate to see these changes stopped
since it is you that needs to ervolve. The IETF is not the MATRIX but if you
want to make this that type of issue - we can.

My point is that the process has loopholes in it that are clearly being
abused.

>      Changes and interpretation cannot be forced via an appeal to the
IESG.

Why not - if the POISED WG puts in place a process and the IESG adopts it
and its BROKEN or patently illegal then YES the IESG must change its
operating policies or suffer the consequences.

>      The IESG understands that Todd is not disputing that he has indeed
>      been warned multiple times but that he disputes the applicability
>      of RFCs 2026, 2223 and 2418 to the IETF WG process.

The problem is that an IETF WG Chair by pure terms cannot stifle push-back
on the mailing list or then the list becomes adversarial to the new
initiatives. And that ruins the openness of the IETF. What this pushback
does is edits the "concensus" that goes into any standard and that's the
problem since it means that the IETF is not open nor fair, but rather a
policitcally tainted hall of secrets...

>      Even if Todd is challenging the statement that multiple warnings were
>      given, the IESG has found several emails that prove that the warnings
>      were indeed given, see [s1], [s2], [s3], and
>
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01558.htm
l
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01634.htm
l
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01778.htm
l
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01862.htm
l
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01736.htm
l

Did anyone check to see if any of the postings were repeats or what the time
line was between the postings or whether there were separate retorts that
were being repsonded to...

>
>  In summary, the IESG upholds the decision of the IPR-WG WG chairs
>  and the AD for the General Area as announced on August 1st, 2003:
>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01894.htm
l

I figured it would. Fine - we will now take this to the next stage... WHO
voted and what way did they vote - This is not a secret tribunal.

>
>  The IESG
>
>  -------- referenced material -----
>
>  [1] email to
AD ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          -----Original Message-----
>          From: todd glassey [mailto:[e-mail]]
>          Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:11 AM
>          To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Robert Barr
>          Cc: Contreras, Jorge
>          Subject: Fw: IPR WG mailing list "piss off contest"???
>
>          This is what is going to happen when we get to court and I assure
you I will
>          name Cisco as a co-defendant in this matter.
>
>          Todd Glassey
>
>  [2] email to AD after Todd had posting rights
suspended ------------------------
>
>          -----Original Message-----
>          From: todd glassey [mailto:[e-mail]]
>          Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:46 PM
>          To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Contreras, Jorge
>          Subject: Re: Suspension of Todd's posting rights to the IPR list
>
>          Harald
>          You have left me no other option but to take legal action against
you and
>          the IETF. Who is the formal point of service for the IETF and I
assume that
>          as a Cisco Employee that they will accept service for you Harald.
>
>          Todd Glassey
>
>  [s1] email from WG chair to Todd
Glassey ------------------------------------
>
>          X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
>          To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>
>          cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>          Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-02
>          Mime-Version: 1.0
>          Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>          Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 13:57:13 -0400
>          From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>
>          Todd -- your repeated suggestions about how to reorganize the
IETF's
>          core processes are off-topic for the IPR working group's mailing
list.
>          Even if you think our IPR policies are a reason to change our
processes,
>          the process change itself should be discussed on other mailing
lists.
>          You've been posting about this repeatedly -- please stop.
>
>          I would also note that over the last week or so, your posts have
>          comprised about 30% of the traffic on the mailing list. It's been
seen
>          on many other mailing lists that when one person posts that much,
>          however valid his or her points, it tends to crowd others out.
Worse
>          yet, it makes people ignore the list, when they can't keep up
with the
>          volume. You should seriously consider slowing down your posting
rate.
>
>                                  --Steve Bellovin,
http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                                  http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of
"Firewalls" book)
>
>
>  [s2] From WG chair to Todd
Glassey -----------------------------------------
>
>      X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
>      To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>
>      cc: "Contreras, Jorge" <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail],
>          [e-mail]
>      Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-02
>      Mime-Version: 1.0
>      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>      Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 23:02:46 -0400
>      From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>
>      Even if I agreed with you about the relationship of our core
processes
>      to IPR -- and I don't -- the working group's charter, per the recent
>      "hum", restricts us to clarifying the current policy. I'm not certain
>      what you mean by requiring a disclosure statement when an I-D is
>      "filed"; we are considering the disclosure template draft, but that
>      wasn't the topic of the note of yours that I was objecting to.
>
>      As for the volume issue -- the problem has frequently been discussed
on
>      the IESG. Quite a number of ADs -- myself included -- have been
unable
>      to keep up with the volume of postings on a number of mailing lists,
>      due in large part to excess postings by a very small number of
>      individuals. I don't know if that qualifies as a "formal proof" --
>      which I generally associate with mathematics or theoretical computer
>      science -- but it's both first hand and second hand statements.
>
>      Your note below contains a number of personal insults, such as the
>      accusation that I'm trying to make the standards process harder. Such
>      language is inappropriate on IETF mailing lists, and if posted
publicly
>      would be further cause for action. (And no, I'm not "angry"; I'm
>      merely trying to run a contentious working group.)
>
>      Let me call your attention to the last paragraph of Section 3.2 of
RFC
>      2418:
>
>        As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals
>        may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's
>        progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the
>        behavior by communication directly with the offending individual
>        rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then
>        the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last
>        resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the
>        approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer
>        block the ability of the offending individual to post to the
mailing
>        list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of
operation.)
>        Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from
>        receiving messages posted to the list. Other methods of mailing
list
>        control may be considered but must be approved by the AD(s) and the
>        IESG.
>
>      Also see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
>      for further guidance.
>
>      Note carefully that I'm *not* asserting that your messages (except,
of
>      course, for the ad hominem attacks) are irrelevant to the IETF. There
>      are, however, other fora that are appropriate for them, such as the
>      poised mailing list. This mailing list is not the right spot.
>
>      You've made other postings to this list that are on-topic -- that
>      people disagree with you doesn't make them inappropriate. But
off-topic
>      postings, accusations about the ethics of the IESG, or, for that
>      matter, repeated postings of the same thing, over and over again,
even
>      if relevant, are disruptive. Please refrain.
>
>      In message <031701c32577$a1ddcef0$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey"
writes:
>      >Steve - too bad.
>      >
>      >----- Original Message -----
>      >From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>      >To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>
>      >Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>      >Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:57 AM
>      >Subject: Re: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-02
>      >
>      >
>      >> Todd -- your repeated suggestions about how to reorganize the
IETF's
>      >> core processes are off-topic for the IPR working group's mailing
list.
>      >
>      >No they are not. The core processes of the IETF are the reason that
an IPR
>      >is needed. Becuase the core processes of the IETF are what require
formal
>      >disclosure to the people that adopt them. These are specifically
what and
>      >why this WG was created and I am saying that if there was a
disclosure form
>      >as part of filing a draft or RFC that this would be unnesceassary.
Making
>      >the efforts of this WG a waste of time, so that is VERY relevent.
>      >
>      >So Steve why are you so in favor of making the process harder and
more
>      >complex? is it to keep people out of creating Internet and Global
Standards?
>      >or what?
>      >
>      >> Even if you think our IPR policies are a reason to change our
processes,
>      >> the process change itself should be discussed on other mailing
lists.
>      >> You've been posting about this repeatedly -- please stop.
>      >>
>      >> I would also note that over the last week or so, your posts have
>      >> comprised about 30% of the traffic on the mailing list. It's been
seen
>      >> on many other mailing lists that when one person posts that much,
>      >> however valid his or her points, it tends to crowd others out.
>      >
>      >Steve - if I said to my grandfather that i was annoyed becuase of
all the
>      >postings in a mailing list he would ask me the following questions
>      >
>      > 1) Why are you angry
>      >
>      > 2) is it reasonable?
>      >
>      >and in the first instance, what I would say is that I was pissed off
at all
>      >the stupid postings and his response would be "why" and of course I
would
>      >say that they were annoying becuase I had to sort through them all
to figure
>      >out what was SPAM and what was not. His response would have been to
ask me
>      >if that was reasonable and I would have had to say that it was an
artifact
>      >of the way I operated my mailing list, as a text only system rather
than a
>      >web based one, which made the issues of my being uptight about the
postings,
>      >my fault.
>      >
>      >
>      >> Worse
>      >> yet, it makes people ignore the list, when they can't keep up with
the
>      >> volume.
>      >
>      >You know I hate this one in particular - the retort that the many
postings
>      >to the list chase people away. So my response here is probably
unwarranted
>      >but here it is anyway -
>      >
>      >Oh like they were going to contribute something of value - see if
they know
>      >the internet and these standards processes and they have a reason to
be here
>      >they will put up with whatever they have to to get their standard in
place.
>      >The people that get chased away are probably mostly tire kickers...
and
>      >unless you can formally disprove that, i will take this issue as
closed.
>      >
>      >On another point though - what does keeping up with the volume mean
anyway?
>      >Do you read every posting on all the lists your on. You mean you
actually
>      >read everything I write which I seriously doubt - or is this more of
your
>      >just tired of seeing messages with my name on them?
>      >
>      >> You should seriously consider slowing down your posting rate.
>      >
>      >Thanks for the advice. The IETF should come out of the stone age
since it
>      >requres email and a website to register anyway.
>      >
>      >>
>      >> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>      >> http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>                      --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
(me)
>                                  http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of
"Firewalls" book)
>
>
>  [s3] From WG chair to Todd
Glassey -----------------------------------------
>
>      X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
>      To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>
>      cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>,
>          "Lynn St.Amour" <[e-mail]>,
>          "vint cerf" <[e-mail]>,
>          "Contreras,
>          Jorge" <[e-mail]>,
>          "Robert Barr" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>      Subject: Re: FLAWS in the Standards Process...
>      Mime-Version: 1.0
>      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>      Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:55:49 -0400
>      From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>
>      In message <006401c32e43$e49d33a0$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey"
writes:
>      >Steven (and Harald) this was the only posting I made to this list
today and
>      >you threatened to have me censured for it, that's a little over the
edge
>      >don't you think Steve? Aside from that you are both wrong and this
was a
>      >totally reasonable set of questions.
>      >
>      >You know, I suggest that your behavior is not appropriate for a
member of a
>      >global standards management team, and that you should be formally
brought up
>      >on a complaint because of this.
>      >
>      >I believe this type of behavior is a liability to both your sponsors
and to
>      >the IETF itself.
>      >
>
>      Todd, you have repeatedly posted off-topic, insulting, and (arguably)
>      libelous messages to this mailing list. I've received complaints
about
>      your postings; the one where you suggested that Bert Wijnen was
trying
>      to create liability was particularly egregious. (For those who aren't
>      on the list, I'm referring to your message of June 2 where you said
>
>                  that means that the IP's that are submitted are
>                  complete otherwise the IETF's editors will have a further
liability
>                  for their actions, unless perhaps that was your intent
here.
>
>      Looking at the situation more narrowly, Rob and I are trying to run a
>      very contentious working group. Doing so effectively and fairly means
>      permitting discussion of appropriate open issues. But it also means
>      that off-topic posts are not permitted, nor are repeated attempts to
>      reopen closed questions. The IPR working group has no ability and no
>      right to change the fundamental nature of the IETF; thus, such posts
>      are inappropriate on its mailing list. Your post was even entitled
>      "FLAWS in the Standards Process", which is not related to the IPR
>      question.
>
>      Concerns about the structure of the IETF or the overall flow of its
>      standards process are appropriate for the POISED mailing list. You're
>      well aware of that; you cross-posted to it.
>
>      You've also called for a fairly radical change in how IPR issues are
>      handled. That was on-topic and appropriate until the decision last
>      April against radical changes. It is no longer appropriate, just as
>      calls for the IETF to adopt a RAND policy are no longer appropriate
on
>      this list. Again -- this isn't an open, free-flowing forum; we have
>      plenty of those, and I have no desire (nor, of course, the right) to
>      stop you from speaking out in such fora. This is a working group
>      mailing list; its topic is the business of the working group.
>
>      You're not the first person whom Rob and I have admonished about
>      staying on-topic. We sincerely hope that we won't have to send any
>      more such messages.
>
>      >
>      >----- Original Message -----
>      >From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>      >To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>
>      >Cc: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>; "Contreras,
Jorge"
>      ><[e-mail]>; "Scott W Brim" <[e-mail]>;
"Scott
>      >Bradner" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>;
>      >"Lynn St.Amour" <[e-mail]>; "vint cerf"
<[e-mail]>;
>      >"Robert Barr" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>      >Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:30 PM
>      >Subject: Re: FLAWS in the Standards Process...
>      >
>      >
>      >In message <[e-mail]>,
>      >Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>      >>
>      >>The standards process' requirements for Draft Standard is
>      >>
>      >> A specification from which at least two independent and
interoperable
>      >> implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
>      >> for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
>      >> obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.
>      >>
>      >>It says nothing at all about the implementations being owned by
different
>      >>companies.
>      >>One person or team implementing the protocol twice would not
constitute
>      >>"independent" implementations, however.
>      >
>      >As Harald has said, independent ownership isn't the point. The
reason
>      >for the "two independent implementations" rule is so that we know
that
>      >the spec is clear enough that two different implementors can follow
it
>      >successfully. It has nothing to do with IPR.
>      >
>      >I would also note -- wearing my IPR chair hat -- that cross-posts
>      >between the IPR working group and POISED are almost always
>      >inappropriate. This post certainly is -- it has nothing whatsoever
to
>      >do with the charter of this group. Please stop such off-topic
posts --
>      >NOW. Note that you have previously be warned privately, pursuant to
>      >RFC 2418.
>      >
>      >
>      >--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>      >http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
>      >
>      >
>                                  --Steve Bellovin,
http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                                  http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of
"Firewalls" book)
>
>  [s4] From WG chair to Todd
Glassey ----------------------------------------
>
>      X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
>      To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>
>      cc: [e-mail],
>          "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>,
>          "Lynn St.Amour" <[e-mail]>,
>          "vint cerf" <[e-mail]>,
>          "Contreras,
>          Jorge" <[e-mail]>
>      Subject: Re: FLAWS in the Standards Process...
>      Mime-Version: 1.0
>      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>      Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:52:56 -0400
>      From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[e-mail]>
>
>      In message <014a01c32eb1$9762ceb0$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey"
writes:
>      >No Steven -
>      >I believe that you are patently wrong about your commentary here and
I
>      >believe that you have opened the IETF to a serious legal liability
in
>      >threatening me officially and publicly as a WG Chair... and because
of that
>      >I am seeking legal counsel before responding
>      >
>      >I suggest that you do the same and then we can start a discussion on
the
>      >settlement here since you are representing the IETF in this matter.
>      >
>
>      Since you've cc'd Jorge, that's done as far as the IETF counsel is
>      concerned.
>
>                                  --Steve Bellovin,
http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                                  http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of
"Firewalls" book)
>
>  -30-
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg