On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> --On lørdag, september 04, 2004 04:16:11 -0400 Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > So it would appear that the ISOC supervises what goes on.
>
> ISOC does have a role in the process. "Supervise" is not a word I would use
> to describe it.
>
> > I note that both RFC 2031 and Vint Cerf's History indicates that the
> > POISED group recommended that the IETF should be split from the ISOC into
> > a separate legal entity. 8 years later, this still hasn't been done.
>
> I can't see where RFC 2031 says that (I can see the document saying that
> the two are different, but not where it says that IETF should be a legal
> entity). Can you quote, please?
I may have misread the draft, and on second read, I think I should mute my
somewhat critical tone, a bit. I was focusing too much on this:
======================================================================
One of the more obvious recommendations that came out of the Poised
WG was to move all non technical issues that can be moved safely, to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
another related organization. The Poised WG finds that the Internet
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huizer Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2031 IETF-ISOC Relationship October 1996
Society (ISOC) is the obvious choice for this task. A straw poll at
the open plenary session of the IETF in december 1995 in Dallas
clearly confirmed this notion.
======================================================================
And missing the part on the next page (above) that says the ISOC is the
"obvious choice for this task".
But overall, we still have essentially the same alternatives as
before:
======================================================================
There are three alternatives:
- Do nothing and ignore the increasing responsibility and growth; the
risk here is that the IETF either becomes insignificant, or will be
suffocated by US law suits.
Huizer Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2031 IETF-ISOC Relationship October 1996
- The IETF does everything itself; this keeps the IETf in control,
but it would distract enormously from the technical work the IETF
is trying to get done.
- The IETF finds another organization than ISOC to take on the role
described above. But why would another organization be better than
ISOC?
======================================================================
I note that one alternative to being "suffocated by US law suits" is to be
scrupulously law abiding, and scrupulously honest, and scrupulously
ethical, and scrupulously cognizant of an organization's legal obligations
and responsibilities, including its responsibilities for the actions of
voluteers. I found that the LPF could organize boycotts, protest rally's
and other potentially risky and legally controversial activities while
similarly using much volunteer labor, yet avoid 'suffocating legal
entanglement' by being scrupulously responsible and honest, and being very
careful to make sure that volunters understood what was required of them
and what could and couldn't be allowed. I also found that reading books
on tort and business law is a good supplement to college coursework on
Business Law. Beyond that, having access to sympathetic Law Professors who
will patiently explain both sides of a question is also a great benefit.
Of course, this same benefit can be obtained by hiring a competent
attorney and asking them tough questions and providing them with brutally
honest information about both sides of a question.
There is no way to avoid 'suffocating legal entanglement' yet act contrary
to one's legal responspibilities. The task of an organizations executive
is to make sure that the organization performs its responsibilities,
legal, finanical, social, and otherwise.
I am always reminded of this excerpt from a news report about Alan Brown
of ORBS.ORG:
======================================================================
The judge in the case disagreed entirely and said the Mr Brown had failed
to show his comments came from an honestly held belief that they were
true. Instead he said they were more of a personal attack. Mr Brown also
claimed the legal defence of fair comment, but the judge said that fair
comment was based on an informed argument but Mr Brown has made no attempt
to separate fact and opinion.
The judge was also unimpressed by the fact that when Mr Brown was offered
the chance to apologise, he reacted by making further defamatory
allegations. The judge also said that a key motivator behind Mr Brown was
the financial welfare of his ISP.
The judge said of comments made on the Internet: "I must say I know of no
forum in which an individual citizen has the freedom to say what he likes
and in any manner he wishes about another individual citizen with immunity
from suit for all consequences." And so he made sure there wasn't.
======================================================================
A telling and significant problem with the POISED WG and RFC 2031 is also
revealed by the acknowledgement section:
======================================================================
Acknowledgement and disclaimer
The author is chair of the Poised 95 WG. The author has tried to
summarise e-mail and face to face discussions in the WG. All the good
ideas in this paper are the result of the WG, all the mistakes and
errors are probably due to the author or his lack of command of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
American language as well as the American legal system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The author is a member of the Internet Society.
Author's Address
Erik Huizer
SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv
P.O. Box 19115
3501 DC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 302 305 305
Fax: +31 302 305 329
E-mail: Erik.Huizer@xxxxxx
======================================================================
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf