Jeffery ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@xxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Sam Hartman" <hartmans@xxxxxxx>; "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@xxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > > > On Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:02:23 AM -0700 todd glassey > <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > By the way - why would the IETF figure that something it wrote in IPR or > > Network or any other WG would be legally binding on ISOC and its BOT??? > > Heh. "Network" isn't an IETF working group; the phrase "Network Working > Group" at the top of RFC's is a historical nod to the group that started > the series. > > In this particular case, we expect the appeals process to be binding upon > ISOC and it's board because it was approved by that board, as all IETF > process documents must be. As documented where??? and where are the records of the BOT meetings that put these in place? Sorry but this doesnt meet the disclosure requirements for modifying the contract. > > > Before you start spouting audit-speak at us and quoting practices which > were not intended for an organization like the IETF and are not relevant to > it, you could at least do your homework. you and many others seem to be suffering from some weird dementia that because you say so, the laws of the world don't apply to you. Or to the IETF or to the ISOC. > > -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx> > Sr. Research Systems Programmer > School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility > Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf