"Mr. Anderson..." (Thanks Dean - I always wanted to say that) Contracts are funny things. In contract's from my lay experience, the party responsible for the creation of the terms of the contract is usually held accountable for failings in the contract fully. That would mean that the IETF is 100% responsible for the contract and its pain, and a Court would likely look at that and in most all instances that I know of, rule in the favor of the party, not the IETF if there was an issue. Jorge? Comment? - This is a pretty good tutorial on basic contracts - it uses New Mexico law and is put on by UNM. http://jecclassroom.unm.edu/contract_law/ - Look at the UCC section - All states have adopted their own versions of the UCC and for the most part they are interchangeable with some very slight deviations (Jorge?)... Also notice the Parole Evidence Rule and the Statute of Frauds which are not interchangeable and many people confuse the two of them. Basics - http://jecclassroom.unm.edu/contract_law/02.htm --- So - Let me also point out that FWIK if the "IETF's Contract" is unenforceable then that may include the entire contract which would rescind the conveyance of the IP to the IETF. And the reason is - that since there is no "severability" clause in the current contract agreement, if there is an issue with the contract - then the whole thing may magically vaporize - and probably would leave a number of people very upset with the IETF I bet. The aggregate enforceability of the contract is in my estimate very questionable at this time. That could potentially also mean that NONE of the IP that the ISOC thinks it conveyed to the trust is real. Which is really going to upset some people - Eh Lucy? - the reason is simple - Since arguably there is no possible contract between the Submitters and the IETF because of how this contract was created, and no severability clause, and in fact no statement of venue whatsoever in the conveyance documents - they are very arguably totally unenforceable... & BTW - it would be easier to fix this than argue whether its real or not... My take, as I have said numerous times, is that Jorge needs to put on the SuperLawyer Suit and draft Contreras-IETF-Contract-01.txt, and it needs to have all that stuff no one of this group (other than me possibly) wants to deal with to protect the IETF and the rest of us from each other's shenanigans.. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Dean Anderson" <dean@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:15 PM Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > Right Dean - I guess you don't know much about Perjury Constrained > Declarations - there is a State and Federal Jurisdiction here at place... > which are you folks choosing? > > Here is the problem - the contract may not be binding without some statement > specific to the selection of law since many of the IETF's participants exist > and work under different laws or jurisdictions than that of the US alone. I > think that makes it critical for the Beast's Comedic Practices (BCP) > documents to disclose jurisdiction, and possibly some Dispute/ADR language > too.+ > > My concern is that if the contract between the parties is one specific to > any particular states laws then the contract would have to disclose that. > Since many states have differing laws without fully defining the scope and > jurisdiction behind the contract the contract becomes in some instances > unenforceable... Its also arguable that without proper declaration of the > basic law constraining the contract that there is no contract whether the > pieces of what contracts are made up are created or not. > > > Todd > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dean Anderson" <dean@xxxxxxx> > To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <> > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: Response to the Appeal by [...] > > > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, todd glassey wrote: > > > > > Dean - > > > So then its the ISOC's formal process to officially refuse to comply > with > > > Safe Harbor, the US DMCA and the EU's Security Requirements for > electronic > > > processes? Cool - I am betting that means the US Government cannot > > > participate with them too, right? > > > > I must have missed something. What does the DMCA have to do with > > this discussion? I am also mystified as to why the DMCA would prevent > > the US Government from participating in any case. > > > > > By the way - what State's or Country's laws are the IETF's documents > > > governed under and why is this not in any of the IETF's documents > including > > > the Solicitation RFP itself??? > > > > This is found on the ISOC web site, under its incorporation documents. > > http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/incorp.shtml > > > > The ISOC is a District of Columbia corporation, in the United States. > > > > > My favorite is the Affidavit which comes with a perjury clause in it > > > with no statement of who's perjury laws were being used? US? Virginia? > > > California? who's ??? > > > > I'm not sure what particular affidavit you mean. An Affidavit is a > > statement made under oath, usually to a court. I think the "perjury > > clause" you referred to is your oath that the statements are true. > > > > --Dean > > > > -- > > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > > 617 344 9000 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf