--On Thursday, 12 October, 2006 14:08 -0700 todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thats what I thought John but when Verisign's > Corporate-Government Liaison, who is a very reputable > attorney, pops up and says there is one I have to ask. I am not questioning the reputation of whomever you talked with or heard from. But, if the question is about a formal relationship or agreement between the IETF and ISO, at the ISO level, whomever gave you that information (while popping up or otherwise) is either confused or mistaken. I can't begin to speculate on which of those two it is without knowing either the context in which the information was given or the question that was asked which produced it, or both. Even then, I'm unlikely to do so because I really, personally, don't care. Let me try to say this again, in a different way: * You don't "have to ask". You can certainly decide to ask, and have obviously done so but, to my knowledge, no one has imposed that requirement on you in a way that leaves you no choice. * You don't have any inherent "right" to this information. You might reasonably take the position that, unless the information is supplied, you will decline to participate further in any IETF-related processes or to contribute to IETF mailing lists, but that possible decision to not participate is the limit of your "rights", at least absent a court order to the IETF to disclose documents. If you believe you need such a court order to obtain information, please go get it and find someone on whom to serve it: at least in this area, threats are largely wasted on most of us. * Independent of issues about "rights", the IETF has made a voluntary commitment to openness about its processes and agreements. You have the same right as any other interested party to seek information out in RFCs, on the website, etc. And, insofar as you are an IETF participant, you have the "right" to make suggestions about how access to that information might be improved. * In large measure, I believe, because of concerns that others might be similarly confused or interested in the answers, I, and others, have voluntarily tried to respond to many of your questions and to attempt to correct various of your misconceptions. We -- neither those who are part of the IETF leadership nor those of us who are not-- are not in any way obligated to do so and, at least in my case, my inclination to respond is in spite of your insistence on rights that I don't believe exist and a sometimes-demanding and/or abusive or accusatory tone, not because of them. The fact that various of us have sometimes, indeed often, responded constructively and with tutorial or equivalent information to your comments does not give you any "right" to personalized tutorials or corrections of your misconceptions. At the level of our obligations to you, if you have misconceptions, you are welcome to them, at least absence evidence that you have diligently done your homework before making strong assertions (or, for that matter, giving legal advice). john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf