Todd,
This is nonsense, stop
it.
Of course IETF
communications could give rise to the posibility of criminal prosecutions in
certain circumstances. The IESG could in theory plot a
murder.
That does not mean that
every legal concotion you imagine is backed by criminal sanctions. On the
contrary, conspiracy is only a crime if the object of the conspiracy is
criminal.
Depriving someone of their
'right' to flame in an Internet forum might under certain circumstances give
rise to civil liability. But the right of standards bodies to impose
reasonable participation criteria is well established in US law. The
participation criteria in the IETF are considerably more inclusive than in
OASIS, W3C or IEEE.
There is a place for this
argument - alt.flame
I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was
to ban me from
the list. Something that under the US CFAA is
prosecutable... His claim was
that I failed to show him the money - that
special case which establishes
that as a standard.
OK Harald - the
case you want to see is called "The United States v Drew"
and was filed in
the District Court of the Central District of California
(i.e. LA). What it
says is that any communications taking place between two
parties across a
State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of that
indictment and
the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How it
plays out is
that:
1) An act of Conspiracy
under the terms of the Conspiracy Statute in
the US is what happens when
multiple people agree on something across an
electronic transport whether
in real-time or time-shifted in nature. The
question is whether that is a
conspiracy to hurt people or their rights in
which case its an issue, or a
conspiracy to get together for a dinner party
which then would be totally
cool one would think.
2) A
violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US Computer
Fraud and
Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a 'Federal
Interest
Computer'.
Unfortunately this makes all of the covert negotiations for
PR and other
actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one which the
IETF and its
Management including its chair and all AD's and WG Chairs are
liable under.
I think it also makes key parts of the IETF document/IP
submission process
possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge - Any
thoughts as the IETF's
Attorney?
As to what to do about this - I
suggest that its time for a set of lawyers
who are not retained and paid by
the IETF to formally review the IETF's
processes for conflicts and flaws
therein.
regards,
Todd Glassey CISM
CIFI
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing
list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf