On 1/22/2010 9:51 AM, endre.walls@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Great question and no - the problem is that the sender has to be physically identifiable. from my reading of the law and this ruling it means we MUST have a functional return address for everything and many people in the IETF use addresses like "NoDelivery@xxxxxxxxxx" as their RETURN TO addresses and the FROM address is equally toast. That makes the IETF responsible for formally certifying and ensuring the positive service of any notice. Also there has to be a legally created point of contact available so IP Notices can be sent to the parties. The IETF fails this miserably and bluntly its probably the ISOC managements fault they they have operated under these failings for so long IMHO. Now its time to do something about this and fix these processes so that all parties are properly defined and all points of contact properly enumerated so that things like Cease and Desist or Patent Infringement Notices can be sent. The IETF's direct intent to hide that contact information makes it and its management liable as well in my opinion, something that is a real issue and that will cause litigation at some point if the IETF doesnt get its act together.Todd, Question - would this interpretation still count if the emails specified they were from the ietf and gave the recipient the ability to unsubscribe? I can think of tons of instances where a nonresponding address would need to be used. It means ANY cooperative contractually controlled group process (like the donation of IP to the IETF through NoteWell or other submission models) needs full disclosure on the IP Owners and their commitment to the use of that IP in the IETF. It also means that the refusal to actually disclose the true sponsor is also a 'hiding of contact information' as well. All parties to any contractual process MUST be properly identified in order for the contract's provisions to be enforceable IMHO...I'm not a lawyer, but when I read this it seemed to say that the court felt it was a violation when you (a) concealed your identity using a private registration and (b) used a shadow email address with no option for self-removal. I might be wrong on that, just trying to understand how that ruling relates to ietf practices. Todd Endre Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: tglassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:26:01 To: Russ Housley - IETF<housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; chair@xxxxxxxx<chair@xxxxxxxx>; Fred Baker<fred@xxxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion<ietf@xxxxxxxx>; ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx<ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx> Subject: All IETF posted email addresses MUST be real. _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wgNo virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2638 - Release Date: 01/22/10 07:34:00 |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf