On 3/24/2010 8:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 24/Mar/10 09:38, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>>> Because the IETF is about creating Intellectual Properties regarding >>>> networksing. Not a Political Action Committee... >>> >>> That's the worst definition of the IETF I've ever heard! I don't >>> believe that, and don't think ISOC believes that either. >> >> I would assume that if ISOC thought we were doing something besides the >> mission described in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt, that RFC >> wouldn't still be BCP 95... > > Yeah, > > The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. AMEN! > We want > the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment > to openness and fairness. But the IETF is not open to opinions which vary from its core stated opinion, and that is constrained by the people speaking for the IETF as a whole. Its one of the key flaws in giving a technologist a voice beyond being a technologist. As to fairness BULL SH*T. The IETF is anything but fair or open in form. > > Also, I'd never have guessed that the "IP" thing regarding networking > that the IETF is about could be "Intellectual Property". Then what is an IETF Standard? - it is pure intellectual property and the refusal by the IETF to embrace that is one of the issues the IETF faces. Todd >
begin:vcard fn:Todd Glassey n:Glassey;Todd email;internet:TGlassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf