Re: Call for a Jasmine Revolution in the IETF: Privacy, Integrity, Obscurity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Todd, 

This is totally confused and you are completely wrong.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election
[Source Wikipedia]

Since neither the IETF nor ISOC has any interest in influencing a federal election, nor does it engage in any activity intended to do so, it is not a political committee under the terms of the act.



On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM, todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote:

The IETF can only address the technical problems.
This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that you cannot see technology in isolation.
Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the original design and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was built to advance protocol standardization and not to decide what protocols it would allow on the Internet and which it wouldn't.  But  lately many have forgotten this and are using the IETF as a formal lobby for technological policy advancement and that's a no-no.

Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively politically and this statement is based on IAB and other publication on what the IETF does and does not allow through its frameworks. In doing so their statements about allowing protocols or not allowing protocols to be standardized based on their stated perception of "what damages the Internet" or what they personally want to see as a "free access to all information and ideas" model, creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice this organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed clearly to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice.

However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment, business aspects, and the social context gets mixed together.
No Hannes  - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning that the Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to be fielded (filed in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I am already filing a formal complaint with the Treasury about ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its locking out protocol efforts based on its own desires therein... I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that the IETF is a-political and will not do anything but standardize technology.  Also that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted since the IETF is part of ISOC and not registered as a political PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly has become in direct violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its ARIN) the real power.


Todd Glassey

Please have a look at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
Ciao
Hannes

Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of flaming idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform Agency, nor is it a freaking political action group since its financial filings prevent this.

Todd Glassey

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]