todd glassey wrote:
Nothing, only the status line on the front page can be changed.
[[ Harald corrected that already: the status can be changed,
but not the status line on the published RFC front page. ]]
And this is why the IETF becomes liable for each and everything
it publishes, because it has no Take Down Policy or method of
enforcing one
I don't see that, it's like a newspaper, once published you can't
undo that. You could only promise to never publish it again.
If they want something else or more they probably
confused the IETF with Unicode.org, the W3C, ECMA, or what else.
I think the IETF is also liable for the profits against the use
of that same information and any derivatives thereof, and ISOC
is where that damage claim money is coming from.
You could try to sue them for intentionally causing harm. IMO
your chances would be zero, you'd have to explain why you didn't
state your concerns in time, why you didn't use your right to
appeal decisions, why you didn't post a "better" Internet Draft,
the works. It's obvious when folks prepare to go this way, and
that's why there's a point "1F" in the questionnaire.
Simply put , if the individual assigns any and all rights to the
submission to the IETF then the IETF is publishing 'its own
property' and not the property of the person that submitted it.
"Any and all rights" would be a rather short "inbound rights" I-D,
the version I've seen was somewhat longer.
the IETF also has a legal responsibility to exercise due care in
republishing that IP so it can respond to nefarious or policy
violations in the IETF process
"The IETF" is a community of volunteers without clear membership
for most contributors. A proper subset of that are the folks who
went to 3 of the last 5 meetings, thereby becoming eligible for
the NomCom lottery. Another proper subset (in practice a subset
of the second subset) are the folks appointed to be ADs etc. by
the NomCom. Nobody in this community is "legally responsible" if
I post a nefarious draft (i.e. nobody but me).
It's a mere courtesy of the secretary that they add a blank in
the subject of draft announcements where they feel that this is
considerably worse than the average. And they're not forced to
check this, with the new automatical tool nobody will check the
content as long as it's formally an Internet Draft without nits.
Of course the IETF procedures allow a "Do Not Publish" (as RFC)
decision for say using a single bit to count "", "0", "1" => 3.
I think there's no serious problem to remove nefarious I-Ds from
the IETF repositories when that's necessary. If somebody else
already copied it, too bad. And in practice thousands will have
copied it, worldwide, among them Googlebot.
What we need are rules and processes that are both transparent
and open and fair.
BTW, did you note that an additional "note well" page behind the
mailing list link on the main page was inserted, after you made
a fuss about the "note well" acceptance ? One click more... :-(
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg