[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Tod Glassey Appeal
Thanks Harald, so I will switch this discussion to the
iesg-only mailing list.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: vrijdag 15 augustus 2003 15:45
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Tod Glassey Appeal
>
>
> The appeals procedure we use isn't really all that clearly
> defined. And the
> issue of recusals does not have a tradition on it.
>
> Here's what I wrote in draft-iesg-process, in what feels a
> long time ago:
>
> 7. IESG appeals procedure
>
> The formal appeals procedure is described in RFC 2026 section 6.5.
>
> An appeal to the IESG is initiated by email to the IETF
> Chair, copied
> to the IESG secretary. If the appeal is not clear about whether or
> not it is an appeal, what is being appealed, or what the proposed
> remedies are, there may be a dialogue between the chair and the
> appealing person(s) to clarify the appeal.
>
> The IESG will then ask the responsible AD to give her
> opinion of the
> matter, as evidenced by the previous required step of
> discussing the
> matter with the responsible AD.
>
> The IESG will then discuss the matter in a telechat without the IAB
> liaison or the IAB chair being present (in order to keep the
> separation from the responsible body for a possible
> appeal), and will
> usually assign to some AD (not the responsible AD) the task of
> writing a draft response.
>
> When the proposed response text is ready, the IESG will
> discuss it by
> email (using a special mailing list that contains only the IESG
> members), and in a new telechat where the IAB has been asked to
> leave. When the IESG agrees upon the text, it is sent to the
> appealant and to the ietf-announce list, as well as being
> archived on
> the IESG's public web pages.
>
> I think having the implicated IESG members recuse themselves from the
> decision-making discussion makes sense, but not in the fact-finding
> discussion - and in the past, we have done neither.
>
> Harald
>
> --On 15. august 2003 11:08 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
> <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Harald has asked me to take the lead on dealing with this
> > one. I think the first thing to do is to publish it on
> > the http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html web page.
> >
> > I think that posting the complete email (as per below) there
> > is the thing to do. Anyone sees any issues with that?
> >
> > Second step then probably is that I write Todd that I will
> > be "shepherding" his appeal in/through the IESG and inform
> > him that I will respond when we are done.
> >
> > I am threading carefully here, cause this is my first time
> > to handle an appeal to IESG... and cause this guy is already
> > threatening to involve lawyers.
> >
> > Funny that he informas us that Jorge is one of his attorneys.
> > Would Jorge not be in a "conflict of interest" situation here?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net]
> > Sent: woensdag 6 augustus 2003 4:14
> > To: iesg@ietf.org; chair@ietf.org; problem-statement@alvestrand.no
> > Cc: degarmo5@earthlink.net; Contreras, Jorge
> > Subject: Official notice of appeal on suspension rights.
> >
> >
> > Be advised that this is an official submission of an appeal on the
> > suspension of my posting rights as per Harald Alverstrand,
> Chair of the
> > IETF. I want to get this matter expedited so we can either
> reconcile this
> > or take it into an open court.
> >
> > Harald's commentary regarding my posting is ridiculous.
> >
> >
> > With regard to my posting 20% of the list's traffic,
> the 2418 clause
> > that calls this a Denial of Service Attack is in fact a
> smoke screen to
> > allow the IETF to set limits on how many postings any one
> person can make,
> > but only in arbitrary matters, clearly causing a tortuous
> interference
> > with my participation since issues are being resolved that I cannot
> > participate in. And unless the IESG or the IETF is going
> to formally
> > place a specific limit on the number of responses that one
> can submit to
> > postings, then this matter is clearly an act of prejudicial
> harassment of
> > the IETF Chair and the WG Chairs to suppress that the IPR group is
> > essentially not in my opinion fixing problems but rather making the
> > process and the disclosure issues more painful.
> >
> >
> > Further, the Chair commented that I had "Threatened legal
> action" against
> > several list members, and I would like to see specific
> evidence to this
> > "fact" as it was used, since I clearly deny that this is
> true. Please
> > produce the specific commentary and explain how it was
> threatening. What I
> > have asked several officers of the IETF and the IESG is
> whether there is
> > financial coverage for them in operating the organization
> as any good
> > entity would have. They have refused to answer this in any
> way. I have
> > also voiced an opinion that the IETF's policies are
> bringing it head-on
> > into areas where legal action will not be avoidable but I
> have not said
> > specifically that I would sue anyone. I don't make silly
> threats, I act
> > upon the causative actions in appropriate manners only.
> >
> > Finally the commentary that "I have been warned" repeatedly
> by the WG
> > Chairs to not post off topic mailings is ridiculous and
> contrary to the
> > IETF's charter and operating process, and it must formally
> take notice of
> > this or face the problems that this refusal to accept the
> obvious brings.
> > By their very nature, the IETF WG' Lists MUST accept all
> postings or it
> > is impossible to disclose new ideas on the list, making the
> process of
> > submitting an I-D ***the only way that new ideas can be
> submitted*** or
> > can be vetted and for WG Chairs to suppress is contrary to
> the IETF's
> > operational models (no matter how hokey they are) as
> defined in RFC2026,
> > RFC2223, and RFC2418.
> >
> > Please be advised, that I will continue to escalate this
> matter until
> > resolution is forthcoming, and yes Jorge, the other person
> on the cc line
> > is one of my attorneys.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>