Subject: Commentary about IETF protocols which do not provide IP protection in their use.

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:57:23 -0800

Today virtually no IETF protocols take into account US or any other
countries copyright laws with regard to Internet based content. Content
like domain names, DNS events, and BGP4 routes are also in addition to
the obvious publication events like a websites content, are in fact also
IP impinged.

So the question is what happens when a priority provide with a peering
relationship claims (c) against a set of Internet Routes... it is coming
I think.

That said - I am proposing that there is a need to figure out now with
regard to IETF projects whether the content flowing through the
technology will have legal impact attached to it and in those instances
provide the  proper information management and IP noticing controls.

Yes I am very sure this annoys the anarchists and anti-intellectual
property people here and you folks have done a great job up until now,
except you have failed to change the world. That said - the win hear is
in not fighting in changing the laws by going to war with the
superpowers - they will just hire technologists to replace us as a class
and much sooner than you think too...

If we don't put both proper IP controls into our processes and into the
actual work product so that its use can also respect the same laws we
built the IP to operate under the Government's trying to enforce those
laws will make official changes in who represents their interest in the
IETF and what effect the IETF has on there routing.

What I am telling you is that ISOC has no where near enough power to
protect the IETF from IP fraud complaints at a national level. And if
they were stupid enough to try - which they might, it would be
catastrophic. My take is formal pull out of the DNS Root because all of
the peering contracts say nothing about whose root must be used. Its
that simple. Governments will tell foreign carriers that their route
copyrights are now enforceable and that's it. If the carriers want to
serve in that country they will pay.

This is serious stuff. The world Internet is changing - the wild west is
dying out, and accountable at the content level is happening today.
Rather than trying to stop that we need to make it possible for our
masters to meet their goals through our work or we need to make public
disclosure who's goals as individuals we serve.

Disclosure is key - and disclose everywhere. No vapor - no vacuum no lies.

Todd

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:04:01 +0530

> the obvious publication events like a websites content, are in fact also

I think it is bad to integrate copyright policy into protocols. for
example how do you take into account if submarine cables transit into
territorial waters of another country are the countries copyright
policies to be applied to the content if so how ?

Also please do not club everything - Trademarks, Copyright and patents
under the same umbrella. They are very different things. Please read
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more information.

> and much sooner than you think too...

Who is they ?

> IETF and what effect the IETF has on there routing.

IETF has processes in place for patenst More reading:
See the work of the IPR group.
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipr/

For example see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3669 - RFC 3669

> disclosure who's goals as individuals we serve.

Who are our master here ? There are people working for governments,
commercial enterprises and self-employed on this lists. I think
generalisation of their agendas is not possible. Can you please
qualify your statements ?

> Disclosure is key - and disclose everywhere. No vapor - no vacuum no lies.

Please read the links above.

-- Vinayak

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:05:13 -0800

> policies to be applied to the content if so how ?

This pertains to something totally outside of our issue. The issue is
whether it is legally actionable to attack something for intentional
infringement and under US and international law the answer is yes.

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more information.\

GNU's philosophy is the ideas of the people that wrote that policy - it
is NOT law. As such the idea that it protects this group is part of the
problem.

>> and much sooner than you think too...

The people who come to realize that the IETF isnt actually responsible
for anything... its standards are trailing edge, it has no real license
possible for code to be created through its process, and its basically
an exercise set up as a bolt on for an academic-style operation IMHO. I
think its amusing how many people have made this their life too...

Scary!
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipr/

Which also fails to take into account that the IETF is a collective
development group and NOT a standards org. For the history of the IETF
its standards used to be trailing edge meaning that they IP was already
in place when they created the standards so these issues were moot.
Today it is IMHO being used by many to lead their infringements. That
has to change.

> qualify your statements ?

Considering I have a patent matter in the courts now, I speak from first
hand experience here.

> Please read the links above.

I have - my commentary stands.

Todd