Todd, This is totally confused and you are completely wrong.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <[email protected]>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... > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > > 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
