Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote: There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially directed the authors to disregard the proposal. I see only one message from Rob Austein dated 10 May 2007. In that message he did not direct any authors to do anything. He made a prediction about his own future behaviour if there was not strong support from disinterested WG participants. --apb (Alan Barrett) ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alan Barrett wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote: There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially directed the authors to disregard the proposal. I see only one message from Rob Austein dated 10 May 2007. In that message he did not direct any authors to do anything. He made a prediction about his own future behaviour if there was not strong support from disinterested WG participants. Rob Austein wrote on May 10th, 2006: Absent strong support from disinterested WG participants for having Peter's draft explore M. Moreau's putatively encumbered idea, I will direct Peter to decline M. Moreau's suggestion, at least until M. Moreau has filed his IPR statement and it is possible for a disinterested person to reach an independent opinion on the extent, relevance, and validity of M. Moreau's IPR claims. If you mean this text from Austein's May 10th, message, then there is a element of future tense about it. However, Jeff Schiller has outlined the conditions for such direction: The inability of a working group to make a decision. By contrast, Austein's condition is absent strong support. Austein's direction is inappropriate in both the future and past, so the tense is irrelevant. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
At Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and retract it. Thanks for looking into this. hat wg-chair=on To date I have seen no support for M. Moreau's suggestion from anyone other than M. Moreau, nor have I seen anyone other than M. Moreau disagree with my analysis that his suggestion is only peripherally related to the topic of Peter's draft. If anyone other than M. Moreau -does- wish to see Peter's draft incorporate M. Moreau's suggestion, please say so, and state: a) Why you think that the topic belongs in this draft, and b) Whether M. Moreau's IPR disclosure addressess whatever concerns (if any) you might have with respect to the IPR issues related to M. Moreau's suggestion (if you have no IPR concerns, say so). /hat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
There has been no technical discussion of Moreau's proposal. There had been no technical discussion on May 10th, when Austein offficially directed the authors to disregard the proposal. All of the opposition has been FUD and false claims. I have a longer report in progress detailing these issues. I am inclined to be concerned about the FUD and irregularity opposing Moreau's proposal, and I think the proposal therefore deserves greater attention. As a general rule, its my experience that bad ideas have obvious technical problems, while good ideas cannot be so opposed, and so are opposed by FUD and process irregularities. I'd say the odds are that Moreau has a good idea. Mr. Moreau, in his first message of April 30th, disclosed his patent and offered free, universal, and unlimited terms [though I must qualify this, as we haven't yet seen the actual license. It may yet turn out to not actually be as good as it sounds now.] Speaking as President of the LPF and as an ISOC member, there can be no better patent terms than free, universal, and unlimited. I applaud his license terms, and his immediate disclosure and forthright approach. Some people, offlist, have suggested to me that it is Mr. Moreau who has acted unethically. Mr. Moreau has not acted unethically, but his actions in this particular subject have been exemplary. I also note the people who raised patent issues recently aren't usually anti-patent advocates; most of them have participated in (at least two incidents that I know of) discussions in which they either supported drafts with patents with onerous terms, or were not opposed to non-disclosure of patents in drafts, or were opposed to RFC3979 anti-patent provisions. Or they've explicitly told me they supported software patents. Most/all of what they stated was incorrect or FUD. [incorrect/FUD, btw, does not promote an anti-patent agenda. Facts promote an anti-patent agenda. The pro-patent opposition would quickly discredit FUD. Some facts can be found at http://lpf.ai.mit.edu or http://progfree.org]. While I'm always pleased to have new converts to the LPF cause, I am uncertain if their opinions represent a change of view or just convenient ammunition. Particularly, I would like to say that non-participation in the IETF (or W3C, etc) does not prevent patents. Only __publication__ prevents patents. The law [in the U.S. and most countries] strongly encourages patents and strongly disadvantages those without patents. [That is one reason the law must be changed.] We (the LPF) do not expect people not to get patents. We encourage people to __publish__ rather than patent, but we understand that this isn't always possible. The LPF works to educate people so that the patent laws will get changed. People with patents are urged to forgo using patents for profit, and to make those patents free with a free, universal, and unlimited license. Those that do, like Mr. Moreau, are applauded. --Dean On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Rob Austein wrote: At Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and retract it. Thanks for looking into this. hat wg-chair=on To date I have seen no support for M. Moreau's suggestion from anyone other than M. Moreau, nor have I seen anyone other than M. Moreau disagree with my analysis that his suggestion is only peripherally related to the topic of Peter's draft. If anyone other than M. Moreau -does- wish to see Peter's draft incorporate M. Moreau's suggestion, please say so, and state: a) Why you think that the topic belongs in this draft, and b) Whether M. Moreau's IPR disclosure addressess whatever concerns (if any) you might have with respect to the IPR issues related to M. Moreau's suggestion (if you have no IPR concerns, say so). /hat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:03:13PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter, informally. Let me personally add that I find this a very sad moment in the already sorry history of DNS standardisation... Bert -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://netherlabs.nl Open and Closed source services ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote: There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. What transaction are you referring to? Please be specific. I was not aware of any exchange of services, money, patents, trademarks, or anything else, between ISC and the DNSOP working group. --apb (Alan Barrett) ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alan Barrett wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote: There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. What transaction are you referring to? Please be specific. I was not aware of any exchange of services, money, patents, trademarks, or anything else, between ISC and the DNSOP working group. The transaction here is the business before the WG. In this WG business, ISC (includes Austein) opposes an addition to the draft (one side), and ISC (Austein) is directing WG decisions to reject the addition to the draft (the other side). The ethics of the transaction is independent of the value of the transaction. The issue of transaction value and fairness of the value would be the subject of a claim seeking restitution of a fraud. I don't have any opinion on whether fraud has actually occurred and I don't know that fraud has occurred. Often, the details establishing a value and fairness are discovered as a result of investigation of the ethical issue. I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute. I'll put this on the web, but I haven't decided a URL yet. There are some curious and interesting things in the dispute. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Dear colleagues, On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:34PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute. I'm becoming frustrated by this discussion for two reasons. First, there is precious little discussion in this thread of the proposal on the table -- whether to adopt the draft in question as a WG document. It seems to me that getting past that hurdle is the task at hand, and it'd be real nice if we could make such a determination. A subsidiary issue is the one of whether another draft should be partially subsumed under the draft in question. Those actually seem to me to be two different questions, and they could surely be handled separately. But even if we suppose that they should be handled together, I imagine that discussion of the proposed text(s) would be better than long, unguided discussion on the meta-issues. Which brings me to my second problem. As nearly as I can tell, there are no clear conflict of interest guidelines for working groups in general, and the IETF has previously concluded that such a state of affairs is a good thing. Instead, the principle has been that working group members (i.e. everybody participating) should make their arguments and see whther they get the support of the WG community; and then follow the usual chain of appeals in the event they are unsatisfied. I spent only a few hours doing that research, so I may well have overlooked something; but that was the general view I was able to put together. Information to the contrary would be welcome. If I'm right about this, then this is an internal matter for the working group, and so far I'm not seeing a lot of support for the idea that there is a real conflict of interest in this particular case. A strong argument that interests in _fact_ conflict, rather than in principle (which principle I don't so far understand in its application, but that's a detail), would perhaps convince me of an alternative point of view. I observe at the same time that I support the state of affairs as I understand it to be; that is, I don't think it possible that meaningful work on technical standards in the (almost entirely volunteer) IETF is even possible without a great deal of in-principle conflict of interest in the usual, political way. Everybody here had _better_ be deeply interested in the outcomes, or we're producing garbage. I suppose this is why there is a traditional supposition around the IETF that people are speaking for themselves and not their employers, and why affiliation declarations are often not made at the microphone during meetings. Therefore, if I am correct that there are not current guidelines in respect of conflicts of interest in working groups, and some people think there should be, I encourage those people to make a process-change submission to the IETF generally in the form of an Internet Draft. It will then be up to the wider IETF community whether we want such a change to happen. Since some of those bringing complaints have lately joined the group of people willing to prepare I-Ds, I am eagerly anticipating the publication of such a draft. If there is just a disagreement within the working group, then presumably the relevant structures of the community (in this case, the AD, since one Chair is the object of the accusation and the other has already recused himself on the topic) should be brought to bear on the topic, either here on list or in whatever fora appropriate according to IETF tradition. Without that, I can't see that even longer discussion about the accusations and reasoning for them is a topic for this list. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
hat wg-chair=on At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700, I wrote: This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming. Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no objections, but as always, decisions at face to face meetings are subject to confirmation on the mailing list. Absent strong objections, I'll ask Peter and his co-author (to be appointed, we already have a list of volunteers) to submit the next version as draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-00. Please send any comments on this subject within the next week, so that Peter and his co-author have time to rev the document before the 2 July submission cutoff. The stated interval having passed without any anyone posting an objection to adoption, the decision made in Prague stands. We were fortunate to have several volunteers for the role of co-author. From that pool I've selected Matt Larson to work with Peter on this draft. /hat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Which brings me to my second problem. As nearly as I can tell, there are no clear conflict of interest guidelines for working groups in general, and the IETF has previously concluded that such a state of affairs is a good thing. I don't know where or when the IETF concluded that self-dealing was a good thing. Maybe you could post that RFC. One doesn't need explicit conflict of interest guidelines to know that self-dealing is unethical. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
None of the below makes any difference. We do not know what instructions Vixie has given Austein, and we do not need to know. The considerations for conflict of interest are well established: [...] Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Is this just a statement of general principles, or are you suggesting that in the particular discussion at hand, Paul Vixie's having expressed opinions about IPR claims, their effect on the RFC process, and the desirability for RFC's to be implementable in free/open-source software, constitutes a conflict of interest? Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately? Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything? -- Evan Hunt -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately? Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything? i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the finances of any of rob's coworkers. is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS software than what we already don't make? i think it's time to declare troll alert! and move on. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately? Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything? I didn't see the whole message with the above comment in it, so I don't know who said it or what else they said. However: Rob should avoid discussing DNSOP issues with ISC. ISC people should take up their DNSOP issues with the non-conflicted co-chair. If they don't, Rob should inform them of his conflict of interest, and direct them to discuss the matter with someone who isn't conflicted. In the case where both co-chairs are conflicted, that conflict should be unmistakeably disclosed to the WG and discussed carefully and with the guidance of the disinterested Area Director or disinterested IESG members. i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the finances of any of rob's coworkers. is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS software than what we already don't make? These aren't the question at issue, unless someone asserts actual fraud. The ethical question is whether ISC's interests are different from those of the IETF DNSOP WG. The answer is: Yes. So a conflict of interest exists. There is a difference between appearance of self-dealing and actual fraud. There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. Austein appears to be self-dealing. That mere __appearance__ is evidence of an ethical deficit. Whether ISC benefited more, or whether IETF benefited more, or whether the transaction was actually fair is irrelevant to the question of __appearance__ and self-dealing. Actual unfairness justifies the assertion of actual fraud. The mere appearance of self-dealing is merely unethical. It is Austein who promoted the appearance by failing to recuse himself from issues in which he is conflicted. Austein should know better than to be on both sides of a transaction, and should have avoided that. i think it's time to declare troll alert! and move on. I'm sure you do want to ignore the issue. A common clue or hint of a unethical activity is the unwillingness to discuss ethics. Unethical people hate ethics. Dislike of ethics isn't a necessary and sufficient condition for concluding unethical behavior but, in my experience, has been a common, co-incident feature with unethical behavior. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
This is getting silly, where Rob works, who Rob works with, who Rob talks to, are all irrelevant. Rob is a co-chair of the working group and serves at the pleasure of the AD, he can be terminated at any moment, if he engages in anything that the AD perceives as un-professional, un-ethical or just does not like something about Rob. Lets stop discussing possible conspiracy theories and stick to facts. It would be impossible to fill all IETF WG chair and/or AD slots if none of them worked for (or had stock in) a company that could possibly gain something by the work produced in a working they chair/oversee. In that world no one from Cisco could be a chair of any IETF working group, just to take one example. Dean, if you or anyone has problem with anyone's actions as CHAIR of any IETF working group: step zero: bring it to the WG attention step one: ask the co-chair to intervene step two: if that fails complain to the AD. step three: if that fails complain to the IESG step four: if that fails complain to the IAB Disclaimer: I have been a victim of allegations similar to this one in the past so I feel Rob's pain and agony of having his name dragged into the mud for no reason other than trying to make a living and at the same time give back to the community by serving as a volunteer in a job that does not get many thanks. For the record: Rob and Peter you are doing fine job and I see no problem with your associations or actions. Dean, You have made important contributions in the past, but people would listen more closely to you if your volume of mail was less and you restricted your commentary to technical points. Paul, I feel your pain too and applaud your well reasoned polite response. Olafur At 15:53 11/06/2007, Dean Anderson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately? Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything? I didn't see the whole message with the above comment in it, so I don't know who said it or what else they said. However: Rob should avoid discussing DNSOP issues with ISC. ISC people should take up their DNSOP issues with the non-conflicted co-chair. If they don't, Rob should inform them of his conflict of interest, and direct them to discuss the matter with someone who isn't conflicted. In the case where both co-chairs are conflicted, that conflict should be unmistakeably disclosed to the WG and discussed carefully and with the guidance of the disinterested Area Director or disinterested IESG members. i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the finances of any of rob's coworkers. is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS software than what we already don't make? These aren't the question at issue, unless someone asserts actual fraud. The ethical question is whether ISC's interests are different from those of the IETF DNSOP WG. The answer is: Yes. So a conflict of interest exists. There is a difference between appearance of self-dealing and actual fraud. There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. Austein appears to be self-dealing. That mere __appearance__ is evidence of an ethical deficit. Whether ISC benefited more, or whether IETF benefited more, or whether the transaction was actually fair is irrelevant to the question of __appearance__ and self-dealing. Actual unfairness justifies the assertion of actual fraud. The mere appearance of self-dealing is merely unethical. It is Austein who promoted the appearance by failing to recuse himself from issues in which he is conflicted. Austein should know better than to be on both sides of a transaction, and should have avoided that. i think it's time to declare troll alert! and move on. I'm sure you do want to ignore the issue. A common clue or hint of a unethical activity is the unwillingness to discuss ethics. Unethical people hate ethics. Dislike of ethics isn't a necessary and sufficient condition for concluding unethical behavior but, in my experience, has been a common, co-incident feature with unethical behavior. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter, informally. What Olafur says below is just complete nonsense. I also make a living, consult to companies that seek patents, and serve a non-profit anti-patent organization. My company also does IT consulting to companies that we provide Internet Service to. (IT usually selects the ISP). These occasionally lead to conflicts of interest, and I avoid being on both sides of transaction by defering to others when I have a conflict of interest and by proper disclosure. Nearly everyone who volunteers or works for several organizations will find themselves in a conflict position at one time or another. Tens of thousands of people do the right thing every day. It is never impossible to act ethically, and ethical standards do not cut down on the number of volunteers to non-profit organizations. There are no conspiracy theories. There is a fact that Rob Austein is on both sides of the transaction, and there is a fact that Austein hasn't recused. Austein's name is where it is only because Austein is on both sides of a transaction, and Austein knew he was on both sides, and Austein didn't do the right thing. It's that simple. --Dean On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: This is getting silly, where Rob works, who Rob works with, who Rob talks to, are all irrelevant. Rob is a co-chair of the working group and serves at the pleasure of the AD, he can be terminated at any moment, if he engages in anything that the AD perceives as un-professional, un-ethical or just does not like something about Rob. Lets stop discussing possible conspiracy theories and stick to facts. It would be impossible to fill all IETF WG chair and/or AD slots if none of them worked for (or had stock in) a company that could possibly gain something by the work produced in a working they chair/oversee. In that world no one from Cisco could be a chair of any IETF working group, just to take one example. Dean, if you or anyone has problem with anyone's actions as CHAIR of any IETF working group: step zero: bring it to the WG attention step one: ask the co-chair to intervene step two: if that fails complain to the AD. step three: if that fails complain to the IESG step four: if that fails complain to the IAB Disclaimer: I have been a victim of allegations similar to this one in the past so I feel Rob's pain and agony of having his name dragged into the mud for no reason other than trying to make a living and at the same time give back to the community by serving as a volunteer in a job that does not get many thanks. For the record: Rob and Peter you are doing fine job and I see no problem with your associations or actions. Dean, You have made important contributions in the past, but people would listen more closely to you if your volume of mail was less and you restricted your commentary to technical points. Paul, I feel your pain too and applaud your well reasoned polite response. Olafur At 15:53 11/06/2007, Dean Anderson wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: Austein needs to avoid participating in issues that affect his company, its financial position, or that of his co-workers. Should Rob recuse himself from *any* matter that Paul's sent an email about? What about opinions Paul may have discussed with Rob privately? Or just things he's vaguely thought about, without saying anything? I didn't see the whole message with the above comment in it, so I don't know who said it or what else they said. However: Rob should avoid discussing DNSOP issues with ISC. ISC people should take up their DNSOP issues with the non-conflicted co-chair. If they don't, Rob should inform them of his conflict of interest, and direct them to discuss the matter with someone who isn't conflicted. In the case where both co-chairs are conflicted, that conflict should be unmistakeably disclosed to the WG and discussed carefully and with the guidance of the disinterested Area Director or disinterested IESG members. i'm left wondering how TAKREM could affect isc's finances, or the finances of any of rob's coworkers. is it possible for isc to make less money from DNS software than what we already don't make? These aren't the question at issue, unless someone asserts actual fraud. The ethical question is whether ISC's interests are different from those of the IETF DNSOP WG. The answer is: Yes. So a conflict of interest exists. There is a difference between appearance of self-dealing and actual fraud. There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG. Austein appears to be self-dealing. That mere __appearance__ is evidence of an ethical deficit. Whether ISC benefited more,
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president. Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and clearly understands the obligations that go with my position. Paul also knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if he ever did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but the issue has never come up and I don't expect it ever will. assuming for a moment that because rob and i are in the same management chain my instructions were ever different than use your own best judgement even in matters internal to isc (which would indicate that i had more time than i actually do, and that rob had more tolerance for foolishness than he actually does), i wonder if the above inference would also apply to suzanne woolf in her position on the icann board and arin advisory council, or keith mitchell in his position on the nanog program committee and executive director of uknof and programme manager of oarc, or any of the other times when isc employees do external public service work. i don't know if t-m's inference is meant as isc employees are shills or perhaps all employees are shills, but the idea certainly conflicts with my own vision that whatever it is about someone that makes them useful at isc probably makes them useful elsewhere, and if isc's mission is public service, then encouraging this kind of public service would be a good company policy. -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
I don't usually bother with refuting slander against me, as I have better things to do with my time than argue with fools, but one specific point in a recent posting does call for a response to the WG: At Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:34:38 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: I bring your attention to the common affiliation of Mr. Rob Austein and Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president. Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and clearly understands the obligations that go with my position. Paul also knows me well enough to know that I'd tell him to go to hell if he ever did try to keep me from performing my duty as I see it, but the issue has never come up and I don't expect it ever will. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs, hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by entities other than the IETF. Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people patenting the technology and asking for royalties on what they have patented. It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if more and more people did this, but that would be an economic result of the activity of those people. Calling the functioning of an ecosystem ideology is just a way of pretending that something you are doing to destroy and replace that ecosystem is fair. It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some other gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has grown around the IETF. You could say that someone who would prefer not to have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an ideologue, but in so saying you are making yourself into an ideologue as well. And then the question becomes, which ideology do we prefer? Like it or not, the current patent regime is somehow rooted in the US constitution, well-entrenched national laws, and treaties both for the fundamental patent system characteristics (e.g. WTO), and for the facilitation and harmonization of patent applications in multiple countries (e.g. PCT). Indeed, there is an ideology behind the current patent regime. You may feel it's gruesome. See the conclusion of a committee chaired by late Georges Washington at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.8 Unfortunetely for the opposing view, the comment period for this committee is closed. So, it's neither a matter with me, nor with a new definition of fair that would apply to a specification merely because it is published as an IETF RFC. These conflicting views has been discussed at length in many fields of human activites. Yet the patent regime is still up and running. So using the term ideology to describe a person's position that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing to the conversation. It is in its fight against the well rooted foundations of the patent system that the IPR unemcumbrance ideology is counter-productive in the present instance. By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems impossible if one of the participants will then go around and try to patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion. You are forcing discussions to happen in private, to be presented to the IETF as is, so that no IPR claims can be made based on freely shared ideas on the IETF lists. What do you want? Colaborating on internet standards, or building proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Paul Wouters wrote: On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems impossible if one of the participants will then go around and try to patent ideas that originated out of such open unfinished discussion. It's a basic characteristic of the patent regime that an inventive idea that is disclosed can not later be appropriated by someone as an invention of his own. So, the above one of the participant would be a bad faith patent applicant. You and I are not aware of such behavior, are we? You are forcing discussions to happen in private, to be presented to the IETF as is, so that no IPR claims can be made based on freely shared ideas on the IETF lists. I respectfully disagree: I am not forcing anything. There is no different status, with respect to the effect of a disclosure in the patent regime, between an idea disclosed in the course of discussion and the end result of discussion. What do you want? Colaborating on internet standards, or building proprietary software algorithms by yourself? You can only pick one. In the present instance, see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05450.html and https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 . A general discussion is out of topic. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic. Counter-productive. Not worth replying. Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to, you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the obvious non-action? A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:24:41AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic. Counter-productive. Not worth replying. Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to, you could follow that conclusion with what would seem to be the obvious non-action? A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust. --bill ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:24:21PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: It's done. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 Thanks. Having read the disclosure, having quickly read the referenced draft draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 including the Appendix A, and having re-read draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00, I conclude that draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00 is discussing priming _in general_ rather than explicitly in a DNSSEC context. I believe that the DNSSEC issues are important ones, and that that some document related to them would be valuable, but I also think that too much discussion of the DNSSEC context would be a distraction to the overall effort in draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00. Therefore, I do not think it critical to add much more DNSSEC discussion, either with reference to draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 or any other source. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmanning) writes: actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. So work is being done outside the IETF, where there is trust. s/IETF/W3C/ and it's mostly valid as well. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: I agree with your other post that such (IPR related!!??) discussions may prevent dnsop from addressing the on-topic issue, i.e. a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification. It is not the IPR discussion that is preventing this. It's the IPR. The discussion is on addressing the IPR problem. It is clear that your interest is to not have an IPR discussion and to continue like there is no issue so you can cash your IPR claims. Your claim that this discussion should not be helt because it prevents talking about the real issue is not addressing the problem created by your IPR claims - dropping your IPR claims however, would resolve this issue - at least temporarilly until the IETF can find a structural solution to the problem of IPR poisoning in general. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards development, are being patented by others and then used as leverage to force particular outcomes. Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in todays environment. Answer: better understanding of the patent regime, which suggests two obvious avenues: (A) Publish something, e.g. an individual draft -00, on the subject area about which the concern applies, where (every) concievable paths towards a solution are disclosed: existing, adapted from other contexts, on the design bench, or just envisioned. In patent examination terminology, the latter two categories teach innovations directions, so that many potential refined schemes, although not exactly in the publication, are obvious given this publication (e.g. combined with other knowledge from the art). No big worry that the -00 draft expires; it should be still a publication with an acknowledged publication date. I.e. inflate the public domain prior art beyond what is desirable technically. Note: Your mileage may vary depending on who signs the paycheck of this document author. In the free market economy, a genuine invention is an asset that finance management may not want to give away. This is part of the global ecosystem in which IETF operates. (B) Whenever a patent application becomes public (usually 18 months after filing date), bring the inventor or his/her patent agent's attention to whatever prior art exist in the field (you don't need to defer this to litigation). The onus is on the inventor or agent to take such prior art into account (typically making the patent claims less generic as the more general schemes are more likely to be disclosed somewhere). I.e. use the cheaper routes to challenge patent applications. I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but the above are elementary IPR management strategies. Many patent agents may not insist on these: their professional activities are centered where (A) is avoided in favor of potential patent applications by the document author, and/or (B) occurs later in the process, once the paperwork exchange is started between the agent and the patent examiner. Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming. Thierry, when people much smarter and more experienced than you have to defend themselves from you by doing work in a way that excludes you from participating, there are two ways to interpret this. One is that they are doing something inappropriate. The other is that you have done something inappropriate. You seem bound and determined to consider only the first of these two possibilities. However, what you are doing, you are doing to people who *invented* the Internet as we know it today. People who did that and gave their work to the public, because they knew that for their inventions to be useful, they had to be freely available. People without whose work you would not even be able to exchange email with a wide group of people all over the world. And now, we are hearing that because of your efforts, open participation in the working group is broken - in order to continue to make their work freely available, it seems that they have to exclude you, because you believe that it's okay to patent whatever you do to participate in the working group, and you want to make a living by so doing. So it could be that it is you who are right, and they who are wrong. But please, consider the other possibility just a bit. It is possible for Thierry to be in the wrong. Really, it is. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Andrew Sullivan wrote: So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it It's done. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: Andrew Sullivan wrote: So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it It's done. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 Can there be a clarification as to if implementor extends to any user of the software that has implemented the relevent parts of that draft that patent is being claimed for? Because as you know with GNU licensed software any user must have the same rights to use or modify software as person(s) who wrote software. -- William Leibzon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Dear dnsop participants: Mr. Paul Vixie made an off-topic post which falls into the IPR rathole category. Being personally attacked, I take the liberty to povide background information to dnsop participants, with the hope that Mr. Paul Vixie's bias is better understood. I'm not a wgchair or anything, so this is just my opinion. I bring your attention to the common affiliation of Mr. Rob Austein and Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president. Also, Mr. Paul Vixie has an overwhelming influence on IETF standardization activities in the field of DNS. Anyone who is going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered IPR. This is an ideology statement. Patents apply in very diversified fields of human activity. In the case of DNS, according to public records, Verisign filed patent applications in the provisioning protocol area (e.g. by the inventor name Hollenbeck); UltraDNS did the same in the area of load balancing for DNS nameservers; an inventor by the name William C. Manning of El Segundo, California also has an application related to DNS. If I can't implement an RFC in BSDL F/OSS, then it's a bad RFC. If folks can't fetch, compile, build, install, derive from, and make money from the BSDL F/OSS that results from implementing an RFC, then it's a bad RFC. That's a way to put the ISC business model at the center of the ideology: proprietary Unix vendors qualify as folks per above, and some proprietary Unix vendors are funding the ISC activities. If i see a bad I-D then i will object to it becoming a bad RFC. Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs, hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by entities other than the IETF. The scope of dnsop activities are perhaps already restricted by this attitude, without much notice by the IPR-adverse participants. In his post, Mr. Paul Vixie then goes on with a personal attack against me which is not worth replying, except for the observation that Mr. Paul Vixie is perhaps counter-productive given the simple need for a consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote: Andrew Sullivan wrote: So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it It's done. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856 Can there be a clarification as to if implementor extends to any user of the software that has implemented the relevent parts of that draft that patent is being claimed for? Because as you know with GNU licensed software any user must have the same rights to use or modify software as person(s) who wrote software. This is standard text used by the IETF for IPR disclosures. I am not going to delve into discussions of this nature. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote: Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs, hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by entities other than the IETF. Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people patenting the technology and asking for royalties on what they have patented. It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if more and more people did this, but that would be an economic result of the activity of those people. Calling the functioning of an ecosystem ideology is just a way of pretending that something you are doing to destroy and replace that ecosystem is fair. It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some other gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has grown around the IETF. You could say that someone who would prefer not to have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an ideologue, but in so saying you are making yourself into an ideologue as well. And then the question becomes, which ideology do we prefer? So using the term ideology to describe a person's position that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing to the conversation. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thierry Moreau) writes: This question is serious, to the extent that the DNSOP activities are worth the effort devoted to it by participants. So let me re-prhase the question (actually the question had two facets): Is this proposed wg activity open (i.e. The IETF has basic requirements for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of technical alternatives. from RFC2418 section 3)? Is this proposed wg activity already limited by the message archived at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ? i'm not a wgchair or anything, so this is just my opinion. anyone who is going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered IPR. if i can't implement an RFC in BSDL F/OSS, then it's a bad RFC. if folks can't fetch, compile, build, install, derive from, and make money from the BSDL F/OSS that results from implementing an RFC, then it's a bad RFC. if i see a bad I-D then i will object to it becoming a bad RFC. i think this means that the answer to t-m's questions amount to no even though asullivan's answer (it depends) is probably more accurate. t-m has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am opposed to it. -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: though asullivan's answer (it depends) is probably more accurate. t-m has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am opposed to it. Nah, they'll just go the way of other encumbered RFCs: they'll be labelled as such, ignored, worked around, and something better will be designed and standardized upon. Waste of IETF resources and time though. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming as WG work item?
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote: Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier by you (ref http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
