Skip to main content

Appeal over suspension of posting rights for Todd Glassey (Todd Glassey; 2008-07-28) - 2008-07-28
Appeal - 2008-07-28

From: "TS Glassey" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: Appeal over suspension - Fw: ADMIN: Suspension of posting
rights for Todd Glassey (fwd)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:34:52 -0700
Cc: Dean Anderson <>, "Contreras, Jorge"

Folks -Mr. Alvestrands suspension of my posting rights is yet
another harassment for my trying to force the controls US Patent Law
brings to play into the IETF's operations. The IETF has been kicking
and screaming for years about how it has no effect on patents which
is a bold faced lie which we all know now. The IETF's actions cause
considerable financial damage to myself (in the GEOPRIV case) and
others in their initiatives.

Claim A:

With regard to the claim that I continuously posted offensive
material that was off-topic, the reality is that the material was
exactly on-topic for that WG but apparently not something that the
WG Chair wanted to acknowledge or have in the Standards Process
archive for these materials.

As to the sheer number of responses - there were any number of
retorts and responses which required answers as well. That is why
the volume of responses which Jorge would complain about. The
reality is that any Email Based system which is used to argue or
negotiate passionate matters will contain this type of content. The
real issue is whether each response is treated like a new offense or
not, and the reasoning is that the IETF Subject Lines are important
to the Thread Management so that they shouldn't be changed making
the repeated seeing of a title line that some individuals feel is
offensive is a by-product of the IETF's process since it doesn't
have a formal indexing system.

According to Mr. Alvestrand it is OK to respond to a posting which
is directed at you personally, and that you are allowed to respond
to these individually.

Claim 2: No Warning

IETF Suspensions require formal warning. In this matter no warning
was given, the Chair just responded to make a unilateral action
without involving the parties being disciplined. Since there was no
warning or ability to respond to the matter prior to the
Suspension's being enacted its pretty clear its a punitive matter
and one which is about to cause the IETF a world of hurt if this
matter does wind up in litigation.

I suggest that since the Suspension Process formally requires a
Cease and Desist type warning which never came that this Suspension
should be immediately set aside. Further since there is no formal
process in the Suspension's process to insure that an individuals
posting rights are restored when the period is ended, that the use
of the IETF's Suspension Process itself is formally put on hold
until its actual mechanics can be mapped and proper controls setup.

Claim 3: Threatening

As an individual who has personally suffered IP Infringement from
the IETF this is a serious claim. The threats I have made are not in
actuality threats - they are statement's that there will be no other
choice but to litigate damage claims against IP that the IETF is
intentionally trying to 'IETFize' - a process which in actuality
makes that IP impossible to patent.


When an individual is working on a contract with others and the
others say "We want to put stuff in this contract to make the
contract weaker and harder to enforce" I start to have problems with
that group. When they do it over an electronic transport across
multiple sponsor's and across national boundaries, I start to have
real problems with it.

That is what I assert is happening here, i.e. that US IP Law is
being ignored by the IETF and being done so intentionally. That MUST
stop, and IP law (Patent, Copyright and Trademark's) be embraced so
that the totality of what the IETF does can properly be modeled and controlled.

In submitting this appeal, I suggest that I didn't in fact violate
any of the rules Mr. Alvestrand claims I violated and that his
actions and the process he used violated the suspension process as
well as documents Mr. Alvestrand's reaction to me.

Thanks for your hearing this appeal.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Anderson" <>
To: <>
Cc: "TS Glassey" <>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<>; "'Contreras, Jorge'" <>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:19 AM
Subject: ADMIN: Suspension of posting rights for Todd Glassey (fwd)

Mr. Glassey only threatened proper civil action. No improper threat made
by Mr. Glassey. Furthermore, the subject matter of the questions, the
impact of IETF IPR policy on patent holders, is on-topic for the IPR
working group. Mr. Glassey's statements, while insistent, were
reasonably insistent civil demands, and were not unnecessarilly
offensive. Mr. Glassey did apologize for any offense taken.

As has been the case in the past, Mr. Alvestrand has again made a
material false statement that has deceived the IETF working group
members. I note that deception is a predicate act for RICO.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:07:06 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
To: IPR WG <>
Subject: ADMIN: Suspension of posting rights for Todd Glassey

After considering the number of recent postings by mr. Glassey that fall
into the categories:

  • Offensive
  • Off-topic
  • Threatening

I have suspended his posting privilleges to the IPR WG list until August
26, 2008.

Given that previous suspensions have utterly failed to moderate mr.
Glassey's behaviour, I will discuss with the IETF Chair what other
measures can be used to preserve an open, civil forum of discussion
without incurring excessive administrative overhead.

Harald Alvestrand, IETF Chair

Ipr-wg mailing list