I suggested that the IESG discuss this with the ISOC Attorney Jorge
Contreras.

I also suggest you review
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Suspension_and_Expulsion_Requirements.pdf
Article II, which outlines the issues of the incorporation status of the
IETF, and cites the legal authorities that establish its conclusions. I
can also see that this document's section 4 needs to be updated.

Rest Inline.

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, John C Klensin wrote:

> (distribution aggressively trimmed and IETF list removed)
>
> --On Friday, 06 April, 2007 18:32 -0400 Dean Anderson
> <dean@av8.com> wrote:
>
> >> At this time, I think it would be inappropriate for me to
> >> share any mail archives I may have with you.
> >
> > The business records of a non-profit corporation may be
> > examined by members of the non-profit. The email archives are
> > such records. As a member, I'm entitled to the inspection of
> > these records. Perhaps the IESG should discuss this with the
> > ISOC/IETF/IETF Trust Attorney, Attorney Contreras. Hiding
> > these records, to which I am entitled to view, seems

The ISOC is a non-profit corporation, as has been shown previously. The
IETF is an activity of the ISOC: therefore, the IETF is part of a
corporation, and therefore is covered by corporate law. However, even
if the IETF weren't part of a corporation, the law on unincorporated
associations is the same on these questions. Your assertion of
'unincorporation' is therefore irrelevant, but still technically wrong.

> Even if it were a corporation, discussions in the IESG about
> standardization decisions probably don't fall into any reasonable
> definition of "business records".

This is also false. I quote American Jurisprudence, (18A Am.
Jur. 2d 2004) Section 329 Minutes: [footnotes omitted]

"At common law, and under particular state statutes, shareholders have
had the right to inspect the minutes of corporate proceedings."

Section 331 Contracts; correspondence and customer lists:
[footnotes omitted]

"Corporate correspondence has been subject to shareholders' inspection
in cases decided under both common law and under a state statute."

Section 332 Confidential or privileged information:
[footnotes omitted]

"The fact that the information sought by a stockholder is of a
confidential nature is not enough, in itself, to deny the statutory
right of examination of records and making extracts or abstracts
therefrom."

> And, regardless of whether or not it is a corporation or whether that
> list was business records, the theory by which you claim to be "a
> member" is certainly not obvious to me.

I have a paid membership with the ISOC. However, it is a settled matter
of law that _participation_ in an organization, (whether incorporated or
not), that does not have defined membership criteria, constitutes
membership. I participate and there is no criteria, therefore, I am a
member.

> I am tempted to say "here we go again", but will instead
> encourage you to stay focused on the IMO quite reasonable and
> legitimate questions you asked several days ago rather than
> slipping back into the personal accusations and demands based on
> far-fetched legal theories that resulted in the PR action.

The legal "theories" are not far-fetched, but are documented in the
several legal encyclopedia's such as American Jurisprudence and Corpus
Juris Secundum. See entries on "Corporations", and also on
"Associations and Clubs". The "Associations and Clubs" entry covers
unincorporated associations.

I suggest that you study the law, before you make your pronouncements.

Also, the legal claims previously resulted from the unlawful activities
surrounding the PR-action, rather than the other way around, as you
suggest. I have shown those activities to be unlawful, and have cited
the law to support those claims. A lawsuit is on those claims is being
prepared.

--Dean

--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000