On Tue, 18 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > After re-checking with legal counsel, I repeat what I said before, trying > to be as clear as possible: > > Bouncing a message to the sender is NOT public defamation. Not by itself, no. But that isn't the whole story of what happened. It is always a bad thing to mislead your counsel as to the facts. This is typically the case though, unfortunately, having been though it before. People tend to put their own "spin" on the tale they tell their counsel, leaving out a lot of important details. Later, those details are provided--that's the beauty of the legal process. Here's a quick summary: After becoming aware of defamatory comments being made by ISC.ORG participants who were using 'harrassment by computer' techniques to automatically send or began to send messages to all Av8 Internet customers who participate in the IETF. Unsuspecting Av8 Internet customers who partipated in the IETF and who sent mail in response to ISC.ORG messages involving IETF business were automatically sent these harrassing, defamatory, and disparaging messages. These ISC.ORG participants eventually included IETF representatives. The harrassing computer response messages falsely claimed that Av8 Internet's IP Address space was hijacked. I was then forced to forward the defamatory messages to the IETF and DNSOP lists in order to make a complaint. This forced republication is the legal responsiblity of the original sender: Paul Vixie, Joe Abley, and Rob Austein and possibly involving ISC and SORBS depending on as yet unknown relationships between them. Rob Austein was an IETF representative acting on behalf of the IETF. I note that while 47 USC 230 provides a fairly general protection against defamation by electronic republishing, it only provides that protection to those who are behaving consistently with its stated policy, and has no effect on law (eg defamation claims) that is consistent with its policy. Its policy is to _prevent_ harrassment by computer, and so, in this case, it provides no protection to the IETF with respect to republishing harrassment by computer. Further, the message from Mr Austein was involving IETF business, and from an IETF representative, direct IETF speech to customers of Av8 Internet for which the IETF is legally responsible, and for which I was also forced to republish to the appropriate IETF lists in order to make a complaint. The message in question came from Mr. Austein and was with his permission and knowledge (otherwise there would be an ECPA violation). Mr. Austein is clearly participating in defamatory and harrassing conduct, of the very sort that 47 USC 230 expects as policy to prohibit. (see 47 USC 230 (b)(5)). 47 USC 230 (d)(3) specifies that the statute doesn't affect any state law that is consistent with this statute. Therefore, it can't be used in against the stated policy as stated in section (b) of the statute. I don't think 47 USC 230 can be used to completely disable every defamation claim. It will only disable those claims that are inconsistent with the stated policy in Section (b). However, the 47 USC 230 exemption does not apply to Mr. Austein's, Mr. Bush's, or Mr. Alvestrand's comments, since those comments were on behalf of the IETF, and so the IETF is the original publisher of those comments. Then there is the defamatory and disparaging statements made by Randy Bush, in his role as WG chair. That was not even a bounce, as you apparently described it to your counsel. Yet it is still disparaging. Again, the IETF is the original publisher, and these commets are the legal responsibility of the IETF. Recently, Paul Vixie sent another disparaging ad hominem attack to the IETF list, disparaging Dean Anderson, and by implication, Av8 Internet. A complaint was again made to Mr. Alvestrand, the IETF chairman. Instead of chastising Mr. Vixie, Mr Alvestrand chastised Dean Anderson for his characterization of Mr. Vixie's ad hominem as 'infantile, irresponsible and immature'. That is a fair description of any ad hominem attack, and is a fair description of Mr. Vixie's ad hominem attack. Mr. Alvestrand's unreasonable behavior in this incident reveals his latent hostility to Dean Anderson and Av8 Internet, which adds further substance to the claim that the IETF has, inter alia, defamed and commercially disparaged Av8 Internet. Mr. Austein's and hence the IETF's participation in a group boycott known as the SORBS list, which is supported and promoted by ISC, is unlawful and a violation of, inter alia, the Sherman Act. > Therefore, your complaint about "defamation" has no merit. > > Dean, I believe that: > > - your complaint about the apparently incorrect ownership listing of AV8's > address space is with ARIN ARIN has nothing to do with this. ARIN has done nothing wrong, and neither has Av8. There is no incorrect ownership listing by ARIN. Your false claim is an original false claim by the IETF that many would interpret as stating a fact. This is itself defamatory since it is false and suggests that either ARIN or Av8 Internet has done something wrong or that there is an incorrect ownership listing. The IETF has again directly made false and defamatory statements. These are also not "bounces" as you apparently described them to your counsel. > - your complaint about the listing of this address space with SORBS is with > SORBS > - your complaint about ISC's use of SORBS is with ISC And the ISC is run by Paul Vixie, who has just posted his own abusive and inappropriate comments, which I note that Mr. Alvestrand failed to chastise, but instead chastised our complaint. Our only involvement with the ISC and Mr. Vixie is through the IETF. Mr. Vixie's abuse is directly and very nearly exclusively in the IETF. Mr. Alvestrand has now made the false, defamatory, and disparaging statement that there is some incorrect ownership listing in the ARIN records. That is also not a "bounce" as you apparently described it to your counsel. > None of these are issues that the IETF can solve for you. They are not > matters that are relevant to the IETF list. Another false (but not defamatory) statement. There are a number of things the IETF can do, and is morally obligated (and perhaps legally obligated) by the IETF and ISOC Code of Conduct, and the IETF Mission Statement: 1) The IETF can publicly tell Mr Vixie to stop its harrassment by computer of Av8 Internet. 2) In response to Mr. Vixie efforts in trying to use the IETF lists to use harrassment by computer techniques to tell Av8 Internet and its customers that they should change their email addresses, the IETF can tell Mr. Vixie to use different addresses on the IETF lists. Mr. Abley readily acknowledged that he routinely uses other addresses. It is clear that Mr. Austein also has other email addresses. 3) The IETF can tell Mr. Austein that he must accept email from _all_ IETF participants in his role as an IETF Working Group Chair. 4) The IETF can stop participating in unlawful group boycotts in violation of the Sherman Act. 5) The IETF can stop making original defamatory and commercially disparaging statements against Av8 Internet. 6) The IETF can apologize for its past abuses of Av8 Internet and others. 7) The IETF can renounce its unfair and unequal relationship with Paul Vixie and ISC.ORG which is in violation of its Mission Statement. These are not unreasonable requests. > > Take care. > > Harald Alvestrand > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf