On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > --On 16. juni 2004 18:03 -0400 Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I've noticed that Rob Austein continues to use sra@xxxxxxx for his work as > > WG co-chair. I think I've been very patient, and have held off on legal > > recourse so far. > > Dean, > > we have been very patient with you, but you are misrepresenting the > situation. I don't feel as though I have misrepresented anything. The same cannot be said with regards to your messages on the topic, particularly your (misleading) claim that I have some request about incorrect ownership data. I have made no such request, and in fact there is no incorrect ownership data, and you are quite well aware of that. You seem to be misrepresenting other things as well. > I have replied that I do not see the merit to your complaint, and have NOT > asked Rob Austein to change his address, have NOT asked ISC to change their > antispam policies, and have NOT asked SORBS to change ther listings - > having concluded that none of these is the IETF's business. I am aware of your responses. I have read them carefully, and have passed them to our counsel. However, other people seem to feel that your handling of the situation has not been reasonable, and some have even suggested fairly sensible ways for the IETF to work out the problem. I do not understand why you persist in such unreasonable, unfair, and unbalanced behavior, even in the face of reasonable suggestions. > (the alternative - declaring that every antispam function of every system > that is used by an IETF participant is a matter for the IETF to have an > opinion on, and possibly work to have changed, every time it causes a > message to bounce or be dropped - is simply not workable.) We are not discussing anti-spam functions, nor a routine message bounce, nor a benign transient error. This has nothing whatsoever to do with spam or anti-spam functions. Your attempt to describe it as such is misleading and incorrect. We are discussing defamation, baldly false statements originated by court-proven liars, unlawful participation in a group boycott, commercial disparagement and other issues. No one (except you) has claimed that spam has anything remotely or even peripherally to do with this. The disputed behavior is the subject of the ISOC Code of Conduct, and the IETF Guidelines of conduct, as well as the IETF Mission Statement. So it is the "IETF's business", because conduct of its members are the subject of these documents, and the conduct of the IETF's representatives performing IETF business is the responsibility of the IETF. Should said representatives perform their IETF duties unlawfully, then the IETF bears the responsibility for those unlawful acts. > If you don't like that decision, you are free to appeal the decision to the > IAB according to RFC 3005, or to pursue any other avenue that you feel > appropriate. If you force that, we will have to do that. But it seems that there is a more reasonable way to handle the problem. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf