Dear Mrs. Sandy, IANL. I just say we have a problem. 2005/10/17, Sandy Wills <sandy@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Either you or I is confused here. I recognize the possibility that I > am the one confused, but of course I believe it is you. Mr. Kessens is > not "conducting a trial" on this list (ietf@xxxxxxxx). If he were, then > of course you would be pointing out that he is extending the trial for > no good reason. I think this is what English calls a public inquiry? Please go to Google and ask "public inquiry on". you get 26.300 responses. Then enter "public inquiry on person" or "a person" you get 0 responses. I think when you ask "can we judge Mr.x because he did that" - one already judge him - one does not give him a proper way of defend he never did that. > In fact, however, this is NOT a trial. It is merely a question > "Should the IESG _hold_ a trial?" that he is required to ask, and > it was the _accused_ who pointed out that the question was raised in the > wrong place (announce@xxxxxxxx). In other cultures using "_accused_" could cost you a lot of money: Until a trial he is not accused. This shows - in these cultures - this is a trial. Mr. Kessens, as was right, recognized > this error when pointed out, and corrected it, by asking this question > in the correct place. I certainly don't see anything wrong with giving > the IESG another month, to get comments from anyone who didn't know. It is a violation of the right of the "accused". He has the right there is _only_ one month. Because this is the rule. > I suspect that the accused would have been better off to not bring it > up, because if the trial had gone forward he could later have claimed > that he had been knowingly and willfully denied a fair trial because of > this error. However, he did point this out, and Mr. Kessens corrected > the error, thus removing this excuse for such a claim. This is where there is also a different legal culture. This error would considered as worst. > Once again, RFC 3683 says that, for such a PR action: > <quote> > 1. it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to > doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties; > 2. it is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general > discussion list; > 3. it is discussed by the community; > 4. it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally, > 5. using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by > the IESG. > </quote> This is not important to IETF. IETF culture is no interest. Mr. Dean never signed he agree to RFC 3683. But he can use the legal errors made by the IESG. I understand in the USA there are lawyers paid %. How do you know Mr. Dean has not such a lawyer. And organises to sue IETF and ISOC for millions $? Mr. Dean is American, so its more simple. In Harald vs. Jefsey cases, this is also European laws. I am just concerned. I do not want to be right. If there is a difamation case of 3 milions against IETF. If they win, we will all have to pay $ 1000. May be more if you said things in a wrong way. I think RFC 3683 is a big bug. It take too much time to me. Eduardo Mendez. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf