Do you have any examples of a conversation that I hindered?
In fact, it is my email that is being hindered, for speaking on topic.
more inline
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Sandy Wills wrote:
> Last, however, in order to _remain_ in the IETF, you have to have a
> personality that accepts that you aren't always right, and that others
> may occasionally wish to discuss things that aren't your first priority.
There is a false premise here: The premise that Dean asserts that he is always
right. This isn't the case. In the instant criticism of ISC root nameserver
operation, it happens that Anderson, Dr. Bernstein, and van Beignum are right,
having shown in theory the failure of the Anycast Extension, and having
demonstrated that failure in the lab. This is makes them indisputably right.
Kessens' doesn't want these facts mentioned on a WG chartered _explicitly_ to
investigate and discuss root nameserver operation. Supressing this criticism has
two ulterior effects:
1). ISC sells anycast extension services. If customers learn of the problems
before they pay, ISC will lose money.
2). Kessens went to ISI (Graduate School of University of Southern
California) with Suzanne Woolf, they both are listed as alums of the Computer
Networking Division, along with 150 others; A small program. Woolf is now the
program manager at ISC responsible for promoting the dubious Anycast Extension.
Kessens presumably has a personal interest in protecting her reputation and her
job.
In the PR Action, Kessens says that the IETF can only give general disrections
to operators:
1) On any subject except root dns server operation, this is true. But of
course, to give "general direction", one needs to discuss the issue, first.
Kessens doesn't want the issue discussed.
2) For DNS root server operation, this is not the case. In fact, as you can
read in RFC2870, the IETF sets the technical standards that root server
operators have to implement. ICANN contacts these services to the root
operators, and requires they comply, or else they can't be root server
operators. Kessen's knows this fact very well, but most IETF members probably
don't, since it is unique to DNS root server operators. Why would he mis-state
this fact?
3) This issue is the Anycast Extension is the subject of a current draft in
the IETF-GROW group. The GROW group has to take this draft to the DNSOP group.
If he succeeds in the PR-Action against me, do you suppose anyone will dare
raise this issue on DNSOP? This is intimidation.
In another case, I complained that the DNSEXT working group wasn't complying
with IETF policy on software patents. This complaint discussion was disrupted by
Crocker and Bellovin, who both made irrelevant, disparaging comments. This
hindered this discussion. The DNSEXT group is still not in compliance, however
discussion was distracted by Crocker and Bellovin.
Bellovin also said that my complaint was somehow wrong, but he didn't read it.
That is professionally dishonest. It is the same as fabricating material in an
academic paper. Bellovin took the unusual step of making this comment in his
"official role as IPR WG Chair". That means he should be held to a high degree
of professional honesty and integrity.
No conversations have been hindered by Anderson. It is Anderson's conversations
that have been hindered. There is a purpose to the hinderence.
The definition of Graft (Blacks Law Dictionary) is
"...Advantage or personal gain received because of peculiar position or
superior influence of one holding a position of trust and confidence without
rendering compensatory services, or dishonest transaction in relation to public
or official acts, and sometimes implies theft, corruption, dishonesty, fraud, or
swindole, and always a want of integrity. See e.g. 18 U.S.C.A 201 et seq."
> In other words, you have to be able to allow others to carry on their
> conversations and work without hindrance.
Another false premise (but one critical to RFC 3683) I haven't hindered any
conversations.
In fact, your claim applies more to Kessens, than to me. Kessens is trying to
suppress discussion of incorrect root nameserver operations, on a WG explicitly
chartered to discuss root server operations.
> This is not a court. This is not a legal jurisdiction, trying to
> execute him or put him in jail for some crime. This is simply a
> volunteer organization that is wondering if Dean is so disruptive that
> it should ban him from the organization.
This is a factual mistake. The IETF is not "simply a volunteer organization".
It is an organization incorporated in the US, with an explicit duty to serve the
public interest. The "Ladies Aid", another volunteer organization, has no
obligation to serve the public trust, nor any obligation to be "fair, open, and
inclusive".
> All of us have the "right" to be here - Dean can still "lurk", if
> the PR-Action goes against him. We don't, however, have the "right" to
> be disruptive.
I haven't prevented any work from being done, by any group. Indeed missing from
the PR Action, in fact, is a prima facie case: RFC3683 speaks of a Denial of
Service: that the IETF cannot get work done if the subject is allowed to post.
There has been no denial of service. The IETF has not been prevented from doing
anything whatsoever.
But in fact, the IETF has responsibilities and obligations, which is why there
is a complaint process. A process to which Anderson has availed himself.
Your argument, and the PR Action, comes down to a retaliation for using the
complaint process, and for discussing ON-Topic issues on a Working Group
chartered to discuss the very subject.
> The IETF, on the other hand, like any organism, has the "right" to defend
> itself from attack.
Another false premise. First, the IETF hasn't been attacked. The employees of
the IETF are misusing their authority in the IETF to the conduct attacks against
someone who has registered legitimate and substantiated criticism against a root
server operator.
What Kessens has done is try to cover up this criticism. I am not the only
person to make this criticism, and all those making this criticism have been
viciously attacked. And the theoretical and laboratory evidence happens to show
that Dean Anderson, Dr. Bernstein, and Iljitch Van Beijnum are right in this
criticism.
I have been attacked, and I have rightfully made complaints about these attacks.
You are trying to assert an argument that unless we (Anderson, etc) agree that
their criticism of ISC Anycast Extension is wrong, then somehow we are
asserting that "we are always right". This is a fallacious argument.
> And, there is a PR-Action in progress because a particular volunteer's actions
> can reasonably be interpreted as an attack on the IETF.
Neither RFC3683, nor any RFC, allows for retaliation for criticism of the IETF.
All organizations are subject to criticism.
> We _volunteered_ to be here, and most of us either want to help, or selfishly
> use the IETF for our own education (personally, I'm in both groups). And, if
> the group arrives at a consensus that any particular volunteer is more trouble
> than he's worth, then the IETF will decline to accept that volunteer's input
> in the future. I think that offering to call in lawyers is just more
> demonstration that Dean will never be willing to let others work without
> interference.
I think you've missed the point of what "open, fair, and inclusive" means.
> IESG, please add the referenced "threat to call in lawyers" message
> to the PR-action case against Dean Anderson.
I got the impression that you are student. I'm wondering, have you taken an
ethics course yet? Do you understand what it means to avail oneself of one's
rights? Lawyers are sometimes necessary to do that. That is why they call them
"rights"; because you have a "right" to them.
I'm also wondering if you've had to write research papers for any of your
classes. What happens to you if you fabricate citations or material in your
papers? At most colleges and universities, this is considered academic
dishonesty, and grounds for expulsion. It is treated as a very serious offense.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf