As one of the 2 PR-action'ed persons, let me respond to these assertions. I was subject of a PR-Action in fall of 2005 because I did three things: 1) I asked for honesty in the sources of claims in the controverial spamops document. The discredited source was SORBS, which falsely claims address blocks used by Av8 Internet (130.105/16 and 198.3.136/21) are hijacked. They have done this since 2003, and know of the mistake. SORBS is connected to Paul Vixie and Dave Rand. 2) I asserted that RFC 3979 applied to DNS drafts, which had not made the proper disclosures required under RFC3979. Steven Bellovin (then chair of the IPR Working Group falsely stated that RFC3979 wasn't the policy of the IETF. ISOC Atty Contreras later refuted Bellovin's false claim. I was right. The drafts have not made the proper disclosures. This activity is similar to the deception by Russ Housley with the TLS-AUTHZ document. (Housley also voted on my PR-Action) 3) I attempted to discuss problems with Stateful Anycast Stability on DNSOP. Even though DNSOP was the proper forum for this discussion, I was bluntly told to drop the subject by then Area Director David Kessens. Kessens was associated with Paul Vixie and ISC through several connections. Vixie was advocating Anycast, and stood to lose money if problems were revealed. Since then, experimental data confirms the problems with Stateful Anycast. I've been vindicated on all three issues of the PR-Action. There was no misconduct on my part. Since then, I have been banned from the GROW, IPR, and DNSEXT Working Groups: -- I was banned from GROW for opposing draft-ietf-grow-anycast (Kessens) that implied that stateful anycast was stable, and stated that per packet load balancing (PPLB) was pathological. My opposition was steam rolled. As Sam Hartman wrote in his evaluation record: I believe that the IESG did not follow a process consistent with how we handle other documents and that the divergences from our normal process created an unacceptably closed process. As such, I am abstaining on this document as I cannot support its publication under the process that was used. The area director described the process used as "hard ball." He said that because of the history of the document he was pushing back against changes both from the IESG and late last call comments more so than usual. By history, I suspect that he meant both the fact that this document has already been subject to an appeal and the fact that the document has been under development for a long time. I think that the area director chose to play hard enough ball that the process can no longer be considered open and that the IESG erred in supporting this process and approving the document. -- I was banned from IPR Working group. I am president of the LPF, an anti-patent organization founded by Richard Stallman. The LPF represents the views of many GNU supporters and many famous people in computer science. I was banned for working to fix the problems that enabled Russ Housley to deceive the IETF on IPR disclosure, yet receive no penalty. -- I was banned from the DNSEXT Working Group (namedroppers) which I have participated in since about 1990. I was banned because I opposed the author assigned to a revived axfr-clarify draft. This draft was involved in a prior scam by Paul Vixie et al 'clarifying' the AXFR protocol in 2002. The draft proponents claimed the draft had no wire protocol changes. However, it was discovered by Dr. Bernstein that the draft did include protocol changes. It was also discovered that BIND had already implemented changed protocol with detection for the old protocol. This scam was discovered and originally opposed by Dr. Dan Bernstein, the author of a major DNS server implementation. In 2002, Bernstein's email was blocked, subjected to forged unsubscriptions, etc. The draft was dead until recently, when Vixie and affiliates revived the document. I objected to assigning the document to authors affiliated with the previous abuse of Bernstein. None of these represent any sort of obstruction to legitimate work. Paul Vixie seems to be the center of the abuse against me, using his resources at NANOG, ISOC, and ARIN, and SORBS to interfere with my business and to promote his own economic interests. Others also have economic motives to harm me (e.g. Housley to prevent his being held accountable for patent disclosure violations.) These efforts at improper and unjustifiable censorship are presently the subject of legal contacts between my lawyer and their lawyers. These efforts to censor persons for economic purposes contradict the bylaws and charters of each of the organizations, and violate US laws. It will not stand. SORBS operator Matthew Sullivan has stated his intent to cause AV8 Internet to spend money to sue people who would lose but have no money to pay damages. But I do agree that the efforts at censorship are indeed a waste of time. However, the persons wasting our time are the person's who are abusing the process of censorship for their own financial gain. Their purposes have nothing to do with getting work done. It has to do with getting money they shouldn't get. --Dean On 25 Mar 2008, John Levine wrote: > >o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is, > > In terms of the number of people, it's tiny. I can only think of > three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I > polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of > fingers. > > On the other hand, the amount of time that they waste is enormous, > because they abuse processes designed to deal with people whose > misbehavior is ambiguous and temporary, which theirs is not. If > someone doesn't get the hint to behave after one or two taps on the > wrist, they'll never get it and it's a waste of time to keep grinding > through processes to re-re-re-eject them. In view of the fact that > the same people come back to annoy us year after year after year, we > really need efficient ways to make them go away permanently. I also > observe that they tend to have, ah, characteristic writing styles that > makes it rather easy to recognize when they've grown another > personality. > > So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined > to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees > mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else > already subject to 3683, just block it and send out a one sentence > notice reporting it. Then return to useful work. > > Regards, > Glenn Curtiss > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf