Fred - your funny...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <fred@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may
becriminally prosecutable in nature...
> So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
> constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
> someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
> it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
> member of the discussion forum - and the bully lives in the City of
> Dardenne Prairie or more generally the State of Missouri, which have
> enacted statutes since the girl's death. Is that correct?
no Fred - I suggest that per the description of a FEDERAL INTEREST COMPUTER
in the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that any instance where IETF
member's converse with each other electronically about how they are going
prevent anyone else's effort from being submitted, or vetted and advanced,
or prevent that person from participating in the IETF through the PR
process, that those actions DO constitute criminal and civilly acitonable
ones.
In your case as an IESG member they also constitute a Fiduciary
Responsibility violations too...
And so - you know that meeting with Cisco's GC I kept talking about, I am
available all next week and since my office is about 5 files down First
Street from your legal department this is a no brainer eh?
>
> I don't plan to comment further in this thread. In fact, had you and
> Philip not replied, I would not have been aware of it. To my mind, my
> stance is a very appropriate one.
yes - you are intentionally denying that certain US Laws apply to the IETF's
operations and that is simply not true. The IETF is constrained by US law
whether its in the US or not based on that all US participants would be tied
to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
So again, lets ask Mark Chambers what he thinks of this OK???.
>
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey
>> <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I brought this up a number of times and Harald's solution was to
>>> ban me
>>> from the list. Something that under the US CFAA is prosecutable...
>>> His
>>> claim was that I failed to show him the money - that special case
>>> which
>>> establishes that as a standard.
>>
>> I believe I told you to show competent legal advice saying that
>> what you
>> were posting was relevant to the IETF.
>>
>> I have read your provided material, and fail to see any sign of such
>> competent legal advice; no name but your own is attached to the
>> claim of
>> relevance.
>>
>> (for those who wonder what case it is, it is
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier>.)
>>
>> Harald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf