On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 16. juni 2004 18:03 -0400 Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've noticed that Rob Austein continues to use sra(_at_)isc(_dot_)org for
his work as
WG co-chair. I think I've been very patient, and have held off on legal
recourse so far.
we have been very patient with you, but you are misrepresenting the
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
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 mailing list