I see two ways of dealing with the whole PR Action thing.
1. Rename the list from "IETF Discussion" to "IETF Humor."
- or -
2. Let us not ban inane, circular, flame wars. Rather, let us set up mail
filters to redirect posts to an "IETF Flame" list. Perhaps we can set up a
Bayesian filter to automatically redirect such posts? Admittedly, I know I
would train the filter to put this message (mine, not the thread) into the
bucket, too.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "TS Glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:09:01
To:"Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>,"TS Glassey"
<tglassey(_at_)certichron(_dot_)com>
Cc:Harald Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>, IETF Discussion
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may
becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
Yep... and its coming too.
And Phillip - you know I respect you right and your ability, your knowledge
if IP law and all that... you are brilliant - but in this matter - I
disagree with you. :-).
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey(_at_)certichron(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>; "IETF Discussion"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may
becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
Err, when a Non-profit is involved, defamation is an illegal object that
may be used as a RICO predicate.
A RICO activity may merely bring economic harm to the plaintiffs, while
not providing any direct economic benefit to the defendants. [see Nat'l
Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 765 F. Supp. 937 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
and Scheidler, 968 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1992)]
In the Scheidler case, the RICO action was brought by operators of
abortion clinics against a coalition of abortion opponents, alleging
that the abortion foes had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
to interfere with the operations of abortion clinics. The plaintiffs
alleged, amoung other violations, that the defendant protesters had
violated the Hobbs Act by using threatened or actual force to damage the
operations of abortion clinics. So what the IESG did to me using
fabricated false claims of misconduct (a libel) could indeed be a basis
for a RICO offense.
Also, the threatened and actual force of disrupting my participation and
the participation of other members who merely oppose the management
using legitimate means of argument and persuasion of other members, is
an act performed by the management without a legal right. A PR-Action is
a violation of ISOC bylaws and charter, and so there is no right to
"ban" any member of the ISOC from participation in the ISOC, without a
majority vote by the entire membership. There was no such vote of the
membership, so this act by the IESG may also violate the Hobbs Act.
BTW, Vixie et al (I've decided to call them the "Usenet Cabal") just
tried to disrupt my membership privileges in ARIN, using a fabricated
pretext. I had to hire a lawyer, but I prevailed, again. Vixie/Plzak
also tried to cite IETF actions as a justification for their ARIN
actions, but of course, didn't note their personal involvement in the
IETF actions. The Usenet Cabal are just the same people using different
organizations to harm people who reasonably oppose their objectives.
P.S. Has anyone ever questioned what qualifications Alvestrand has to be
in any of the roles he's in? His ICANN bio doesn't give any technical
qualifications, and his linkedin page lists some very vague contract
work with Cisco.
--Dean
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, TS Glassey wrote:
I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be
criminallyprosecutable in nature...Uh sure Phil... but that doesn't
change anything.
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
To: TS Glassey ; IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may
becriminallyprosecutable in nature...
Todd,
This is nonsense, stop it.
Of course IETF communications could give rise to the posibility
of criminal prosecutions in certain circumstances. The IESG could in
theory plot a murder.
That does not mean that every legal concotion you imagine is
backed by criminal sanctions. On the contrary, conspiracy is only a
crime if the object of the conspiracy is criminal.
Depriving someone of their 'right' to flame in an Internet forum
might under certain circumstances give rise to civil liability. But
the right of standards bodies to impose reasonable participation
criteria is well established in US law. The participation criteria in
the IETF are considerably more inclusive than in OASIS, W3C or IEEE.
There is a place for this argument - alt.flame
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of TS Glassey
Sent: Mon 02/06/2008 1:17 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may be
criminallyprosecutable in nature...
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.
OK Harald - the case you want to see is called "The United States v
Drew"
and was filed in the District Court of the Central District of
California
(i.e. LA). What it says is that any communications taking place between
two
parties across a State Line may constitute. I am sending you a copy of
that
indictment and the CFAA text under separate cover since its 1/2MB. How
it
plays out is that:
1) An act of Conspiracy under the terms of the Conspiracy
Statute in
the US is what happens when multiple people agree on something across
an
electronic transport whether in real-time or time-shifted in nature.
The
question is whether that is a conspiracy to hurt people or their rights
in
which case its an issue, or a conspiracy to get together for a dinner
party
which then would be totally cool one would think.
2) A violation of both civil and criminal statutes of the US
Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (per the definition in section (a)(2)(B) of a
'Federal
Interest Computer'.
Unfortunately this makes all of the covert negotiations for PR and
other
actions a crime in the US by my reading. Also one which the IETF and
its
Management including its chair and all AD's and WG Chairs are liable
under.
I think it also makes key parts of the IETF document/IP submission
process
possibly criminally prosecutable as well. Jorge - Any thoughts as the
IETF's
Attorney?
As to what to do about this - I suggest that its time for a set of
lawyers
who are not retained and paid by the IETF to formally review the IETF's
processes for conflicts and flaws therein.
regards,
Todd Glassey CISM CIFI
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf