Subject: Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF (was: Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning Dean Anderson (reissued))

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:55:00 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>

    > There are other countries 

Please keep the nationalism out of this. The IETF is not a country.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:14:13 +0200

> Please keep the nationalism out of this. The IETF is not a country.

Mr. Noel,
I am sorry. There is nothing nationalism.
(Which nationalism?)

The IETF is a subsidiary of ISOC.
It is incorporated in a country (USA? Swiss?)
This country seems to authorize what others do not.

IANAL but I advise Governments.
It is always difficult in cases where laws conflict.
I am only interested in technical RFC 3683 things.
If it permits this it is wrong for the IETF. That is all.

Eduardo Mendez.

---

From: Dave Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:38:46 +0200

Eduardo,

I think I may be misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize.  As I 
understand it, the original announcement of the 'last call' was not 
sent in strict accord with the agreed procedures, in that it used the 
wrong mailing list.  As a result it has now been sent to the correct 
mailing list.  There was then a question "should the deadline -- the 
end of the call -- be as originally announced, or should it be 
extended?"  It seems, I think, that it is only fair that it be 
extended, in case there were people who did not see the first 
announcement.  This gives all parties at least the required time to 
discover the last call, read, and respond if they wish.

I think you are arguing that the original deadline should have been 
maintained, that it was in fact unfair to extend it, but I am not 
sure I understand why you feel this.  If this is how you feel, could 
you explain?  And if I am wrong, could you correct me?

Many thanks,
-- 
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:46:47 -0400

OK, this is getting silly.  Have you ever been to an IETF meeting?
You should understand the IETF culture before presuming to advise
governments.  The IETF is not a puppet of any government, and even if
it were, that has nothing to do with RFC3683.

The Last Call was reissued precisely to support the rights of the
"accused" (your word).  Because it was issued on the wrong list, some
people might not have seen it.  It was given *more* exposure time, not
less, in order to be *more* fair, not less.  Your implications that
the "rulers" and their lackeys are gaming the system to take away
rights is completely absurd.

---

From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:12:41 +0200

Mr. Scott,
IANAL. But I know when you hurt someone with others, all have to pay.

> it were, that has nothing to do with RFC3683.

I do not understand why you attack me?
I advise Governments on what IETF says.
Not on what the IETF does?
But what IETF does is subject to laws.
And the IETF disclaimer has no value in this case.

> rights is completely absurd.

"accused" is not my word.
I do not understand what you can name "more fair".
Mr. Dean can claim it was less. And win.
Things are fair or not.
Mr. Dean can claim it is messy and win.

I do not understand what are the rulers and the lackeys?
I am not interested in dicussing RFC that way.

Eduardo Mendez

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:25:34 -0400

> IANAL. But I know when you hurt someone with others, all have to pay.

I'm done.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400

> I'm done.

Ever the optimist, I like to think that the fact that the
leadership's energy is increasingly going into stuff like
this indicates that the IETF has reached a new level of
organizational maturity.

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)

Lets look at this as what it may appear to be.  No references to anyone
living or deceased is intended in the following story.

Disclaimer - I have been personally named by Mr. Anderson - so take what I
say with a healthy grain of salt.

Lets say you want to put together a club - as long as you play by the
rules of the club you are welcome to come into the clubhouse and play with
its toys, work on the clubhouse, sit down and talk with its members.  The
club lets anyone who wants to join come into the clubhouse without any
screening process at all.

Now you let in a person who insists on sitting on the floor and trying to
trip everyone who attempts to enter, either new members or old members. 
Old members know about all of the fun games inside so attempt to push
through to get in.  New members aren't quite so sure, and may decide to
turn around and either not play at the club, or go to another clubhouse
down the street and start helping them build their clubhouse (not that our
club has any rules about belonging to more than one club mind you)

Your job as the president of the club is to welcome everyone in, including
the person sitting in the door, so you ask her to move inside and start
playing with the toys.  She comes in for a bit, takes away a few toys that
people are playing with, then goes back to sitting in the doorway.  You
ask a few more times, and can't get her to quit sitting in the doorway.

Now it is time to bring in the Sergeant of Arms.  They basically go
through the clubhouse and ask if anyone has anything to say about asking
this person to leave the club so everyone else can enjoy it.  After a
period of time (after all, some people think EVERYONE shoudld play with
the toys, and most of the members are concerned because it is VERY
important to allow anyone to come in and play - because that is the most
fun) the hard descision is made to exclude someone from the club.

There is no prosecution, no defense - it is a club after all, we all know
what has been going on.  A few of us were tripped up a couple of times
walking in.

That said IETF work is more important than a clubhouse with some good toys
inside it.  But it is a place of work, not a place to be throwing around
threats of lawsuits, and demanding that everyone else gets kicked out.

Bill

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:48:12 -0700

>this indicates that the IETF has reached a new level of

I note that "death" is one of the levels of maturity for any
entity. Progress on some fronts is not always to be desired.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)

> this indicates that the IETF has reached a new level of

Unless your comment was a sarcasm, I rather think its the
other way around.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Alexis Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:44:46 -0400 (EDT)

Cual es? Si el Last Call fue correcto en la primera vez, tiene ningun
discordanica?  O aun dice que el Last Call no tiene razon?  Presenta dos
declaraciones, pero los dos finjan que el otro no exista.  Parece que el
EEUU es mal pase lo que pase.  Es posible que eso es su punto?

(Which is it?  If the Last Call was correct the first time, would you have
no complaint?  Or still would you say the Last Call is wrong?  You have
stated two arguments which pretend the other doesn't exist. It seems the
US is evil no matter what. Is it possible that this is really your point?)
-Alexis

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Eduardo Mendez wrote:

::Mr. Noel,
::I am sorry. There is nothing nationalism.
::(Which nationalism?)
::
::The IETF is a subsidiary of ISOC.
::It is incorporated in a country (USA? Swiss?)
::This country seems to authorize what others do not.
::
::IANAL but I advise Governments.
::It is always difficult in cases where laws conflict.
::I am only interested in technical RFC 3683 things.
::If it permits this it is wrong for the IETF. That is all.
::
::Eduardo Mendez.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:35:02 -0400 (EDT)

Scott, your presumption of being above the law and able to act without any
regard or recognition of responsibility and obligation is exactly how
organizations get into legal trouble.

The IETF is an activity of the ISOC. The ISOC is incorporated in the US, has a
corporate charter, bylaws, and various duties imposed on it.  It is subject to
US law, and it seems, Massachussets state law.  We'll see.

Your frustration is familiar: I've seen it before as ignored legal realities are
imposed on those who presume they don't exist. The experiences of Chris Neill**
and Alif Terranson come to mind.  

Eduardo: Don't take these things personally. When faced with reprehensible
behavior: "speak to the jury".  And thanks for speaking up.

		--Dean

[** BTW, Chris Neill just recently sent me a nasty gram, 6 years later. For
those of you who don't know the story (most of you who aren't Nanog members),
Neill was fired from Verio in 1999 after Nanog members encouraged him to abuse
our relays. This was at a time when Nanog members claimed that no laws applied
to the Internet. I was banned from Nanog for saying with substantiating
citations that this view is wrong.  I was vindicated by all accounts except
those of hard-core Nanog members like Dave Crocker. Neill's firing not entirely
Nanog's fault, but it partly is. Neill continued the abuse after being told to
quit by his management. Neill posted a diatribe on Spam-l after he was fired,
blaming me. This is just one of the reasons Nanog members make personal attacks
on me]

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:52:41 -0400 (EDT)

> US law, and it seems, Massachussets state law.  We'll see.

Officially, this might be the case.  De facto, is is something much
larger, with much greater girth on the globe.

> our relays.

Sounds like corporate law enforcement to me.

> This was at a time when Nanog members claimed that no laws applied
> to the Internet.

Was he persecuted for anything?

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:53:56 -0400 (EDT)

This doesn't come close to representing what has transpired.

Try this on for size, in the same childish genre as the other:

There are two clubs.  The first club is like a gang of kids.  Not very formal.
Just a group, really. Kind of a gang.  Not terribly educated, but tight. The
second club is more adult-like. Velvet smoking jackets: "How is Sir today?",
"How is Madam today?". "How does the gentleman vote on the issue of
draft-widget-factorizing?"

There are also two sets of rules. The grownup rules, and the club rules.
Actually, there are three sets because there are two clubs, but we can ignore
this.

At the first club, there were a bunch of bullies. The person didn't know right
away that they were bullies [well actually, he did know they were bullies from
many years before, but had forgotten that--not a grudgeholder himself]. The
bullies said they could do whatever they wanted and no rules applied to them.
This person merely told them at the that they were wrong: there were rules that
applied to them.  He quoted the rules.  The bullies said that they were bullies,
and that no one would go against them.  The bullies shake down the other kids
for their lunch money, by saying they sell vinegar.  They also put up signs
saying "no vinegar sales", while helping the real vinegar vendors hide from the
vinegar police. Of course, they don't help the vinegar vendors for free: They
charge for list-washing.  They go around boasting a lot about looking for
grownups, but when someone stands up to them, the first thing they say is that
if they go to the grownups, they'll be blocked forever.

Two of the members of the first club repeatedly abused the person, punching and
hitting. So the person invoked the grownup rules. So the grownups came, and
found the person following the rules, and that other the two members were
breaking the rules. One of the bad kids had to be sent home by his boss, because
even after he was told to stop, he continued in spite of what his employer said
to do. This made the bad kid really angry. Six years later, he's still mad. The
other bullies weren't happy either. You can't be a bully if you let someone get
away with going against a bully. So the first club said he couldn't be a member
anymore, out of spite. They don't like people who invoke the grownup rules or go
against the bullies. And about the one person who really pissed them off, they
he stole IP addresses. The IP address claim is not credible because the
companies to which the IP addresses belong to still exist and function. But the 
spite of bullies is not to be underestimated.

So later, at a posher, sort-of-grownup club, the same group of bullies is
looking for revenge on the person who got their two bully-friends into trouble
by having grownup rules enforced on them.  They engage in name-calling, personal
attacks, and generally school-yard behavior. This behavior is largely ignored by
the person, save to occasionally register a complaint with the club leaders
about the behavior.  But the club leaders don't dare go against the bullies.
Indeed, some of the bullies have become club leaders.  One of those bullies
changes his official club email address to say to any customers of the one
person, that his IP addresses are stolen.

Once again, the person has caught the bullies cheating, breaking the rules, and
doing all sorts of reprehensible things. Bullies will be bullies.  They try to
intimidate and threaten the person. They threaten anyone who speaks up for the
person.  So the bullies say "We can't stand this person anymore. We want him
out." One bully announces publicly that hs is searching for ways to get rid of
the person according to the club rules. One might guess that they demanded
removal and were turned down on account of the rules.  So the bullies have
fabricated charges against the person to have him removed from the sort-of-grown
up club.  Ironically, the bullies use complaints about the bullies, charging
those complaints are attacks on bullies.  Poor bullies.

But, unlike the first club, this second club has some grownup rules.  It seems
unlikely that the club can do this act, and still obey the grownup rules. There 
are consequences for violating the grownup rules. 

Once again, the bullies pretend that there are no rules to govern their
behavior. But if anything is ever true, this is: The grownups never side with
bullies.  This grownup club has a requirement to act in the interest of the 
public, and to be fair, open, and inclusive.  Fairness requires some sort of 
fair prosecution devoid of conflict of interest, and a fair opportunity of 
defense against the charges.  Moreover, all this has to be in the public 
interest, not in the interest of a group of bullies.

		--Dean

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:56:31 +0200

Yet again people are sending messages to the list which deviate
from their claimed subject line and involve statements about
individuals which seem to have little relevance.

I request everybody to stop sending such messages, and to
stop replying to them since that only amplifies the disruptions.

    Brian Carpenter
    IETF Chair

>>XXX, your presumption of being above the law and able to act without any
>>[** BTW, YYY just recently sent me a nasty gram, 6 years later. For
>>YYY was fired from ZZZ in 1999 after Nanog members encouraged him to abuse
>>our relays.
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:50:36 +0200

The IETF is not a subsidiary of the Internet Society
and is not incorporated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:58:25 +0200

>The IETF is not a subsidiary of the Internet Society

The aftermath of RFC 3066 bis have transformed the IETF in a virulent 
UN meeting. You will note that I did not share in a debate which is 
now an IETF DoS, while the Chair tries to move PECSI ahead, and the 
WSIS meeting is in less than one month. You may also want to note who 
has triggered such a so well timed "pro statu quo ante" situation.

This only documents my (and IAB's RFC 3869) point: addressing 
Governments and Global community level issues, such as 
multilingualism, multiculturation, multilateralism and global 
civil-rights from an exclusive commercial computer point of view , 
like proposed by RFC 3066 bis, may not be the best idea.

Anyway, I would suggest we stop this deafening pseudo legal blabla. 
And get real, transparent and clear. This would put people in front 
of their responsibilities:

1. what is the legal status of the IETF?
2. who is its legal representative?
3. what is its legal address?
4. what is its jurisdiction?

It seems that there can be only two liable representatives for IETF: 
an incorporated structure or yourself (partly with IESG and IAB Members).

1. ISOC says: "ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet 
Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Internet 
Engineering Steering Group, and the Internet Research Task Force. 
Specific activities include support for the RFC Editor Function of the IETF."
2. you say "IETF is not a subsidiary of ISOC and is not incorporated".

For the rest, "is there an international lawyer on board?".
Please do not feed the "ianalists".
Let concerned people call their attorney and let return to technical issues.
jfc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:55:28 -0400 (EDT)

> 2. you say "IETF is not a subsidiary of ISOC and is not incorporated".

These actually can both be true.  A "subsidiary" is usually a corporation owned
by another corporation. The IETF is not a separate legal entity from the ISOC.

Though, just checking Black's Law Dictionary, "subsidiary" means:

  "Under another's control.  Usually short for "subsidiary corporation".