Subject: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:44:11 -0700

Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin PR-Action
Petition may now do so here:

http://jefseymorfin-ietf-pr.endpointsystems.com/default.asp

This is NOT an official IETF ballot and is essentially a "counter petition"
so that both sides can be fairly represented.

This counter petition was done with the full knowledge and support of Harald
Alvestrand, so there should be no reason for this to turn into an argument.

Best,

Nick

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

---

From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:14:56 -0700

> Alvestrand, so there should be no reason for this to turn into an argument.

Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as
"Any IETF member...." ?

Thanks,
---
~Randy
You can't do anything without having to do something else first.
-- Belefant's Law

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:51:26 -0700

Sure. I made a choice to limit participation to anyone who was subscribed to
the IETF list before I sent my email (basically anyone who's been on this
list for more than a day shouldn't have a problem).

Also I meant to say this on my original post so there's no misunderstanding
- just because I put this page up it doesn't mean I'm signing it (I'm
signing neither)

nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin
> 
> > Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin 
> > PR-Action Petition may now do so here:
> > 
> > This counter petition was done with the full knowledge and 
> support of 
> > Harald Alvestrand, so there should be no reason for this to 
> turn into an argument.
> 
> Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as "Any 
> IETF member...." ?
> 
> Thanks,
> ---
> ~Randy

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 02:59:49 -0400

Nick Staff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Also I meant to say this on my original post so there's no
> misunderstanding - just because I put this page up it doesn't mean
> I'm signing it (I'm signing neither)

   Hmm... I signed it, largely in support of Nick... :^(

   I was _very_ nervous about any appearance of putting the question
to a vote -- that would be totally inappropriate, especially at this
time.

   But, much though I'd be happy to live without Jefsey's posts, I
firmly believe that the PR-Action Harald proposes is a bad tactic,
and is poorly supported. I won't go into detail on this list. (It is
turning into a Denial-of-Service attack to _this_ list: perhaps
someone could divert the discussion elsewhere?)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Peter Dambier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:06:38 +0200

> Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as

Anyboy who has enough brains to share.

Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because
the contract does end.

There has been nothing that would suggest the contract will be lengthend.

Vint Cerf has gone.
Paul Vixie has gone.

It does not make sense to shy away everybody who still has got his own
working brain - especially if he is a critic.

WSIS/WGIG have produced a mess that cannot replace ICANN or IETF.
So somebody has to do it.

Who?
Why?

Did you notice right now the Public-Root is comming down? They will
not do this work!

Who else?
Turkey?
China?
Bin Laden?

Dont talk about Problems!
Dont vote for critics!
Leave the ship before it is sinking!

That is not my choice!

After signing, here is another P-R action you might want to see:

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/

Peter and Karin Dambier

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: [email-masked]
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:32:21 +0200

> Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because

I'm glad the IETF doesn't have an USG contract.

The IETF was here before ICANN. My bet is that it will be there afterwards.

But - today's Level3 spat may be more of a danger to the Internet at the 
moment than WSIS is; unlike WSIS resolutions, changes in peering policy 
affect real people in real time.

                     Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:32:45 +0200

> someone could divert the discussion elsewhere?)

your wish is my command :-)

The list "pr-action-talk" 
<http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/pr-action-talk> is awaiting 
subscriptions!

Note: This is not in ANY way, shape or form an IETF list. I've created it, 
I'm responsible for it, I'll shut it down if I feel like it.

But if Jefsey posts to it, I'm more likely to append his messages to the 
FAQ file for the list than to ban them....

(In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for creating new 
mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering official IETF business over 
multiple lists that nobody ever could remember or find again. But now I'm 
no longer IETF chair, so what I do with mailing lists is entirely my own 
business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This isn't one.)

(btw:
number of postings with "PR-Action" in subject over the last 30 days: 41
Number of postings with "UN plan" in subject: 57
The UN has the power :-)

                   Harald

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:43:08 +0200

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:32:21AM +0200,
 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote 

> The IETF was here before ICANN. My bet is that it will be there

I don't bet but my hope is that you are right.
 
> But - today's Level3 spat may be more of a danger to the Internet at
> the moment than WSIS is; unlike WSIS resolutions, changes in peering
> policy affect real people in real time.

Do note that interconnection, peering, etc, is explicitely on the WSIS
agenda (and rightly so, for the reason you give). It does not mean it
will change anything, simply that we'll talk about it.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 10:49:40 +0200

I thank Nick for his intent. However I do not know if ad-hominem 
debates are the best for the IETF. As an IETF deliverable user, I 
wish the IETF to be pertinent and open to all, in my areas of 
concerns. Not to see it hurt. May be will Members want to consider 
there are three issues in this first reference to RFC 3683:

- an economic intelligence ad-hominem against me and a diversion IRT 
RFC 3066 bis now under IETF review.
- the exposure of an affinity group, making RFC 3774 and 3869 (1.2 
IAB Concerns) interesting rereads.
- the need to organise the RFC 3683 so it is not a way to lynch 
anyone you want or to destabilise competition.

I said I do not want to add drum beats to drum justice. I only engage 
everyone interested (a) to carefully read the WG-ltru Charter first 
paragraph (b) to read Harald's ad-hominem (c) to refer to the common 
sense propositions I made to Brian Carpenter to avoid justice cases 
and commercial feuds to mare the IETF (d) to get acquainted with 
networked languages issues.

Networked languages is a new issue for every SSDO. The RFC 3066 bis 
still confuses it with written languages issues (if you reread RFC 
3869, you noticed IAB does not even list it yet among R&D priorities 
and needs for non-commercial funding - like my team manages). The 
resulting inadequacies rise major security considerations: Harald 
recently apologised for having documented one in a way supporting my 
"platform". He documented the main other one, now increased by the 
new ABNF, in his RFC 3066 Security Considerations.

jfc

PS. I will certainly leave the IETF by my own move the day I do not 
fear anymore private interests might use it as a technical brake for 
disloyal commercial purposes, in my R&D and business areas.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:33:58 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for
> creating new mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering
> official IETF business over multiple lists that nobody ever
> could remember or find again. But now I'm no longer IETF
> chair, so what I do with mailing lists is entirely my own
> business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This
> isn't one.

Of course everybody incl. you is free to create new lists as
it pleases him or her, but it's IMHO a bad strategy, unless
the "original" list is clearly flooded by off topics.  Often
splitting or worse renaming lists (or newsgroups) is a way
to kill at least one of them.  Examples:

Now a part of the MASS traffic is on DKIM, MASS is essentially
dead.  The public PECSI traffic is apparently what used to be
NETWRK traffic.  ASRG has more sublists than total articles
per year.  Inspired by that stunt SPF is on its way to top it.

I really don't like this.  If the "hidden agenda" is to get
rid of RfC 3683 debates here I can understand your motivation,
but for this first plus second experiment with actually using
RfC 3683 I'd prefer to have it here.  And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
start with "obsoletes 3683".
                              Bye, Frank

P.S.:  One of the Usenet "laws" (like Godwin's law), as soon
       as the name of a poster makes it into the subject the
       thread is dead.

---

From: Sean Dorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:54:29 -0700 (PDT)

I, frankly, feel that this is a waste of our time. All voices, regardless of what we may feel towards any given person, has a right to voice a concern. Ideas don't just come from someone voicing an opinion or insight that everyone agrees with, but also from the thought process initiated by our disagreeing with someone of a different viewpoint.
 
I say let Jersey stay. Half the time I ignore him, but some of his responses allow me to consider different viewpoints.

Peter Dambier <[email-masked]> wrote:

Vint Cerf has gone.
Paul Vixie has gone.

Who?
Why?

Who else?
Turkey?
China?
Bin Laden?

That is not my choice!

Peter and Karin Dambier

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:12:20 -0400

Hi Frank,

[Posting as an individual and the author of RFC 3934.  My views do 
not necessarily represent the views of any group, particularly the 
IESG or my employer.]

At 3:33 PM +0200 10/6/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>  And so far I think that

RFC 3683 is quite different from RFC 3934.  RFC 3683 allows the IESG 
to suspend an individual's posting rights to all IETF lists (WG and 
non-WG lists) for an indefinite period of time in a single action, 
with no requirement for periodic review.  RFC 3934 allows WG chairs 
to suspend an individual's posting rights on a single WG mailing list 
(the one on which the abuse actually occurred) for no more than 30 
days.

I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as it 
is currently being discussed...

Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an 
awfully large hammer.  I don't feel comfortable with the fact that we 
have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might actually 
use it.   Use of this mechanism against an individual could be 
detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his or her 
career.  I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that we might 
consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or 
hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus 
process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of those 
categories from time-to-time.  I am also personally appalled by the 
fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this mechanism on 
the IETF discussion list.

IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and RFC 3934 
provides that there may be subsequent 30-day suspensions if there are 
further instances of abuse.

I do think that an update to RFC 3934 may be called for.  In 
particular, I would like to update RFC 3934 to indicate that the 
mechanism can be used by the owners of non-WG IETF lists, and to 
define "the IESG" to be the owner of the IETF discussion list.  I'd 
also like to make it clearer that repeat offenses can result in 
expedited action (i.e. no need for an addition round of 
private/public warnings if a repeat offense occurs within 90 days of 
reinstatement?).

I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 formally 
deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to "Historic".  However, it 
seems clear that some people do support the existence and use of this 
mechanism, so I don't know that we could reach IETF consensus to do 
that.

Margaret

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:42:22 -0700

i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

--bill

---

From: Peter Dambier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:14:02 +0200

> i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.

Peter and Karin

---

From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT)

> Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.

I'm there too.

-- 
~Randy

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:59:20 -0400

well said.  neither am i.

a.

---

From: "Anita Kremer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:29:41 +0200

Same here

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Namens Avri Doria
Verzonden: donderdag 6 oktober 2005 21:59
Aan: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

well said.  neither am i.

a.

---

From: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:48:10 +0200

>> i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.

me too

regards

-- 
"Wer die freiheit aufgibt, um sicherheit zu gewinnen,
  wird am ende beides verlieren." (benjamin franklin)

Les Enfants Terribles
C.V.O. Marc Manthey
Hildeboldplatz 1a
50672 Köln - Germany

main site: http://www.let.de
developer:http://www.cuseeme.de
http://www.applehelpers.com
my blog:http://brain.let.de

AIM ,MSN, MAC= macbroadcast

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:51:52 -0400

Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

Melinda

---

From: Sean Dorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:01:12 -0700 (PDT)

I am for freedom of contribution, regardless of whether or not I like the contributor or what is contributed.
 
I am against censorship of members who "fit" my first statement.

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

Melinda

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:12:02 -0400

>appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

Thank you.  I'm just as uncomfortable with the "let's sign a petition 
against the PR action" as I am with the "let's sign a petitition for 
it" postings.

I'm not opposed to PR actions in general; in fact, as a WG chair, I've
(successfully) asked my AD to suspend someone's posting privileges.
I've also had occasion to warn people that they face such sanctions, 
most recently today.  If someone is being disruptive and won't stop, 
after repeated warnings, I confess I don't see an alternative.  

Note that I am not expressing any opinions for or against any specific 
suggestions.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:11:38 -0700

> Melinda Shore wrote...
> 
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be 
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's 
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
> 
> Melinda
> 

I'm against PR-Actions for anything that can pass a Turing test

nick

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 06:39:34 +0200

Nor am I.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:52 +0200

Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.

If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.

But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.

In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in this
case.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:46:26 +0200

Hold on.

To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the
topic to: we don't like RFC 3683.

Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF
last call etc. But the code has never been tested until
the IESG recently received a request to take a PR action
against somebody - and we are still working on that request,
i.e. trying to execute RFC 3683 for the first time.

If we believe in rough consensus and running code, it
would seem reasonable to wait a bit before discussing
whether or not we like RFC 3683.

     Brian

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:00:57 -0400

Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list, a host of people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all for  an "informal" request for a
PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a Last Call ? Which will occur at
some point (presumably at least one IESG meeting, or at a minimum 2 weeks) after a formal request ?
At this rate, we'll be wasting list bandwidth on this until Christmas.

I would suggest that, as Harald posted his "intent to file" message back on August 29th, OVER
one month ago, there has been enough debate, and Harald should either file or publicly announce that
he is not going to file. 

In other words (to quote our Chair from another context), I would ask for a guillotine on this
matter.

Regards
Marshall

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:40:52 +0200

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 00:34:47 +0530

i don't spend much time on the ietf these days; however, as the  
author of 3683, i've received enough emails asking for comment, to  
warrant a brief reply. this reply is not specifically directed to  
margaret, she just has the misfortune of having authored the last  
email in the thread that has arrived on my desktop.

by the way, although in some circles 3683 is known as "the patriot  
act of the ietf", rumors that a copy of 3683 was seen on the grassy  
knoll, is just that, rumors.

> I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as  
> it is currently being discussed...
>
> awfully large hammer.  I don't feel comfortable with the fact that  
> we have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might  
> actually use it.   Use of this mechanism against an individual  
> could be detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his  
> or her career.  I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that  
> we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or  
> process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of  
> those categories from time-to-time.  I am also personally appalled  
> by the fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this  
> mechanism on the IETF discussion list.

considerable thought went into 3683 to balance the open nature of the  
community with the need to make progress. like most compromises, few  
people are likely to be satisfied, and none are thrilled.

despite a whole lot of emails, i am unaware, as of this writing, of  
any abuses of the 3683 mechanism. there is, of course, a lot of  
healthy discussion.

3683 requires a considered deliberate effort by the decision-making  
bodies to use. it invokes the full process mechanisms of the ietf,  
and, if actioned, it leaves the "undo" to the discretion of the iesg.

what goes unsaid about any revocation of posting rights, no matter  
how brief, will inevitably result in the full process mechanism -- no  
matter how light a touch one proposes, the cost of enactment will be  
the same, very high.

if the cost is always going to be high, then setting an arbitrary  
"undo" period is unhelpful.

/mtr

ps: 3683 was distasteful to write. it is distasteful to defend, even  
if the defense is merely stating the obvious with respect to human  
nature.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:40:24 +0000

understood, but i was just responding to the subject line....

--bill

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:23:25 +0200

As I said in my message of 15 hours ago, I have filed the petition, and 
will speak no more of the matter before the Last Call.

Just in case anyone else didn't notice.

--On fredag, oktober 07, 2005 09:00:57 -0400 Marshall Eubanks 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I would suggest that, as Harald posted his "intent to file" message back
> on August 29th, OVER one month ago, there has been enough debate, and
> Harald should either file or publicly announce that he is not going to
> file.
>
> In other words (to quote our Chair from another context), I would ask for
> a guillotine on this matter.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:40:00 +0200

Dear all,
the popularity contest triggered by Harald Alvestrand results into this:

>At this rate, we'll be wasting list bandwidth on this until Christmas.

I submit it looks like a carefully planed and timed DoS action to 
confuse the IESG, divert the IETF community focus, delay the work and 
kill the technical reputation of the technical opposition and 
commercial competition, when the IESG is to discuss an RFC 3066 bis, 
which has major commercial, standardisation and strategic 
implications and politically sides the IETF in the current 
international debate (http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html) .

I will not fall in that DoS trap and add noise to the noise.

- I responded that I needed responses from the IESG to address Harald 
Alvestrand's defamatory ad-hominem. I wait for them.
- I formally announce an RFC 3683 PR-action against Harald Alvestrand 
for the reasons above. I will finalise and send it to the IESG when I 
have received these responses. They will be attached to the PR-action.

I indicated, being the first pretext of an IETF DoS using RFC 3683, 
how form this experience this RFC should be applied. I will respect 
these suggestions in the case of this PR-action against Harald 
Alvestrand. I see no reason for any further public mail on the issue, 
except in case of a new DoS.

For the records, an RFC does not remove the legal responsibilities 
and equal rights of all the involved parties, nor my moral duty to 
share in any appeal or political action to oppose and repel RFC 3066 
bis for the cultural war, the standardisation confusion and the 
racial/cultural privacy violation risks it creates.

I hope this will reduce the community clutter over this case, and 
permit to resume a normal and users interest oriented competent 
debate over sole and open technical issues. I trust the judgment of 
IESG and think we should all leave the cases to its Members, and to 
the rights of appeals to the IESG and IAB. I thank those having a 
comment to make it privately. I thank all those (sometimes 
unexpected) who privately sent me a nice mail. I will strive to 
respond to all. But please remember that I see all this a DoS to 
delay the Drafts I announced.

I suggest the IESG finds a way to settle this dispute off-line, 
protecting us all from the noise of the two, and possibly subsequent, 
conflicting LCs RFC 3683 would lead to.

jfc

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:55:55 -0700

> I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea 
> that we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, 
> frequent and/or hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of 
> the IETF consensus process, as I am quite certain that I have 
> fallen into many of those categories from time-to-time.

"from time-to-time" is not really what I think anyone is talking about here.
Nobody's perfect. Are you concerend about this happening to you? Probably
not. Are we going to start taking this action against the people who send
"unsubscribe" straight to the mail list? Probably not. From time-to-time is
quite different from frequnetly/dependably. Arguing that something could be
misused by contorting it is fine, but that's what oversite and checks and
balances are for.

> 
> IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and 
> RFC 3934 provides that there may be subsequent 30-day 
> suspensions if there are further instances of abuse.
> 

I definitely suggested the ability of wg chairs and perhaps the IETF list
Seargent At Arms the ability to enforce "colling off" periods to solve
problems of heated debate escalating unecessarily, and still think it's a
good idea. But 30 days does nothing to someone who's shown that they will
bog down the process, or specifically, the situations that this document
purports to try to solve.

> I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 
> formally deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to 
> "Historic".  However, it seems clear that some people do 
> support the existence and use of this mechanism, so I don't 
> know that we could reach IETF consensus to do that.

No doubt if it results in unsatisfactory results it will be easy. Surely if
people decide we spend more time talking about the issue then dealing with
the problem it will be easy. If people generally agree that someone is a
problem and that their posting rights should be restricted, who is any one
person to say it's not right because of their personal issues with the
process. Consensus can't be the answer only when it's convinient. It is what
it is.

-Tom

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:22:46 +0200

> In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in this

Reading this made me think of Shirley Jackson's short story, "The
Lottery."

---

From: Sean Dorman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT)

Consensus is reached when we work through those issues people find disagreeable. Removing those who bring up disagreeable issues is not a part of the "consensus" solution.
 
Has anyone tried asking Jersey to frame points made in a different manner?
 
I know I haven't, but that's generally because I understand observations made by Jersey as well as other members...
 
Sean M.Dorman
Network Administrator
Sonitrol Security of Fresno

-Tom

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:43:08 -0700

> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

Yes. We have an RFC with a procedure. "I don't like the procedure, and will
oppose it regardless" is not a tenable position. That's pretty much the kind
of non pointed commenting that could easily be justified to ignore in
assessing consensus. Would a WG chair be expected to take "I personally
don't like @#$@ about this" as a serious objection in any other case? How
about submitting something flawed to the RFC editor? Should the RFC editor
stop demanding statements for IANA, IPR, and security because someone says
"I don't support security sections, and I don't  care?" Personally It would
be great to hear people say "I don't think this case is exemplary to the
RFC" if people could muster it. Otherwise you're simply faciliting the
pointless DOS problems that this RFC was meant to eliminate.

-Tom

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:57:40 -0700

I'm sorry I didn't read these calm well thought out comments before I
responded to some of the other posts.

-Tom 

> 
> Hold on.
> 
> To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic 
> to: we don't like RFC 3683.
> 
> Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF last 
> call etc. But the code has never been tested until the IESG 
> recently received a request to take a PR action against 
> somebody - and we are still working on that request, i.e. 
> trying to execute RFC 3683 for the first time.
> 
> If we believe in rough consensus and running code, it would 
> seem reasonable to wait a bit before discussing whether or 
> not we like RFC 3683.
> 
>      Brian
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:27:42 +0200

There was an error in this. The second sentence should be:

If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to consider issuing an IETF Last Call and,
if one is issued, listen to the responses.

    Brian

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:02:37 -0400 (EDT)

This is a discussion of administrative IETF business. Further, this is a serious
IETF matter. It properly belongs on the IETF main list.

You are free to create whatever personal lists you like, however, your list does
not represent IETF business, nor is it required to comply with any IETF standard
for participation.

		--Dean

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