Oops. This got out before it was fully edited.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-09-29 08:58, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
> >> After the fraud
> >> by Housley was discovered,
>
> I don't know who wrote this libel that Eric replied to
> (apparently it was someone whose email gets magically
deleted
> before it reaches me),
Yet another petty lie. Carpenter edited my name out of
Rescorla's
message. Carpenter can killfile anyone he wants;
advertising that here
just an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem has 2 elements:
personal and
irrelevant. It is irrelevant who is in Carpenter's killfile.
By
contrast, complaint of official misconduct is not an ad
hominem because
it is relevant to proper official conduct.
However, I haven't libeled anyone: Truth is an absolute
defense to
libel. Fortunately, the law gives a definition of
actionable fraud and
that definition states the necessary elements: The
essential elements
are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, reliance,
and injury.
All of those elements are present. See
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/Housley/index.html
> but I would like to remind people that the late IPR
disclosure in this
> case had nothing whatever to do with Russ Housley.
A less petty lie, but still not true. Brown has said it was
all Brown's
fault. But Brown's claim isn't credible. Housley admits he
knew through
all 7 versions that an undisclosed patent existed, and it
was Housley
that produced all 7 drafts that contained mis-statements of
fact.
Housley wasn't misled by Brown; Housley and Brown misled
the IETF.
> Sorry about the excessive cross-posting, but it does
seem necessary
> to correct libels. Being falsely accused of fraud seems
to be an
> occupational hazard for IETF Chairs, but that doesn't
mean it
> should go unrefuted.
Its less an occupational hazard if the Chair's were actually
honest, and
there wasn't such overflowing evidence of unsavory
activities.
What Carpenter has omitted (by pretending not to know who
made the
accusation) is that Carpenter committed misconduct against
me
(Anderson), by (at least) falsely reporting a consensus in a
PR-action
against me. Carpenter, then IETF chair, was responsible for
a false
report to the IAB that there was a consensus approving the
PR-action. In
fact, the consensus was against the PR-action: 15 out of 17
people who
responded indicated they were against the PR-action.
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.
html
The IAB was apparently told that there was less than 10
messages on the
IETF list. Though, even that is still not a consensus! [See
section 5.4
of http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-07-13-anderson-respo
nse.html]
Incidentally, it also turns out the PR-action is contrary to
the law
governing corporations (the IETF is an activity of the ISOC,
a US
corporation): under the law, without a bylaw on suspension
or
expulsion, a corporation cannot suspend or expel a member
without a vote
of the membership. The ISOC has no such bylaw, and no vote
of the
membership was held. There are some other conditions that
also weren't
met. Carpenter, while still IETF chair, was informed of
this, but he
apparently has no respect for the law.
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Suspension_
and_Expulsion_Requirements.pdf
(it wouldn't matter if the IETF weren't part of the ISOC.
Essentialy the
same rules apply to unincorporated associations and clubs)
There were loads of other problems, not the least of which
was the fact
that none of the messages that Carpenter/Kessens/Crocker
complained
about were in the least way abusive. As you might guess,
money was the
motive behind the false charges, and silencing criticism was
a way to
continue to make money with the IETF.
What is libelous is false charges of misconduct, as in the
false charges
contained in the PR-action.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better
service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
