Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminally prosecutable in nature...

"TSG" <> Tue, 10 June 2008 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D452C3A691C; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF0C3A68C7 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.991
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.807, BAYES_40=-0.185, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UY0dU0a-wS8Q for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23C83A6879 for <>; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=kCtm4rrfsDprpCaPMBXi9Rw3ZVMl5oWhGN1zjSkVh/b6QvPIsrkYtEfPLweu2925; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=tsg1) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1K5tOz-0004UB-Ti; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:16:02 -0400
Message-ID: <004201c8ca9f$f0a62410$6401a8c0@tsg1>
From: "TSG" <>
To: "Fred Baker" <>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <>
References: <000b01c8c4d4$b94273f0$0200a8c0@tsg1><22E9CA8CCA5372C964934736@localhost> <>
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may becriminally prosecutable in nature...
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:16:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79f580ff521626158618d9439edc67f541350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fred - your funny...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF may 
becriminally prosecutable in nature...

> So you're saying that the indictment (which as described does not
> constitute a conviction and therefore is not case law) is relevant if
> someone creates an identity for the purpose of deluding others, uses
> it to inflict emotional distress, and the result is the suicide of a
> member of the discussion forum - and the bully lives in the City of
> Dardenne Prairie or more generally the State of Missouri, which have
> enacted statutes since the girl's death. Is that correct?

no Fred - I suggest that per the description of a FEDERAL INTEREST COMPUTER 
in the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that any instance where IETF 
member's converse with each other electronically about how they are going 
prevent anyone else's effort from being submitted, or vetted and advanced, 
or prevent that person from participating in the IETF through the PR 
process, that those actions DO constitute criminal and civilly acitonable 

In your case as an IESG member they also constitute a Fiduciary 
Responsibility violations too...

And so - you know  that meeting with Cisco's GC I kept talking about, I am 
available all next week and since my office is about 5 files down First 
Street from your legal department this is a no brainer eh?
> I don't plan to comment further in this thread. In fact, had you and
> Philip not replied, I would not have been aware of it. To my mind, my
> stance is a very appropriate one.

yes - you are intentionally denying that certain US Laws apply to the IETF's 
operations and that is simply not true. The IETF is constrained by US law 
whether its in the US or not based on that all US participants would be tied 
to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

So again,  lets ask Mark Chambers what he thinks of this OK???.

> On Jun 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> --On Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17:16 -0700 TS Glassey
>> <> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I believe I told you to show competent legal advice saying that
>> what you
>> were posting was relevant to the IETF.
>> I have read your provided material, and fail to see any sign of such
>> competent legal advice; no name but your own is attached to the
>> claim of
>> relevance.
>> (for those who wonder what case it is, it is
>> <>.)
>>                         Harald
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list