Re: Fwd: Can the USA welcome IETF

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]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:

> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf