Re: [TLS] Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

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.  However 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/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-response.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 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. 

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