Your response claims that the appeal contains factual errors (plural), but cites
only one error. The cited error, on investigation, is not supported fact.
Neither record of a vote, nor minutes of dicussion are provided in the
teleconference minutes or elsewhere, as required by RFC 2026 and RFC 3683. I
assume that the IESG does not wish to change its position on this claim, and I
will include it in the appeal to the IAB.

But the response implied there were other factual errors. What are the other
factual errors in the Appeal document? Please substantiate this claim.

Dean Anderson
CEO
Av8 Internet, Inc

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, IESG Secretary wrote:

> On March 7, 2006, the IESG received an appeal from Dean Anderson
> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/Anderson-appeal-03-08-2006.htm)
> against its decision announced on January 5, 2006 at
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01967.html
>
> The IESG has read Mr Anderson's appeal and concluded that it does
> not contain any arguments that would cause it to change its decision.
> It also contains factual errors, e.g. asserting that the IESG's
> decision was not minuted. The appeal is rejected.
>
> The IESG.
>
>

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