I note that none of these asserted inaccuracies address the substance of the
appeal, but are quibbles over procedures. Of course, we will try to improve the
clarity of the descriptions we give.

Regarding your latest assertion, the text of the minutes that I quoted
establishes unquestionably who initiated the PR-Action. I have made no claim
that Carpenter doesn't bear responsibility. I hope that was clear. The IESG
minutes make the record that David Kessens added the agenda item for discussion
(not Carpenter), at the request of (initiation) Dave Crocker.

Anyone can initiate many other IETF documents. In contrast, RFC 3683 specifies
that only an A.D. can make this particular request. To take Carpenter's
interpretation renders this explicit requirement meaningless and inoperative.
Therefore, by any rule of construction, Carpenter's interpretation is incorrect.
However, by raising this issue, we do not intend that Carpenter's role be
minimized in any way.

The point of raising the issues of the irregularities in the process is to
illustrate and emphasize the attempt by Carpenter, Kessens and Crocker to alter
the facts after the event to fit the requirements, rather than impartially
testing to see of the facts are both true and up to the necessary requirements.
Impartiality is part of their obligation to the public trust; an obligation they
repeatedly fail to uphold, and judging by behavior, appear to hold entirely in
contempt. The deplorable behavior or Carpenter, Kessens, and Crocker in this
episode demonstrates a contempt for procedure, intent to abuse the process, and
a concerted effort, (if beset by some confusion as documented in the minutes),
for the goal and purpose of abuse. Elsewhere, in the Appeal, malice by these
persons and their associates is demonstrated.

As the narrative minutes indicate, Kessens added the agenda item after his
offlist threat and subsequent onlist threat to do so. The narrative minutes
show that Kessens starts discussion by stating Carpenter's role, and claiming
that Crocker is somehow the sole author of the very document that Kessens
previously threatened. The sole authorship is all the more surprising since the
document contains the substance of the DNS Root Anycast threats that Kessens
made. After this, Carpenter confirms his responsibility for the initiation.
Conveniently, this allows him to appoint Kessens to "shepherd" the document.
Carpenter's action at the meeting conveniently avoids having Kessens both
"initiate", and "shepherd". This does not diminish Carpenter's role in
dishonesty and related scientific fraud, nor diminish the hostile and
unreasonable behavior displayed by Carpenter in this affair. Carpenter, Kessens
and Crocker each bear significant, personal responsibility for the malice and
multiple fabrications exhibited previously and in the PR-Action document.

There is evidence to suggest that all 3 cooperated to initiate the PR-Action,
yet the procedures require an A.D. to initiate, and ethics suggests that the
someone else shepherd the evaluation document. Form suggests that Crocker has
to write the document, Carpenter has to initiate it, and Kessens has to shepherd
the evaluation. Of course, the form of ethics does not substitute for the
substance of ethics, and we also see that even the form was only met by
adjusting the facts after the events. Crocker announced his intention months
before during a dispute with Crocker and Carpenter, in which both Crocker and
Carpenter's integrity is brought into question. Kessens also publicly announced
his intentions to (ab)use the process a week earlier, and added the agenda item
to carry out his threats.

They all have motive to harm Anderson: Crocker and Carpenter due to their
previous integrity issues with false statements from court-proven liars, and
Kessens due to his role in the TCP DNS Root Anycast scientific fraud.
Carpenter's quibble here is really over the actual division of labor in this
nefarious scheme. In fact, they are all responsible. Hopefully, the preceeding
clarifies and addresses your concerns about our accuracy with regard to step 1.
This issue will be clarified in the Appeal to the IAB.

It will be noted in the appeal to the IAB that the neither the full IESG nor the
IESG chair has made any attempt to amicably resolve the issues or otherwise
address ANY of the substantive issues raised in the IESG appeal.

Nor does it appear that the IESG has begun an investigation into the misconduct
of Daniel Karrenberg, David Kessens, ISC staff, and others with regard to the
issue of the scientific fraud on TCP root DNS Anycast stability reported in the
Appeal. The IESG seems negligent in its duty to report this misconduct to the
Office of Professional Integrity. This is less surprising because the IESG
chair is a significant participant in this fraud: The fraud also involves the
PR-Action against Anderson that has been promoted so agressively and
unreasonably by Carpenter, Kessens, and Crocker.

There is an update on the previous issue of missing vote records: we note that
Scott Hollenbeck also had a conflict of interest in the PR-Action vote, since
Verisign has a stake in root DNS Anycast sales. Mr. Carpenter asserts (without
any record of Hollenbeck's vote), that Hollenbeck voted "Yes" in this matter.
Hollenbeck has not responded to several attempts to confirm his participation in
the Vote. Ted Hardie is documented as being on the Board of Advisors to
Nominum. This brings to a total of 4 IESG members who had serious conflicts of
interest, yet voted anyway.

Dean Anderson
CEO
AV8 Internet, Inc

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Dean,
>
> In response to the attached, please note another example
> of inaccuracy:
>
> "Procedural Irregularities in the PR-Action
>
> 1. Step 1 was not followed. Only an AD can initiate a PR-Action.
>
> "The IESG received a request from Dave Crocker to take action under RFC 3683 against Dean Anderson. Mr Crocker
> alleged disruption of the IETF and DNSEXT lists and provided sample emails "
>
> In this case, it is reported that Dave Crocker initiated the PR-Action. "
>
> Inaccurate. It is reported that he *requested* it. It was initiated by
> me within the IESG and passed to David Kessens.
>
> The IESG is not prepared to re-analyse your appeal and list all
> the inaccuracies. If you appeal further to the IAB, we will
> of course respond to any enquiries we receive from them.
>
> Brian
>
>
> Fuller, Barbara wrote:
> > Dear IESG Members:
> >
> > I am forwarding a message to you from Dean Anderson. The message was
> > sent to the Secretariat ticket system (iesg-secretary@ietf.org), and not
> > to the IESG list (iesg@ietf.org).
> >
> > Barbara
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dean Anderson via RT [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:32 AM
> > Subject: [Inquiry #85751] Re: Appeal response to Dean Anderson
> >
> >
> > Sat Apr 01 01:31:42 2006: Request 85751 was acted upon.
> > Transaction: Ticket created by dean@av8.com
> > Queue: IETF-IESG-Support
> > Subject: Re: Appeal response to Dean Anderson
> > Owner: Nobody
> > Requestors: dean@av8.com
> > Status: new
> > Ticket <URL: http://ticket.ietf.org:80/Ticket/Display.html?id=85751 >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.htm
> > l
> >
> >>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