Dean,

The IESG is done with this. If you want to take it further, your
option is to appeal to the IAB, which I thought was your intention.

Brian

Dean Anderson wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>