Dr. Steven Bellovin teaches Computer Science at Columbia University. Dr. Bellovin is a widely respected person. Dr. Bellovin should be held to high standards of honesty and integrity.
In 2002, Steven Bellovin also asserted that the Wiretap Act didn’t apply
to ISPs:
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0206/0704.html
and makes it more clear here:
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0206/0710.html
)
These claims were dishonest. See also similar claims by John Levine See also report on U.S. v. Councilman The Councilman case is about an ISP reading customer's email. See also the MAPS Story , in particularly the discussion of "Some Dogey Cartell"
In contrast to Bellovin, the Court writes:
It is indisputable that the Wiretap Act's narrower service provider exception would not protect Councilman. His alleged conduct was clearly not "a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service."
It seems that Levine and Bellovin were also wrong in a big way. As the court says, it is indisputable. But Levine and Bellovin dispute it. Is their dispute honest? I don't think so. The court also notes that the good faith defense is a "fact-based affirmative defense", and not "a basis for dismissing an indictment on legal grounds". One must do more than simply assert "good faith", one must actually demonstrate good faith. Acting in obvious bad faith, and then merely claiming "good faith" is insufficient. One must prove good faith.
Certainly, one has not acted in good faith when you have silenced the opposition to your views, and the opposition was actually correct. The methods employed to silence Anderson and others was also dishonest.
A well-formed, well-founded complaint about failure of the DNSEXT chairs to
comply with RFC3979 is made to the IETF:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37550.html
Crocker's message is an ad hominem attack on Anderson.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37554.html
Then we have Bellovin's message:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37557.html
Making a false, professional report to a professional society on the contents of a document that one hasn't read is professionally dishonest.
We can ask several questions to establish whether Bellovin's message is professionally dishonest:
"Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG..."
Bellovin essentially dons his "professional robes" as it were. It is an official message, in Bellovin's official role as a Working Group Chair, as a member of a professional society. It would seem to be a Professional Act. It’s not a casual remark.
"I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, my killfile took care of that"
Bellovin didn't read the note. Bellovin didn’t read the subject document.
"It wasn't -- he's wrong."
Bellovin is referring to Anderson when he says, "he's wrong". Bellovin means "Anderson's wrong". Bellovin means to agree with Crocker's ad hominem (above). So Bellovin is just as wrong as Crocker was.
Later in the message Bellovin says:
"but for a more authoritative description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 of RFC 3669."
Below are the first two paragraphs of RFC 3669:
This memo lays out a conceptual framework and rules of thumb to assist working groups dealing with IPR issues. The goal is to achieve a balance between the needs of IPR claimants and the implementers of IETF standards which is appropriate to current times. As part of trying to distill out principles for dealing with IPR in IETF working groups, it provides case studies of working group IPR treatment. In other words, it documents the running code of the IETF process.
This memo does not describe IPR procedures for document authors or IPR claimants. Those are covered in two other memos, on submission rights [5] and IPR in the IETF [6]. Rather, this memo is for working groups that are trying to decide what to do about technology contributions which have associated IPR claims.
RFC 3669 does not document the procedures which Anderson's quotes in his complaint. Footnote 6 of RFC 3669 indicates that RFC 3668 contains the procedures:
[6] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
RFC3668 is obsolete: See the rfc index (emphasis added)
3668 Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology. S. Bradner.
February 2004. (Format: TXT=41365 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3979)
(Updates RFC2026, RFC2028) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)
RFC 3668 was replaced by RFC3979, which Anderson correctly quoted.
RFC 3669 does not describe the situation in Anderson's complaint, and RFC 3668 is obsolesced by RFC 3979, which Anderson cited in his original message. If Bellovin had actually read Anderson's message, and checked his facts, he would have known that Anderson was right. So Bellovin's report was wrong about that as well
Bellovin, as the IPR WG Chair, would know what IPR RFC's were obsolete. Bellovin was dishonest.
The analysis of Bellovin's statements reveals that Bellovin was professionally dishonest. And therefore, we can conclude that Anderson's criticism of Bellovin's professional honesty was correct, well founded, and relevant to Bellovin's role as WG Chair in the IETF. So the charge of "twisting Steven Vellovin's own words and smearing Steven Bellovin's reputation" is incorrect. Anderson posted this message on the main IETF list, so Anderson's message was in the proper forum, and therefore ON-TOPIC. Anderson's message was not disruptive; it was valid IETF business.
At this point, one might argue that Bellovin only meant to be disparaging, and didn't mean to dishonestly mislead the IETF. Indeed, Bellovin undoubtedly meant to be disparaging. Without question, Bellovin's dishonesty isn't on the same scale as, say, lying about 11 new stem cell lines. However, even so, Bellovin still used his official IETF position for disparagement and that is also official misconduct. Bellovin's misconduct is magnified and multiplied greatly by the attempts of senior IETF officials to cover up the misconduct, and attempt to use it to intimidate, threaten, and harass Anderson. Yet, that isn't all. Bellovin's action disrupts Anderson’s issue and has the effect of preventing the proper application of IETF policy. Since September 2005, the DNSEXT Working Group has not discussed the patent issues on the drafts identified in Anderson's complaint. Discussion of patent issues in compliance with IETF policy and working group procedures defined in RFC 3979 has been effectively suppressed through the misconduct of IETF officials. No IPR disclosure has yet (February 2006) been made with respect to the dnsext-ecc-key draft.
It was subsequently asserted in an RFC 3683 PR-action that Anderson's message disputing Bellovin was off-topic.
Anderson's message refutes Bellovin's claim that Anderson was wrong about IETF patent policy. So Anderson's message is relevant and ON-TOPIC. Likewise, Anderson's message about Bellovin's professional dishonesty is both substantiated, and relevant to the IETF, Anderson's message is therefore a valid complaint about bad behavior by Bellovin. Bellovin's behavior is serious official misconduct that violates numerous IETF and ISOC policies. Carpenter/Crocker/Kessen's charges in this matter amount to efforts to cover up Bellovin's misconduct and silence a valid complaint about non-compliance with IETF patent procedures and policies, which is even more serious official misconduct by even more senior IETF officials.
On January 21, 2007, ISOC Attorney Jorge
Contreras reported
that:
"The exclusive mechanism for soliciting and disclosing patent claims within
the context of IETF activity is specified in RFC 3979, as we have discussed
"