As one of the 2 PR-action'ed persons, let me respond to these
assertions.
I was subject of a PR-Action in fall of 2005 because I did three things:
1) I asked for honesty in the sources of claims in the controverial
spamops document. The discredited source was SORBS, which falsely
claims addr
--On Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:09 AM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10
>> of RFC 5242 may be actually the same person who is the target
>> of a PR-action, with just a small modification of his name.
>> If
Stephane Bortzmeyer skrev:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
> Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 12 lines which said:
>
>
>> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>>
>
> For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in secti
On 2008-04-02 09:41, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
> Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 12 lines which said:
>
>> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>
> For instance, I claim that the person mention
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> If this is true, he cannot post on IETF mailing lists and
> should be banned of "Acknowledgments" sections as well!
The IESG Note in RFC 5242 is perfectly clear, with a length
of 11 lines it reaches a third of the IESG Note size used
in RFCs 4405, 4407, 4407, and 4408
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10 of RFC
5242 may be actually the same person w
--On Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:00 PM -0700 Doug Ewell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>> A valid technical concern is easy to deal with. If they
>> provide an idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair
>> might insist on knowing their real name and company
>> affiliation
Theodore Tso wrote:
> A valid technical concern is easy to deal with. If they provide an
> idea, I suspect a cautious working group chair might insist on knowing
> their real name and company affiliation, since there have been past
> examples where companies have tried to inject patented technol
Hi -
> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action.
...
> c'mon
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Michael Thomas
>
> Mike, could be a dog too
I'm not sure what you people have against canines - if a dog can email in
cohesive comments on a draft or working group topic, I say we should li
--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 14:25 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:42AM +0100,
> Bert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 55 lines which said:
>
>> or a puppet... A small fellow with a red nose, a yellow
>> complexion, and a miser
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> *KICK* ;-) Posted yesterday:
> Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?
Hardly, but now is a good time to discuss the proposed rules,
where they don't do what folks consider as required. I think
there are enough "interesting" details in the "inc
--On Wednesday, March 26, 2008 00:24:57 +0100 LB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it seems to me that the current debate, which I do not have much
> time to spend and who is in a language that I do not master, has two
> other goals.
>
> - Discredit these Drafts in case they would allow the intern
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:42AM +0100,
Bert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 55 lines which said:
> or a puppet... A small fellow with a red nose, a yellow complexion,
> and a miserable hairdo was at some point even appointed to the IAB !?!
It's easy to prove this fellow does not ex
On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
How do I know that you're not a dog?
or a puppet... A small fellow with a red nose, a yellow complexion,
and a miserable hairdo was at some point even appointed to the IAB !?!
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41460.html
Thanks for clarifying, given the lack of details I jumped to
conclusions. Still, I don't see how anonymous contributions were
involved?
/Simon
Stephan Wenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
> the case I was thinking about was this one:
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/artic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) writes:
> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
> > inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
> > trouble. Much worse than any prior case.
>
"Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
>> said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)
>
> *KICK* ;-) Posted yesterday:
Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?
/Sim
Hi Simon,
the case I was thinking about was this one:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639
964
Stephan
On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>> [...]
If we learned that the anonymous posting
Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven hordes
>> trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization document, I think
>> the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was the right thing to do
>> under the circumstances.
>
> Some of those posts made
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
> said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)
*KICK* ;-) Posted yesterday:
| The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property
| Rights WG (ipr) to consider the following document:
| -
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
> inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
> trouble. Much worse than any prior case.
We should write in our rules that anyone who contri
Gentlemen,
Since I agreed to replace JFC Morfin to the IETF I sent less than ten
mails. Most had two abnormal reasons. (a)To explain that I am not JFC
Morfin. (b) Because our commercial opponents of our non-commercial
approach did not asked, politely or not, before to accuse me of it;
and to mock m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> [...]
>>> If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
>>> affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My
>>> point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
>>> abuse is significantly reduced.
>>
>> I th
> [...]
>> If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
>> affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My
>> point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
>> abuse is significantly reduced.
>
> I think the point would be valid if th
Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon:
>
>> > Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
>> > concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
>> > anonymous solutions to technical problems.
>>
>>What kind of problems?
>
> If there is IPR associated wit
Simon:
> > Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
> > concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
> > anonymous solutions to technical problems.
>
>What kind of problems?
If there is IPR associated with a potential solution, then a
malicious person coul
On 2008-03-26 08:43, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
>> concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
>> anonymous solutions to technical problems.
>>
>
> It is my understanding that IETF is alre
On 2008-03-26 04:44, John Levine (or somebody) wrote:
...
> So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
> to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
> mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
> already subject to 3683, ju
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
|| I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while,
|| but can't control myself today. (So I'm not particularly
|| arguing with Ted's points, his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail
|| in the thread)
||
|| My apologies in advance.
||
|| As Ted said, "in theory,
Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon:
>
>> >> > Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
>> >>
>> >> This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
>> >> judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
>> >> population that is represent
Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Raising a technical problem anonymously does not seem to be a
> concern. However, there could be significant IPR problems with
> anonymous solutions to technical problems.
>
It is my understanding that IETF is already in this type of problems.
Solutions contributed
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:23:42PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I do cringe when anyone says "not wearing any hats" - especially when
> I don't know what hat they might be wearing at any given time. I
> know it's a time-honed (not honored) tradition in the IETF but I
> don't think it's a good t
RFC 3683 PR-action
Simon:
> >> > Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
> >>
> >> This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
> >> judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
> >> populati
Simon:
> >> > Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
> >>
> >> This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
> >> judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
> >> population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
> >> or many d
> I'd prefer an IETF that serves the larger community over one that
> caters
> only to the few frequent contributors.
I'd prefer an IETF that can get things done in a timely manner.
Regards,
-drc
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thinking not-that-far-back to the arrival of the FSF-driven
> hordes trying to stop publication of the TLS authorization
> document, I think the IETF pretty much blew them off, which was
> the right thing to do under the circumstances. If it didn't
> ma
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Fortunately, if the IETF becomes more like ISO, then I am
> confident that there will be another organization that is
> similar to the original IETF spirit. When there is damage,
> route around it...
Strong ACK
___
IETF mailin
At 13:18 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:
>I suppose that's the ideal. We know some voices carry more
>weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
>discussion is process abuses, not the resoluation of technical
>differences.
Okay, that's different from what I was assuming th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Thomas wrote:
| Noel Chiappa wrote:
|> > From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>
|> > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
|> > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
|>
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which once again brings us back to the question of what is the value
> of letting contributors operate under a cloak of anonymity, and do the
> benefits outweigh the costs. For political speech where someone wants
> to distribute the equivalent of leafle
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
> > believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged.
>
> (Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)
>
>
On 3/25/08 12:56 PM, "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where I lose interest in this conversation is when I ask "what does
> it matter who made the point?"
I suppose that's the ideal. We know some voices carry more
weight and some carry less, but I think what's actually under
discussion
At 12:02 -0400 3/25/08, Melinda Shore wrote:
>On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
>> believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
>> that you're not a dog?
>
>Reputatio
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:12:33PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
> > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
> > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
> > operating under a cloak o
Hi, Russ,
> The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem
> easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald
> suggested. However, the implications on IPR are much harder. In the
> IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of
> making cont
On 3/25/08 12:12 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
> Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
> correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.
In practice I don't think t
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
> > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
> > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
> > operating under a cloak of anonymity. E
Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Russ Housley...
>
>> > Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
>>
>> This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
>> judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
>> population that is repres
> From: Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
> believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged.
(Responding to the point of your message, rather than the actual words... :-)
I think there are two parts to t
The PR-Action related aspects of a person using a bogus identity seem
easy to address, perhaps using the mechanism that Harald
suggested. However, the implications on IPR are much harder. In the
IETF, posting to a maillist and speaking at a meeting are two ways of
making contributions. If we
On 3/25/08 11:57 AM, "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I've never met you, Noel. And I certainly don't have any reason to
> believe that this email I'm responding to wasn't forged. How do I know
> that you're not a dog?
Reputation system.
Melinda
__
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
> > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
> > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
> > op
> From: Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
> standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
> technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
> operating under a cloak of anonym
From: Russ Housley...
> > Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
>
> This is not totally true. A WG Chair or Area Director cannot
> judge rough consensus if they are unsure if the portion of the
> population that is representing a dissenting view is one person
> or many diff
>o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,
In terms of the number of people, it's tiny. I can only think of
three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
fingers.
On the other hand, the amou
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:40:38AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> As Ted said, "in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on the
> mailing list", but I haven't seen anyone point out the reason why - because
> we also think it's important to have very few barriers to participation in
> > we had this exact problem with the many identities of "Jeff
> > Williams"; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
> > would sometimes claim to have a majority, jut from his own postings.
>
>Since IETF does not vote, it is certainly not an issue here?
This is not totally true.
I've been carefully not posting in this thread for a while, but can't
control myself today. (So I'm not particularly arguing with Ted's points,
his e-mail is just the the latest e-mail in the thread)
My apologies in advance.
As Ted said, "in theory, all decisions are supposed to be confirmed on
Theodore Tso wrote:
> Suppose you have 100 sock puppets all with gmail or hotmail accounts
Wait a moment, I don't know about hotmail accounts, but for gmail
it is possible to have corresponding "google pages", a profile, a
jabber account, etc., and the task to check how plausible this is
is not
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:53:15AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 28 lines which said:
>
> > we had this exact problem with the many identities of "Jeff
> > Williams"; he had enough
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:31AM +0100,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> we had this exact problem with the many identities of "Jeff
> Williams"; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that he
> would sometimes claim to have a major
Russ Housley skrev:
> I cannot find one. It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Solution space:
At the time when I was assistant chair of the ICANN DNSO General
Assembly, we had this exact problem with the many identities of "Jeff
Williams"; he had enough pseudo-personalities on the list that
00> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action> CC:
ietf@ietf.org> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,> Christian Huitema
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 12 lines which said:> > > Does the
IETF
Cher Russ,
The debate about me is depressing. Only signatories to the PR-action
against JFC Morfin are interested. They are not very credible. Their
doctrine is globalization: internationalization of the medium
(Unicode), localization of the terminal (CLDR) and identification of
linguistic context
1:36 AM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
I cannot find one. It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Russ
At 11:45 AM 3/23/2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>
>In the part
I cannot find one. It seem to be a hole than needs filled.
Russ
At 11:45 AM 3/23/2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
>Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>
>In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the
>name of a famous French aviation pioneer is
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
I don't know but, in this case, the problem is not that he used a
pseudonym (after all, noone here knows if
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
> this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that "LB"
> is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RF
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
>
> In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the
> name of a famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On
> the one hand, using
Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?
In the particular incident, it is assumed that the person using the name of a
famous French aviation pioneer is in fact someone else. On the one hand, using
pseudonyms is a form of free speech. But on the other hand, in a standard
LB:
The first step is to appeal to Chris Newman. If you do not find his
response satisfactory, then you raise the matter with me as IETF
Chair. If you do not find my response satisfactory, then you raise
the matter with the IESG. If you do not find the IESG response
satisfactory, then you r
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:22:01AM +0100,
LB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 96 lines which said:
> what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or nationality. I
> think like somebody else, I use the technical vocabulary appropriate
> for my thought. I think in the same mother tongu
> "LB" == LB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LB> Dear Russ, I am not sure what should be the "next step" and I
LB> wish that all is clear and transparent in the management of
LB> what I take for a censure for offence of opinion or
LB> nationality. I think like somebody else, I use
Dear Russ,
I am not sure what should be the "next step" and I wish that all is
clear and transparent in the management of what I take for a censure
for offence of opinion or nationality. I think like somebody else, I
use the technical vocabulary appropriate for my thought. I think in
the same mothe
LB:
Randy has responded quite publicly. I think his position is quite
clear. So, the next step is up to you.
Russ
At 08:38 PM 3/20/2008, LB wrote:
>Dear Sir,
>Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
>belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged betwee
uot;russ Housley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
>
> Dear Sir,
> Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
> belong, since 2002 I recei
Dear Sir,
Like other members of the multilinguistic working list to which I
belong, since 2002 I received a copy of the mails exchanged between
JFC Morfin and your organization, on IDNs then langtags. And we have
often discussed them. I do not thus ignore big matter of this subject
As JFC Morfin g
78 matches
Mail list logo
