Re: IANA "stuff" (was Note 2.1.1.b was Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-06.txt)

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> > [It has been suggested that I ³not feed the trolls² and that this isn't
> > really relevant to the EVIL 'BIND COMPANY' (which appears to be growing to
> > encompass the remaining free world) PLOT known as "AXFR Clarify", so this
> > will be my last response on this thread.

ditto, and for similar reasons.

> >                                            I¹ve been responding to give
> > people an idea of how things work at IANA. Feel free to delete this message
> > if this isn¹t of interest]

let me recommend in advance that everyone delete this message w/o reading it,
i'm sure you all have cats and that shampooing those would be a better use of
your time than reading any further in this thread.  all i'm about to do is
expand on what i meant when i said "this is all rubbish, and old rubbish at
that."  and i ought to know better.

mr. anderson wrote:

> ...
> Second, the misconduct alleged on the AXFR-clarify draft from 2000 to
> 2003 happened while David Conrad was the CEO of Nomimum, and shared an
> office with Paul Vixie. The original AXFR-clarify draft was submitted by
> a Nominum employee. The false assurances that no wire changes were made
> by a Nomimum employee. People relied on these false assurances.

the nominum employee you're referring to has such a strong personal ethic and
reputation that it is hard to imagine him parroting anybody else's ideas or
writing anything in an internet-draft that he didn't personally believe in.

> During this period (1996-2002), Paul Vixie misled the internet community
> that MAPS was a non-profit enterprise. Sharing an office with Vixie,
> Conrad must have been aware of the true facts about MAPS status, but
> kept silent.

maps was a nonprofit enterprise.  it was never a federally recognized 501c3,
due to various administrative errors i made when i ran it, but when david
shared an office with me (oh such halcyon days of yore) he never had any
reason to believe that maps wasn't just a nonprofit drowning in lawsuits.

> As I already noted in my previous message, Vixie was a shareholder and Board
> Member of a commercial bulk emailer known as Whitehat (1998-2002+).  But
> this wasn't widely known at the time. Sharing an office with Vixie, it seems
> hard to believe that Conrad wasn't aware of that. Conrad still kept silent.

to the extent that david knew anything about whitehat, he knew what was in
the press releases, which was that a bunch of staunch anti-spammers had got
together to prove that commercial bulk e-mail could be done responsibly and
without abuse and also profitably.  (which *was* widely known at the time.)

> Also during this period (2000-2001), Paul Vixie was a defendant in Exactis
> v.  MAPS, ... A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was obtained.  Vixie and
> MAPS attempts to have the case dismissed failed, and MAPS settled out of
> Court. MAPS no longer blocks Exactis.

anybody can sue anybody over anything.  tro's are often granted on the basis
of "let's restore the status quo since no harm would come to the restrained
party and the real facts can be established at trial."  everybody who is sued
attempts to get every case dismissed, always, every time, no exceptions.  most
cases that are settled out of court are settled due to skyrocketing legal
costs and lack of will/resource/incentive to continue.  MAPS no longer exists,
and noting that no settlement agreement by MAPS would be binding on its
successor, that successor could blackhole exactis if they had any reason to.
however, exactis isn't sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, so there's no reason
for them to be blackholed as far as i know.

> A TRO is a fact. A TRO is citable in subsequent litigation.  A previous TRO
> helps establish that similar facts are sufficient to establish similar
> claims.

the basis of a tro is not judged as fact, only the issuance, which is known
to be based on allegations that may or may not have been repeated at trial
and that may or may not have swayed a judgement if/when presented at trial.

i am not particularly worried about your repeated misstatements of the law
since "proof by vigorous reassertion" is a well known form of crackpottery.
anyone who hears your repeated misstatements about the law either knows from
having been sued that it doesn't really work like you say, or knows enough
to consult an attorney if they are sued, rather than trusting your opinions.

> A TRO is a decision that the facts cited, if true, are sufficient to
> establish the claims made and that the plaintiff can prevail absent false
> facts or some defense.

no.  a tro can also be granted for the weaker cause of "the defendant would
not be injured by restoring the status quo, and the cause of action brought
by the plaintiff appears to refer to some actual laws, so we'll sort it out
at trial."

> MAPS and Vixie tried vigorously to have the case dismissed, using defenses
> they also cited in their reply.  Those efforts to have the case dismiss
> failed.  Those are facts, too.

no.  i find several distortions in the above statements.  for example, every
defendant in every case always seeks to have the case dismissed.  they will
use some defenses that will also be used at trial, but not necessarily all
of them, and it's not a given that every response used when asking for
dismissal will also be used at trial.  you did say one true thing, the case
was not dismissed.  that is the only *fact* in the above-quoted text.

> Exactis V. MAPS is basically a RICO case.  The statute of limitations of
> RICO is 10 years.  Anyone who is injured by the RICO enterprise can bring a
> RICO case.  Indeed, I think I have been injured by this enterprise.  In
> 1998, I was threatened on NANOG with physical harm in connection with this
> RICO enterprise.  This threat is a violation of the Hobbs Act (a RICO
> predicate act).

if some childish person subscribed to the nanog mailing list made a childish
statement threatening you with bodily injury because they could no longer
tolerate the vigorous reassertion of your various proofs, then that reflects
poorly on the threatener, but not on nanog for running an open mailing list,
nor on others subscribed to that open mailing list.

> Mr. Conrad was a member of NANOG at that time, but he kept silent.

nanog does not issue membership cards, and there is no membership agreement.
to be a "member of nanog" is meaningless.  someone can be a member of the
nanog mailing list, and someone can pay an entrance fee to a nanog meeting,
and someone can be invited to speak at nanog meetings.  but it's not a
membership society, and david cannot be held responsible for the childish
threats you say were made against you by someone else on the nanog mailing
list.

> More injury from this enterprise has happened since 1998, some of it in
> connection with the AXFR-clarify scheme, even.  When a non-profit is
> involved, economic harm can be the unlawful object of a RICO enterprise, in
> addition to economic profit.

i'm curious.  i wonder if you might indulge me on a framing question.  when i
found out that BIND4 and some early BIND8 servers were unwilling to accept
perfectly valid AXFR's from the Microsoft NT 3.51 Resource Kit due to stupid
bugs in BIND, and i fixed those bugs so that BIND would do what the RFCs
said and so that Microsoft's customers would stop complaining to Microsoft,
what role do you think all this played in the "AXFR-clarify scheme"?  do you
think i was misdirecting folks, trying to gain trust and credibility, before
clamping down on the industry with my iron claw?  (i really do want to know.)

> So, during the same time as events of Exactis V. MAPS, during the period of
> the AXFR-clarify events (2000-2003), ...

you have not even tried to show any connection between the exactis/maps law-
suit and the axfr-clarify issue.  is that an oversight, or are you honestly
unable to imagine some way in which the AXFR-clarify scheme and the lawsuit
are connected?  (i think i remember you saying, years ago, that there was a
connection, so, i'm assuming that this is an oversight on your part.)

> ... Mr. Conrad was in the same office as Paul Vixie, overseeing in the
> AXFR-clarify scheme involving false statements (the fact that there were no
> wire changes in AXFR-clarify) that people relied on (the members of the IETF
> WG).  Nominum, ISC and UltraDNS were the benefactors of that scheme.

so, the connection between the AXFR-clarify scheme and the lawsuit is that
david benefitted from the one while observing me closely during the other?

> Without commenting on whether any laws were broken, there are clearly
> ethical problems and serious misconduct of IETF officials and other IETF
> members, including Mr. Conrad.

you keep using that word: "clearly."  i do not think it means what you think
it means.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>