Date: 3 Feb 2000 16:49:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20000203164917.8201.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: iab@isi.edu
Cc: djb@cr.yp.to
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I complained to the IESG more than a year ago, and requested that the
IESG stop using censored mailing lists for standardization activities.
Scott Bradner told me on 1998-12-18 that the IESG had discussed my
request. But the IESG has failed to act.

The IESG has also failed to answer my simple factual questions as to
whether the IESG has previously approved Bush's censorship methods.
There are only two possibilities:

   * The IESG has not previously approved Bush's censorship methods. In
     this case, Bush is clearly violating RFC 2418, section 3.2, last
     sentence.

   * The IESG has previously approved Bush's censorship methods. In this
     case, the IESG will have an extremely difficult time explaining why
     it has not already answered my questions.

The IESG has had ample opportunity to correct the unlawful behavior of
its agents, and has failed to do so. Your suggestion that I should wait
two months for a response, and tolerate Bush's unauthorized control over
DNSEXT activities in the meantime, is absurd.

Please note that, according to the FTC, ``due process must be accorded
all parties interested in or affected by a standardization ... program,
including ... manufacturers .... Due process includes, but is not
limited to, the conduct of timely hearings with prompt decisions ...''

> We will
> not consider an appeal from you until the IESG has responded, if you 
> find that response unsatisfactory. This is in accordance with the
> procedure described in BCP 9, section 6.5, especially 6.5.1.

No, it is not. You are inventing procedures that do not appear in RFC
2026. Section 6.5.1 does not require that I wait for an IESG response:

   If the disagreement is not resolved to the satisfaction of the
   parties at the IESG level, any of the parties involved may appeal
   the decision to the IAB.  The IAB shall then review the situation
   and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.

The condition for an appeal is quite literally true, as I'm sure your
lawyers can confirm. I have appealed. The IAB is now required to review
the situation.

Are you going to follow your published procedures, or not? Are you
reviewing this situation, or not?

---Dan