From brian@hursley.ibm.com Thu Feb 03 18:02:48 2000
Return-Path: <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Delivered-To: djb@cr.yp.to
Received: (qmail 282 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 18:02:47 -0000
Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (194.196.110.15)
  by koobera.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 18:02:47 -0000
Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA131558; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:01:21 GMT
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine02.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.42]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA16372; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:01:20 GMT
Message-ID: <3899C26F.303FC2E9@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 12:01:19 -0600
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
CC: iab@ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement
References: <20000203164917.8201.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan,

I repeat that the IAB will not consider your complaint until the IESG has 
responded, if you then consider their response unsatisfactory. 

Regards

   Brian Carpenter
   IAB Chair

"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
> 
> 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