[arin-discuss] Dean -vs- ARIN... again (Re: The joy of SWIPping)

[Dean Anderson]

[Dreger is a frequent NANOG participant. Most ARIN members don't
participate in NANOG. NANOG participants are a small minority in the
ARIN membership, yet most (all?) of the people posting attacks on me are
NANOG members, as are the Board Members and Ray Plzak. Funny how a small
minority is in control of ARIN, via disputed elections]

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

> DA> Its odd that Board members wouldn't see that problem, but they seem
> DA> to have no regard the rules and laws.
> 
> ...but there's where things begin breaking down.  Unsubstantiated ad
> hominem attack.  Unless, of course, you have some relevant legal
> proceedings that you or ARIN would like to share.  (I believe that both
> parties' counsel recently chatted, yes?)

The Board was aware that "good standing" is all that is required for
ARIN member participation, and the Chairman was aware of the false
dialog of Divins' questioning my good standing. The Board was aware or
should have been aware that someone for whom Plzak is responsible,
altered my statement, and then used the altered statement as the basis
of a false claim of per se libel.  The person then used the false claim
as a tranactional basis for disrupting my membership rights. It is
worthwhile to note that per se libel, even if true, isn't a proper basis
for disrupting someone's membership rights in ARIN.

BTW, it wasn't just arin-discuss mailing list participation that was
disrupted. I was removed from all ARIN mailing lists, and prevented from
participating in the last ARIN meeting electronically.

> DA> CEO Plzak, with apparent consent of the Board, has asserted in DA>
> written correspondence that my email to this list may be considered
> DA> "spam", and blocked as "spam".
> 
> As could my mail.  Or anyone else's.  This list has a specific
> charter; messages failing to meet that charter may be disallowed.

ARIN discuss is not a private list owned by Ray Plzak.  This list is
about ARIN business discussion with other members.  Plzak and the ARIN
Board are not the first to try to disrupt corporate communications
between shareholders/members that oppose management. Indeed, the law
provides specificially that communication with members or shareholders
of a corporation is a right similar to the First Amendment. [18 Am. Jur.  
308]:

  "Indeed, it has been said that the statutory right accorded to a 
  stockholder to communicate with other stockholders regarding matters 
  of common interest as stockholders is similar to the freedom of
  speech."

> I posit that I might be disciplined if I posted my favorite pancake
> recipe, 

I did not post pancake recipes.  

> If a message doesn't meet certain criteria, it gets shot down.  Your
> insinuation that ARIN would maliciously obstruct legitimate abuse
> claims is fallacious, insidious, disingenuous, and generally just not
> nice.

My statements are true: as ARIN board members have knowingly obstructed
legitimate emails before, and ARIN has done so recently.  One Board
Member (Vixie) has been successfull sued for doing that previously. That
suit (Exactis v. MAPS) stated a RICO predicate and anti-trust
violations.  They have done similar things before, and they know that
the law prohibits such obstruction. They also know that the ARIN charter
does not permit capricious obstruction of member rights.

BTW, ARIN did not identify even a single message that was inappropriate.

I think it is "fallacious, insidious, disingenuous, and generally just
not nice" to intentionally and knowingly block the legitmate emails of
people that merely oppose management with facts and investigation. 

> Many of us have been humoring you, albeit often somewhat unwittingly,
> for a decade now.  Why not go to court, get your judgements, save the
> Internet, and then come back to gloat about it?

Speaking of gloating, I recall that I was banned for NANOG in the winter
1999 after I was proven right about certain laws applying to the
internet. NANOG was discussing a case involving stolen credit cards and
the usual crew (I think Dreger was among them) were asserting that U.S.
Laws couldn't apply to foreign crackers of U.S. businesses, while I
asserted that was nonsense. If they break into US businesses, US laws
apply.  A few days later the FBI made arrests in the case, and I was
quickly blocked without explanation. I didn't have a chance to gloat.

In the fall of 1999, Chris Neill was asserting on NANOG that no laws
applied to open relays. The usual crew supported his notion. I note that
he was fired from Verio and investigated by the FBI. I didn't gloat,
then.

And before that, in January 1998, I said the ECPA would apply to ISPs.  
The usual crew said that such a notion was ridiculous, and threatened to
find me in an alley if I attended NANOG.  Coincidentally, that same
month, a Boston ISP began accessing the email of its customers. This was
discovered some time later, and became known as U.S. V. Councilman.  
The ISP plead guilty and paid a $250,000 fine. The system administrators
also plead guilty and paid fines. I never got a chance to gloat.

I note that in 2002, even though criminal charges against an ISP had
been filed, and guilty pleas entered, Steven Bellowvin continued to
assert on NANOG that the ECPA did not apply to ISPs.

So, for someone who claims to have been humoring me for so long, you
seem to have little evidence of any ridiculous claim of mine to humor me
about.  In contrast, I have much evidence of ridiculous positions by you
and your associates.

Generally, people who continue to associate with questionable and
ruthless people will become disreputable by association. Even if they
were honest to begin with, they are placed in compromising situations by
their association and participation with the unscrupulous.  Rudolf
Gulliani and Bernard Kerik come to mind as recent examples.


		--Dean




-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000