[ppml] Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a mailing list when we are unable to speak?

[Dean Anderson]

This subject should be "Why should you be allowed to speak untruths 
without being challenged?

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

> > I've documented and footnoted every claim 
> > I make. 
> 
> > Oh, and by the way, I've been vindicated on the IETF issues 
> > that I exposed. 
> 
> Hmmm... You seem to have slipped up on the footnotes this time. I can
> see nothing to indicate that you might have been vindicated.

Yeah, I don't have a page that says "Dean was right". But if you were
actually interested in the facts and following the various issues, you'd
know that I was vindicated.  http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch should
provide a good source of footnotes for you.

As IESG member Sam Hartman said of the Anycast issue:

   "I think that the area director [David Kessens --ed] chose to play   
    hard enough ball that the process can no longer be considered open
    and that the IESG erred in supporting this process and approving the
    document.

    "In particular, I believe that last call comments from Dean 
    Anderson,  Sam Hartman, Lars Eggert, Eric Rescorla and David Oran 
    were not given due consideration. [...]"

The full text is a good read. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-grow-anycast/comment/57703/?

Hardball isn't an honest or fair process.  I won't pretend to think
you're actually interested in facts about Anycast, but I have and anyone
can detect Anycasted recursors. That means that TCP can "detect" anycast
services, and so stateful Anycast isn't stable.  Also, a root DNS
failure was just reported on Nanog. [BGP Anycast has a problem with BGP
convergence delay--this is a known problem with BGP anycast. "Oops."]
So, we have an unfair process, and technical vindication of my
assertions about Anycast. There's more, but I'd say that's pretty
vindicated.


I haven't said my business is any more important than anyone elses. I
have never used the phrase "Secret Hunta".

What I have demanded and have a right to expect, as everyone else has a
right to demand and expect, is a fair and honest administration of
quasi-governmental organizations. We all have a right to fair and honest
public officials and directors of quasi-governmental bodies including
ARIN and the ISOC/IETF.  Overwhelmingly, people were against silencing
anyone at the IETF. Yet the IESG still reported a "consensus" approving
a silencing of valid disputes of science and fact.

Playing hardball with science is never going to win. The question is why
would people play hardball with science? What would possibly motivate
that behavior?

People with high ethical standards and integrity do not associate with
other people who are known to lie regarding serious issues---Serious
issues such as operation of a blacklist blocking hijacked IP address
space. That is relevant to any question of ethics or integrity, of say,
an ARIN Board member.

> In any case, this list is for policy discussions, not personal
> attacks.

Thats right. But _I_ haven't prevented anyone speaking. That is a false
charge.  _I_ haven't asked to have anyone prevented from speaking.  And
_I_ didn't change the subject to have your name in it the with false
assertions of preventing anyone speaking.

I have indeed made serious charges against certain persons, but those
charges are well documented and they are not exaggerated. The charges
are true and serious. The charges are relevant to ARIN, and involve ARIN
board members and their associates. Good and honest government and the
integrity and honesty of officials is relevant to the public interest,
and to public policy.

In contrast, you have asserted nothing but lies, untruths, and
exaggerations about my statements and claims. I have not said or done
any of the things you accuse me of doing.

		--Dean


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