[ppml] Dean Anderson, 130.105.0.0/16 and the future of the IPv4 Internet.]

[Paul Vixie]

dean anderson wrote:

> But there are some apparent illegitimate reasons. I exposed some of
> Vixies schemes some years ago. I think particularly the Anycast issue
> and the AXFR "clarify" scam (fall 2002 - spring 2003).

actually, you pretty much lost both of those arguments, and demonstrated
considerable technical ignorance in the process.

> But I also asserted that Antitrust would apply to blacklists and that ECPA
> would apply to ISPs in the late 1990s.  Vixie and cronies did other things
> to retaliate for those early disputes.

for the record, i have no cronies and i don't have time for retaliation.

> Though I did tend to say I was vindicated in the ECPA and Antitrust disputes
> after the Exactis v. MAPS case became well-known in 2002, and after NANOG
> held a seminar on the ECPA in 2002.

ECPA had no bearing on the issues at the heart of Exactis vs. MAPS.

> In 2003 in approximate conjunction with the AXFR-clarify dispute and roughly
> the beginning of the Anycast dispute, I think it can be seen that Vixie and
> cronies just retaliated by trying to interfere with AV8 Internet business
> using blacklists and lies.

assuming for the moment that i had time for retaliation, and that i had
cronies, the fact that you pretty much lost both disputes on their merits (and
showed yourself to be quite ignorant of the technical details in both cases)
would seem to indicate that no retaliation could even be called for.

> Vixie et al have plenty of reason to dislike me: I have effectively opposed
> them at times.  But they have no legitimate reason to use quasi-governmental
> privileges and positions of influence and trust against me.  There is no
> legitimate reason to lie.

i don't know where to begin.  you have never effectively opposed anything.
noone can (by definition) legitimately use quasi-governmental privileges
against anyone.  and neither i, nor the cronies i don't have, are lying about
anything.  so i guess we'll just have to agree to misunderstand.

> [...ORBS...].  Incidentally, Brown is also associated with SORBS and Vixie
> through the false statements about Av8 Internet. ...

for the record, brown is not associated with sorbs or vixie.

> And for the record, I think Vixie professes to have no association with
> SORBS.

matthew's a good guy.  some of his servers have been my personal guests for
some time now.  "guest" means he doesn't pay, in money or privilege, for my
assistance.  i do sometimes forward complaints to him when folks can't reach
him directly.  sometimes i complain to him if i think he's made a mistake.  i
also subscribe to his blackhole lists on my personal servers.  however, i have
no financial or fiduciary interest in sorbs or anything else in which matthew
has a financial or fiduciary interest.  whether this meets the standard for
"association" depends on what legal system you're asking the question in.

note, i also help spamhaus when i can.  also with no financial or fiduciary
interest or connection.  also completely outside of my ISC or ARIN duties.

note, i also help vernon schryver with DCC when i can.  also with no financial
or fiduciary interest or connection.  also completely outside of my ISC or
ARIN duties.

> But in September 1997, Vixie also claimed to have no association
> with MAPS after concerns about conspiracy in restraint of trade.
> And we know that turned out to be false.

reference, please?

> ISC.ORG hosts SORBS.

ISC does not host SORBS.  all of my "help the antispam world" work is done on
my own time with my own resources.  ISC's only interest in that part of the
internet food chain is that when folks like castlecops.com or benedelman.org
get DDoS'd, they are sometimes invited to put their web sites inside OARC,
which is hosted inside ISC.  note that castlecops.com was made to remove all
their text ads since ISC can't host commercial content.  but in any case SORBS
isn't at ISC.  all of the help i give to SORBS is given totally outside of ISC
and using only my own personal time and resources.

> As demonstrated by Media3 v MAPS, when you host abuse, you can be described
> as associated with abuse.  I think Vixie's support of SORBS is deeper than
> Media3's support of its spam customers.

for the record, i think you're quite ignorant on that topic.  (and wrong.)

> It seems that SORBS was organized to defeat the successful claims in Exactis
> v. MAPS and the successful claims against ORBS, by moving SORBS offshore and
> having a purported pauper (Matthew Sullivan) profess to be the sole
> responsible person for SORBS.

for the record, all of that conjecture is both ignorant and incorrect.

> However, we can still show Vixie's association with the SORBS activity and
> show his previous attempts at dissembling about similar associations.

for the record, until you can successfully show such association or
dissemblement, it remains conjecture.

> These serious, unethical activities and abuse of powers are a stain on
> the integrity of the people who make them, and on the integrity of the
> people who are associated and allied with the false statements.

for the record, and to summarize, there are no unethical activities, nor abuse
of powers; no stain on anyone's integrity; and, no false statements.

> Therefore, I call for Paul Vixie to removed from the ARIN Board of Trustees.

as lee has said, there's a procedure for that.

for the record, if renominated, i will run, and if reelected, i will serve.