[ga] Questions for Joe Baptista / Eric Dierker, and why the GA list should be ended

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'm temporarily rejoined this list, as I had a set of questions for Joe
Baptista and Eric Dierker, and question whether this list has any
remaining legitimacy.

1. Joe Baptista routinely refers to himself using the moniker "Dr."
Indeed, he's referred to as such in Harvard's study of the GA-Full list
at:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/publicparticipation/

According to:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030225054736/http://www.kkc.net/baptista/

in an article discussing fax-bombing and wasting of government
resources by Mr. Baptista, and other net-pranks, he's not really a
doctor.

"They call themselves "The Doctors" because Baptista says that when he
uses the attribution, he gets better tables in restaurants. No member
of the Doctors is a conventional doctor."

Given this person purports to be "list monitor", and indeed has
suggested:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg07777.html

"I would lke to see the GA appoint an executive and get itself a bank
account."

Thus, Question #1: Which insitution granted your doctorate degree, to
allow for verification?

2. Given #1, and Eric Dierker's claiming to be a doctor, whereas an
organization is purported to exist called "The Doctors" who simply want
better tables in restaurants, which institution granted your doctorate
degree, to allow for verification?

3. Related to #2, and #1, at:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg02442.html

Dierker wrote in relation to .pro:

"CONTRACT; It would appear that there is/was a contractual obligation
that this venue be reserved for us professionals. (mine of course with
due apologies is California State Bar No. 112873, Ca. Trial Lawyers No.
65169, Order of St. Lukes - Ooops Ministers were not included in the
criteria) Was it really reserved for us and was the process reserving
it for me and my kind really legitmate?"

which would lead people into believing he was a lawyer or a member of
the bar, when the facts show otherwise:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=112873

"This member is resigned and may not practice law in California."

Question #3a: When you referred to "us professional" and "reserving it
for me and my kind", was Mr. Dierker not purporting to be an active
attorney in the state of California?

Question #3b: The website at:
http://www.lukeford.com/stars/male/reuben_sturman.html gives an
interesting theory (although provides no proof) as to why you're no
longer practising law (see the five paragraphs beginning with "The
attorney, Eric Dierker, has the records locked into a safe deposit box,
and starts looking over his shoulder."

Please outline the exact charges pending in 1991 by the State Bar of
California in case #91-Q-8137, and how they might affect "trust issues"
that would ensue as being "chair" of anything related to ICANN.

4. "Erik Dierker", who claims to be "chair" on the basis of 7
unverified and unauthenticated votes out of a list of 200+ members,
see:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06401.html

"Well, these results do not equal a mandate."

has started speaking to the real press, pretending to be legitimately
representing this "GA" to the press:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136522-c,internetnetworking/article.html

"In addition to those issues, there was some disagreement over
accountability issues under OPoC and the speed at which registrars
would be required to respond to requests for access to shielded data,
said Eric Dierker, chairman of the general assembly of ICANN's Generic
Names Supporting Organization. The GNSO is the body responsible for
developing policy for the domain name system."

Notice the definition defined the GNSO, but not the GA (i.e. basically
a public mailing list, not formed from the constituencies)  itself ---
this misleads people into thinking that the GA list is somehow equal to
the GNSO Council. Most people hearing the words "general assembly" will
think of the United Nations, with its General Assembly, and thus not
understand that the GA list is simply a public mailing list, with no
authority over policy and is not a constituency.

This leads to the natural question: In order to eliminate confusion
that undermines the legitimate GNSO Council, why should the GA list not
be renamed the "Public Discussions Mailing List"?

5. Why did Avri Doria, without performing any due diligence into the
above, make it a priority at the GNSO Council to give the GA List,
comprised of "Doctors and Lawyers" as above, essentially a captured
kooks list at this point, any legitimacy? Indeed, one can argue that
the keys to the asylum have been turned over to the inmates. It might
be appropriate for Ms. Doria to consider resigning as chair of the GNSO
Council, to avoid further embarrassing GNSO Council due to this total
lack of due diligence.

Given the above, I nominate Vint Cerf and Sotiris Sotiropoulos as Chair
of the GA list (not a question, but since apparently only kooks have
been nominated, lets put up some competition). :)  (don't bother to
nominate me, I'm only visiting) I would hope their first acts would be
to end this list.

I look forward to the explanations above, and anticipate my coming
banning from this list for spoiling the net-kooks party. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/