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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

(lots of babble trimmed)

--- Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's a good thing for the 
> record to remember who  am - since I am the author of order M-618 
> Information Privacy Ontario.  I suggest you research there - IPC
> M-618 
> (Municipal) at the IPC (Ontario).

Thanks to Google, everyone on this list can read Order M-618 which you
claim to be the "author of".

http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Findings/Attached_PDF/M-618.pdf

1. One can jump to the bottom of the PDF, and plainly see that the
document was signed by "Tom Wright, Commissioner", not by Joe Baptista.

2. From page numbered 2 of the PDF:

"On December 9, 1994, the London Board and Chief Fantino, along with
the Police Services 
Boards and the Chiefs of Police of Metropolitan Toronto, Sarnia and
Windsor (collectively the 
Boards), brought an application in Ontario Court (General Division)
seeking a declaration that 
the Act does not grant a right of access to records where the request
is "frivolous, vexatious and  amounts to an abuse of the right of
access" under the Act.  Riley and another requester, Jose Luis (Joe)
Baptista (Baptista), were named along with my office as respondents in
the application."

3. Page 5:

"As I understand the position of the lawyer for the London Board, this
evidence is claimed to be relevant to the issues before me concerning
Riley because it is alleged that Riley and Baptista are acting in
concert in an effort to burden institutions generally, and police
services in particular, with excessive requests and appeals. 
 
The requests made by Baptista follow a pattern similar to those made by
Riley and, in some 
cases, duplicate verbatim the substance of Riley's requests. "

4. Page 7:

" For example, a press release issued by Riley on June 17, 1993
suggests that readers 
"Ask Dr. Joe Baptista ... what difficulties Metro Police have with
faxes!", in an apparent 
reference to Baptista's voluminous fax communications with Metro
Police."

5. Also on page 7:

"First, in his representations to me as intervenor in the current
inquiry, Baptista states: 
 
I think it appropriate to confirm police claims that I harass them.  It
makes me 
happy to watch them suffer, especially during difficult economic
times."

6. On page 8:

"My interest in freedom of information legislation has a singular
intent.  I have 
made it very clear to the Commission and any other party that my
purpose is the 
creation of an administrative burden for the Commission and related
government 
agencies.  Because of this I rarely pay attention to the appeal knowing
that my 
participation, or lack of it, will have little influence on the
economic factors 
associated with the appeal process.  Therefore my time is better spent
devising 
new methods to cause harm to government."

7. Page 15 to 16:

" Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, there is Riley's association
with Baptista, an individual on the public record, and by his own
admission in this inquiry, as stating that his objective is to harass
government and to burden or break the system.  In this regard, I have
considered the similarity of Riley's and Baptista's requests, their
similar modus operandi, the fact that Baptista has previously made
Riley his agent, the fact that Riley is now formally engaged with
Baptista in Planet Communications and the association of these two
individuals in media coverage.  In my view, and I make an explicit
finding to this effect, Riley is acting in concert with Baptista,
wittingly or otherwise, in implementing Baptista's stated objective to
burden or break the system."

Notice words like " Baptista, an individual on the public record, and
by his own admission in this inquiry, as stating that his objective is
to harass government and to burden or break the system. "

Now, re-read that PDF, and with that in mind, also read communications
with NTIA/DoC re: .god:

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/politech/msg02801.html

So, in light of the above,  is this what you foresaw as the "GA List",
Avri, a step in the right direction, when you made it your mission to
hand over the keys to the GA list, as list monitor, to someone who is
on the record in the past as having stated the above, and who claims
just today to have authored the above order, which was actually signed
by Tom Wright? 

I place the blame for this continuing farce squarely on Avri, not on
Mr. Dierker or Mr. Baptista -- they are what they are, but Avri should
have known better.

Once again, I call on GNSO Council for this list to be renamed, at a
minimum, in light of its true current nature as a fantasy role playing
game, which should have been obvious to everyone, but it seems that
eluded Avri. See my other suggestions in prior emails, on how things
can actually be improved, to bring serious companies back into
participating, like the Googles or the Microsofts or the Wal-Marts or
the General Electrics of this world, or the WIPO people or government
agencies or other folks who have no interest in playing videogames in
relation to ICANN discussions.

Sincerely,

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