[ga] Dierker NOT Private

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh:

This isnt a flame war. I have a legitimate concern that there are agitators on 
this list
that are not who they say they are and who are working against the interests of 
IDNO's. 

The Angelfire website raises legitimate concerns about someone who has done 
everything
he can to obfuscate his identity. 

If we do revamp this constituency, it will have no credibility unless all of 
the cards are
layed out on the table in a transparent way.

By the way, this is one of the mantras of your buddy Baptista - transparency.

So, Hugh - why are you opposed to transparency?  I don't think this is 
small concern.

As I have said before, I have SERIOUS questions about the identities and 
motives of
several of the folks here.

John
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: John Palmer 
  Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 8:35 AM
  Subject: Palmer NOT Private


        Mr. Palmer

        Please do not start to derail and obfiscate work being done here with 
starting your own personal flaming wars. The identification process spoken of 
is for membership in a constituency. It is not for this list. If you were not 
so blinded by your obvious hate mongering and narrow personal vendettas you 
would see that. You have already made it clear that you are driven my ego and 
fear, and not to benefit anyone but yourself. Further attacks will not be 
censored or banned but you will make yourself invisible by your childlike 
behavior.

        If you continue down this road I will post all your private posts that 
show just how obsessed you are. I write this offlist not as private but as to 
keep it off list.

        --- On Thu, 5/20/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:


          From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Subject: Re: [ga] |Going forward towards a Registrant's Constituency
          To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 12:07 PM



          I think that this is a FANTASTIC idea. I have strong reason to 
beleive that we have dire need to verify the identity of at least one person on 
this list (one who is a frequent poster).  
          Seeing as how there is a whole website that PROVES that his
          previous addresses were nothing but empty lots, etc, I think
          that requiring proof of identity is fantastic.

          Cheers,
          John

          ----- Original Message ----- From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:45 PM
          Subject: [ga] |Going forward towards a Registrant's Constituency



          First, let's thank Joop for offering up the IDNO charter for us to 
use as
          a basis for an RC charter.

          Next, let's get one piece of fundamental business out ofthe way. When 
i
          voted in the ICANN 2000 AtLarge election, it was only after my 
identity
          had been verified and a letter had been sent to my physical address 
with
          my acct/password info for voting day. In order for us to move forward 
on
          creating an RC we need to VERIFY that the prospective membership is 
who
          they say they are. Fortunately, there are many options available for 
us
          today. My preference would be for a digital certificate. Does anyone 
have
          any problem with being required to provide proof of one's identity in
          order to participate in a Registrant's Constituency? If anyone does 
have a
          problem, the solution is simple, they can form their own constituency 
of
          non-identities. I am willing to put the work into an RC but only with
          other verified individuals. So, who's willing to join me in this
          endeavour?

          Sotiris Sotiropoulos