Re: [ga] Dierker NOT Private

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Jeff":

First of all, what does angelfire's non-compliance with someone's opinion of
what should be in a DNS zone file have to do with the contents of a page 
put up by one of its customers - answer - NOTHING. Stop trying to muddy
the waters of this issue.

Second, what does a disgruntled Angelfire customer who has a beef with
Angelfire's AUP have to do with the content of a completely different 
customer's page (the one with the info of which I speak). Same thing - 
you are muddying the waters of the discussion by bringing in non-sense 
that has nothing to do with the identity issue:

FOCUS ON THE ISSUE, "Jeff". 

Nuff saif about this AFAIC. If you and Hugh want to keep up this discussion,
fine. 

I stand by my original statement that identity verification for constituency 
membership is a fine idea. That should help mitigate the false-flag nonsense
that ICANN (probably ICANN) is pulling here.

Cheers,
John

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeffrey A. Williams 
  To: John Palmer ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; info@xxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 4:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Dierker NOT Private


  John and all,



    Indeed it is troubling that you have 'Issues" whatever they may be as you 
are not too

  specific or provide any emphrical evidence to same.  Hopefully that will be 
forthcoming?

  In any event Angelfire's reputation as their DNS config clearly shows are in 
question

  technically speeking at least, see: 
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport?domain=angelfire.com&format=raw&loadresults=true&token=2541b0e492485e093546230e17377018

  for further information.  Also seems that Angelfire has long been in trouble 
with LEA's and

  seemingly remains so, see: http://www.counterpunch.org/angelfire.html for 
example.  So

  perhaps Mr. Palmer you can update your information to something a bit more 
accurate

  accordingly, and soon.  >:)  Further I fail too see what your subject line 
has to do with

  your remarks below as well...  Care to elaborate more specifically please?  
Thanks

  in advance for your cooperation accordingly.  >:)




    -----Original Message----- 
    From: John Palmer 
    Sent: May 23, 2010 3:58 PM 
    To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Subject: [ga] Dierker NOT Private 


    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


           

      Regards,

      Jeffrey A. Williams
      Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and 
growing, strong!)
      "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
         Abraham Lincoln

      "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
      often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

      "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; 
liability
      depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      ===============================================================
      Updated 1/26/04
      CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. 
of
      Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
      ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail 
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Phone: 214-244-4827