Re: [ga] Dierker NOT Private

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

No problem at all John,
 
It seems you can grasp the difference between the GA and the IDNO.

--- On Sun, 5/23/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] Dierker NOT Private
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 1:58 PM





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