[ga] Identification is good, hidden agendas bad

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Verification is a great Idea.  Constituencies need verification for membership. 
Whois needs some ID process. Illegal Immigrants to a foreign country need some 
ID.  Most Privacy hinges on identification and ownership of Self. Property 
Rights stem from some sanctity of the individual.  Intellectual Property and 
Business ownership requires a founding Individual at the least.
 
However from Bejing to Calcutta to Mexico to East Berlin to Birmingham lack of 
property ownership and caste systems and religious or political discrimination 
has always been a basis for denying the individual rights. The mechanisms used 
to enforce exclusion and Less Than individual Rights have always been a 
calculated discriminatory identification and acknowledgement system. Be careful 
you do not elevate your precious ID systems to the height of determining Human 
Worth.
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dierker NOT Private
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 2:58 PM


 
#yiv1225944842  {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;COLOR:black;FONT-FAMILY:arial, 
sans-serif;BACKGROUND-COLOR:#ffffff;}
#yiv1225944842 P {
MARGIN:0px;}


"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