Re: [ga] Identification is good, hidden agendas bad

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris could start with an easy acceptance policy of the domain registration 
ID, but put a provision in the charter that allows any member to challenge an 
ID and demand verifyable data. 

Joop
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; John Palmer 
  Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:19 PM
  Subject: [ga] Identification is good, hidden agendas bad


        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


           
          "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