[ga-abuse] Complaint Against Eric Dierker

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Complaint Against Eric Dierker
Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
Directed at William Lovell

Interesting that Eric himself "epitomized that which he criticizes".
For example, his abuse of <ga-abuse>, breach of all the rules etc.

BTW I thought he was going to be suspended after Stockholm.
Perhaps you had better do it !!

[Also note that Eric's abuse of me supports what I said to Danny]

Best regards
Patrick Corliss




----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
Cc: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; [ga-abuse] <ga-abuse@dnso.org>;
Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; [ga] <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management


> Mr. Lovell,
>
> I find your complete avoidance of the rule of law here remarkable.  Have
you ever even
> bothered to read our rules.  You epitomize that which you criticize.
> This post reminds me of the guy who goes fishing and laughs at all the
others as he
> holds up his 13 inch bass and says "can't you guys catch anything" then
his buddy
> looks at him and says "the throw back limit is 16 inches."  Well Mr.
Lovell before you
> go casting aspersions check the rules of engagement!
>
> Bueno!
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Mr. Corliss,
> > >
> > > Are you just oblivious to the fact that the rules do not allow for any
of this?
> > > You operate as though whatever you think is a good idea is dandy.
Well good
> > > buddy look at the rules read them, they are in your native tongue.
There is no
> > > provision for any of this, it is "illegal" pursuant to the rule which
illegally
> > > put you in your place.  Are you just oblivious?  Would you suggest one
rule that
> > > allows you to act in the manner you are advocating?  This is
outrageous!!  No
> > > one man is doing more to discredit our GA.  Danny please get a handle
on this
> > > person.  Do I have to appeal to the NC and BoD??  I just reread this
post again
> > > and am even more dismayed!  This is truly wonderland.  We discovered
in the
> > > WG-Review how destrcutive this type of behavoir is, it is killing any
progress.
> > >
> > > Sincerely bummed
> >
> > A more edifying explanation of why nothing gets done could hardly be
found.
> > "Where is the leadership?" one person cries, and when someone tries to
> > provide such leadership, then the naysayers like the author of the above
> > rather hysterically dispute the authority of that person to have done
that.
> > Attempts to provide "bottom up" self-organization require leadership,
and
> > in that there is included the advancement of new ideas and their
reasoned
> > analysis that hopefully would yield a more effective tool.   The failure
by GA
> > so to do -- it was a "lack of consensus" that killed the earlier IC
round -- has
> > nothing whatever to do with the NC, the DNSO, ICANN, or any other of the
> > "usual suspects" -- they can be guilty of enough on their own -- it has
to do
> > with the childish and self-destructive mindset of the GA.
> >
> > What is really happening here is that the author of the above diatribe
finds real
> > competition in the post he attacks against that person's OWN notions, so
in
> > order for that person's OWN ideas to win out, thereby giving fame and
glory
> > to the author thereof, the advancement of other ideas must be attacked.
The
> > GA power elite is also dedicated to self-aggrandizement -- besides
trying to
> > shut out new people so as to avoid dilution of its voice, it attacks
others that
> > are in the group in an attempt to destroy those other persons' efforts.
> >
> > Sheesh!
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.
> > > >
> > > > From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> > > > To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
> > > > Cc: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>
> > > > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> > > > Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management
> > > >
> > > > My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words
all of
> > > > the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.
Businesses a
> > > > third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like
the
> > > > Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.
> > > >
> > > > The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the
issue
> > > > discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly
William
> > > > X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which
I'd like
> > > > to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a
genuine
> > > > interest in such a discussion.
> > > >
> > > > As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is
really
> > > > Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a
constituency.
> > > > Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service
Providers.
> > > > Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups
(SIGs) with
> > > > dedicated people.
> > > >
> > > > Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The
main GA
> > > > list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL
assembly then
> > > > decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms
of
> > > > reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example
is WHOIS
> > > > privacy in relation to the European Community.
> > > >
> > > > The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it
back to
> > > > the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
> > > >
> > > > Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them
WG-SYS
> > > > if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the
Administration
> > > > Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> > > > Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the
Registrant may
> > > > redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.
Adopted.
> > > > Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
> > > >
> > > > So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just
like any
> > > > other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's
what we
> > > > do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> > > > (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
> > > >
> > > > William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree
that
> > > > there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that
view:
> > > >
> > > > First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a
working group
> > > > of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in,
say,
> > > > UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
> > > >
> > > > Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final
approval.  If
> > > > that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could
require
> > > > everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who
joins a
> > > > sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
> > > >
> > > > The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you
WILL get
> > > > some work done.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Patrick Corliss
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> > to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> > ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
> > "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
>