[ga-abuse] Complaint Against Eric Dierker

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

Complaint Against Eric Dierker
Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
Directed at William X. Walsh

Surprised that I am to be defending William Walsh, his post simply stated
what some us us know i.e. that Jim Fleming's tactics are to promote his own
agenda.   It is our own lack of effective moderation that is allowing Jim
Fleming to conduct his activities.  As you know Kristy and I both tries
personal approaches to Jim Fleming.   William X. Walsh simply filled the gap
onlist.

However Eric's approach is singularly unconstructive.  No single posting of
his, that I have seen, has advanced the debate one iota.  Can we treat this
as a standing complaint against all of his posts most of which are personal
attacks against somebody.

It MUST be a hidden agenda to cause this forum to fail !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: JIM FLEMING <JimFleming@prodigy.net>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs


> In the order of Outreach and understanding!  Mr. Walsh would you please
give
> us your rendition of history of hatred toward Mr. Fleming?  Nuff said!
>
> JIM FLEMING wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
> > X. Walsh
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
> >
> > Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> >
> > > IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> >
> > > 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
> >
> > For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
> > things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
> > IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
> > comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
> > "legitimate."
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
> > mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> > Owner, Userfriendly.com
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >
> >
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-10.htm
> >
> > ###
> >
> > From: "William X. Walsh" <william@walsh.tj>
> > To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
> > Date: 3/23/98 10:28pm
> > Subject: Comments on Discussion Draft on Technical Management of
Internet
> > Domain Names
> >
> > Enclosed are the official comments of myself to the US Green Paper
> > Proposal on Internet Domain Names.
> >
> > --
> > William X. Walsh william@tjns.tj
> > Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
> > TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
> > Domain Name Services, Web Hosting, and Email Services
> >
> > Comments on the US Green Paper on :
> >
> > Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses
> >
> > Comments are made by :
> >
> > William Walsh
> > Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
> > TJ Network Services
> > william@tjns.tj
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> > TJ Network Services is a relatively new Domain Name Registrar, currently
> > providing management of the National Top Level Domain for the country of
> > Tajikistan under contract. We provide a wealth of value added domain
name
> > services, as well as direct registration under the .TJ nTLD, including
> > World Wide Domain Name Registration under the existing Generic TLD's,
and
> > other national TLD's. Our main source of business is derived in the
value
> > added services which we package with these domain registration services.
> >
> > TJ Network Services was formed as a result of a long standing goal to
> > provide low cost Internet Identity services that were easy to use, and
> > within the budget of the many people starting up small, home based
> > businesses on the Internet, and those who just wanted to have a
permanent
> > identity to use in conjunction with their on-line hobby presence, or
other
> > type of presence they are cultivating.
> >
> > The very premise of our service is that we feel the establishment of a
> > permanent identity should be within reach of ANYONE on the internet who
as
> > the motivation to seek one.
> >
> > In light of the affects on this premise of the current proposal, we feel
> > compelled to provide our own comments, and to advocate changes which
would
> > be in the best interest of the Internet as a whole.
> >
> > We have waited till today to issue our formal comments in an effort to
> > review the comments and opinions of others, both formal and to various
> > internet based discussion lists of which we monitor.
> >
> > We urge everyone on the Internet to read the document at
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm
> >
> > II. Summary of Comments
> >
> > TJ Network Services feels the goals outlined by the US Green Paper,
> > Section V - Principles for a New System, are an extremely positive step
> > in the right direction. We do, however, feel that there is room for
> > improvement in the methodology used to implement these goals. We comment
> > on these in this document.
> >
> > III. Time Frame for US Government Withdrawal
> >
> > TJ Network Services applauds the Green Papers statement regarding the
> > need to balance stability issues with concerns that the US Government
> > would never withdraw from oversight. We feel that the time frames listed
> > should, however, be shorter, or at the very least mandated by statute,
to
> > insure that there be no extension of this oversight past the maximum
date
> > listed, September 30th, 2000.
> >
> > We would like to see the oversight areas spelled out more clearly, with
> >
> > time frames for the relinquishment of specific areas of oversight
> > included.
> >
> > IV. Representation on the New Corporation's Board of Directors
> >
> > TJ Network Services feels the outline for the Board of Directors is
> > positive, but we would like to see it broadened to include
representative
> > of the non-affiliated National TLD registrars who are not represented by
> > the Regional Number Registries.
> >
> > Except for the comment noted above, we feel the representation is fair
and
> > international in scope.
> >
> > V. Minimum Requirements for Registries and Registrars
> >
> > TJ Network Services operates on what we affectionately call a
"shoestring
> > budget." Using Co-operative agreements we have in place with both
> > domestic and foreign entities, we provide an extremely stable and broad
> > base for our services. We do this on what is a VERY small budget. We are
> > also aware of another organization, Monolith Internet Services, which
has
> > provided third and forth level domain name services with a variety of
> > add-on type services, to an international community of users numbering
in
> > the tens of thousands. And this was done on a budget of practically
> > nothing, depending on small donations from users, and from small
> > sponsorship agreements. Monolith Internet Services has provided an
> > excellent level of service Internationally and under incredibly high
> > loads, with a VERY limited amount of resources.
> >
> > We see many of these requirements as a means to keep the "little guys"
out
> > of the market, and this is damaging to the very competitive process this
> > proposal is supposed to be seeking. By placing unnecessary restrictions,
> > you drive the costs of getting into the Domain Name Business up, and
drive
> > up the prices of services, making it hard for services to offer free, or
> > low cost, alternatives to the higher priced, more commercial gTLDs.
> >
> > A provision should be made to give people the choice of what service
they
> > chose to us. There will be those Registries who will meet these
> > requirements, and well exceed them. They will be able to advertise this,
> > and use it as a means to promote the stability and security of their
> > services. But it should not exclude an individual from selecting to do
> > business with a Registry who does not meet those requirements, but can
> > still provide service.
> >
> > We make the following proposal :
> >
> > Prospective Domain Registries should meet the following minimum
> > requirements :
> >
> > 1) A Primary Domain Name Server, under the direct control of the domain
> > registry, hosted on a network with at least T1 connectivity, and backup
> > power supply. The level of connectivity, and other pertinent information
> > should be noted on the registries publicly available website.
> >
> > 2) At least 2 geographically and network diverse Secondary Domain Name
> > Servers, also on networks of at least T1 connectivity. This information
> > should also be published as noted in #1 above.
> >
> > 3) A complete published set of policies and procedures as outlined in
the
> > Green Paper, published as noted in #1.
> >
> > 4) A robust Database Management System, that will maintain records of
all
> > transactions, and full information regarding each domain name
> > registration, and it's registrants. This information should be publicly
> > accessible in an easy to use and understand interface. A simplified,
easy
> > to use automated system should also be in place to provide for
simplified
> > domain name registrations, by Registrars if using the distributed
> > registrar model, or for use by users if a single Registrar model is
being
> > used.. The level of current technology is sufficiently advanced enough
to
> > allow for new and update transactions to occur over a secure web
> > interface, rather than the relatively insecure, and lengthy procedures
> > involved in using email form based solutions.
> >
> > 5) Registrars should set simple requirements for Registries. Frankly,
> > Registrars should be required to be little more than customer service
> > stations, and provide easy and fast access to registration services
> > provided to the Registrar by the Registries. Of importance to the
> > Registry, is to make sure the Prospective Registrar is capable of
> > providing the level of customer service which they deem appropriate for
> > their TLD. Again, this is the image that will be created for the TLD,
and
> > it is the responsibility of the Registry to make the decision of the
> > overall image they seek to present, and make the policies under this
> > section and all the other sections with this premise in mind.
> > Requirements for Registries, if any, should be uniform and published in
> > accordance with the publication of information in the other sections.
> >
> > 6) Domain Name Registries should remove themselves from the Trademark
> > Protection Process, and registrants should be subject to the same
> > Trademark Laws as everyday citizens. Domain Name Registries should honor
> > judgments and ruling made regarding trademark disputes by courts of
> > "competent jurisdiction." Any further restrictions would be
> > anti-competitive in nature, and place undo responsibility on the
Registry
> > to act as a "Policing" agency. This information should be made available
> > on the Registries website, published as noted above in #1.
> >
> > 7) A plan to allow for continued management of their Top Level Domain
> > should the registry become insolvent. This could involve a bond in an
> > amount sufficient to insure that minimum services can be provided for a
> > reasonable period of time, till the Registry can make permanent
> > arrangements for a new management contract by a solvent registry. This
is
> > again just a suggestion, some TLD's may make no such provision.
> > Regardless, the Registry should be mandated to make this information
> > publicly available on their website in a prominent manner, published in
> > accordance with #1 above.
> >
> > Other than as noted, no further requirements should be made for
Registrars
> > or Registries. This would of course be subject to review by the board
> > after a reasonable period of time has elapsed and the results of such an
> > open set of requirements can be evaluated more fully.
> >
> > VI. Summary and Conclusion
> >
> > As can be noted above, TJ Network Services finds itself in agreement
with
> > most of the points of the Green Paper, with the exception of the
comments
> > made in Sections II through V.
> >
> > We feel the market should be broaden to allow for various levels of
domain
> > name registration services, from the free services who cannot provide
any
> > service guarantees and minimal if any customer service, to the high end
> > commercial registries who provide absolute security in service
guarantees
> > and customer services. The market in the International Internet
Community
> > is broad and diverse enough to provide a robust market for Registrars at
> > both these levels and at all levels in between.
> >
> > TJ Network Services welcomes comments on our position paper, which can
be
> > made via email to directors@tjns.tj
> >
> > William Xavier Walsh william@tjns.tj
> > Director, Network Operations and Technical Services (NOTS)
> > TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
> > Registry/Registrar for the .TJ (Tajikistan) Top Level Domain
> >
> > For information about TJ Network Services, please contact staff@tjns.tj
> >
> > For comments on this Position Paper, please email them to
> > directors@tjns.tj
> >
> > TJ Network Services ==> Putting You in Front!
> >
> > ###
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
> > X. Walsh
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
> >
> > Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> >
> > > IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> >
> > > 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
> >
> > For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
> > things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
> > IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
> > comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
> > "legitimate."
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
> > mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> > Owner, Userfriendly.com
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>