Re: [ga-abuse] Complaint Against Eric Dierker

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

I would propose a suspension.

/Bruce

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: "[ga-abuse]" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 13:25
Subject: [ga-abuse] Complaint Against Eric Dierker


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/
>