Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #2
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 17 2000         Volume 01 : Number 002

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:46:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> That's a thought - being a member of the ACM cost me USD 70 and required 
> proof of posession of a credit card (by virtue of the fact that the charge 
> didn't bounce).

Credit cards - there goes the third world.  Very silly Harald.

> It would certainly raise the bar on loon identities by a few dollars; this 
> may be enough.

Not a very respectful statement.

Regards
Joe

> 
>                        Harald
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 06:35:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

!Dr. Joe Baptista writes:
 > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:
 > > All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
 > > fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
 > 
 > Not true - and very misleading.  Many organizations do not charge for
 > membership - some do.  This is also not a professional society - this is
 > the general assembly of the dnso of icann.  Check the bylaws if your
 > confused.  We are not a professional society nor should you mislead the
 > assembly with such speculation.

My message did not say that the DNSO should become a professional
society and charge dues.  My message said that we should take advantage
of existing professional societies in order to keep the membership as
open as possible while providing a somehwat easier method of validation
of identity.

By the way, name a professional society that does *not* charge dues.
Please back up your claims with facts.

/Joe
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:24:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ga digest test

test

Elisabeth, this posted to ga?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:43:09 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-DIGEST

Some of participants requested me to set up a digest version
for the [email-masked] mailing list. This is now available.
To subscribe, send an email to [email-masked] with 
"subscribe ga-digest" in the body of the message.

All members of the ga-digest list may write to the ga list.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:25:35 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-DIGEST -- more explanations

I believe I was confusing in my first message, please accept
my appology

We have two version of the GA list:
   [email-masked]  with the rules of conduct for that list
and
   [email-masked]

The ga-digest list is rather a format of emails somebody
may wish to receive, not anything else. Instead of receiving
one message at time, the subsriber to ga-digest receives a group
of messages.

The sentence:
    "All members of the ga-digest list may write to the ga list."
is misleading.
All persons in the ga list or in the ga-digest list have the same
rights and receive exactly the same contributions, only the format
of received messages differs.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:52:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> My message did not say that the DNSO should become a professional
> society and charge dues.  My message said that we should take advantage
> of existing professional societies in order to keep the membership as
> open as possible while providing a somehwat easier method of validation
> of identity.

It said nothing of the kind.

> By the way, name a professional society that does *not* charge dues.
> Please back up your claims with facts.

I don't simply because that was not the issue.  I have clearly stated the
GA and DNSO were not perfessional organizations and the standards you
went on about do not apply.

I think that's clear.  Don't you.

regards
Joe Baptista

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:15:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
> that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on the
> GA list.
> 
> This is not true.

This is untrue.  Walsh said.

> So then we give up the list as a useful place to get work done?  I think
the
> list should be composed of the members.  The "general purpose" mailing
list is
> the place of work for all intents and purposes.  Non-members are always
welcome
> to read the contents of the list, via an email digest or web based
archive
> format, but not necessarily have the right to post until they have been
> verified.

and I agree with Walsh.  So it's beyong impossible to dispute this.  Walsh
and I are in agreement and nothing further can be said.

Regards
Joe Baptista

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:16:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer 

Harald - I am asking officially in your capacity that you censor Mr. Walsh
for his staments made below.  Calling someone a loon is a violation of the
rules and I anticipate you will provide Walsh the appropriate warnings.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
> that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on the
> GA list.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> While he may agree with the proposal I made, his posts implies that this
> agreement extends to his criticism of the chair not acting on this right now. 
> This is not the case, the issue needs much broader discussion, including
> addressing the issues of implementation, and the implications on participation
> by those for whom these rules would be a hardship.
> 
> What is occuring now is that myself, the Chair and the Assoc. Chair have posted
> comments on the proposal, and are discussing it on the list.
> 
> This is entirely appropriate and is the appropriate way for it to be handled at
> this point.  Any implication that I support what I feel are baseless
> accusations and criticisms made by a PCCF loon are totally false.
> 
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
> 
> iD8DBQE4qe7G8zLmV94Pz+IRAgYTAKChh2rFbUtaPEJww3rs2J3dEReRwwCfcq06
> gOG055HXBuz7dSMcVNctJDs=
> =HKN2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I stand by my comment.  It is not name calling, it is simply describing what
the person is, and it is an accurate descriptive term for the person named.

Much like you would call someone an Italian or an German, the term Loon and Joe
Baptista are nearly synonymous.   As a matter of fact, I believe there would
almost be consensus on that point. 

And that is my final response on this matter.

On 16-Feb-2000 !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> Harald - I am asking officially in your capacity that you censor Mr. Walsh
> for his staments made below.  Calling someone a loon is a violation of the
> rules and I anticipate you will provide Walsh the appropriate warnings.
> 
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
> 
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> 
>> Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
>> that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on
>> the
>> GA list.
>> 
>> This is not true.
>> 
>> While he may agree with the proposal I made, his posts implies that this
>> agreement extends to his criticism of the chair not acting on this right
>> now. 
>> This is not the case, the issue needs much broader discussion, including
>> addressing the issues of implementation, and the implications on
>> participation
>> by those for whom these rules would be a hardship.
>> 
>> What is occuring now is that myself, the Chair and the Assoc. Chair have
>> posted
>> comments on the proposal, and are discussing it on the list.
>> 
>> This is entirely appropriate and is the appropriate way for it to be handled
>> at
>> this point.  Any implication that I support what I feel are baseless
>> accusations and criticisms made by a PCCF loon are totally false.
>> 
>> - --
>> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
>> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
>> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
>> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: DSo Networks
>> 
>> iD8DBQE4qe7G8zLmV94Pz+IRAgYTAKChh2rFbUtaPEJww3rs2J3dEReRwwCfcq06
>> gOG055HXBuz7dSMcVNctJDs=
>> =HKN2
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4qxLi8zLmV94Pz+IRArRIAJ4x2qjDczoIUTsE7tAJBpAUODJOiQCfezyn
MNgPaKpdNXiztLsvgbpotyg=
=asHe
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:44:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer

More abuse Harald - either the rules are for all - or their for the select
club members here.  Calling someone a name, when that name calling is
clearly slanderous and libelous is not in accordance with the rules.

Of course if the alternate chair feels otherwise - I would appreciate the
reasons.  Mr. Walsh has now been warned once with the Jopp slander and I
expect you Harald to act on this.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> I stand by my comment.  It is not name calling, it is simply describing what
> the person is, and it is an accurate descriptive term for the person named.
> 
> Much like you would call someone an Italian or an German, the term Loon and Joe
> Baptista are nearly synonymous.   As a matter of fact, I believe there would
> almost be consensus on that point. 
> 
> And that is my final response on this matter.
> 
> On 16-Feb-2000 !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > 
> > Harald - I am asking officially in your capacity that you censor Mr. Walsh
> > for his staments made below.  Calling someone a loon is a violation of the
> > rules and I anticipate you will provide Walsh the appropriate warnings.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> > 
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > 
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
> >> that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on
> >> the
> >> GA list.
> >> 
> >> This is not true.
> >> 
> >> While he may agree with the proposal I made, his posts implies that this
> >> agreement extends to his criticism of the chair not acting on this right
> >> now. 
> >> This is not the case, the issue needs much broader discussion, including
> >> addressing the issues of implementation, and the implications on
> >> participation
> >> by those for whom these rules would be a hardship.
> >> 
> >> What is occuring now is that myself, the Chair and the Assoc. Chair have
> >> posted
> >> comments on the proposal, and are discussing it on the list.
> >> 
> >> This is entirely appropriate and is the appropriate way for it to be handled
> >> at
> >> this point.  Any implication that I support what I feel are baseless
> >> accusations and criticisms made by a PCCF loon are totally false.
> >> 
> >> - --
> >> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> >> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> >> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: DSo Networks
> >> 
> >> iD8DBQE4qe7G8zLmV94Pz+IRAgYTAKChh2rFbUtaPEJww3rs2J3dEReRwwCfcq06
> >> gOG055HXBuz7dSMcVNctJDs=
> >> =HKN2
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
> 
> iD8DBQE4qxLi8zLmV94Pz+IRArRIAJ4x2qjDczoIUTsE7tAJBpAUODJOiQCfezyn
> MNgPaKpdNXiztLsvgbpotyg=
> =asHe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:35:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 16-Feb-2000 !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> More abuse Harald - either the rules are for all - or their for the select
> club members here.  Calling someone a name, when that name calling is
> clearly slanderous and libelous is not in accordance with the rules.
> 
> Of course if the alternate chair feels otherwise - I would appreciate the
> reasons.  Mr. Walsh has now been warned once with the Jopp slander and I
> expect you Harald to act on this.

Slander has two elements.   A false tale or report maliciously uttered.

So first the comment must be false.  That element does not exist here.  The
subject's track record and own comments have already defined himself as 
this term, and others have validated said definition.  (See a current
poll on inegroup.com for instance).  Secondly the comment must be said with
malicious intent.  Again, this element does not exist here.  What possible
malicious intent could exist against someone who is not even a blip on the
radar?  

Perhaps the complainant may wish to use a different term to justify his
"complaint."  The comment that is being complained about was in response to
a post for which the complaint of slander may apply, however.  

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4qyYu8zLmV94Pz+IRAt6gAJ9GI84JOyb80OtZwoXJ8UphwM07GgCgnSww
8Ux9rPMPW5EweI2BJCVCmrE=
=c9us
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:44:05 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC telecon February 18th, 2000 -- agenda

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

The agenda for the next Names Council teleconference,
Friday February 18th, 2000, 15:00 - 17:00 CET (14:00 - 16:00 UTC)
has been posted in the dnso.org website:
    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000218.NCtelecon-agenda.html

The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
[email-masked]

Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso as usual.
Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:03:52 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Complaint about William Walsh' recent posting

While I'm just as sure as everyone else of this person's true identity, and
I am
against the METHOD by which this list is being governed (not to mention its
inability to process an unsubscribe request), let me make a few points...

>   I live in a country that guarantees freedom of expression and speech.
> That is the American way.  The ICANN and the DNSO as a part of ICANN
> are bound by US law.

No, they're not. At least not as you mean it.

>Telling people how they can express themselves
> on a public mailing list including this one is in violation of my right
> to express myself as I choose.

No, it's not. The first ammendment says that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE
NO LAW. ICANN and this list are not congress.

>Same goes for William, you or
> anyone else on this list.  If that is not good enough for you than
> you list rules are bordering of illegal activity on purpose.  I find that
> despicable!

There is no illegal activity going on here. More likely, it's very poor
judgement
on the part of the list maintainers.

But that does not change the fact that simple tracing of the dialup headers
that are placed in the email that you post prove conclusively that this
account
and the "Jeff Williams" account are being used by the same computer. It
might be you and one of your friends, perhaps, but I doubt it.

So, on the one hand, you're blowing worthless steam. On the other hand,
it matters little, as this list is worthless itself.

Christopher

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:44:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer

Harald - there is no need to respond.  The rules of this assembly - how
ever illegally arrived at - are still the rules of this assembly.  The
rules are lear in this matters and now it's up to you to rule.

As for Mr. Walsh's arguments - they are dismissed - a concept in law as it
applies to libel and slander is a matter before the law and it's courts -
and not a consideration for you to rule on.  The rules are very clear in
their intent and purpose and Mr. Walsh's argument hold no purchase nor
defense.

Regards
Joe Baptista

P.S.  Walsh has finally replied to one of my messages.  Interesting ;-)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 16-Feb-2000 !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > More abuse Harald - either the rules are for all - or their for the select
> > club members here.  Calling someone a name, when that name calling is
> > clearly slanderous and libelous is not in accordance with the rules.
> > 
> > Of course if the alternate chair feels otherwise - I would appreciate the
> > reasons.  Mr. Walsh has now been warned once with the Jopp slander and I
> > expect you Harald to act on this.
> 
> Slander has two elements.   A false tale or report maliciously uttered.
> 
> So first the comment must be false.  That element does not exist here.  The
> subject's track record and own comments have already defined himself as 
> this term, and others have validated said definition.  (See a current
> poll on inegroup.com for instance).  Secondly the comment must be said with
> malicious intent.  Again, this element does not exist here.  What possible
> malicious intent could exist against someone who is not even a blip on the
> radar?  
> 
> Perhaps the complainant may wish to use a different term to justify his
> "complaint."  The comment that is being complained about was in response to
> a post for which the complaint of slander may apply, however.  
> 
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
> 
> iD8DBQE4qyYu8zLmV94Pz+IRAt6gAJ9GI84JOyb80OtZwoXJ8UphwM07GgCgnSww
> 8Ux9rPMPW5EweI2BJCVCmrE=
> =c9us
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:49:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Complaint about William Walsh' recent posting

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> it matters little, as this list is worthless itself.

On that we certainly agree.  And I to expose the same as useless by
forcing the culprits to show their true colours.

Cheers
Joe baptista

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:15:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Harald Slips up big time here!  To:Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go farenough

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Justin Nicholas wrote:

> What a pathetic bunch of people.

Well Justin - it's whats left of the transparent icann process called the
GA.  I call this art in motion.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2000 11:08
> Subject: Harald Slips up big time here! To:Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go
> farenough
> 
> 
> > Harald an deverybody else,
> >
> >   Yeah, I checked my drivers license too!  So what?  How does
> > this flippant remark/response prove you are whom you say you are
> > Harald.
> >
> >   I challenge your identity here and now!  Now prove it!!
> >
> > David "Dude" Jenson
> >
> > In a message dated 2/15/00 6:58:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > [email-masked] writes:
> >
> > << At 08:31 15.02.00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> >  >I challenge you to put everyone to the test now.  Or else we'll never
> hear
> >  >the end of the personality squalor - it's getting very bland all these
> >  >accusations of non personalities.  I think it about time the rules of
> >  >proof was applied to all.  Including yourself.
> >
> >  thank you, I've already checked my driver's license :-)
> >
> >  actually, the problems of identity here have been with a single person.
> >  Until we have evidence that there's a larger problem, I see little reason
> to
> >  go general.
> >
> >  Let's have this as part of the discussion for April.
> >
> >                       Harald
> >
> >
> >  -- >>
> >
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:40:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] disclaimer

i leave the punishment up to Harald - it's his and Roberto's rules - and
as such at their pleasure.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   I agree with you here completely Joe.  But banishment is not the answer
> nor is it reasonable.  Other forms of punishment would work just as well.
> Such as exposing this incident publicly as much as possible.  Caining
> in Tiwan is used as well.  That might be appropriate as well as a form
> of punishment for William.
> 
> !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> > Harald - I am asking officially in your capacity that you censor Mr. Walsh
> > for his staments made below.  Calling someone a loon is a violation of the
> > rules and I anticipate you will provide Walsh the appropriate warnings.
> >
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >
> > > Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
> > > that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on the
> > > GA list.
> > >
> > > This is not true.
> > >
> > > While he may agree with the proposal I made, his posts implies that this
> > > agreement extends to his criticism of the chair not acting on this right now.
> > > This is not the case, the issue needs much broader discussion, including
> > > addressing the issues of implementation, and the implications on participation
> > > by those for whom these rules would be a hardship.
> > >
> > > What is occuring now is that myself, the Chair and the Assoc. Chair have posted
> > > comments on the proposal, and are discussing it on the list.
> > >
> > > This is entirely appropriate and is the appropriate way for it to be handled at
> > > this point.  Any implication that I support what I feel are baseless
> > > accusations and criticisms made by a PCCF loon are totally false.
> > >
> > > - --
> > > William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > > DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> > > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > > GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > > Comment: DSo Networks
> > >
> > > iD8DBQE4qe7G8zLmV94Pz+IRAgYTAKChh2rFbUtaPEJww3rs2J3dEReRwwCfcq06
> > > gOG055HXBuz7dSMcVNctJDs=
> > > =HKN2
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:13:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

!Dr. Joe Baptista writes:
 > > By the way, name a professional society that does *not* charge dues.
 > > Please back up your claims with facts.
 > 
 > I don't simply because that was not the issue.  I have clearly stated the
 > GA and DNSO were not perfessional organizations and the standards you
 > went on about do not apply.
 > 
 > I think that's clear.  Don't you.

Not in the slightest.  The DNSO is an obviously professional soceity,
organized by professionals who are interested in working together on
issues related to the Domain Name System.  I specifically do not
restrict the word "professional" to any particular profession.  The
professionals in this society are drawn from a wide and open
constituency whose members are yet to be strictly defined.

By the way, if you do not believe that the DNSO is a professional
society, then you have no business on this list.

/Joe
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:54:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Not in the slightest.  The DNSO is an obviously professional soceity,
> organized by professionals who are interested in working together on
> issues related to the Domain Name System.  I specifically do not

your a bit off here - i think one of your messages makes it clear the dnso
nor the ga is a professional organization - which i agree with - and now
your arguing it a professional organization - sorry - read the bylaws that
apply.

> restrict the word "professional" to any particular profession.  The
> professionals in this society are drawn from a wide and open
> constituency whose members are yet to be strictly defined.

The people here are to a degree silly.  We have lawyers - with no
understanding of the fundamental issues. we have technoctats who's narrow
vision of the internet is in my not so humble opinion a real disability,
and we have the icann priesthood that glues it all together.  And we have
wanna be hitlers.

This is not a professional society.  This is the last resort where people
come for some degree of representation - however rediculous it may be.

This is an assembly of short sighted shame.

> 
> By the way, if you do not believe that the DNSO is a professional
> society, then you have no business on this list.

This is not a professional society.  once again - reference the bylaws.

Regards
Joe Baptista

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #2
**********************