[ga-full] Re: [ga] DNSO.ORG has melted down?

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

How nice .. a positive PCCF reply - not that it matters.  And now I shall
respond.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> This week has been most interesting. First the cracker-kiddies start capping
> some of the largest pipes on the Internet (which scares the bejeezus out of
> me), then I see a bunch of folks, that I have mucho respect for, leave this
> [DNSO-GA] forum.

And a good thing they did.  I would not of respected them if they
stayed.  The GA has been the victim of electoral fraud perptrated by our
dearest Mr. Gatano - Harald confirmed that.  The GA has been exposed for
being what it is, not as a place where ICANN gathers consensus from the
internet to justify it's action, but a place instead only for voices which
are ICANN approved.

Where is the Department of Commerces oversight on this?

> I have been watching this for some time. I too have been concerned with the
> noise level. Currently, I peg the value-add content somewhere south of 1% of
> list traffic. I can mostly lay this at the feet of one Joe Baptista.
> Congratulations Joe, you've done PCCF proud.

Well Roeland, PCCF is a leader in exposing stupidity and fraud.  The GA
and ICANN have been exposed by us, the fraud has been documented and yes,
we are proud of that.

Of course there were options which would of saved the day for the GA.  We
had discussions on establishing proceedural rules - roberts rules of order
was one suggestion, Mark Langston had an excellent electronic version
available.  We had options.  Instead Harald and Roberto decided it was
playtime and imposed their will.

The result has been a mass exoduse of some of the most important people on
the internet in these issues.  Harald and Roberto have brought shame on
the GA, they have soiled ICANN's reputation - and all this a few weeks
berfore CAIRO.   Oh yes Roland - I am very entertained with the state of
affairs with ICANN.

They have been raped by the best and now stand naked devoid of any
credibility.  We have removed the veil and have displayed the true
ugliness that is ICANN.  You are historically correct to give us the
credit.

> However, I can make a case for comparative negligence with the operators of
> DNSO.ORG, as well. In that case, Joe has made a strong point; A trust
> relationship can not exist when with this many unfiltered and unverified

Trust is a critical factor in establishing independent governance -
independent of external factors such as corporate control - I speak of
course of the ICANN IBM love fest.

As long as ICANN and it's minions attempt to maintain control - the result
will be just what has happened - isolation and failure.  ICANN is unable
to defend itself from real arguments, that's why it has benn critical to
silence the GA.  As long as ICANN continues to committ fraud by hijacking
the domain name system on behalf of corporate and government elete - it
becomes increasingly necsaary to play make believe games.

The GA was a week point in ICANN's muddy mess, it had to be silenced.  The
judgement error which ICANN and it's minions failed to realize was that
such methods will result in increased expense.  More propaganda - more
expense.  I'm looking forward to it.

> persons. Especially, when one of them has the malicious intent/capability
> that Joe has demonstrated. In this environment, informal and  ad hoc

I disagree - my actions were neither malicious nor done in any anger.  To
be frank I enjoyed it.

My reason for such an attack are very simple - I was simply defending the
common good.  I refused to allow a small group of tyrants to censor me in
an open process.  I forced the issues - one might say I spiced the
cake.  I exposed the reality that is the GA.  I showed it to be the farce
that it is - but I only provided the means to accomplish this.  It was
Harald and Roberto our chair and alternate who delivered the goods - and
by doing so exposed the farce.

That is the extent of any credit I will take.

> practices of the past will, demonstrably, not work. This can be laid at the
> feet of the DNSO Names Council (whom adopted Roberts Rules, yet still could
> not even spell them in the San Jose NC meeting [buying the book is
> insufficient, one must also read it]).

Yes - it's critical to read and understand.  But understand roland - this
is a political process where the judge, jury and exocutioners are 200
million internet users.  So a little understanding of chess would go a
long way too.

> Formal rules and process may be a burden, but participating in this sort of
> activity, without them, may be a complete waste of time. I mentioned
> something like this when I addressed the Names Council, in San Jose.
> However, structure does NOT appear out of nowhere, it must be created. The
> manner of creation is ALWAYS contentious. The failure to realize this, and
> act accordingly, is the prime failure of the DNSO and the ICANN as well.
>

Agreed.
 
> DNSO.ORG, and the ICANN, by association, is failing this political
> competency litmus test.

Disagree - it never existed to begin with.  It's been make believe since
postel died and it will continue to be make believe for awhile
longer.  And while that happens I'm going to make sure I have a good
supply of pop corn for the show.

Regards
Joe Baptista

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Patrick
> > Greenwell
> > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 8:43 AM
> > To: William X. Walsh
> > Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; ga@dnso.org; Kent Crispin
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >
> > > The only one annoyed, is you.
> >
> > Not really, I'm with Michael.
> 

--
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