Re: Free speech and GA (Re: [ga] Time to put...)

[Michael <mcnulty@AZStarnet.com>]

On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Michael wrote:

> 
> 1/1/00
>     Friends:

Friends, romans countrymen - lend me your ears.  This is Joe Baptista -
posing as Michael to bypass the nasty censorship of the GA.

>         I long to participate in a forum where I can debate the need for
> unlimited gTLDs.        This forum, however, relates to the right of Mr. Batista
> to piss in our soup.

Excuse me Michael.  "piss in our soup"?  This soup does not belong
exclusively to you nor to anyone else.  This is an IBM soup, which has
certain exclusive qualities.  And as I have told you in private email your
interest in unlimited gTLD's will not receive any attention here.  An
expanded gTLD infrastructure is unaccptable to IBM and as such you can
talk till your blue in the face and I gurantee you nothing will come of
it.

>         In my more activist days in college (late 60's early 70's), the greatest
> frustration of any protest was the "comrade" who thought that civil disobedience
> was for the bourgeoisie, and that uncivil disobedience was the only true
> protest.  Later, of course, we found that the local law enforcement authorities
> were using agents provacateur to push our protests over the line so that they
> had the necessary justification for a crack down.

I'm not sure what you mean by all of this - civil and uncivil
disobedience.  Could you clarify.  As for the reference to "agent
provacateur" - I certainly hope it is not your intention to travel the
road visited earlier this year by Mr. Robert Shaw of the ITU.  If your not
familiar with the history, Robert Shaw called me and our organization NSI
spies.

I understand Mr. Shaw has since be delegated to the backroom at the ITU
and soon will suffer the pangs of irrelevance.

>     Mr. Batista has done an effective job of pushing the domain name issues off
> of the listserv and to substitute in its place his indignation at his perceived
> powerlessness.  But the results of his efforts could hardly be clearer: the

I think there is a confusion here.  To be powerless is to have no recourse
- and I have plenty of that.  The censorship of my good person has only
served to provide me with a platform to expose same - and I have certainly
taken advantage of that.

The real people who are powerless here would be people like yourself.  You
have the right idea with respect to gTLD's but no one in the IBM-ICANN
power structure really cares what you think.  If it's not in the
takeover script it's of no importance.  And that I say is somewhat
unfortunate.

Censorship is for the dogs and indeed the DNSO has become a dogs
breakfast.

> domain name 'debate' regresses back into the quieter, more civilized, more
> exclusive haunts from which it came.  This is very much in the interests of
> WIPO, IBM, et al, and is hurting the rest of us.  The void created by Mr.
> Batista's efforts work strongly in favor of the status quo, which is the enemy
> of a more robust naming system.

Not really.  My efforts only serve to expose the rot that exists here in
plentiful abundance.  And no - it is not in the interests of IBM, the WIPO
et al.  Those organizations depend on the perception of consent, and the
disruption and exposure of this farce - i.e. ICANN, IBM and censorship
does not provide these organizations with the perception of consent.
Quite the opposite is achived.

>     There needs to be a forum to discuss this issue!  I have clients that are
> desperate from the lack of available URLs.  When I send them here, however, they
> see what one finds in so many corners of the internet: a puerile chatroom that
> vacillates between pathos, irrelevance and insanity.

What your clients see is an alledged open process - which in FACT IS NOT
OPEN.  Your clients will also see a process of participation in which the
participants have no power in which to participate.  As I have said, the
GA (General Assembly) is more like a General Audience who's sole purpose
is to assist in the "perception of consent" and not much more.
 
>     I strongly encourage one of the members of the Board to make a motion to
> install a parliamentarian to serve as a moderator.  I also urge that those of
> you who care so deeply about the net _not_ fall into the trap of process and
> procedure.  The goal of the parliamentarian would be to pass through all
> rational discussion of the subject at hand.  It would be a mistake to take the
> next six months to write "rules" to implement a moderated listserv.  Take a
> vote!  Get on with this!  We need more names.

I could live with parliamentary proceedure.  It is by far more honest and
accountable then what exists here.

> Michael McNulty
> (You may assume the next multiple e-mails from me
> will be forged...)

No no Michael, not forged.  The headers are forged to allow posting
access, the body of the message is clearly that of Joe Baptista.

Regards
Joe Baptista

P.S.  You should follow my advice.  If you really want an expanded gTLD
infrastructure then follow up with the lawyers I reffered you too and
petition the politicians.

> 
> "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> 
> > This is Joe Baptista posing as Roeland Meyer.
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, this is what I had in mind. The technology is readily available.
> > > If we simply knew who posted what and could trust a message to be from
> > > whomever it claims to be from, that would go a long way to clean up the
> > > garbage around here. Once a post can actually be laid a someone's feet, I
> >
> > Shame - to call your opponents garbage.  I guess that gives me licence to
> > call you an IBM whore.  Not very nice is it.
> >
> > > believe that the list will self-moderate. I've actually observed this
> > > before. The noise level is at its peak when anonymous posters are present,
> > > it goes down a bunch when originators are known, it goes down a bunch more
> > > when a poster can be verified. This is all without external intervention.
> >
> > The list is not nor has it ever been self moderating.  This list is for
> > show.  This list is to serve IBM's self interests and not much more.
> >
> > I say to you roeland - go ahead and make this conference more difficult to
> > post too.  Already we see the result of censorship.  No one is interested
> > in participating anymore.
> >
> > In fact the key participants - the IBM sluts - have been forced into
> > posting anything and everything to get this conference going again.  It's
> > dead in here.  So I say sure - let's make it more difficult to post.  That
> > should put the last nail into the dnso ga coffin.
> >
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
>