On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> Java, in case you didn't know William has had a long standing
> grudge against Joe Baptista. This is well documented on the DNSO
> GA archives as well as the Domain Policy list archives and both the
> IDNO and IFWP list archive
William and all,
Java, in case you didn't know William has had a long standing
grudge against Joe Baptista. This is well documented on the DNSO
GA archives as well as the Domain Policy list archives and both the
IDNO and IFWP list archives as well. So it is small wonder that
he would make suc
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 10-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> > This obvious censorship is a travesty, and has invited the rude and
> > somewhat humorus poke in the eye that Mr. Baptista has landed us.
>
>
> This wasn't censorship. It was removal
Javier and all,
Good for you to have noticed this, as you put it, travesty of CENSORSHIP
that is being selectively for not officially or otherwise stated reason. It
is
indeed a gross example of now many of just how disgusting the ICANN
leadership has been and seemingly continuing to behave. S
One of the pleasures of being on this poor little raped planet is the fact
my fellow human brothers and sisters always manage to surprise me. my
life is a pleasure to enjoy, and these surprises - a joy.
Thank you Lord Thornton. In three hours the sun will be rising over the
vulcano and I will h
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind-security-19991108.html
I think Mr. Vixie should spend more time fixing bind - and less time
junking around with his rbl. bind is beginning to smell alot like
windows.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications & Computing Facility
Joe and all,
Good point here Joe, and quite sisinctly stated. We all know that
there has been much discussion on this point in the past. It may be that
further discussion on this PROCESS point is something that the ICANN
and the DNSO doesn't want to occur. If so, that seems rather odd
and it
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> With a web based Polling Booth (www.idno.org/vote1) this becomes possible.
>
> This method is fundamentally flawed, in that it permits a simple majority of
> those active and concerned enough to vote to oust anyone with whom they do not
> approv
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 02:55 PM 10/11/1999 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >Liability for reposting a comment as moderator that violates some national
> >law.
> >
> The proposed civil discourse rules for the IDNO (www.idno.org/discuss.htm)
> retu
Roberto and all,
Yes, Yes, yes, indeed CENSORSHIP is a VERY destructive
tactic indeed and should not be favored in any manner what so ever.
Unfortunately it is appearing that that is what the DNSO List Admin..
is doing therefore causing discontent and discord, not to mention
violating individua
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Javier and all,
>
> I agree in part with your sentiments here Javier. But it is also
> even more important that the DNSO GA list is open to all. This
> is not the case presently. If this is due to Elisabeth's mistakes,
> than fine, let's correct
Javier and all,
I agree in part with your sentiments here Javier. But it is also
even more important that the DNSO GA list is open to all. This
is not the case presently. If this is due to Elisabeth's mistakes,
than fine, let's correct them NOW. If however it is due to some
SELECTIVE CENSOR
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Javier and all,
>
> Well I can understand you concern here, but I do not share it
> completely. Joe along with many others have tried many times
> and methods (See relevant archives) to get some action on the
> seemingly purposeful CENSORSHIP of th
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
> Throw them off the goddamn list, let's talk shop for a change. Call
> it a violation of civil discourse or excessive crossposting and be
> done with it.
>
> I swear to god the only people I ever see remotely concerned about
> freedom of speech on the
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> No, they wouldn't. Killfiles are no proof against spoofed
> addresses.
Kent - if there wer no censorship - there would be no spoofing. I think
that the point were getting at.
Regards
Joe
Javier and all,
Well I can understand you concern here, but I do not share it
completely. Joe along with many others have tried many times
and methods (See relevant archives) to get some action on the
seemingly purposeful CENSORSHIP of the DNSO and ICANN
in particular, to little or no avail to
On 10-Nov-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:43:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
>> > I'm *trying* to filter the culprits out of my life and I'm still getting
>> > a mailbox full of utter crap.
>>
>> See what I mean. Now - if we had no censorship - the result is o
On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:43:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > I'm *trying* to filter the culprits out of my life and I'm still getting
> > a mailbox full of utter crap.
>
> See what I mean. Now - if we had no censorship - the result is our kill
> files would work again.
No, the
The problem with such heavy-handed blockage is, if he uses hotmail, it also
blocks all other users of that service. This is exclusionary in the
extreme...equivalent of tossing out babies with old bathwater.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Beha
I've rewritten the Tony Rutkowski story - with corresponding URL's.
Here's my draft.
Crashing the GAC with Tony Rutkowski
(a wonderful story with a happy ending)
Freedom fighter and activist lawyer Tony Rutkowski
(http://www.chaos.com/rutkowski.html) crashed ICANN's Government Advisory
Committee
At 05:47 PM 11/10/99 GMT, you wrote:
>The original message was received at Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:56:30 GMT
>from vrx.net [204.138.71.254]
>
> - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Transcript of session follows -
>550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 12:47 PM 11/10/99 -0500, Joe Sims wrote:
>
>
>
>___
>
>
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this comm
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
> Everybody wants accountability for everybody else except themselves.
> Posting as somebody else is wrong, in this particular is was beyond
> juvenile. Open processes rely on a minimal maturity level of all involved.
> If participants insist on acting
On 10-Nov-99 Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>So - still awaiting those comments from the administrators .-)
>>
>>Mikael
>
> I think if anybody wan't to filter somebody out of their life that's
> swell, be deciding to filter somebody out of everybody else lives
> is just wrong.
>
> This epitomizes th
I, too, have been disturbed by certain behavior exhibited in this process, and
wondered how best to reply. However, I am concerned that the medicine will be
worse than the disease. And, we may administer placebos which do no more than
satisfy our "need" to respond.
Mikael Pawlo [correctly] wrot
___
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender b
>So - still awaiting those comments from the administrators .-)
>
>Mikael
I think if anybody wan't to filter somebody out of their life that's
swell, be deciding to filter somebody out of everybody else lives
is just wrong.
This epitomizes the "technical coordination" role that ICANN is supposed
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> absolute right in any country today. You could restrict freedom of speech
> by using contract law (non-disclosure agreements), corporate law
> (protection for trade secrets) and by using privacy law (prohibition
> against insults). Of course you could als
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> So we went over to the US government representative
> and formally asked to be observers. She firmly
> declined. However, the representative of Ireland,
> Aidan Ryan, overhearing our plea, came over and
> offered to make us accredited observers of Ir
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
> >However, your postings as Elizabeth can't be defended in any way
> >and are as such enough to get you banned from these lists
> >in my humble opinion.
> FREEDOM OF SPEACH is FREEDOM.
> You can not be 95% free to speach. You are free or you are no
I support the point of getting the ICANN GAC meetings totally open.
If the BOARD meetings are open there is no reason that the
GOVERMENT meetings are closed.
This meetings are about the INTERNET, and the White Paper
called to the stakeholders to manage the internet. These are not
the times when
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
> FREEDOM OF SPEACH is FREEDOM.
> You can not be 95% free to speach. You are free or you are not free.
> Freedom is just that: freedom.
>
> To use freedom to insult or any other misbehavior is a right... and it is
> the rigth of the other part to su
Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>However, your postings as Elizabeth can't be defended in any way
>and are as such enough to get you banned from these lists
>in my humble opinion.
Dear Mikael and all:
FREEDOM OF SPEACH is FREEDOM.
You can not be 95% free to speach. You are free or you are not free.
Free
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
> Dear Joe:
Dear Joe - is reposding to you in the GA and ifwp. The IFWP message will
go through - and the Ga message will as always die in the big black
censorship hole administered by elisabeth.
> I can stand with you to figth against the censorsh
Tony --
Congrats on your ability to crash the GAC meeting and open it a
bit. This what happens when there is government by committee
instead of government by law. We need a legitimate constitution.
--ken
>At 12:42 AM 11/8/99 , you wrote:
>>Who was that southern bell you crashed the GAC meeting
I copy this to the IFWP list because some people that are in position
to clarify the affair of the Censorship is not present in the GA List.
Dear NC members,
Dear ICANN Board members
Dear NEW elected Icann Board members
Maybe your silence is building an atmosphere of Censorship.
Please, we nee
I've found the following URL's for the people involved. I'm wondering if
they are the correct URL's
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> The three activist lawyers in LA - Nader's
Nader at http://www.nader.org/
> Theresa Amato,
http://www.lphs.dupage.k12.il.us/auxiliary/foundation/a
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> Theresa Amato, Cleve Thornton representing
> Tajikistan, and myself decided we would
One question - was Cleve Thornton representing the the country of
Tajikistan, or the registrar - or both?
Regards
Joe
Joe Baptista wrote:
>I think we've already made a serious dent. I'm very pleased with our
>progress. We've tried the polite approach - now were doing the kick ass
>routine.
Dear Joe:
I can stand with you to figth against the censorship, but when you forget
manners... uhhmmm... you make not ea
As expected - the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list has been further disabled for the good
of the masses.
Let us pray to saint elisabeth of paris and thank her for her guidance.
Regards
Joe Baptista
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:49:27 +0100 (MET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Tony. I tried to get
>
>http://www.itu.int/itudoc/gs/council/c99/docs/docs1/051.html
>
>and was asked for a TIES user name and password.
>
>what am i doing wrong?
Gordon,
As I indicated in the note, most of these documents
controlled by the ITU, but are provided on the WIA site.
For th
Tony. I tried to get
http://www.itu.int/itudoc/gs/council/c99/docs/docs1/051.html
and was asked for a TIES user name and password.
what am i doing wrong?
>The ITU General Secretariat has launched a proceeding
>on its role involving the Internet and DNS. This was
>contained in a 21
Mikael and all,
Mikael, why don't you learn to turn Wrap on on your E-Mailer?
Or is that beyond your capability?
Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> Den 10 Nov 1999 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> (---)
> > Shame on you and anyone support these actions.
> (---)
>
> I never said I supported the alleged censorshi
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> Den 10 Nov 1999 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> (---)
> > Shame on you and anyone support these actions.
> (---)
>
> I never said I supported the alleged censorship. However, your postings
as Elizabeth can't be defended in any way and are as such enough to
Den 10 Nov 1999 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(---)
> Shame on you and anyone support these actions.
(---)
I never said I supported the alleged censorship. However, your postings as Elizabeth
can't be defended in any way and are as such enough to get you banned from these lists
in my humble opinion.
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> We could start with an easy one - every posting must be confirmed
through email just as the subscription. This will probably lead to
another effect as well - higher signal/noise-rate, since it will be more
work to send things to the list.
thats right -
Den 10 Nov 1999 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(---)
> These authentication mechanisms take a bit more work to
(---)
We could start with an easy one - every posting must be confirmed through email just
as the subscription. This will probably lead to another effect as well - higher
signal/noise-rate,
has anyone noticed there are more reporters on the ga list, including
Emmanuel Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications & Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
http
Your such an evil little basterd. I think that's why I like you William.
just wind you up and watch the show.
You better be careful. Your playing with liability here. Diebold is a
big company to which I provide network infrastructure.
Your not hurting me baby. But we could all end up in cour
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Joe, I am in agreement with you here, thought I can understand this
> fellows view as well. My overall view is the "If you don't stand for
> something, you will stand for anything".
Exactly. I so tired of living on a planet full of sheep who just
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe and all,
Joe, I am in agreement with you here, thought I can understand this
fellows view as well. My overall view is the "If you don't stand for
something, you will stand for anything".
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ceo wrote:
>
> > I could have post
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> We have just been witnesses to Joe Baptista masquerading as Elisabeth
> Porteneuve and writting things that, were I Elisabeth, would be personally
> embarrasing. Regardless about how I personally view Elisabeth (neutral) or
> my disagreement with
Roeland and all,
Although I in part agree with you with respect to the "Nature" of
Joe's post's I would also again point out that he did so in response
to failure of Elisabeth and/or the DNSO Admin.. responding to multiple
queries regarding selective censorship of him amongst others that he
spe
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ceo wrote:
> I could have posted this to the list but,
> I decided to write you direct. Many of your
> posts reach me daily. I am aware of the activities
> of ICANN. However, your postings are just that postings.
you should of posted it to the list - because i am. I fin
We have just been witnesses to Joe Baptista masquerading as Elisabeth
Porteneuve and writting things that, were I Elisabeth, would be personally
embarrasing. Regardless about how I personally view Elisabeth (neutral) or
my disagreement with her ideas, this behaviour is patently ungentelmanly, in
t
Richard and all,
I agre with you here Richard. It does seem rather unfortunate.
I bet that ICANN wouldn't dare bust anyone for ICANN.SATAN
or ICANN.GOD. If so they would have to resolve that against
ICANNWATCH.ORG, eh? At any rate I would use ICANNSATAN.ORG
and ICANNGOD.ORG instead.
Richard
56 matches
Mail list logo
