[discuss] List membership management

Sun May 4 23:46:07 UTC 2014

At 22:40 04/05/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>You seem to believe that "fsp4net" represents something real. What grounds
>do you have for that belief
>
>I know that it comes from JFC's computer:

All the more surprising than JFC has documented he was initiating 
fsp4.net as multistakholders group distrusting ICANN, that he had to 
initially host their contributions, more over ICANN discriminates 
their MS group mail address (after his machine, that you designate to 
hackers has been ... hacked)..

Actually, I fear you are being used with Andrew Sullivan by the still 
small fsp4net alliance. They campaign to show that ICANN, supported 
by IETF people from this list, filters its MS process and 
discriminates among stakeholders. And tell fairy tales about VGNs 
(cf. your mails) as no one will believe you do not know what they are.

They have given their https://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox access to 
many people for them to check that they can register 
alliance.fsp4net at gmail.com on /1NET and NTIAtransition without any return!

Their target is to expose thar (1) either the NTIA strategy is 
deliberately biaised, or they have to change their mind about ICANN , 
(2) ICANN fears the VGN concept and only react in being rude and 
non-democratic, and (3)  the whole issue at stake is the ICANN sole, 
unique, authoritative VGN vs. billions of people's, professionnal, 
non-profit, corporate, local, regional, national VGNs.

I must say things are very easy for them: look at the way you help 
truth in your iast mail:.

At 00:40 05/05/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 05/05/2014 09:59, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > On 04-May-14 16:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> That said, it's hard to disagree, but I remain concerned that the registry
> >> operators have a vested interest
> >
> > All of the interested parties have a vested interest by definition.
>
>I specifically meant a financial interest, in a way that non-profit
>organisations don't have (or at least, shouldn't have). Some registries
>are very much for-profit.

Their alliance is for private persons, professionnals, non-profits 
explaining they distrust ICANN, because ICANN seems to only be 
interested by profit and financial interests. And you confirm it!

They only have to quote you ...

> >> and that the voice of the users of DNS
> >> registrar services should be heard somehow.
> >
> > Couldn't the users be represented by representatives of the ICANN Non
> > Contracted Parties of the GNSO (registrants and users), ICANN the
> > At-Large users and the ISOC organizational and chapter members?
>
>They could indeed. I'd just like to see it made explicit.

As a vested group of multiple akeholders worrying about their 
*independent use* of the Internet they are denied participation to 
the IG supposedly open ICANN MS process. Now you want them to be 
replaced by ICANN and ISOC registrants and end-users ....

This IS what they want you to tell, so they can show the whole NTIA 
project (including the Techies) is biased and that an MS process 
implying ICANN cannot be trusted more than the NSA.

I think I betray no secret (they published egistered me on their 
list) in telling that their primary target is to show there is a real 
threat on the digital ecosystem that demands Europe and States to 
enact their precautionary obligations.

M G

FYI the old telepresse information system since 2000 uses a old tool 
taking advantage from the Eudora Mail Agent file architecture, we 
plan to change when the IETF work on JSON will be completed. So, you 
will find several people still using Eudora 7. Works well: as 
well  as the old JFCnet VGN that worries you so much.