F I D O N E W S
Volume 18, Number 1
1 January 2001

Guest Editorial

A Sysops Plea for help

---------- Original Message
Subject: Ward Dossche
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:23:31 +0100
From: "Leeman, Steven" <steven@hotrate.com>
To: editor@fidonews.org

what happened in Z2 last month? (eg I'm not good at articles...so this is just to inform you...do with it as you please) *****Note: Some words and spelling corrected, but little as possible. ED.

A few weeks ago the .BE internet domain was to be liberalized; eg you didn't have to be a company or institute in order to get a .be domain name... So as a fidonetter avant la letter, I immediately started, ask some of my friends, to buy domain names... It was a success in Belgium... the dns.be crashed on the first day under the tons of requests :-)

A few weeks later...Ward Dossche gets xDSL and suddenly checks at dns.be who had tool fido.be (eg my instinct says : 18hours before he found out I had send a routed messages to an R29 sysop called Pablo Saratxaga who is very familiar with fido.belg.* and z2.mail.fidonet.org MX record keeping if he could send f624.n292.z2.fidonet.org to my fido.be or fidonet.be account)...I and some other sysops have always been very suspicious about his "inside" information...it's all too obvious.... he's also against sysops connecting to other sysops although I believed fidonet policy permits it you may lay connections to other sysops...(as long as it's for your netmail only) eg it's thesame like "crashing" to them... but you lay it out as a standard in your routing/tosser ... why redirect it through 6 nodes up till IC level when you connect every damn minute to that other sysop's system... in the WWB Ward has already received 0 on his request to stop this charade... he wants to have total control on fidonet...

so Ward didn't file complaint or inform me by crashed netmail.... nope he just emailed it to me at 18h09... to put it with his own words (rough translation) "I'm no sysop that'll stick at the screen reading mail all day until my tongue will fall of" - or something... a R28 sysop can confirm that message... :-)

It's also the same Ward Dossche that removed any trademark/copyright marks from the nodelist and it's decision was widespread in fidonews (1997) about that Fido/fidonet and Dog with diskette were no trademarks outside Zone 1... Today he shouts that he is not alone a Coordinator Fidonet-Belgium... HE IS THE IC (I can send his emails if you'd like... Fidopolicy doesn't handle those does it? :-) and that it's HIS domain name and I should give those domain names to him within 2 hours of his 1st email...

he never responded to my netmails... but he states he received my netmail in an email with the last nodediff where i've been put on hold...this morning... he has also tried to block my domain names (fido.be and fidonet.be) at my registrar...which obviously refused... he's got a 24 page manual with smallwrite which doesn't give any rights to an IC of "fidonet"-WHAT? which doesn't have any jurisdiction affiliations in this country... (10 years ago Ward Dossche had one Bnet.vzw but ... it died...) so Ward Dossche had 10 years the time to get the .BE domain using his affiliation...

but now a 3rd party has taken it...his worst enemy...it's my fault...?

Even the belgian government has the same problem... http://www.belgie.be turned into DUTCH (The Netherlands) hands... a big "joke" in the Belgian Internet World

...
I'd like your input about this subject... should I ask "asylum" in Z1 or other zones to get relisted? my points & downlinks won't just switch over because of this (one of many) Ward Dosschian fights...

the Dns.be liberalization slogan was "First Come First Serve" where the rule was : you didn't had to have any affiliations any more... you could register http://www.water.be without getting a lawyer of some Water(H20) company on your head...

Greetz, Steven Leeman (2:292/624)

By: Steven Leeman
To: editor@fidonews.org
Re: <EXCOMMUNICATION> -Ed

* Forwarded by Steven Leeman (2:292/624)
* Area : FN_SYSOP ([INTERBBS])
* From : Steven Leeman, 2:292/624 (Monday December 25 2000 01:21)
* To : All
* Subj : :-)

Hello All, does anyone still remember this fidonews article of Ward Dossche? hence why am I posting this?

A few weeks ago the .BE internet domain name was liberalized...eg you didn't had to have a company in order to registrar your own domain...you could take http://www.yahoo.be if you wanted to have it :-)

so I took also a few...eg http://www.fido.be, http://www.fidonet.be

a few weeks later I get a nice email(multiple) from Ward Dossche (he doesn't like netmails anymore?) stating he is copyright holder and such of those names and asked me to dismiss ownership of those .be domain names...

I send his own article to him by netmail...

Now instead of his threats to start a DNS-complaint...he uses another card of his sleeve... <activate childish tone> "Although I'm not a Belgian Fido Coordinator...I AM THE INTERNATIONAL FIDO COORDINATOR <POINT>... Now free these domain names or you'll be removed from the nodelist...I'll await your answer in 2 hours"... the next day I was put on "hold" in the nodelist... next thursday I should be out of the Z2 nodelist as well...unless I free them up "I don't need a /polemique/" he said as last... sure every /master/ likes a slave that doesn't object to it's commands...

He has spammed al my downlinks and points to inform them they should look for another uplink... they all ignored his netmail...even started a polemique on their own...

it's not the first time Ward Dossche misuses his Nodelist-keeper power... eg he has already blackmailed moderators in the idle hope of getting moderatorship of that echo... he quotes Echopol nicely but if himself stands above it... no rules of his echo's; no listening to the rules of other echo's...; [....]

Mon 31 Mar 97 9:27
By: Ward Dossche
To: David Moufarrege
Re: Re: Copyright Notice

Hello David,

> What is the background of your dropping the Copyright Notice of the
> Z2-Nodelist?

Some time ago a person wanted to write non-commercially something somewhere about Fido and kinda liked the art-work on the dog with the diskette. (name of the person escapes me, but I seem to recall a similar incident connected to the last Eurocon) So, truthfully believing Tom Jennings holds a trademark on this (as was mentioned in the nodelist and still is in Fidonews) he asks permission to use it, which Tom flatly refused.

As I found this rather a strange reaction, out of curiosity I asked some of our corporate lawyers to look into the copyright- and trademark-issue of "Fido", "Fidonet" and the artwork of the dog-with- diskette. (FYI, I'm Deputy-Director at the Belgian telco, employing some 27,000 staff and we have acorporate-law- division who does nothing else than copyright and trademark stuff)

As I so suspected for a long time, I received confirmation after researching relevant trademark-bureaus that no references to the above nor any trademark held by a Jennings Tom or Tom Jennings relating to Fidonet or something similarly sounding exists.

Mark my words ... this covers the whole of Europe (east and west) including Israel and Turkey. It says nothing about the USA.

We discovered however expired Fidonet-trademarks in the name of other individuals residing in Europe.

A quick search was done for Japan (where ZC/6 resides) without any TJ- trademark. Same thing in Argentina (homebase of ZC/4) where TJ holds no rights but where, very puculiarly, another trademark called "Latin Fido" is held by a local sysop (this is also reflected in the Z4- nodelist).

So let me summarize :
There is NO existing trademark in Europe in the name of Tom Jennings nor Jennings Tom for "Fido", "Fidonet" nor the "dog-with-diskette"- artwork.

Then why write it in the nodelist? I don't see one single reason.

Now let's not confuse "trademark" with "copyright".

If TJ wants to have a trademark on all those items then as far as I'm concerned he can have it ... which means he must have his brand-names registered in each and every country - for zone-2 this means 35- countries to be precise - and agree to pay the periodical hefty sum on that. (worldwide 190+ ?)

This he has never done, nor will he do it, nor will anyone else because it is just too expensive. "Control" over the nodelist can never warrant such a high price nor can anyone ever expect a return on that investment.

If anyone ever has any bright idea here to register the trademarks to either "control" or "financially exploit" then I hereby post a claim to be first in line to laugh that person straight in his/her face. Less than a year ago there was the case of a company registering a trademark on the wording "world wide web" and "www", which mind you are nowhere legally protected. After initial astonishment by the internet-community the "owners" were quickly reduced to the laughing stock even while they followed correct legal procedures. They tried to exercise a claim and finally gave up because it was reasonably un-enforceable.

With Fidonet it is exactly the same thing.

Now one final word about "copyright". TJ does not participate in any way in the production of any of the nodelists nor any of the segments that comprise the nodelist. Hence there is not one square inch of legal ground for him to claim copyright over it.

The NC's could have a copyright over net-segments, the RC's over region- segments and the ZC's over zone-segments. Since the ZC's also produce nodelists they could imo also post a copyright-notice for their version of the nodelist although I think all these notices carry little weight and are of little to no importance.

Anyone in zone-2 having problems with the nodelist without a TJ-copyright/ trademark notification can always freq at this node the elements it takes to produce their own nodelist.

Every current zone-2 region-segment can be freqqed here with the magic-name REGIONxx where xx = region number.

On top of that every zone-segment can be freqqed here following the same logic : ZONEy where y = zonenumber.

It enables everyone who wants that to build his/her own customized nodelist.

If a person e.g. only wants R24, R50 and Z3, then he/she freqs REGION24, REGION50, ZONE3 and gives that to his/her nodelist-compiler. How's that for openness, availability, service, whatever you wanna call it?

If they want to include the original notice they can equally freq "TJ" here so that bit of information is accessible as well although it makes no difference.

As a sidenote, I already received threats for a court-case by one Randy Bush, the same person when slamming the Fido-door shut behind him stated it was nothing else but a litter-box reeking of cat-piss. I understand some valid concerns about intentions and motives, but I do have a more than full-time and well payed job so I don't need to try to squeeze some extra pennies (at what cost?) out of some peoples pockets. I believe it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any individual to grab control of the nodelist and make a buck out of it.

If that happens then it is because the sysops allow it to happen, personally I would just totally ignore such a person.

There's a lesson to be learned from our German friends who would never take any shit like that. This they proved after some "grab control"- exercises there.

I'm more worried about the censoring of Fidonews-worldwide by a ZC which recently occurred and nobody reacted upon it. Weren't you aware?

Thanks for writing. If there's more you want to ask, please do.

Take care, \x/ard Dossche

ZC/2

Netmail (2:292/624.1) NETMAIL
Msg : 755 of 768 Pvt K/s Trs A/s
From : Ward Dossche 2:292/854 Fri 22 Dec 00 10:48
To : point 2:292/624.1 Fri 22 Dec 00 11:03
Subj : Status van de 2:292/624-node in Fidonet

De sysop van 2:292/624 (jullie boss) heeft eenzijdig, zonder overleg en zonder enig akkoord van de copyright houder en/of zijn gemandateerde bij DNS.BE de domeinen "fidonet.be" en "fido.be" gereserveerd.

Dergelijk usurperend gedrag wordt in een Fidonetomgeving niet getollereerd.

De sysop in kwestie werd om uitleg gevraagd met inbegrip van aan te

tonen dat hij de benodigde toelatingen heeft. Bij uitblijven van deze bewijsvoering wordthem vanuit de Fidonet hierarchie opgelegd dat de domeinen "fidonet.be" en "fido.be" opgegeven worden. De termijn voor hem om hierop bevredigend te reageren werd op 1 week gesteld. (deadline donderdag 28 december om 23h55 lokale tijd)

Totnutoe kwam daar geen bevredigend antwoord op.

Het nodenummer 2:292/624 werdt met onmiddellijke ingang op "Hold" geplaatst in de fidonet nodelist en zal volgende week verwijderd worden, samen met alle andere inschrivingen van dezelfde persoon, indien de sysop zich niet naar het bovenvermelde directief richt.

Voor jullie creeert het de bijkomende moeilijkheid dat de pointaccess wegvalt. Om die te behouden en verder in Fidonet aktief te blijven zijn er 3 scenario's:

1) Jullie moedigen de sysop van 2:292/624, Steven Leeman, aan om zich bij de gestelde richtlijnen neer te leggen. Wanneer het bewijs geleverd werd dat de domeinen 'fidonet.be' en 'fido.be' daadwerkelijk verwijderd werden uit de dns-tabellen blijft alles bij het oude; 2) Jullie zoeken een andere sysop. Dit kan heel gemakkelijk gebeuren via de nodelist; 3) Jullie vragen node-status aan via een hub en worden volwaardige node binnen Fidonet.

Mogelijke hubs zijn:

* 2:292/100 (hub10010) Johan Zwiekhorst - Hasselt * 2:292/401 (hub10040) Freddy Verrezen - Mol * 2:292/706 (hub10070) Gilbert Doyen - Brussel * 2:292/865 (hub10081) Luc Sienaert - Mortsel * 2:292/854 (hub10084) Ward Dossche - Mortsel * 2:292/2009 (hub10200) Eric Vaneberck - Jodoigne * 2:292/4005 (hub10400) Yves Hennico - Montzen

Ik hoop dat het allemaal zo geen vaart zal lopen maar indien de sysop van 2:292/624, Steven Leeman, niet inbindt en niet ingaat op de gestelde eisen zal bovengenoemd scenario onveranderd uitgevoerd worden.

Ter info, ik ga hierover met niemand een polemiek voeren, de kaarten liggen zoals ze liggen.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

\x/@rd Dossche Fidonet International Coordinator

Netmail (2:292/624.1) NETMAIL
Msg : 754 of 768 Pvt K/s Trs A/s
From : Ward Dossche 2:292/854 Fri 22 Dec 00 10:28
To : Steven Leeman 2:292/626 Fri 22 Dec 00 11:03
Subj : De toestand van 2:292/624 en 2:292/626
CC: Eddy Missoul, Eddy Missoul, Tom Gay, Jacek Pielesz
CC: Tom Laermans, Davy Verhaeghen

Heren,

De sysop van 2:292/624 en 2:292/626 heeft eenzijdig, zonder overleg en zonder enig akkoord van de coyrighthouder en/of zijn gemandateerde bij DNS.BE de domeinen "fidonet.be" en "fido.be" gereserveerd.

Dergelijk usurperend gedrag wordt in een Fidonetomgeving niet getollereerd.

De sysop in kwestie werd om uitleg gevraagd met inbegrip van aan te tonen dat hij de benodigde toelatingen heeft. Bij uitblijven van deze bewijsvoering wordtopgelegd dat de domeinen "fidonet.be" en "fido.be" opgegeven worden. De termijn om hierop bevredigend te reageren werd op 1 week gesteld.

Totnutoe kwam daar geen bevredigend antwoord op.

De nodenummers 2:292/624 en 2:292/626 werden met onmiddellijke ingang op "Hold"geplaatst en zullen volgende week verwijderd worden indien hun sysop zich niet naar de bovenvermelde directief richt.

Gezien die sysop ineens ook de hub 2:292/10060 uitbaat waaronder jullie resideren zal ook deze hub uit de nodelist verwijderd worden. Voor jullie continuiteit binnen Fidonet wordt dan ook aangeraden om zo snel mogelijk met een andere hub contacten te leggen opdat dit in de nodelist zou weerspiegelen.

De andere mogelijke hubs in R29 zijn:

Indien er kandidaten zijn om de hub-functie waar te nemen dan kan NC292 steeds beslissen om in de zone-16 een nieuwe hub te creeren waarnaar jullie je dan ookkunnen richten.

Ik hoop dat het allemaal zo geen vaart zal lopen maar indien de sysop van 2:292/624 aka 2:292/626, Steven Leeman, niet inbindt en niet ingaat op de gestelde eisen zal bovengenoemd scenario onveranderd uitgevoerd worden.

Ter info, ik ga hierover met niemand een polemiek voeren, de kaarten liggen zoals ze liggen.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

\x/@rd Dossche Fidonet International Coordinator

8< dns.txt

  o     Steven Leeman,
)/\,[_) Sysop SkyNET Bbs
`T7 ]=[ http://welcome.to/skynetbbs (Dutch/English)

By: Ward Dossche
To: Steven Leeman
Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...

Dear Steven,

SL> a few weeks later I get a nice email(multiple) from Ward Dossche (he doesn't like netmails anymore?) stating he is copyright holder and such of those names ...

WD> You certainly have no problem in telling lies, do you? I wish to draw the attention of the active audience here to the fact that you, mr.Leeman, a few weeks ago intended to post an article in the Snooze litterally claiming that I was a racist ... in those exact words.

WD> Since Belgium has very severe anti-Racism-laws I felt very strongly about that too and I still thank the person who scooped-up the article prior to publication because I could have been in a pretty nasty position owing to you.

Another of your lies, mr. Leeman.

SL> next thursday I should be out of the Z2 nodelist as well...unless I free them up "I don't need a /polemique/" he said as last...

WD> That is absolutely correct and I wish to add that your RC, RC29 who comes highly respected throughout the Fidonet community (he was one of the very first in zone-2 many years ago), concurs that the proposals which have been made to you are consistent with your behaviour and attitude.

SL> He has spammed al my downlinks and points to inform them they should look for another uplink...

WD> All your downlinks and points received a very balanced and neutral communication explaining their situation. That was necessary since you manipulated the situation by telling them you were out already, hence they panicked.

Indeed, you have no problem in telling lies.

Have a nice day and Merry Christmas anyway.

\x/@rd

Subject: Re: Holding nodes for reasons outside of fidonet

Dear Joe,

Thank you for offering your opinion.

Although my interference in zone-1 matters has been sollicited many times I have always elected to stay out of it. My advice to anyone being confronted with such a dillema is to act likewise since it is quite impossible to have the correct information.

Nevertheless you have been quick to pass judgement based on "what"?

There is an unresolved issue in zone2/R29. Steven Leeman has been briefed on the content of this issue and how to resolve it. It's his call.

You will notice that I have left the cc's out. In this moment I don't believe it is productive and I would appreciate the same thing from everyone I talk with. It has been source for misquoting, qouting out-of-context, lies, inaccuracies which start leading their own life. This is happening exactly now too.

You've made a few interesting suggestions to Steven, others have as well. Maybe he'll listen to them and act accordingly but I can't force him. I'll definitely not crumble under a mail-wall as he's trying to provoke right now.

You need to explain me why you suggest to bring Janis Kracht on board and talk about overruling. There is nothing to be overruled and the worst thing I could do is to start ruling on zone-1 matters, so likewise ....

This matter eventually will resolve itself, but not under a mail-campaign. I've been executive drector at Greenpeace, I know the force of mail-bombing-runs and I know how to resist them.

Don't take this as a personal comment, it isn't. Exactly because I hold you in high esteem from other conferences it is that I'm writing this +/- extended reply since my official position is that I am not getting into polemics. For you there's an exeption to that rule.

Nevertheless, have a Merry Christmas,

Ward

-----Original Message
From: Joe Jared <joejared@osirusoft.com>
To: Ward Dossche <wd@skynet.be>
Cc: editor@fidonews.org<editor@fidonews.org>;
steven@hotrate.com<steven@hotrate.com>;
steven_leeman@hotmail.com<steven_leeman@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, December 24, 2000 22:42
Subject: Holding nodes for reasons outside of fidonet

Ward:
I just received email regarding an individual who claims his node has been put on hold by you. Assuming it is legitimate, then my belief is that it was done outside the scope of policy and should be rescinded.

As a victim of loss of an expired domain and the apparent theft thereof, I can empathize with your position, but respectfully disagree with your actions of holding a node hostage. Fidonet has nothing to do with the internet, and unless fido has been internationally trademarked, no illegal activity has occurred, and no excessively annoying behavior can be assumed. Therefore, I must ask that you rescind your hold status for Steven, and return the node to good standing. We cannot arbitrarily make rules that effectively cause excommunication, nor can we reasonably assume that any position of *C has the right to make rules based on events outside the scope of fidonet. What you're allegedly doing clearly steps beyond the realm of fidonet.

As an outsider, my own inclination would be to go through the channels, and petition that Janis, our new Z1C, vote to overturn your position, assuming this situation does not resolve itself.

Steven: In the states, no single entity owns more than one fidonet related domain, although it's not restricted. Given that you apparently own a good portion of the fido*.be domains, you've effectively established a monopoly on the name. It would be more than reasonable to respond positively with redelegating some of the domains to others with polite requests. Granted, these domains are yours until they expire, and I'm quite sure that as an interim measure that Z2.fidonet.org could be allocated to the official Zone 2 web site, as mandated by either the Z2C or the IC should such a request not be met with acceptance on your side. Given that fido.be appears to be a blank page, I personally don't see why said domain would be held hostage by you any more than Ward would hold your fidonet address hostage.

http://relays.osirusoft.com
http://www.osirusoft.com

From: "Joe Jared" <joejared@osirusoft.com>
To: "Ward Dossche" <wd@skynet.be>
Cc: <z1c@osirusoft.com >;"Brenda Donovan" < donovan@tnl-online.net >
Subject: Re: Holding nodes for reasons outside of fidonet
Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 2:42 AM

Ward Dossche wrote:

Dear Joe,

Thank you for offering your opinion.

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

JJ> I've been here before. Note that I've included an alias for our ZC's email, as well as my RC. This issue needs resolution, and neither I nor the cc's are willing to let you blackmail our zone.

WD> Nevertheless you have been quick to pass judgement based on "what"?

JJ> Based on the facts.

WD> There is an unresolved issue in zone2/R29. Steven Leeman has been briefed on the content of this issue and how to resolve it. It's his call.

JJ> He has been briefed. I believe what you wrote on the topic. Understand, that in our region we had to deal with a tyrant. Note that Bob Kohl is no longer RC10.

WD> You will notice that I have left the cc's out. In this moment I don't believe it is productive and I would appreciate the same thing from everyone I talk with. It has been source for misquoting, qouting out-of-context, lies, inaccuracies which start leading their own life. This is happening exactly now too.

JJ> I don't believe in mushrooms. Only the interested parties are notified. Brenda as RC, and Janis, our ZC elect are cc'd because they are interested parties. Warren as Fidonews editor has his hands full and I'm sure he'll quote relevant articles on his own for this particular topic. I doubt seriously that the next issue of fidonews will be a small one.

WD> You've made a few interesting suggestions to Steven, others have as well. Maybe he'll listen to them and act accordingly but I can't force him. I'll definitely not crumble under a mail-wall as he's trying to provoke right now.

JJ> They were suggestions only. Obviously, if you don't endorse a zone level site, it won't get listed in my column of fidonews. Neither of us have authority over the .be zone, nor should we.

WD> You need to explain me why you suggest to bring Janis Kracht on board and talk about overruling. There is nothing to be overruled and the worst thing I could do is to start ruling on zone-1 matters, so likewise ....

JJ> She is the next and only remaining level of appeal. Should it ever get to a ZCC decision, it is my hope that not only does your decision get overturned, but you get impeached in the process. As near as I can tell, the former is 1 vote away. You still have time to change your course of action.

WD> This matter eventually will resolve itself, but not under a mail-campaign. I've been executive director at Greenpeace, I know the force of mail-bombing-runs and I know how to resist them.

JJ> This matter could resolve itself if you rescind your ruling on the matter. Anything less will result in your impeachment.

WD> Don't take this as a personal comment, it isn't. Exactly because I hold you in high esteem from other conferences it is that I'm writing this +/- extended reply since my official position is that I am not getting into poletics. For you there's an exeption to that rule.

JJ> Thank you. However, the veiled threats in your response have been ignored as such.

WD> Nevertheless, have a Merry Christmas,
WD> Ward

JJ>Thanks. And in the spirit of the moment, I wish the same to you. Did you hear the sincerity of the words? Whoops, that makes one of us. What you're doing is wrong. I can't find any other words that aren't inflammatory to such a degree that you find yourself any less alienated, nor can I express the gravity of your actions as IC with any other words. If you become enraged with my response, perhaps recognizing what is wrong with your decisions will redirect you as one of fidonet's leaders will be the greater result.

-----Original Message
From: Joe Jared <joejared@osirusoft.com>
To: Ward Dossche <wd@skynet.be>
Cc: editor@fidonews.org <editor@fidonews.org>;
steven@hotrate.com <steven@hotrate.com>;
steven_leeman@hotmail.com <steven_leeman@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, December 24, 2000 22:42
Subject: Holding nodes for reasons outside of fidonet

JJ> Ward, I just received email regarding an individual who claims his node has been put on hold by you. Assuming it is legitimate, then my belief is that it was done outside the scope of policy and should be rescinded.

JJ> As a victim of loss of an expired domain and the apparent theft thereof, I can empathize with your position, but respectfully disagree with your actions of holding a node hostage. Fidonet has nothing to do with the internet, and unless fido has been internationally trademarked, no illegal activity has occurred, and no excessively annoying behavior can be assumed. Therefore, I must ask that you rescind your hold status for Steven, and return the node to good standing. We cannot arbitrarily make rules that effectively cause excommunication, nor can we reasonably assume that any position of *C has the right to make rules based on events outside the scope of fidonet. What you're allegedly doing clearly steps beyond the realm of fidonet.

JJ> As an outsider, my own inclination would be to go through the channels, and petition that Janis, our new Z1C, vote to overturn your position, assuming this situation does not resolve itself.

JJ> Steven, In the states, no single entity owns more than one fidonet related domain, although it's not restricted. Given that you apparently own a good portion of the fido*.be domains, you've effectively established a monopoly on the name. It would be more than reasonable to respond positively with redelegating some of the domains to others with polite requests. Granted, these domains are yours until they expire, and I'm quite sure that as an interim measure that Z2.fidonet.org could be allocated to the official Zone 2 web site, as mandated by either the Z2C or the IC should such a request not be met with acceptance on your side. Given that fido.be appears to be a blank page, I personally don't see why said domain would be held hostage by you any more than Ward would hold your fidonet address hostage.

http://relays.osirusoft.com
http://www.osirusoft.com

By: Dallas Hinton
To: Dave Hamilton
Re: Ward Dossche

Hi Dave -- on Dec 25 2000 at 14:19, you wrote:

DH> Do you have an opinion of Ward Dossche's treatment of Steven Leeman? Does the RCC have an opinion?

DH> I think it's obscene.

I hate to say this, Dave -- but:

I told you so. :-(

Cheers... Dallas

By: brenda donovan
To: all
Re: The IC's latest rhubarb

Things did not settle down much before a new ruckus has arisen.

Ward Dossche, acting as IC, has threatened a zone 2 node with excommunication for registering fido.be and fidonet.be. In his message to Steven Leeman, he used the IC title. It's sometimes tough to separate hats, but the messages do say IC (not Z2C).

This is a gross abuse of position and is not condoned by anyone. Foremost, since registering domain names is not within the scope of fidonet.

Check out Z1C and FIDONEWS echos for more info.

I would be happy to give any threatened node a home in the nodelist until things can be worked out.

There is never any excuse for this kind of behavior. There is a lot of talk about it and we are all waiting to hear what Mr. Dossche has to say for himself.

Personally, I think he's dug himself a hole that will be hard to get out of, but we shall see.

By: brenda donovan
To: Frank Vest
Re: Ward Dossche

FV> If it is true. I'm not discounting anyone's belief nor arguing in favor of anyone. I'm just stating that when I looked at the Nodelist, Steve Leeman is still listed and not on "Hold" or any other status. He is listed as a full Node.

FV> Of course, on the other side of the coin is... The Nodelist of Z1 might not have the updates of Z2 in it yet. I don't know how accurate this might be, but inaccuracy is a possibility.

FV> A threat ignored by the threatened party and not acted upon by the threatening party is just a threat, over? :-)

BD> It is unacceptable behavior in any *C. As IC, he can bluster. But he is Z2C and does have an editor and does compile the zone 2 segment.

BD> Perceived power abuse is still abusive behavior.

By: Carl Austin Bennett
To: Janis Kracht
Re: Ward Dossche

DH> Do you have an opinion of Ward Dossche's treatment of Steven Leeman?

JK> Yes, I do. Steven contacted me on the 22nd of December about this. I gave him some ideas that he might present to Ward to try to make things work out but I did not hear anything from Steven after that. If Ward does remove Steven from the nodelist, or puts his listing on hold over this I definitely feel it is very wrong.

CB> Would you have any objection to him being nodelisted in our zone should it become necessary due to Ward's actions?

JK> Yes, I personally agree that removing Steven would be very wrong.

CB> What's our next step at this point?

By: Carol Shenkenberger
To: Bart Verhaeghe
Re: Re: Ward Dossche The abuse Story.

Bart, under P4, a ZC is appointed by the RC's and can be removed the same way.

I do not know if the problems arejust relatedto Belgium. I'm listening and seeing what Ward has to say, but as an outsider I cant do much.

On the IC position, if the ZC's vote him out, he will no longer be IC.

In Z1, a big storm is slowly brewing over this. I seriouly doubt if any RC's in Z1 will refuse to list any Z2 site who is under threat of their nodelist entry, until all is resolved. Ross has already made moves to list Steven Leeman I gather from the notes here. If you need a listing, lets split the forces and list you with one of the others? I have several nets who would be delighted I am sure, to have a few good nodes as long as they can establish a path to netmail them <g>.

Check your email <G>. xxcarol

By: Carol Shenkenberger
To: Carl Austin Bennett
Re: Re: Ward Dossche

*** Quoting Carl Austin Bennett from a message to Janis Kracht ***

CAB> Yes, I personally agree that removing Steven would be very wrong.

CAB> What's our next step at this point?

My personal stance is that I'll take the next one who needs refugee status, and hope the 3rd (or more if needed) all list in different regions here. Spread the targets and Ward cant do much if anything. This allows time to get to the root of the problem more properly for those sysops who are in an apparent bind.

These listings would be temporary to keep the nodes functional, until it can be figured out. A few weeks is my guess?

I don't know about you, but I lack a firm grasp of Z2 politics.

I am also aware that the IC will probably go 'after' those of us who do this. That said, how bold are you? Will R12C host a lostling if needed for a time to prevent loss of a sysop til it's all figured out?

Guess I better have a long chat with Janis <G>.

xxcarol

By: Dale Shipp
To: Brenda Donovan
Re: Re: Ward Dossche

-=> On 12-25-00 15:11, Brenda Donovan <=-
-=> spoke to Dave Hamilton about Ward Dossche <=-

DH> Do you have an opinion of Ward Dossche's treatment of Steven Leeman? Does the RCC have an opinion? I think it's obscene.

BD> It is definitely abuse of power.

DS> But typical of his royal highness and the way he has acted over the past couple of years. I am not surprised in the least. Shocked, horrified, but not surprised.

dale (at) min (dot) net
(1:261/1466)

back to main table of contents

back to fidonews.org

F I D O N E W SVolume 18, Number 11 January 2001

Guest Editorial

F I D O N E W S
Volume 18, Number 1
1 January 2001