Letters to the Editor

by: Ward Dossche
To: Warren Bonner
Re: Re: Your behaviour within Fidonet ...
St: Rcvd

Hello Warren,

WB> You must consider carefully your words so as not to be deemed
WB> tyrannical by using your nodelisting authority as a tool to
WB> accomplish a non fidonet action.

There can be debate about that (and it's not even the right conference to do this here but, heck, it's going to be another couple of days before the "IC"- conference will be all over the place, so ...).

How to interpret this Policy-article?

QUOTE *************************
7.1 General
...
The International Coordinator is responsible ... for negotiation of agreements for communication with other networks.
UNQUOTE ************************

Is the internet another network? "Yes, it is" ... which means it is IC-stuff although the writers of P4 never had that in mind (same as a bunch of other things).

If I need to state an official position then it is that all sysops who maintain Fidonet-related internet-domains which are utilized to further the aim of Fidonet are strongly encouraged to continue doing so.

It implies that if such domains are spotted which are not used in that sense action is required. An item to be taken on board in a policy-review?

WD> I suggest you openly restore S.L,'s node, ...

Not just like that ... a proposal was submitted by myself which, if accepted, would prompt me into restoring the node numbers to their former status. I have received confirmation by e-mail that there's a high probability this acceptance will happen in which case I will hold my part of the bargain. The "deal" is about ensuring that the affected-domains indeed will be used to the best interest of fidonet.

WD> Offer to reimburse him for his costs in securing the fido, fidonet (Ic/Z2).be you are rightfully entitled to by your fidonet titles. <Editor note: I meant if he applied for that domain name.>

WD> I am unaware of such a domain nor do I feel the need for it.

WB> He is not obligated to GIVE you on DEMAND anything he owns outside of his nodelisted fido address. An apology for (in effect), removing him may soften the heart with an offer of reimbursement of his costs which you would have to pay had you listed the fidoIc/Z2.be in the first place. (JMHO)

WD> As I said, P4.7.1.2 opens a path for creative thinking on "obliged" (!!) or not. Definitely there will be no apology as I see no need for anything of that kind nor any reimbursement for something not requested, demanded, asked nor discussed.

WD> The thought that this gave me is that I am frighteningly powerfull in a Fidonet-context. I can flick the big-finger to anyone without being sanctionned ... the thought never occurred to me until now.

WD> To be removed as a ZC a referendum needs to be started by the IC... and there's no provision for removing an IC. Another thought for a policy-review? Maybe the IC should "not" be a ZC.

WD> Personally, and that's on a side note since the situation is only valid in a non-North American context (which means 90% of Fidonet), I believe that any fidonet.xx-domain (where the xx-denotes a country) should be handled by the RC of the country. Please, North-Americans, understand that outside your realm Country=Region.

WD> As for the others here in this and other conferences. Making a lot of noise and displaying obnoxious attitudes has never solved anything. A wall of mails doesn't impress me either and it was a simple Fido-point operator who made the most sense to me.

WD> Maybe that is also an idea to be taken on board in a policy review ... point- operators do matter and they contribute. I'm closing the books here in this matter and will not communicate anymore via conferences to people because at this point in time the latency in mail- distribution might effectively thwart any solution and nobody's interests are served by that.

WD> If the few remaining individuals responsible for 99% of the noise, call it the barroom-brawls maybe, want to continue their ranting they will have to understand they will not be cluttering my bandwith as I will not be reading them.

Hopefully this was a satisfactory answer?

Have a nice day,

\x/@rd

--- DB 1.58/001877
* Origin: Many Glacier on ADSL now (2:292/854)

By: michael kleerbaum
To: Steven Leeman
Re: FidoNet-Domains St:

Hi Steven,

SL> likewise here...I've taken the liberty of remonstrating fido.be/ fidonet.be without asking Ward Dossche first ... my node has been put on hold because of that :-|

MK> In the german node-echo NODES.024 began these weekend a discussion about your "case". Many Germans have domains with "Fido" or "FidoNet".

I think, I write for most of the nodes in Europe and the rest of Fidoworld, when I say, that we don't like the things, that Ward Dosche has done to you and we will all stand behind you.

Everybody should be able to use Internet-Domains with "FidoNet" and "Fido" because we are a hobby-network and not a commercial network.

I invite you to the nodes.024. I know, you understand german and we understand your mother tongue and I know, you can write in german.

We want and need information from you about this case, because in near future, some web-projects about FidoNet become international, like the http://www.was-ist-fido.de-project and we DON'T want any restrictions from the IC and ZC/2 because it ISN'T his job to do this.

Michael

By: Joe Jared
To: Janis Kracht
Re: Ward Dossche

Hello Janis!

Monday December 25 2000 20:09, you wrote to Dave Hamilton:

> 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.

Thank you.

joejared@osirusoft.com

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1
* Origin: telnet://osirusoft.com (1:103/301)

By: Janis Kracht
To: Dave Hamilton
Re: Ward Dossche

Hi Dave,

> About that message on 12-25-2000 from Ross Cassell to All:

>> Its rather disturbing to see ones nodelisting being affected over
>> registering internet domain names or Ward throwing his 'TITLE'
>> around:

>> "I am the INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR"

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

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.

>Does the RCC have an opinion?

That I can't tell you ... most likely they have been busy with family today as I have been. I've seen Ross' posts here obviously <smile>.

> I think it's obscene.

There is a body whose name escapes me at the moment who decides such issues as ownership of Domain names.. even if this body decides that Ward should have ownership of this domain name, Steven should not be removed from the nodelist. In my reply to Steven on the 22nd, I told him to let me know if he was removed.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:2320/38)

By: Darrell Salter
To: Frank Vest
Re: simple things [1]

Frank Vest wrote in a message to Darrell Salter:

DS> If you follow my poor example, as the Region 12 nodelist clerk (head bookkeeper), that is exactly what I did.

FV> Very good. I agree with you 100% in your actions, if not in all of the beliefs.

I advocate that you are entitled to those beliefs and are free to exercise them as a Fidonet Sysop. I expect the same. The problem starts when someone presumes to force their beliefs on the other. I believe this is always wrong.

I'd like to thank you for your reply. It was detailed and straight forward.

DS> All that remains now is for someone to twist my words and try to shove them down my throat. I'll resist and we'll be back to where we were.

FV> While I still believe that P4 is valid and offers a method of
FV> operation for Fidonet,

DS> Never have I claimed that you, or any other Sysop, is not free to believe so. I have always said that there are some good guidelines in P4. In this much we are agreed. The problem comes in when some Sysops try to force the parts of P4 I reject upon me.

FV> it would seem that your method works/worked as well.

DS> Yes, but I don't insist on my way for others. I expect the same consideration.

FV> At the risk of inferring wrath,

DS> I do it all the time, it ain't that bad. :-)

FV> I see a lot of similarity in what I read in P4 of handling such an occurrence as the "Kari" incident and the way it was handled in R12.

FV> Maybe we aren't that far apart after all?

DS> Probably not, but then you may not have an axe to grind.

Darrell

darrell@sprk.com

By: Darrell Salter
To: Jerry Schwartz
Re: simple things

Jerry Schwartz wrote in a message to Dave Hamilton:

JS> That's where Darrell could have been more helpful.
JS> ...

I did a good job processing the Region's nodelist submissions. The ZC and I did a good job and had no difficulty getting the Region 12 nodelist submissions processed into the nodediff accurately and in a timely fashion. I served my term as R12C and passed the torch, just as the Sysops of Region 12 and I had discussed and agreed to do during my campaign for the R12C position. My Region is pleased and satisfied with my performance judging by the lack of complaint and expressions of gratitude I have received from the Sysops here. I thank them now publicly for giving me the opportunity to serve them and for supporting me. Your critical comment above notwithstanding, combined with the fact that you are not an R12 Sysop, leaves me to suggest to you that I am quite pleased and very satisfied with the job I did as R12C.

Some Sysops outside of Region 12 pressured me to be the RC they wanted me to be. Some Sysops outside of Region 12 pressured me to do the things they wanted me to do. They were very much mistaken if they thought they could coerce me without first obtaining a mandate from the Sysops of Region 12, interestingly, the very people I see them now abusing publicly. But these things come as no surprise to me. I am not new to Fidonet and have witnessed this behavior in it's many flavors, some subtle, some not so subtle, some downright rude and meanspirited, many times before. I note that other RCs did not offer much resistance to such tactics. As an RC I submit I fared much better than they. Perhaps my ability to resist such pressure is but one reason my Region elected me in the first place. We have some very smart people here.

Darrell darrell@sprk.com http://sparkys.dyndns.org

Carol Shenkenberger wrote in a message to Darrell Salter:

DS> If my "axe to grind" has to do with "power mongering *Cs", which, I be is exactly what I said above, then I'd say he definitely IS aware of it and definitely IS part of it. Don't you agree?

CS> Yes, but your references below are specific to Z1 things that he
CS> won't most likely know much about.

My point is that, contrary to your statement, this shit happens in Zone 1 also. It's happened in the past and it happens now. You don't have a leg to stand on to preach to Zone 2 Sysops about the virtues of Zone 1. We've got our policy thumping Sysop-abusers too. If Steven is not aware of this, he should be before he accepts a node number here.

What's to stop a certain Zone 1 RC from immediately filing a policy complaint as soon as Zone 2 Sysops are listed here in Zone 1 just like he did last time? Nothing.

What's to stop the Z1C from threatening to excommunicate a Zone 1 Sysop or a Zone 1 Region for listing out-of-Zone Sysops just like it happened last time? Nothing.

CS> No, was not aware of anything recent. I have heard of the earlier
CS> problem,

You were aware of the earlier problem yet you claimed that node numbers aren't under threat of being toasted in Zone 1? Again, I'm not calling you a liar, merely suggesting that you are dead wrong. As a Zone 1 Sysop you are hardly in a position to be preaching about the type of abuse you claim doesn't happen here, when it obviously does.

Yes, I have recently been the subject of a possible policy complaint by a Zone 1 Sysop and RC. The fact is, Sysops in Zone 1 will go after other Sysops' node numbers too. This should have been clear to you during the question and answer period during the recent Z1C election.

CS> and that now most of Z1 isn't so adamant about Geo-restrictions as
CS>it once was (which I consider overall to be good as the Geo doesn't
CS> really 'fit' all circumstances as you know).

I'm glad you now consider this to be good. It was my Region that was persecuted in this manner by a Zone 1 Sysop and a Z1C. It was my Region and my Region alone that stood against the Z1C. Now you are also aware that very recently my own node number was also under threat. You'd do well to remember that this type of abuse still happens in Zone 1 the next time you are tempted to preach how it doesn't happen here.

Darrell

darrell@sprk.com

http://sparkys.dyndns.org
---
* Origin: Sparky's BBS (telnet://bbs.sprk.com) (1:229/1)

By: Carol Shenkenberger
To: Ward Dossche
Re: Re: Erratum

*** Quoting Ward Dossche from a message to Warren Bonner ***

WD> ******************** ERRATUM ********************
WD> To be removed as a ZC a referendum needs to be started by the IC..
WD> and
WD> there's no provision for removing an IC. Another thought for a
WD> policy-review? Maybe the IC should "not" be a ZC.
WD> ******************** ERRATUM ********************
WD>
WD> The above text in the previous message should be read as:
WD>
WD>"To be removed as a ZC a referendum needs to be started by the IC..
WD>under current prevailing conditions it might be hard to find a
WD>majority for removing an IC. Another thought for a policy-review? M
WD>the IC should "not" be a ZC."

CS>The IC CAN be removed by the ZC's. The same way they put you in, they can take you back out.

Only the Z2 RC's can remove a Z2C however the IC hat is not subject to the Z2 RC's but the ZC's of all 6 regions.

Watch your steps Ward. You are in deep kimchee.
xxcarol

By: Ian Moote
To: MICHAEL KLEERBAUM
Re: Statement

MK> IM> That doesn't make any difference to the FidoNazis.
MK> ^^^^^^^^^ Oh,
MK> please. Come on, Ian!
MK>
MK> This whole case has absolute [sic] nothing to do with any nazis
MK> [sic]! Please let them out of this discussion.

I don't know what you're thinking of, Michael, but I was referring to fascist attitudes shared by many on FidoNet -- so many, in fact, as to have given birth to the word "FidoNazi".

By "fascism" I mean "violent opposition to one's extremist viewpoint".

Ward obviously holds an extremist viewpoint here. He is offended by Steven's registration of domains containing "fido" and "fidonet". His opposition to Steven is ostensibly because "someone else" has a certain amount of legal control over those terms.

1. It is not Ward who holds this legal control.

2. Ward is not the servicemark police.

3. Ward has no jurisdiction over anything that Steve does outside of FidoNet.

Ergo, Ward's extremist viewpoint.

4. Ward will summarily delete Steve from the NodeList if Steve does not comply with Ward's personal demands which are none of his business anyway. This is a philosophically violent action.

Hm. Violent opposition to an extremist viewpoint. Looks pretty fascist to me. Especially when you consider:

5. There is apparently personal history between Steve and Ward, and this seems to be more of a motivator here than Tom Jennings legal rights.

No, the more I think of it, the more the word "Nazi" seems to apply.

Sorry. I know that it's an oft-abused word, but if the shoe fits...

Take care and TTYL.