> From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick&#167;quad.net.au>
> Reply-To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:44:16 +1000
> To: "Chris Disspain, auda" <ceo&#167;auda.org.au>
> Cc: "William X. Walsh" <william&#167;userfriendly.com>, "Jim Fleming, PRODIGY"
> <JimFleming&#167;prodigy.net>, "[DNS] auda" <dns§auda.org.au>
> Subject: Re: [DNS] 2:104     CO   (COLOMBIA)
> Resent-From: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:40:29 +0800
> 
> not relevant to the Australian DNS.

That should be WXW.

> to ensure that posts on this forum are appropriate and
> relevant to the Australian DNS

by filtering WXW from this ml.

For those not familiar with his tactics (and those of his
shadowy USA/USG.mil/CIA/SAIC/NSI/Verisign/ICANN approvers
-- including Crocker, Crispin, Stubbs and Cerf), perhaps
Patrick, in his individual capacity, might care to refer
us to more of the extensive and odious WXW oeuvre.

Take this example of WXW quoted by Patrick earlier:

>> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?

Ah, an ICANN topic... how suprising. Thats ok on the auda list.

>> 
>> For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
>> things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
>> IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
>> comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
>> "legitimate."

Consider this less means-spirited possibility:
The IETF and NTIA can hardly deny having
received them if they are posted on their own
site/archives, can they?
These documents officially exist-- and their
existence can not be officially denied.
Which then brings us to the question-- did the
IETF and NTIA have a duty to consider and act
upon the information and proposals in those
documents reasonably promptly?
And if they did not act reasonably, and the
consequences for failing to act are as predicted
by the proposal, are they liable?
Is the remedy here the acting upon of the proposals?

Perhaps this WXW topic should be another entry
in the "the person may well be acting from self-
interest" category described by David Lindsay.

When WXW is prepared to disclose his "fellow-
travellers" in the USG/etc fold-- and ALL his
sources of income and assets such that
ANY association with the aforesaid fold
can be excluded-- then this list could
possibly revisit the question of his inclusion.