*** Quoting Carol Shenkenberger from a message to mark lewis ***

CS> Granted.  I think this is one of the better posts on all this 'issue'

CS> (Got a short reprieve, going to out to sea tomorrow now vice today it

CS> I have many thoughts on this 'issue'.  They arent totally formalized b
CS> since I'm /not/ involved in any way in any possible appeal chain nor i
CS> it likely that I would suddenly be moved so as to make that happen, I'
CS> free to state a stance.  This may not match some other posts I have ma
CS> but it's not unusual for me to change my mind based on the posts of ot
CS>  Heck, recall when i used to flame Bob Seaborn as if he were the devil
CS> himself?  How stupid of me!  He was right all along.  I was trying to
CS> tell him how to run his own system which was pretty rude!  Fortunately
CS> we both got over it long long ago.

CS> There is a P4 complaint right now, being presumably decided on.  It is
CS> based on if a sysop can have a domain that has cname pointers to the n
CS> information of another sysop.  I havent seen the complaint (nor should
CS> I) but suspect that it may have wording about 'increased security risk
CS> or 'possible cost'.  I do not agree that there is increased security r
CS> and my job relates to computer security issues though I do not claim t
CS> be a specialist in this specific area of it.  

CS> The real issue is the one Robert Couture brings in.  Respect for a fel
CS> sysop's wishes.  While it is clear that the sysgod.org domain is listi
CS> some sysops against their wishes and that Scott has no intention (so f
CS> of changing this, it is not clear at the first look if this is PC'able
CS>  People with opinions think it is, or think it is not, but few post re
CS> reasons for this.

CS> My thoughts are that it is not PC'able.  My reasons are thus:

CS> 1.  It is not mentioned in P4.  P4 has to be upgraded to show a true s
CS> on this.

CS> 2.  It is not fidonet.net or fidonet.org.  Those are defacto 'offical'
CS> now and if this situation involved them, my stance would be different.
CS>  We can and must have some reasonable control on those.  I do not care
CS> if this is 'opt out allowed' or 'explictly must request to be added'.
CS>  Thats up to the zones to decide for themselves.  

CS> 3.  PC decisions that can not be enforced should not be made.  sysgod.
CS> is not offical in any way.  Nor would be 'shenk.org' should I decide t
CS> try such a thing.  (This is actually my main reason).  There are hundr
CS> of sysops with their own domains, some of which also are used to facil
CS> their fidonet habit/hobby but their main purpose may be completely dif
CS>  Fidonet can reasonably control fidonet.net or fidonet.org since they
CS> have no other purpose, but can not control any other domains outside o
CS> these two.

CS> Now these reasons dont mean I'm not aware that we've got a respect pro
CS> going on.  One person is trying to prove a point, and the other may le
CS> fidonet (which is a detriment to us all if that happens).  I think how
CS> if the ZCC (should it reach there) decide that a sysop cant control th
CS> own domain pointers, they are smoking some good stuff I aint allowed d
CS> to being military (grin!).

CS> I tried once to tell a fellow sysop how to run his own system.  I was

BTW, just for all who may reply?  I may not recieve the reply.  I can not
¨promise I will.  Please be patient.  I'm headed to sea and expected to be
out ¨today and it's now reset for tomorrow.  If we do not go out tomorrow,
I have ¨'duty' so cant leave the ship.  If we leave what is for me Saturday
(it's ¨Thusday here) I will not be able to check for mail before that.  My
underway ¨'feed' has already been told to dump the packet and start new but
he's away and ¨will see that 'dump' notice before he sees this.  It's ok. 
No need to bore the ¨rest of you overmuch,other than apologize if you type
to me and do not get a ¨reply right away.
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4