| 2/6/05 - 3/18/05 Another Fun Week [... on the WhyBeBotheredNet]:|
Background Information: I was featured in a newspaper article that was part of a "sunshine week" series run by the New Jersey Daily record. Unfortunately, beyond providing a minor credibility boost --the article didn't do the cause, or the website much good.
Here's a 3 e-mail exchange between myself and the editor of the series:
Hi Dennis, my name is Gary Mosher (and I'm assuming I am still) to be featured in some stoy relevant to your "sunshine week series". I had been given Sunday is a tenative publication day, and am frankly a little disappointed I didn't make the cut. Anyway, procuring a copy of the daily record is a little bit troublesome for me, so if possible I would appreciate it if you could let me know what day "my" article is going to be published.
I have a few disagreements with some of the "editorial" content in today's paper... but there is a rather major "factual" error that I really think needs addressing. In the "guide to using the Open Public Records Act" the "advice" states that "requests must be made in writing on the proper form" this is a pretty inaccurate description of the actual legal reality as this is one of the few issues the GRC has rationally resolved.--see the link and text below.
I suppose your "error in understanding and interpretation" of the law as it stands today (through some minor interpretation of the courts and the GRC) might be of use in my legal action attempting to have the Open Public Records Act declared unconstitutional-- I mean if the Daily record can't even figure out what the law actually says how can a custodian or citizen be expected to get it right? ...on the other hand I really don't think this is an error you should've been able to make.
anyway, thanks for doing the series.
Use of Request Forms
Must a public agency accept a request for public records if it is not on the Custodian's OPRA form? The answer is yes. The reason why is explained below, along with advice for custodians on handling these requests.
There are several OPRA provisions that refer to the use of request forms. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(f) requires custodians to adopt a form for the public to request records. Further, OPRA mandates the form to contain a statement of the requestor's rights under OPRA. However, OPRA does not state that the form must be used for requests. OPRA also permits requests to be filed electronically [N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)].
There are obvious advantages ........Thus, a custodian should accept any communication that is clearly a request for records if it contains the information necessary for that custodian to fulfill the request, even if it is not submitted on the custodian's "official" OPRA request form. ...
- His Reply 3/14/05:
1. The story which features you is on A1 today. The web link is:
We never promise anyone when a story is going to run. Tentative means just that. Plans change all the time.
2. The item you point to came from our sister paper in Cherry Hill. We'll check on it.
I write back on 3/15/05
First I want to again thank you for publishing the series. The public will probably never appreciate how important open government is to our constitution and democracy... and you would probably get more reader interest doing a series on ice-cream.
Consistent with my "glass half-empty" personality I do have a couple of criticisms. Although I appreciate finally getting a little publicity-- the fact that there was no sensible mention of my website in the article really diminishes the value of that publicity. Currently, inMendham.com (a 3 year-old website) is ranked 250 (a menu sub page) on the keyword "Mendham" at google (not much better on other search engines) I think quite obviously the website is the best "Mendham" reference on the Internet. Unfortunately, as a practical fact you're not on the Internet unless google says you are. No doubt you know that a perception of popularity (most often procured through paid promotion) drives search engine algorithms...and I think you probably realize, considering the business you're in, that popularity (notice/notoriety) breed's popularity. Obviously your story gave my name some notoriety... Unfortunately my name doesn't have much relevance to my cause or the experience and opinion you thought relevant to the story. In truth, my name is irrelevant bathwater, the "baby" is inMendham.com and it is going to die of malnutrition because of the crass marketing realities google imposes and you endorse through embracing a marketing driven link policy.
Another criticism again relates to the issue of misinformation on the subject of the optional OPRA form. On this page is the following Q&A
Q: What procedure should be followed to obtain government records? Is there a form that must be completed in order to obtain government records?
A: Yes. Each public agency must have a form available to request access to records. It must be filled out properly to allow you access to the record
As I stated previously, this is not legally correct.
Anyway thanks again, AND if you ever decide to do series on the really stupid and bigoted "judges" who have destroyed our judicial system and in turn almost rendered the Bill of Rights irrelevant-- please keep me in mind.
No correction of the misinformation, or reply as of 3/18/05
Background Information: I have in the past offered free web creation and management to any "do-gooder" group or individual willing to except my offer. After the re-election of our war pope president I've decided that religious nuts are no longer just harmlessly naive "decent people" just wasting time pointlessly praying-- they are in fact small minded arrogant bigots willing to waste billions of dollars (and all the life and comfort it could buy) keeping dead people live, and killing the living out of little more than petty revenge and a gross desire to force everyone else to live under the tyranny of their stupid dogma.
Anyway, I decided the only way I can positively react to the election of Adolf Bush was to quit giving "aid and comfort" to the legions of anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-dignified death, anti logic etc but pro WAR and greed "Christians" responsible for the obscenity of George Bush's reelection... As a fairness to Christians who permitted me to be of service to them in the past, I have agreed to continue managing/hosting in a couple of websites until they can find a suitable replacement volunteer. Unfortunately the Internet is so broken, you can't gracefully or efficiently do anything. In the effort to tie up loose ends and make a particular website ready for a seamless transition to a new manager I got into one of the all too typical "domain disputes" that are a contrivance of the greed-ernet.
Here is a sampling of e-mail's
..The other issue of the $25 domain name renewal is still one I am in no mood to yield on. I don't know the details of your reseller arrangement with tucows and perhaps you are somewhat powerless... regardless as a matter of principle I am quite fed up with "the system" from ICCAN right down the line. A domain registration probably has a real cost/value of less than $1 yet somehow the system can justify charging $25 . That's just too silly a circumstance for me to reward with compliance. As I stated before the domain isn't even one I have any personal or business interest in, and I am just stuck with it until they can find someone else willing to be bothered.
I frankly don't look forward to the prospect of changing hosting companies and moving everything.... but I am just sick of all the BS strings attached to everything and feel a desperate need to make some kind of, "...I'm not going to take it anymore" statement.
The website and e-mail are now down. I sent 3 e-mails and twice called the phone number provided (left a phone message) when I started getting these update notices a week ago. I got no reply to the e-mails or the phone calls. I assume the website won't be back on-line until go-daddy changes the DNS (up to 48 hours). If this is the consideration I can expect to receive for the "lifetime" of the $400.00 "lifetime" hosting I purchased... it's pretty certain it's not going to be a wonderful Life....time.
Please cancel this account (inmendham.com) and refund my $400.00 dollars. If you do not comply with my request I am prepared to go to federal court with a claim of extortion and I will seek damages for the websites YOU have damaged and knocked out of service through nonperformance of our contract. I have a complete record of e-mail correspondence and your guilt in this matter is obvious.
....I pay you $400 and you knock five websites offline for three days, attempt to extort another hundred dollars out of me, wait 20 hours to reply to my e-mail requesting a refund... and it is your expectation that I sat around just waiting for you do the right thing? I have purchased hosting space with GoDaddy and have already begun reuploading my websites... so your offer to waive what you already agreed to waive is way too little way too late. Your discourtesy (criminal discourtesy) has cost me money, aggravation, and very valuable time and considering the long history of less than perfect service it's about time I say enough is enough.... fool me once, shame on you... fool me 17 times, shame on me.
Since I paid another years registration just a month ago... I don't think you have any legal right to hold or "lock" this domain name. please release "unlock" the domain name.
I get nowhere so I write tucows and ICANN.
Here's the text of an e-mail I just sent off to tucows.com. I think you'll get the obvious drift... I think also obviously your policy doesn't work if you allow wholesalers to shift responsibility to virtually unregulated resellers. Why don't you just approve any old reseller and eliminate the middle-crook/man. ICANN has managed to convert a $1 one time database listing into a annual charges of 10 to $25 and an obligation to do business with companies that have the ethics of mobsters ... obviously in my estimation you are a grotesque failure.... actually I think much worse of you. The Internet is being turned into absolute garbage and future history will know you for the evil criminal contrivance you are.
Steve XXXX of XXXX.com and XXX.nu is a criminal... and I think you know it. If I am obliged to go to court to get this stupid domain name (XXX.COM) released the crime I am going to be claiming is kidnapping, extortion, and theft-- and I am going to name you as co-defendants and seek punitive damages. (at least that might provoke some press coverage) Let's start discovery right now! How many complaints about this guy have you got? Yet you take no responsible action. A domain registration isn't brain surgery, and this kind of nonsense is unnecessary and inexcusable. The federal government should be prosecuting you people into bankruptcy or more suitably prison. You are human garbage and if I was running the show you would be....
Anyway, before I tell "the disciples of Jesus and Mary" to ask God to smite you.... would you please oblige Mr. Gunnels to unlock the domain name so I may rescue it from his and your evil clutches. I hope your making a lot of money pimpishly wholesaling Internet real estate and I hope you choke on it. Congratulations on making my most despised companies top-10 list.
- ICANN Ombudsman writes:
Thank you very much for your email and for taking the time to contact me
with your concerns about Tucows. I may undertake an Ombudsman review based
on the information you have provided.
In the meantime, I am going to ask you to participate in the process by
completing the Ombudsman complaint form, which can be found at
I make this complaint using the form:
This complaint was instigated by just another incident of the standard extortion I've (and no doubt millions of others) have had to deal with sense ICANN was created.
This form does not exactly make it clear what information you require. The "extortion" I spoke of in my e-mail is common practice in the "registration industry". Just register a name with some of these resellers, and then try to move the registration without knocking your website offline for two weeks--or paying fees, you know to be grotesquely excessive. Its 2005, no longer the infancy of the digital age, and yet you regulate "registrars" as if they had to use a pile of paper and a pipe wrench to record a domain registration. $25 to update a computer data base is preposterous.
If I must list a "act, omission, or decision" -- the most glaring "bad act" was Congress's decision to reject protecting internet infrastructure by making domain registration a regulated Public Utility-- and to instead compromise progress and willfully feed Spam-enterprise by creating a governing body "ICANN" that is obviously and blatantly more about protecting the rights of "entrepreneurs" to make a dishonest dollar than it is about serving the public interest. You may have fooled everyone else in the universe into believing that "domain registration" is a somehow "complex service" for which we need to spend billions of dollars feeding an "industry"... but you haven't fooled me.
To make it simple for you, how can you possibly "rationally defend", as in the public interest, allowing "wholesalers" to essentially resell ( to any common criminal) the right to register domains? What's the point of qualifying "ICANN approved registrars" if you're going to effectively allow them to sublet their license. Reselling is a blight on society, and you are endorsing it? Are you really foolish enough to believe the public ever really benefits when any industry is open to resellers? If the Internet were allowed to be what it rationally should have been "the greatest line straightiner in the history of mankind" reselling would happily be an artifact of the ugly ignorant past... Instead, with ICANN's full knowledge and assistance (.com .org .net .bullshit) the Internet has been twisted by millions of snake-oilers, big and small, and is being effectively spam-taxed into inefficient uselessness at every contrived turn.
Read more if you really do have some honorable notion of being a "public servant".
ICANN Ombudsman writes:
Dear Gary Mosher,
Thank you for taking the time to complete the Office of the Ombudsman
The role of the Ombudsman is to review the fairness of actions, decisions,
or inactions taken or not taken by the ICANN Board or Staff. In this case,
you have essentially provided a commentary on your views of the public
administration of the United States government, and this falls outside of
the powers given to me under Bylaw V.
With respect to your issue concerning your domain lock, I have briefed staff
on your concerns, and I am sure that they will follow up with Tucows on your
behalf to verify the status. I have also provided them with your comments
on the reseller transfer - registration process.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman with your concerns.
permanent link: Another Fun Week