<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] Re: Jeff Williams
Hello Patrick,
Please note I am not on ga-abuse list.
Once the Lists Monitors Team decides something, let me know
the decision to apply. Please also follow Harald's method -
state it up front to the GA list *before* reinforcement is made.
Please also check I am here to implement your decision within
less that 24 hours (our credibility).
An aside comment: only e-mail addresses as recorded on GA lists
(ga-abuse, announce, ga, council) may post to ga-abuse list.
If you happen to have an alternate e-mail, it will bounce, and needs
manual approval from the ListAdmin. It has cost (a message about
list cost will be posted soon to clarify situation).
I am answering your questions inside.
I apologize if my text is somewhat sharp. It is clarification only.
Best regards,
Elisabeth
(1st May is Labour Day)
>
> Hi Elisabeth
>
> I'm sorry to trouble you but there will be a few problems while we settle in
> the new lists. The following email bounced to me as list owner. I note
> that it was cross-posted as follows:
>
> CC: ga@dnso.org, icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>,
> ga-roots@dnso.org
>
> Can you confirm that cross posting is stopped between the different [ga]
> lists? I would also like to stop cross posting to the names council and the
> ICANN board except perhaps for the Chair and Co-Chair. Could advise,
> please?
==> I believe I already wrote about it - let me confirm.
The no cross posting apply also to ALL GA lists - I used to have
a user (and maths) perspective: if one person subscribe to List-One,
but NOT to List-Two, he/she does not wish to get any e-mail from
List-Two. Bret Fausett suggested each list to appoint a "rapporteur" to
provide periodic updates to the Main List. I concurr.
3. Only the NC members, ICANN Board and staff, and the current
GA Chairs are allowed to *post* to the council list.
The Working Group shall communicate through "liaison co-Chair", who
is the NC member.
The GA shall communicate through Chair or Alternate.
4. The main rule for the GA ga list (and WGs) is the non cross-posting.
The general rule is: more CC and To, less chances it gets to any
of list. If somebody is member to many lists and wishes to share
some topic with any of them he/she shall write to all of them separetely.
>
> Meanwhile can I unsubscribe Jeff Williams from all six lists while he is
> suspended? Messages I have received appear to allow me to control the list
> but it seems I need a password.
==> I am sending you a password in a separate message.
I let Lists Monitors Team to take decisions with regards to
the posting rights, respecting mailing lists rules as established
and adopted by the GA.
Roberto and Harald were working five to six months to get
that rules, but now we are lucky to have them.
I understand better that anybody here your concerns about
Jeff Williams and similar (being offended myself on the ga@dnso.org
in a way no one human being should ever be).
The multiplication of mailing list will add mathematical
combinatory effects to "Jeff Williams" phenomena.
It has cost.
That was the reason I demanded to have rules clearly stated before
lists' opening.
--end
>
> The following comments have been made by <one of the world's most respected
> authorities on the DNS> who has privately advised she will not subscribe to
> any of the [ga] lists. She states:
>
> > Presumably there are list rules, sensible objective rules, like no cross
> > posting, no spoofing, no attachments, no advertising, no ad hominem
> > attacks, no scatology. Offenses result in suspension. Three suspensions
> > within a year and they're off the list for good. Sorta like a driver's
> > license. When you break the rules, you lose your license to drive.
> >
> > I've been on domain policy since July 1996 and the antics of Jeff Williams
> > have almost brought it down three or four times. For about two of those
> > years, he was posting a dozen to 20 times a day, every day. He flooded
> the
> > discussion with banal chitchat. He even introduced some alter egos to the
> > list, Charles Taft Charles, Bob Davis and one other.
> >
> > One persion can wreak havoc on a list, just one. Because of JW, many have
> > taken their participation elsewhere, to private lists (I have).
>
> As you say, let's take care of our list.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <owner-ga-roots@dnso.org>
> To: <owner-ga-roots@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:00 PM
> Subject: BOUNCE ga-roots@dnso.org: taboo header:
> /^(To:|Cc:|\s).*ga\@dnso\.org/i
>
>
> >From ga-roots-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org Tue May 1 10:00:41 2001
> Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18213;
> Tue, 1 May 2001 10:00:40 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from ix.netcom.com (user-33qsdmn.dialup.mindspring.com
> [199.174.54.215])
> by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA22271;
> Tue, 1 May 2001 04:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-ID: <3AEE8BC5.5E45DB1F@ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 03:11:18 -0700
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>
> CC: ga@dnso.org, icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>,
> ga-roots@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U
> References: <B7139695.3A36%baf@fausett.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Bret and all assembly members,
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of
> > > inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality
> > > clauses tick away.
> >
> > I don't see months of rambling as an option. These contracts will be
> > revised, or not, in the next week. I'd rather see the confidentiality
> delays
> > fixed now than left in. I read in Danny's message that he fully
> appreciated
> > the time pressures on this.
>
> It seems obvious that Kent is trying to paint a negative view upon
> possibly
> extending
> a review process for Appendix U concerns that is divisive in his wording.
> I agree with Danny's earlier post in that seven days is not really and
> adequate
> time for any BoD to review this information adequately. I would therefore
> suggest that 30 days be set aside for a better and more comprehensive
> review of these areas in the new questionable gTLD contracts/agreements.
> I know our members that have been chiming in are quite concerned
> regarding many aspects of these gTLD contracts.
>
> We must all remember that if these contracts are accepted by DOC/NTIA
> they will be with us for a long time and such precedence set there unto
> within will set a precedent for future contracts for gTLD's.
>
> >
> >
> > -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|