<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-abuse] Jeff Williams is exceeding posting limits.
Jeff Williams sent eight messages with date headers showing July 5
to ga@dnso.org. (Messages attached.)
In fact, if you look at his behaviour more generally, and consider
his "posting blocks" which are usually around midnight (his time
zone), you'll note that he sent a total of 13 Mails from July 4,
22:00 until July 6, 02:00 - that is, in mere two list
reading/writing sessions.
Please deal with this guy appropriately.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- To: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
- Subject: Re: [ga] .kids domain
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:56:05 -0700
- Cc: ga@dnso.org
- Delivered-To: roessler@sobolev.does-not-exist.org
- Delivered-To: tlrpop@mediacompany.com
- Delivered-To: roessler@mail.mediacompany.com
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <E15HzRQ-00024J-00@mrvdom02.schlund.de>
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Alex and all assembly members
Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment
> of a .kids domain, *non*-U.S. citizens may *also* wish to express their opinions
> on this topic to the U.S. legislators, but have no avenue.
Of course those that are not US citizens have many avenues by which they
can communicate with US governmental officials. You can write (e-mail,
fax or regular mail) to any US Senator, or House of Representative, you may
send through your Embassy in the US, you concerns, thoughts, and/or feelings
regarding any matters such as this one, and you may communicate through
the US media you concerns, feelings and thoughts... In the case of the
House of Representatives, there is and E-Mail list the ecommerce
list at <ecommerce@mail.house.gov> as well that you may pass on your
positions, feelings, and thoughts on these matters.
>
>
> Meanwhile, they may enjoy the U.S. Capitol Virtual Tour.
> http://www.senate.gov/vtour/
>
> Cynically yours,
> /// Alexander
>
> (This message is not aimed at Danny, the messenger in this case.)
>
> > Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment
> > of a .kids domain, U.S. citizens may wish to express their opinions on this
> > topic to their local legislators (pro or con). For information on how to
> > write to your local representatives:
> >
> > http://www.house.gov/writerep/
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
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
--
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
- To: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Subject: Re: [ga] Organization/Communication
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 01:34:27 -0700
- Cc: ga@dnso.org
- Delivered-To: roessler@sobolev.does-not-exist.org
- Delivered-To: tlrpop@mediacompany.com
- Delivered-To: roessler@mail.mediacompany.com
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <dc.893d582.28752ecf@cs.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Danny and all assembly members,
DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> Reposted from the @Large forum:
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00130.shtml
>
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Karl, can you give all of some useful and concrete suggestions about how to
> organize and communicate with individuals. I think that part is still missing
> from your suggestions.<
To which Karl has sense responded quite eloquently and precisely, as
did several other participants...
>
>
> You are raising a very critical issue.
>
> Let me try to begin my attempt to answer by suggesting that there is a
> difference between an election and between the communications that occur
> among electors and between electors and candidates.
Naturally there is a significant difference in some roles and circumstances
and in others no difference in the communications that occur among and
between electors with other electors, and electors and candidates... In some
if not most instances the candidates are also electors. However this is not all
that astounding or particularly significant.
>
>
> As for elections - they can be regional or global or whatever; that's a
> matter for another discussion.
>
> The issue here is how we can allow individual electors to organize and
> communicate.
I don't think it is a matter of allowance, as Karl later posted in response
to the reference you kindly provided. Rather is it a mater of how individual
electors WISH or CHOOSE to organize and communicate.
>
>
> First off - my own experience tells me that a global Hyde Park - i.e. an open
> forum - is necessary but hardly sufficient. My experience is that a global
> forum is merely an entry vehicle for ideas, but that the maturation of
> discussion and evolution of ideas won't happen except in smaller fora that
> have evolved fora-based notions of who has credibility, who is a demagog or
> fifth columnist, or who is simply singing off key.
Smaller fora by the nature of it being small naturally lends itself to make
communication between it's members or participants simpler, and likely
easier, depending on whom are the participants. However this narrows
the potential scope of positions and interface to a overly limited and not
possibly representative of the broad concerns, ideas, and interests of
stakeholders or other interested parties...
>
>
> My sense is that most of us who have watched ICANN or who have participated
> in large discussion spaces have some lesser or greater degree of skepticism
> of such spaces.
I don't, and neither do any of our members that I am aware of in this sense.
However there is a sense that some participants/stakeholders that are
viewed with some skepticism. This is not a fault of the space, but rather
fault of the perceived and stated motivations of these specific participants...
>
>
> So, what's the means by which these more focused fora arise?
They don't really.
>
>
> There are probably an infinite number of means, but I've had experience with
> only a few.
>
> Self-organized clusters of roughly similar-minded people are a very valuable
> mechanism.
Yes there is some value amongst those that are participating in these
similar minded fora. But they are isolated and eventually self serve
that isolation sometimes to a degree that they believe many false
premise and conclusion and then attempt to apply them to a broader
group as if they were pre-ordained. Small religious sects often make
this same mistake....
>
>
> My experience with the Boston Working Group (BWG) is illustrative. When the
> final IFWP "wrap up meeting" was cancelled several of us were left with
> non-refundable air tickets to Boston. So we simply went and gathered -
> physically gathered - face to face - and worked.
On what specifically? Is there a work product?
> The result was mutual trust
> and understanding.
Yes amongst yourselves in that time frame. However sense that time,
many have split off into other beliefs....
> We've built on that foundation and expanded the group so
> that it serves as a pretty solid vehicle for the evolution of ideas. We
> don't depend entirely on electronic communications - there are frequent face
> to face interactions among the members; I consider that a
> valuable characteristic. Yes, it is a closed group - that's one of its
> strengths.
Closed groups are very beneficial amongst themselves. The broader benefit
weakens once it is introduced amongst a larger group however...
> And since it has no intrinsic voting power except insofar people
> might be convinced of the value of ideas, I have no trouble rejecting those
> who attack it as a closed group.
>
> It takes a great deal of work to form and maintain this kind of ad hoc group.
> One should not expect others to do the work for them - ICANN should not be
> expected to facilitate such formations. But equally, ICANN should not do
> things that impede such formations - for instance, ICANN should avoid things
> like anonymous public mailing lists that make it
> difficult for people to identify one another for purposes of initiating those
> critical off-list contacts that serve as the nuclei about which coalitions or
> fora may coalesce.
Yes many political alliances were formed in just such a manner. One of
the most successful was the Nazi Party. The Axis states had great
success from 1932 through 1942. After finding out that their ideas
for world domination and order were discovered for what they really
were, the rest of the than unprepared world decided that their ideas
were no desirable. Other examples throughout history have similarly
failed or run their course into oblivion....
>
>
> As you know, I'm a strong opponent of censorship in public spaces. However,
> in private spaces, the ability to impose a degree of etiquitte is essential
> to the long-term survival of the group and the maturation of its thought
> processes and the growth of its political strength. In the Boston Working
> Group we have a rule that requires mutual respect and another that demands
> that nothing be leaked without permission. Of course we aren't perfect in
> this, far from it, but we've survived and grown since before the era of ICANN.
Yes I was a member of that fora. It had a short life, but did come up
with several what I thought were great ideas, but upon consideration
amongst the broader stakeholder organizations and groups, one by one
fell by the wayside....
>
>
> Another very important mechanism is an active press - Journalists build their
> own visibility and credibility and that, in turn, serves as a sieve that
> helps us identify those in the global forum who are simply oddballs from
> those who are modern day Aristotles in the rough.
Journalists also destroy their own visibility and degrade their own
sense of credibility as we have seen recently with several online
publications and even more printed media one time giants. They do so
through several means, but mainly by not being daring enough, doing
good investigative journalistic work, and keeping their audience
adequately engaged....
>
>
> Just as it takes time for interest-coalitions to forum out of the inchaote
> cloud of global-forum partipants, it takes a great deal of time for
> journalists to realize the importance of issues, much more to comprehend them
> sufficiently to write about coherently. The press is not simply an observer;
> it is a partner, in the evolution of a mature body politic - we have to give
> them the time, materials, and patience so that over time they can do their
> job well.
To some degree this is of course correct. But the really good Journalist
publications are well led and can expand their audience very quickly, grasp
the nature of the subjects and story's they are interested in engaging...
The remainder are, "Just the rest"...
>
>
> You ask how people can remain engaged in this process without burning out...
>
> Lord knows. ;-)
Than I must be a god! It is simple really, be insistent, consistent,
and persistent....
>
>
> In my own case I look at ICANN as an historical event - It is my sense that
> we are creating a new kind of sovereign governmental institution - something
> that hasn't really happened since the nation-state reached modern form in the
> years following the Napoleonic Wars.
Interesting view for and organization that would have no existence at all
was it not for a contract with the USG....
>
>
> This is simply too interesting (to me) to miss.
>
> (I don't see treaty-based entities or NGO's as being independent sovreign
> entities and thus really not the same kind of thing as is being created with
> ICANN.)
>
> As for getting work done - That's a hard one. In the global forum it simply
> isn't possible to depend that organized work efforts will reach fruition. In
> the smaller fora it is important that there develop a kind of management
> structure - nothing formal, but rather a sense that members can ask others to
> help and that once a committment is made, it is
> important that the committment be honored. Again drawing on the BWG
> experience - we had the luck of starting life in a compressed weekend in
> which we had to essentially review the entire initial ICANN proposal, agree
> upon limited changes, and put those into writing. We litterally gathered
> around a dining room table and pounded out our ideas until we were exhausted.
> That kind of thing builds a lot of strength in a group.
>
> As for resources, it is my sense that a viable ad-hoc forum requires some
> degree of network support - A mailing list and archive are important, as is
> easy access to private and public web servers so that drafts can be floated
> and final documents published. This kind of thing is not particularly hard
> or expensive to establish - in the BWG case it was
> particularly easy because several of us have strong technical backgrounds and
> were already running 24x7 e-mail and web-server systems with decent
> constant-on connectivity.
>
> My own experience tells me that the process of maturation of an electorate
> involves a lot of unrecognized work, a lot of ego, piles of frustration, a
> strong dose of hyperbole, and the catalyst of face-to-face contact.
>
> I'm kind of running off at the keyboard here... I hope I've made some useful
> suggestions.
>
> --karl--
>
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
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
--
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
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
- Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 05:16:11 -0700
- Cc: GA List <ga@dnso.org>, "NC (list)" <council@dnso.org>
- Delivered-To: roessler@sobolev.does-not-exist.org
- Delivered-To: tlrpop@mediacompany.com
- Delivered-To: roessler@mail.mediacompany.com
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <00da01c1052f$8eed4240$6501a8c0@aim.be>
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Phillip and all assembly members,
Judging from the "Subject" line of this post it would seem that you
are
a bit dismayed with Danny or Danny's earlier post to this the GA
Forum. Indeed I responded to it myself with some concern as well.
Yet I am finding your sarcasm in this separate post/thread in response
a bit unnecessary and demeaning without cause.
Philip Sheppard wrote:
> If I may summarise Danny's speech I understand that he says the GA
> is excluded from DNSO decision making. This is not the case.
True. However it is quite evident that the DNSO GA is not being allowed
to fulfill it's rightful place in the decision making process from
within the
DNSO. I believe that this was what Danny really was addressing...
>
>
>
> The NC is working to fulfil its business plan - that plan was a result
> of issues raised within the DNSO by the GA and others.
Yes but does the "NC's business Plan" align with the DNSO GA's
necessary
role? Some here would think not...
>
>
> One item of the plan concerning Review, takes its input directly from
> WG E, WG D and WG Review which were fora for discussion but not
> structured as fora for implementation.
Why not structured for implementation?
> There will be opportunities for full public comment (i.e. GA input) on
> the relevant output of the NC task forces and other groups.
>
> Another item of the business plan concerns UDRP and we are expecting a
> nominee from the GA to join the task force.
This is a good area for the GA to participate in. As currently one of
the
nominee's I hope that the process will be open to any and all other
input
from whatever source is self identified as an "Interested Party"... I
also
hope that this UDRP Task Force will be a implementation Task Force...
As you may know, there has already been a good head start on
UDRP Questionnaire, questions being suggested on the sub list ga-udrp.
These should be very helpful and useful in the questionnaire for the
stakeholders to consider. I have compiled I believe to be a complete
list of the thus far suggested questions.
>
>
> In the meantime the issue specific GA lists are the conduit for
> involvement on key issues. Where agreement on issues is reached on
> these lists we hope that the GA Chair (or indeed any GA member) will
> communicate this to the NC intake committee, in order to get the issue
> on the NC agenda. It is worth noting that to date there is more energy
> spent on rhetoric than there has been input from the GA to the NC
> intake Committee.
Rhetorical comment is often a good source of intake. I hope that the
NC Intake Committee will view such input as such.
>
>
> Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.
Good! Is there a reference URL where this can be reviewed by the GA
members?
>
>
> Philip Sheppard
> NC Chair
>
>
Regards,
--
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
--
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
- To: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
- Subject: Re: [ga] .kids domain
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:11:00 -0700
- Cc: ga@dnso.org
- Delivered-To: roessler@sobolev.does-not-exist.org
- Delivered-To: tlrpop@mediacompany.com
- Delivered-To: roessler@mail.mediacompany.com
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <E15I5QE-0006M9-00@mrvdom01.schlund.de>
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Alex and all assembly members,
Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Hello Leah,
>
> L Gallegos wrote on 04.07.01, 23:27:23:
> > I would not hesitate to write to the author of the bill regardless of
> > where you live. It may serve to put our legislature on notice that
> > they need to pay attention to the global community and not just
> > the US. This may be an opportune time to make that statement.
>
> thanks for your encouragement, but I remain skeptical
> because I know from people who actually worked for
> Congresspeople that they (have to) ignore e-mail even
> from outside their /Congressional District/. To cope with
> the enormous amount of incoming comments, sorting them
> by location of sender is a simple strategy.
Indeed this is done by some congressman on a fairly regular basis.
That is why I earlier suggested alternate methods of letting congress
members your concerns.
> For a North
> Californian Representative, Grapevine TX is "not his
> bailiwick", let alone Hamburg, Germany. That's why
> the "Write Your Representative" system has been set up.
Some but not all Congress folk do take this attitude. That is
why you can also write your embassy in Washington and request of
them to contact the appropriate or specified congress person to let
you feeling and concerns known. I receive on a fairly regular basis
very direct communications (e-mail) from a number of
Congressmen and Senators that are not in my state, let alone
district.
>
>
> Nonetheless: To write to Mr Shimkus from outside the U.S.,
> you can go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and select
> "Illinois", for the ZIP code you can enter "62234" and "3019".
> You should provide your real address in your message, since
> any reply will be in written form, not per e-mail.
It is always good to provide an accurate address, as I do, in your
communications with congressmen and senators.
>
>
> > This proposed legislation does make a point, though, doesn't it?
> > How can ICANN claim to be a multinational organization and the
> > root a global entity when it is owned and controlled by the US
> > government? Isn't it, then, a US root with a huge market share,
> > managed by a private US corporation?
>
> I don't think private US corporations are evil per se, as
> long as their actions and internal workings reflect the global
> nature of the Net, and there definitely is room for improvement...
> If the bill passes (which I think is highly unlikely), the U.S.
> parliament has failed the litmus test for providing an
> environment in which such an experiment as ICANN can take place.
The US doesn't have a parliamentary form of government and therefore
does not have a parliament. We have a House of Representatives and a
Senate.
>
>
> > With ICANN not having to
> > answer to anyone but the state AG and DoC and with DoC simply
> > rubber stamping anything that ICANN decides per their stated
> > policy, we seem to have just what was said at the February
> > hearing:
> >
> > ...ICANN answers to no one but maybe God and perhaps not even
> > to Him...
>
> I don't think California's Attorney General or the U.S.
> Department of Commerce /should/ have a decisive say
> in Internet management.
I agree.
>
>
> > Also from the hearing:
> >
> > ["Mr. Pickering: This is the dilemma for us and has been for the
> > very beginning. The reason we have ICANN is to avoid the APA,
> > the Adiminstrative Procedures Act, as much as any reason. We
> > didn't want the APA to apply to ICANN."]
>
> I remember Congressman Dingell referring to ICANN as
> "the agency which we are constituting to act on behalf of
> the U.S. government" in that hearing. Ouch.
>
> > Open, transparent, bottom-up?
> Way to go!
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>
Regards,
--
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
--
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
Chuck and all assembly members,
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this. The constituencies pay for the services,
> but the GA wants to call the shots?
That's now how I understand it Chuck. Rather it is that the GA members
want to collect their own budget and manage it, but the NC wants to
decide how it is used.... Kinda a odd idea, IMHO....
Than the NC wants GA members to participate in a couple of
TF groups for free... Also a bit odd as well...
>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; Names Council; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> World
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
> > CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
> > websites.
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:36 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> > fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> > GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.
>
> Tell me you're kidding. Do we get to select the service provider?
>
> Independently of Names Council control?
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
Regards,
--
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
--
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
Bret and all assembly members,
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand this. The constituencies pay for the services,
> > but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all the
> constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to it without
> charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't that hard to
> accept.
For the time being that is how I understood it is suppose to work until the
GA can put together it's own funding.
> I hope the current problem of this being a de facto place for
> unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an individual domain name
> owners constituency is finally chartered and operational.
It won't. But than again we have been here before, haven't we? :(
>
>
> -- 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
Regards,
--
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
--
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
- To: Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:39:58 -0700
- Cc: GA <ga@dnso.org>
- Delivered-To: roessler@sobolev.does-not-exist.org
- Delivered-To: tlrpop@mediacompany.com
- Delivered-To: roessler@mail.mediacompany.com
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <001301c10575$8c02f0c0$d37cd840@a>
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Burce and all assembly members,
Not to worry. Some 14k of our members that I am aware of anyway,
have been sending letters, e-mails, and faxes starting July 1. They
shall
continue...
Bruce James wrote:
> H. R. 2417
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF
> REPRESENTATIVES
> To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain
> that
> will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of
>
> children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online
> environment for children, and to help prevent children from being
> exposed to
> harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
>
>
> I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local
> congressperson to
> *Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere.
> Please
> use the link below to find their address.
>
> http://www.house.gov/writerep/
>
> This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our
> children! We
> need your *HELP*!
>
>
>
Regards,
--
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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|