Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, February 16 2000         Volume 01 : Number 001

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:12:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Joseph Friedman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] test ignore

delete

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:30:34 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

Harald wrote:
>
>Because the rules that were adopted say that the proof of identity 
process 
>is only invoked when an identity is challenged, and the list monitor is
 
>satisfied that there's reason to pursue the challenge.
>

There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged cases.

We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in which 
"Membership" is a concept distinct from "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and 
in which there will be *many* mailing lists, with specific focus.
At that point in time, it will seem reasonable to check the identity for
 "Members" (the more 'stable' population, that will have the right of 
vote, ....), and this may be done once and for good, while the 'mobile' 
population (the people subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) 
will necessarily not be subject to systematic control (too expansive).

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:23:46 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 15-Feb-2000 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged cases.
> 
> We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in which 
> "Membership" is a concept distinct from "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and 
> in which there will be *many* mailing lists, with specific focus.
> At that point in time, it will seem reasonable to check the identity for
>  "Members" (the more 'stable' population, that will have the right of 
> vote, ....), and this may be done once and for good, while the 'mobile' 
> population (the people subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) 
> will necessarily not be subject to systematic control (too expansive).
> 

So then we give up the list as a useful place to get work done?  I think the
list should be composed of the members.  The "general purpose" mailing list is
the place of work for all intents and purposes.  Non-members are always welcome
to read the contents of the list, via an email digest or web based archive
format, but not necessarily have the right to post until they have been
verified.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4qeAC8zLmV94Pz+IRAmDlAKCH/KXftyJlr3Y9nEf5kSuKgTHFdwCeKJOW
Hq/ZBmMJdev/V894AI6z6MM=
=4EeP
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:51:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

Well - there seems to be alot of squalor in all this.  Not only is the
issue of impersonation a reality here, a reality Harald seems to fight
every day and issue directives on - yet - it's an issue for april.

I don't buy that .. and neither does anyone else.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 [email-masked] wrote:

> harald and Joe,
> 
>    Joe, somehow I knew Harald was going to saw this, didn't you?
> It is so pathetic it is hardly worth bothering with.  But as I said,
> I don't give a dam.  
> 
>   Harald,  Are you having fun?  >-:)
> 
> Dillon Marshall Esq.
> 
>  In a message dated 2/15/00 6:58:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> << At 08:31 15.02.00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>  >I challenge you to put everyone to the test now.  Or else we'll never hear
>  >the end of the personality squalor - it's getting very bland all these
>  >accusations of non personalities.  I think it about time the rules of
>  >proof was applied to all.  Including yourself.
>  
>  thank you, I've already checked my driver's license :-)
>  
>  actually, the problems of identity here have been with a single person.
>  Until we have evidence that there's a larger problem, I see little reason to
>  go general.
>  
>  Let's have this as part of the discussion for April.
>  
>                       Harald
>  
>  
>  --
>  Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>  [email-masked]
>   >>
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:01:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

I'm cross posting this to make sure other members of the community can
follow this insanity.

I and Walsh agree that for the GA@DNSO to get any works of substance done,
it is critical that we meet the chairs and NC's definition of real
person.  Yes - the chair and alternate have avoided this issue like the
plague.

We were given fradulent election, the alternate has admitted to allowing a
fradulent poll be conducted - knowing full weel in advance of the poll
that it was fradulent, the polling process as the chair and alternate
expected, was abused - and the chair imposed a set of rules no one wanted,
the alternate is now booting people off the list because he does not
believe they exist - no proof either way - yet Harald is swinging the axe.

This is a joke.

Here Walsh and I have agreed on a fundamental process of organizing the
membership, yet we are being blocked.

This is most unfortunate.  And just another continous fraud.  Where the
hell is the Department of Commerce on this.  This is all very unwholesome
and very unamerican.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 15-Feb-2000 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged cases.
> > 
> > We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in which 
> > "Membership" is a concept distinct from "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and 
> > in which there will be *many* mailing lists, with specific focus.
> > At that point in time, it will seem reasonable to check the identity for
> >  "Members" (the more 'stable' population, that will have the right of 
> > vote, ....), and this may be done once and for good, while the 'mobile' 
> > population (the people subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) 
> > will necessarily not be subject to systematic control (too expansive).
> > 
> 
> So then we give up the list as a useful place to get work done?  I think the
> list should be composed of the members.  The "general purpose" mailing list is
> the place of work for all intents and purposes.  Non-members are always welcome
> to read the contents of the list, via an email digest or web based archive
> format, but not necessarily have the right to post until they have been
> verified.
> 
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
> 
> iD8DBQE4qeAC8zLmV94Pz+IRAmDlAKCH/KXftyJlr3Y9nEf5kSuKgTHFdwCeKJOW
> Hq/ZBmMJdev/V894AI6z6MM=
> =4EeP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:24:08 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

William,

>
>So then we give up the list as a useful place to get work done?  I 
think the
>list should be composed of the members.

I am assuming that "give up the list as a useful place to get work done"
 is sarcastic.
If not, the humor contained in it is involuntary, but still remarkable.

  The "general purpose" mailing list is
>the place of work for all intents and purposes.  Non-members are always
 welcome
>to read the contents of the list, via an email digest or web based 
archive
>format, but not necessarily have the right to post until they have been

>verified.
>

The problem is scaleability.
I agree that it will nice to have a "place of work for all intents and 
purposes", but how many subscribers will this list have?

One of the two: either this list will always have few hundred 
subscribers at the most, and therefore it will never claim to "speak for
 the Internet people", or will have a completely different order of 
magnitude, and therefore will be unmanageable.

We need a different model, IMHO.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:26:46 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] disclaimer 

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Someone drew my attention to a post by PCCF loon Joe Baptista which implies
that he and I agree on his criticism of the current decisions and status on the
GA list.

This is not true.

While he may agree with the proposal I made, his posts implies that this
agreement extends to his criticism of the chair not acting on this right now. 
This is not the case, the issue needs much broader discussion, including
addressing the issues of implementation, and the implications on participation
by those for whom these rules would be a hardship.

What is occuring now is that myself, the Chair and the Assoc. Chair have posted
comments on the proposal, and are discussing it on the list.

This is entirely appropriate and is the appropriate way for it to be handled at
this point.  Any implication that I support what I feel are baseless
accusations and criticisms made by a PCCF loon are totally false.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4qe7G8zLmV94Pz+IRAgYTAKChh2rFbUtaPEJww3rs2J3dEReRwwCfcq06
gOG055HXBuz7dSMcVNctJDs=
=HKN2
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:05:35 GMT
From: "William Jeffson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Me Too

I for sure agree with all of me. We are of one mind on this. There is no 
stopping the massive hordes of INEGroupians! We are everywhere!

Now you begin to understand?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:56:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Me Too

It's true - there everywhere.  And god bless them for it.  But where are
the girls?

Regards
Joe

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, William Jeffson wrote:

> I for sure agree with all of me. We are of one mind on this. There is no 
> stopping the massive hordes of INEGroupians! We are everywhere!
> 
> Now you begin to understand?
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:11:44 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List "Policing"

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Does it begin to make sense now?

- - --
Christopher Ambler - 
PGP Public Key: http://www.ambler.net/Chris

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord.

iQA/AwUBOKoVcMkU7GoO9fgUEQIpQACfcCq0l9DLg7fpA0Fpfqr7LLj2/0sAoKLv
LxvIo7pT8ahPA2/ZgyF7h5Eb
=q/q4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:14:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

Roberto Gaetano writes:
 > Harald wrote:
 > >Because the rules that were adopted say that the proof of identity
 > >iprocess s only invoked when an identity is challenged, and the list
 > >imonitor is satisfied that there's reason to pursue the challenge.
 > >
 > 
 > There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged
 > cases.
 > 
 > We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in
 > which "Membership" is a concept distinct from
 > "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and in which there will be *many* mailing
 > lists, with specific focus.  At that point in time, it will seem
 > reasonable to check the identity for "Members" (the more 'stable'
 > population, that will have the right of vote, ....), and this may be
 > done once and for good, while the 'mobile' population (the people
 > subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) will necessarily not
 > be subject to systematic control (too expansive).

All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
you have to identify yourself and you have incentive to not pay multiple
times.  Unfortunately, this option is not available to a so-called open
membership group as the DNSO.  However, any serious member of the DNSO
would, no doubt, belong to one or more professional societies, many of
whom may have network presences.  I know that the ACM and IEEE do, and
undoubtedly some lawyers groups must along with other groups fitting
most of the members of the DNSO.  Maybe we can work out some method of
validation with these groups.  ACM and IEEE offer e-mail forwarding
services for members-only.

My idea is really only partially formed, but it might have promise.  I
cannot really come up with any other ideas that do not involve charging
for membership.

Of course, a signed PKI certificate from a well-known organization that
requires physical proof of identity should always be acceptable.
Certainly, any self-signed certificate is worthless, but a certificate
from a well-known company (GTE, IBM, etc.) should also be acceptable.

What it really boils down to is requiring something other than a simple
e-mail address to be eligible for voting.  A specific e-mail address
from a source that requires membership (ACM, IEEE) would do, or a
suitable certificate.  Both of these are more or less trivial to
validate, but do not prevent duplication by a determined persona.

Other ideas?

/Joe
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:31:50 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Me Too

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Terribly sorry, should it have been "Williamette Jeffson?" :-)

- - --
Christopher Ambler - 
PGP Public Key: http://www.ambler.net/Chris

- - -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of !Dr.
Joe
Baptista
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 7:57 PM
To: William Jeffson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Me Too

It's true - there everywhere.  And god bless them for it.  But where
are
the girls?

Regards
Joe

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, William Jeffson wrote:

> I for sure agree with all of me. We are of one mind on this. There
> is no  stopping the massive hordes of INEGroupians! We are
> everywhere!
> 
> Now you begin to understand?
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord.

iQA/AwUBOKoaJskU7GoO9fgUEQK8/gCfdzeqJHZSka/J7U3PCd8XrBFdrJUAoNYD
PSMMrIfbEzWrp5Pd03vhgGYr
=euy1
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:01:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List "Policing"

exactly - but it is not much of a list.  its gone from adulthood to
infancy - i know i watched - and i like to watch.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Does it begin to make sense now?
> 
> - --
> Christopher Ambler - 
> PGP Public Key: http://www.ambler.net/Chris
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord.
> 
> iQA/AwUBOKoVcMkU7GoO9fgUEQIpQACfcCq0l9DLg7fpA0Fpfqr7LLj2/0sAoKLv
> LxvIo7pT8ahPA2/ZgyF7h5Eb
> =q/q4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:05:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
> fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,

Not true - and very misleading.  Many organizations do not charge for
membership - some do.  This is also not a professional society - this is
the general assembly of the dnso of icann.  Check the bylaws if your
confused.  We are not a professional society nor should you mislead the
assembly with such speculation.

The GA has become a bit of a club - that I give you - but a club is also
not a society, and in this case not very ICANN legal.

Regards
Joe Baptista

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:30:00 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registration process suggestion

At 10:09 AM 2/14/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > I did not say that no mechanisms or services existed.  I said there was no
> > large-scale USE.
>
>Without marketing/demographics data, which neither of us are either privy to
>(or are free to publish) your statement is unsupported. I still maintain
>that it is false (understood - such statement is equally unsupported).
>However, you might try Forrester's.

The nice things about using the term "large-scale" in the context of the 
Internet is that measuring achieving it is usually obvious to most any 
observer.  Simple questions like "is there any indication that average, 
non-technical users employ it regularly or easily -- and particularly 
between people in different organizations?" permit gauging the scale of use.

In the case of Internet authentication obviously has not achieved truly 
wide-scale deployment and is, most certainly, not easy to use, except with 
quite a bit of administrative hand-holding for non-technical users.

>I agree with the non-email requirement (email vs persona). It is also a
>problem with PGP. PGP only secures the individual message. With a PKI,
>it -might- also provide verification of the end-points of a communique.

The trust models, security boundaries, etc. are pretty much the same for 
PGP and S/MIME.  Suggesting that PGP does not have a "public-key 
infrastructure" is a bit strange, and even stranger to suggest that adding 
one somehow expands the scope of the objects being protected.

To the extent you mean that employing a third-party key certification 
structure is significant, yes.  It permits making stronger statements about 
the protection of the data, relative to the third-party authority.  But it 
does not change the scope of what is being protected.

> > > > For that matter, there is no large scale use of open, encrypton-based
> > > > authentication services.
> > >This is true, iff you emphasize the term "open".
> > That is exactly the point.  ICANN participation is open.
>
>... apples and oranges, Dave. ICANN is not a technology and authentication
>services are not a would-be governance organization.

The reference to ICANN being open means that the security technology must 
interwork among a very diverse and independent set of people.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

Gong Xi Fa Cai   /  Selamat Tahun Baru Cina

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:32:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

That's the problem with all this - it's all babble and the substance get's
lost in the drift.  All we need is to verify membership, any half assed
political organization should be able to do it.  But this is mission
imposible par excellance - nes pa?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joe K. , Joe and all,
> 
>   I think that membership dues is a great idea.  For the DNSO and ICANN
> they need to be as high as possible to keep the "Little People" out, at least
> $5k per year minimum.  Than Joe Kelsey and William will have to come
> up with some real $$ instead of babble...
> 
>   Hell, I belong to a country club that costs more than $5k/year!  Chump
> change!  And a high membership due cost would keep things more
> wholesome or should I say dot.wholesome!  >;) Oh yes and Joe Kelsey,
> if $5k is a bit for you to come up with, I will give you a loan on for a lean
> on your house or something else of equivalent value.  My interest rates
> are reasonable.  >;)
> 
> !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> >
> > > All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
> > > fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
> >
> > Not true - and very misleading.  Many organizations do not charge for
> > membership - some do.  This is also not a professional society - this is
> > the general assembly of the dnso of icann.  Check the bylaws if your
> > confused.  We are not a professional society nor should you mislead the
> > assembly with such speculation.
> >
> > The GA has become a bit of a club - that I give you - but a club is also
> > not a society, and in this case not very ICANN legal.
> >
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 02:26:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "!Dr. Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP AGAIN on DNSO GARe: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joe and all,
> 
>   Well Joe, Harald, Roberto, Kent and William (The Four Horse Shitters)
> have decided that CENSORSHIP, and false claims as well as list
> games are more preferable on this forum (DNSO GA), as such, the babble
> factor will be all there is soon enough or just false and misleading information.
> That is fine, but not very useful or helpful.  But certainly misleading.

well - the GA is an exercise in deception by ICANN.  I enjoy it - and
keeping them honest.  Splitting the list is also entertaining - it's
caused a general drop in participation and a complete loss of credibility
as the masses evacuate the GA.

 > 
>   As for verification of individuals, I am all for it, as long as everyone is
> publicly verified and that no private information is required for anyone.
> Again that is not what Harald seems to be suggesting is required, yet
> does not provide where and how to submit such documentation, nor
> how these privacy is to be protected or guaranteed.  Hence you have a
> situation that is circular and not addressing what is necessary or desired,
> nor do you have a resolution just SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP, again!

My main concern is all the privacy violations involved in collecting
personal information.  And the credibility of those incvolved in the
process - i speak of icann, the dnso and the nc - is not good.  It has
been seriously soiled by the depoloyment of censorship, list splitting,
electoral fraud.  Those who enjoy shaekspears follows would very much
enjoy the show.  I do.

Regards
Joe Baptista

> 
> !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> > That's the problem with all this - it's all babble and the substance get's
> > lost in the drift.  All we need is to verify membership, any half assed
> > political organization should be able to do it.  But this is mission
> > imposible par excellance - nes pa?
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Joe K. , Joe and all,
> > >
> > >   I think that membership dues is a great idea.  For the DNSO and ICANN
> > > they need to be as high as possible to keep the "Little People" out, at least
> > > $5k per year minimum.  Than Joe Kelsey and William will have to come
> > > up with some real $$ instead of babble...
> > >
> > >   Hell, I belong to a country club that costs more than $5k/year!  Chump
> > > change!  And a high membership due cost would keep things more
> > > wholesome or should I say dot.wholesome!  >;) Oh yes and Joe Kelsey,
> > > if $5k is a bit for you to come up with, I will give you a loan on for a lean
> > > on your house or something else of equivalent value.  My interest rates
> > > are reasonable.  >;)
> > >
> > > !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
> > > > > fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
> > > >
> > > > Not true - and very misleading.  Many organizations do not charge for
> > > > membership - some do.  This is also not a professional society - this is
> > > > the general assembly of the dnso of icann.  Check the bylaws if your
> > > > confused.  We are not a professional society nor should you mislead the
> > > > assembly with such speculation.
> > > >
> > > > The GA has become a bit of a club - that I give you - but a club is also
> > > > not a society, and in this case not very ICANN legal.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Joe Baptista
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:46:20 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

At 15:23 15.02.00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>So then we give up the list as a useful place to get work done?  I think the
>list should be composed of the members.  The "general purpose" mailing list is
>the place of work for all intents and purposes.  Non-members are always 
>welcome
>to read the contents of the list, via an email digest or web based archive
>format, but not necessarily have the right to post until they have been
>verified.

It's technically possible that the list of members' registered email 
addresses is used to check posting rights to the list, rather than the 
subscriber address.

To me, this would make sense; then, any member could post to the list, but 
could read from the list by mail, archive browsing or any other method he 
prefers.
But it's far from certain that the current crop of list subscribers is what 
would become members come April.

                      Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:54:37 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

At 19:51 15.02.00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>Well - there seems to be alot of squalor in all this.  Not only is the
>issue of impersonation a reality here, a reality Harald seems to fight
>every day and issue directives on - yet - it's an issue for april.

Name a single issue of suspected impersonation occuring since the rules 
were instituted that has not been addressed by now.

                     Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:25:02 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

At 19:14 15.02.00 -0800, Joe Kelsey wrote:

>All professional societies avoid the problemof identity simply by the
>fact that they charge for membership.  If you have to pay for something,
>you have to identify yourself and you have incentive to not pay multiple
>times.  Unfortunately, this option is not available to a so-called open
>membership group as the DNSO.  However, any serious member of the DNSO
>would, no doubt, belong to one or more professional societies, many of
>whom may have network presences.  I know that the ACM and IEEE do, and
>undoubtedly some lawyers groups must along with other groups fitting
>most of the members of the DNSO.  Maybe we can work out some method of
>validation with these groups.  ACM and IEEE offer e-mail forwarding
>services for members-only.

That's a thought - being a member of the ACM cost me USD 70 and required 
proof of posession of a credit card (by virtue of the fact that the charge 
didn't bounce).

It would certainly raise the bar on loon identities by a few dollars; this 
may be enough.

                       Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1
**********************