Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #55
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 11 2000           Volume 01 : Number 055

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

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:33:37 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting regimes

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:21:01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>Once we've got a GA membership, we've got to decide about how the GA votes.
>
>I'd suggest keeping things simple, for now:
>
>- The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership.
>   The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
>- In the case of a yes-or-no decision, the majority wins.
>- In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>   cast must be at least half of the membership.
>
>The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't like
>a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may close this
>option, so it should be more difficult to do that.

I think this is a bit dangerous as one may end up due to apathy being
stuck with the current rules for ever.  

The more normal procedure for rule changes is that say a two thirds or
even three quarters majority must be in favour.  One could have a
minimum turnout also but I think 50% is way too high (think if we get
4,000 GA members).  Perhaps the lower of 20% or 100 votes as a turnout
requirement.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting regimes

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

This sounds like good solution that doesn't paralyze the ability of the GA to
actually accomplish something.  

On 10-Apr-2000 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Once we've got a GA membership, we've got to decide about how the GA votes.
> 
> I'd suggest keeping things simple, for now:
> 
> - The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership.
>    The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
> - In the case of a yes-or-no decision, the majority wins.
> - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>    cast must be at least half of the membership.
> 
> The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't like
> a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may close this
> option, so it should be more difficult to do that.
> 
> Once we're active, we can fiddle with rules to our hearts' content; this
> should be enough to get us off the ground.
> 
>                    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

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE48aL88zLmV94Pz+IRAnmjAJ95uCqOp1+N6cwvdkmpAwnru/CuZACeOyts
n1kz1T7jVHdE+ysUpC6jJsI=
=iRJF
- -----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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:47:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting regimes

Harald and all assembly members,

  We already have a membership Harald.  That was announced
in the DNSO announce list some months ago now.  So it seems
that you are a bit off track here.  (More comments and observations
below Haralds)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Once we've got a GA membership, we've got to decide about how the GA votes.
>
> I'd suggest keeping things simple, for now:
>
> - The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership.

  There is not a legitimate elected Chair at the moment Harald as
you and everyone here is well aware of.  Hence, this decision must
correctly and legitimately be made by the now existing membership.

>
>    The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
> - In the case of a yes-or-no decision, the majority wins.
> - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>    cast must be at least half of the membership.

  Although the first two of these are reasonable, these decisions
again must be made by the now existing membership.

>
>
> The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't like
> a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may close this
> option, so it should be more difficult to do that.

  And this may be a consideration, but again this requirement for voting
must be made by the now existing assembly members.

>
>
> Once we're active, we can fiddle with rules to our hearts' content; this
> should be enough to get us off the ground.

  Well Harald, we have been off the ground here on the DNSO GA
list for some time until you and Roberto arrived on the scene.  A bit
late I might add.  However, none the less, all of these decisions in
order to be legitimate must be decided by the now existing members.

>
>
>                    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

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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 04:50:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Voting regimes

Joe and all assembly members,

  I think Joe makes a good point here....

Joe Baptista wrote:

> The chief GA horseshitter speaks.  The GA was held up as an example of
> what not to do and Harald continues with new ground.
>
> Regards
> Joe
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > Once we've got a GA membership, we've got to decide about how the GA votes.
> >
> > I'd suggest keeping things simple, for now:
> >
> > - The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership.
> >    The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
> > - In the case of a yes-or-no decision, the majority wins.
> > - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
> >    cast must be at least half of the membership.
> >
> > The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't like
> > a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may close this
> > option, so it should be more difficult to do that.
> >
> > Once we're active, we can fiddle with rules to our hearts' content; this
> > should be enough to get us off the ground.
> >
> >                    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
> >

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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:57:01 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting regimes

At 20:33 10.04.2000 +1200, DPF wrote:

>I think this is a bit dangerous as one may end up due to apathy being
>stuck with the current rules for ever.
>
>The more normal procedure for rule changes is that say a two thirds or
>even three quarters majority must be in favour.  One could have a
>minimum turnout also but I think 50% is way too high (think if we get
>4,000 GA members).  Perhaps the lower of 20% or 100 votes as a turnout
>requirement.

This seems to make sense. I'll make it 2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum
number of cast votes being the lower of 20% or 100 votes.

Subject to change by voting.....

                      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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:20:52 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Admin] On forwarding (Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Voting regimes)

At 04:50 10.04.2000 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Joe and all assembly members,
>
>   I think Joe makes a good point here....
Note that in the discussion leading up to the list rules, we concluded
that someone who forwards an insult is responsible for that insult,
and should be dealt with accordingly.

This message is a warning.

                 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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Voting regimes

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>- The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership

Does this mean that the chair has a veto?  Under what circumstances can
the chair refuse his/her approval?

> - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>    cast must be at least half of the membership.

I object to this when applied to rules that were not adopted with this
requirement.  It entrenches the current rules which were adopted in the
face of a very small and very split vote.  Further, as the membership
grows there is not telling what turnout will be.

I also object to this when applied to any vote: If people don't care
enough to vote, that should not be counted as a "no" vote against any
change.

How about a much lower threshold please?

>The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't
>like a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may
>close this option, so it should be more difficult to do that. 

If the chair has a veto, this seems a trivial danger.  If the chair does
not have a veto, I think a lower threshhold will at least blunt the
problem.

Or, perhaps the chair should have the ability to say that rules changes
which would limit participation should be subject to a minimum
participation rule, but not those which enhance them.  Then, for example,
votes to impose list moderation would require a high turnout, but not
those to remove it? ;>

- -- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:32:47 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting regimes

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------B3375675A7D66F4ADB5D62C4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>    cast must be at least half of the membership.
>

This may prove more restrictive than you intend.  It is often very difficult to
get significant turn-outs of voters in organizations whose ranks are inflated by
casual observers.

- --------------B3375675A7D66F4ADB5D62C4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------B3375675A7D66F4ADB5D62C4--

- --
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:46:34 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Voting regimes

At 08:50 10.04.2000 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> >- The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership
>
>Does this mean that the chair has a veto?  Under what circumstances can
>the chair refuse his/her approval?

I would imagine that the chair would influence the decision when:

- - No clear ballot text exists (delay until a suitable text is available)
- - Multiple competing ballot texts exist, and someone must decide on one
   question to put to the membership (pick one)
- - The issue that someone wants to put forward is irrelevant to the GA
   ("flying pigs considered harmful")

> > - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
> >    cast must be at least half of the membership.
>
>I object to this when applied to rules that were not adopted with this
>requirement.  It entrenches the current rules which were adopted in the
>face of a very small and very split vote.  Further, as the membership
>grows there is not telling what turnout will be.

A point. And my original reason for not making them more strict.

>I also object to this when applied to any vote: If people don't care
>enough to vote, that should not be counted as a "no" vote against any
>change.

I do not understand what you are objecting to: The specific rule on
rule-changing votes, or that such a rule should be there at all?

>How about a much lower threshold please?

Agreed. See previous message.

> >The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't
> >like a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may
> >close this option, so it should be more difficult to do that.
>
>If the chair has a veto, this seems a trivial danger.  If the chair does
>not have a veto, I think a lower threshhold will at least blunt the
>problem.

One reason for having a threshold is to blunt the ability of anyone - 
INCLUDING the chair - to get rule changes passed that the membership does 
not agree with.

>Or, perhaps the chair should have the ability to say that rules changes
>which would limit participation should be subject to a minimum
>participation rule, but not those which enhance them.  Then, for example,
>votes to impose list moderation would require a high turnout, but not
>those to remove it?

we can argue until the cows come home about whether list monitoring and 
list rules (note: it is not moderation) increases or decreases 
participation - so far, I think it increases participation.

Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

                        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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:40:39 -0500
From: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] dotTV

On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, [email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20000407/t000032588.html
It seems that the next thing to do is sell countries.
:-(

Regards
Vany

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3646
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:28:42 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Our buddy Jonathan Cohen gets some press

http://www.theregister.co.uk/000410-000004.html

Why do these people still refer to "cybersquatting".

AFAIA, squatting is the action of using something (usually 
accommodation) without paying for it.

Now that you have to pay for domains when you register them, surely 
there is no such thing as cybersquatting anymore???

And just who was he referring to when he says "dissidents who were 
known in some cases to have received financial support for attendance 
at meetings from NSI"

In my view, dissidents are a good thing, as they prevent the 
wholesale approval of policies without the consquences being well 
thought through. ICANN obviously needs more dissidents!!!

Cheers,

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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, 11 Apr 2000 01:02:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Our buddy Jonathan Cohen gets some press

Andy and all assembly members,

  Good points here Andy, and not badly put either.  As you know
Jonathan Cohen as a known pedophile has a vested interest in shifting
attention from that fact, to denigrating others in a manner as public
as possible so as to keep his particular life style in the background.

  The term "Cybersquatters" is a denigrating and false label that some
of the ICANN Board members through a back door process got
pinned up well in the press through their PR firm, from my understanding.

It was something that Mike Roberts in particular was quite taken with
in getting done.  He succeeded unfortunately.  So now we are stuck
with this term as part of the Internet Lingo for years to come.  So much
for honesty and integrity in this process and now as we also have seen
Jonathan has decided to keep this canard as alive as possible.  And
so it goes with a malignant process that needs some serious adjustment.

Andy Gardner wrote:

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/000410-000004.html
>
> Why do these people still refer to "cybersquatting".
>
> AFAIA, squatting is the action of using something (usually
> accommodation) without paying for it.
>
> Now that you have to pay for domains when you register them, surely
> there is no such thing as cybersquatting anymore???
>
> And just who was he referring to when he says "dissidents who were
> known in some cases to have received financial support for attendance
> at meetings from NSI"
>
> In my view, dissidents are a good thing, as they prevent the
> wholesale approval of policies without the consquences being well
> thought through. ICANN obviously needs more dissidents!!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
>
> Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
> --
> 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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:09:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Our buddy Jonathan Cohen gets some press

Joe and all assembly members,

  Yes FUD is essentially what Jonathan seems to have fallen to
in this rather laughable article.  I also at the same time find
his crusade sort of like the pot calling the kettle black as well...
Interesting how that works out isn't it.  Jonathan, how about
insuring that the rightful owners for Races.com and E.com
as well as all of the trailing "-" domains get rightly restored
to their rightful registrants?

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Andy Gardner wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/000410-000004.html
> >
> > And just who was he referring to when he says "dissidents who were
> > known in some cases to have received financial support for attendance
> > at meetings from NSI"
>
> That's just Cohen farting the same old ICANN FUD.  The dissidents he
> reffers to are Sexton and friends.  Unfortunately it's just propaganda
> FUD.
>
> I suggest Cohen think of the children in Fort Lauderdale and what he's
> going to say to his maker some day.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista

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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:06:59 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights

The enclosed paragraph is considered irrelevant to the business of the GA,
a personal attack, insulting and slanderous.

The posting rights of "Jeff Williams" are hereby suspended for 4 week starting
today, lasting until May 9, 2000.

Decisions of the GA list monitor can be appealed to the GA chair.

                        Harald Tveit Alvestrand
                            GA list monitor

At 01:02 11.04.2000 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Andy and all assembly members,
>
>  As you know
>Jonathan Cohen as a known pedophile has a vested interest in shifting
>attention from that fact, to denigrating others in a manner as public
>as possible so as to keep his particular life style in the background.

- --
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, 11 Apr 2000 12:32:30 -0400
From: Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights WHAT DO YOU THINK??!!

"!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote:

> Looks like the horseshit in the GA keeps getting thicker.  I have asked
> Mr. Cohen personally if he is one of the pedophiles involved in the Fort
> Lauderdale scandal which has been supressed here in Canada.
>
> Mr Cohen has choosen to not respond.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > The enclosed paragraph is considered irrelevant to the business of the GA,
> > a personal attack, insulting and slanderous.
> >
> > The posting rights of "Jeff Williams" are hereby suspended for 4 week starting
> > today, lasting until May 9, 2000.
> >
> > Decisions of the GA list monitor can be appealed to the GA chair.
> >
> >                         Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> >                             GA list monitor
> >
> >
> > At 01:02 11.04.2000 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Andy and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >  As you know
> > >Jonathan Cohen as a known pedophile has a vested interest in shifting
> > >attention from that fact, to denigrating others in a manner as public
> > >as possible so as to keep his particular life style in the background.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >

It is with considerable disgust that I finally feel I Must respond to the  criminal
libel which has been repeatedly posted to prove some point I don't undestand.unless
it is to hurt ICANN or to allow someone  to defeat any effort I make to work for
ICANN or to be re-elected.
1)I am not and never have been a ''pedophile''
2)i have never been directly or indirectly involved in ANY activity involving
molestation of any kind, anyone or anything AND I have most certainly NOT been
implicated,charged,investigated,mentioned,reported or otherwise in connection with
ANY criminal activity of ANY kind whatsoever ...EVER, ANYWHERE!
3) I have never been asked to reply to any ''charges or ''allegations'' of criminal
misconduct or directly or indirectly implicated or even mentioned . I certainly
don't have the power to suppress anything and the suggestion is patently ridiculous.

As this most odious person is no doubt   well aware the mere allegation of such
'disgusting' misconduct is potentially harmful and certainly hurtful .I have
children and utterly fabricated and false allegations of this nature are most
unpleasant.and very hurtful to them.
I have no doubt that these cowardly attacks are justified in the mind of ''those

  who play this revolting ''game'' on the basis that  ''anything'' that can hurt or
discredit ICANN is justified.
I am a 'volunteer'. I am not paid in any way for my work..in fact it has had a
considerable cost. I accept that as I believe this work is worthwhile. I understand
that there are some who strongly disagree and are very frustrated and even angry
about this ICANN process.....Then ''fight it'' but not at the expense of my children
and family who are hurt by this scurrilous and completely false attack.
proving your ''internet superiority'' at the expense of truth and by hurting
children is probably not the way to succeed.

I should point out that at least in Canada this false allegation is almost certainly
criminal conduct under the Criminal Code of Canada.TO accuse someone publicly of a
serious crime when they know it to be false is a Crime!If those making these
allegations will present themselves in person at my office to make these charges
publicly and openly I will be most pleased to deal with them under the Laws of this
country. I have no doubt you will not accept ..I will not dignify any further
attacks with a reply!

Jonathan Cohen
- --
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 #55
***********************