Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #76
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 28 2000             Volume 01 : Number 076

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

Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:26:01 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Suspension of posting rights for Jeff Williams

- --------------4CE8BEC062C5B045542DCB5E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 15:04 27.05.2000 +0000, Mark Measday wrote:
> >Harald,
> >
> >I haven't read Mr William's original post, so don't know what he said
> >other than the below. A couple of procedural points:
> >
> >(i) It was my understanding that suspension from the list is subsequent to
> >a complaint. Then it is up to the list monitor to take action if deemed
> >necessary. Did someone complain?
>
> Someone complained. I did, too.

To the list? Surely it has to be a public complaint to the list?

> >(ii) Slander may or may not be a criminal offence in various different
> >jurisdictions. Similarly the mischievious allegation of slander may or may
> >not be actionable in the same manner. Is there proof of slander? If not,
> >you are playing into the hands of your detractors. List etiquette and law
> >should be separate.
>
> Slander is specifically listed on the mailing list rules at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00447.html:

Exactly. I do not believe from what you say that any slander was proven,
although I don't know the circumstances. As an offence, surely someone has to
be judged guilty by a appropriate court (unless you are yourself constituting
yourself as court?) for you to act. This is not the case, from what you say.
Therefore you should reinstate Mr. Williams until such time as he has been
adjudged culpable.

> >- The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> >   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> >   - Not using offensive language

Yes, I agree. And this would have been a perfectly good reason for throwing
Jeff off the list. But you didn't say that. You said that he had slandered some
third party, which is unproven. Should that third party provide adequate proof
of slander, then, I assume you could exercise the articles you refer to, which
I have not seen.  I doubt whether Yokohama will be bothered to sue Jeff for
slander, should that even be an offence in Japan.

> I agree; the list etiquette and law are separate.
>
> >(iii) The penalty for misbehaviour on the list was deeemed to be two weeks
> >suspension in previous list corespondence. How is eight weeks justified?
> >You would seem to be exceeding the brief.
>
> This is Jeff Williams' third suspension.
> Listing rules again:
> >Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
> >weeks), and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get
> >correspondingly longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second
> >offense, 8 weeks for a third).
> >The period is decided by the sergeant-at-arms.

You should reinstate him until such time as you are either able to substantiate
your accusations or to give him appropriate apology

> >(iv) It would appear that, were Mr Williams to hire a competent advocate,
> >you would be putting other list members at considerable risk.
>
> I assume you mean "lawyer" or "attorney"?

You are wilfully misunderstanding me, Harald.

> I don't see what the risk to other list members would be; I stand ready to
> defend my actions.

I assume if the list members have severally authorised you to incur liability,
they may also incur it.

>
>
>                       Harald A
>
> --
> 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

- --
Mark Measday
__________________________________________________________________________

Josmarian SA (Switzerland) Josmarian (UK) Ltd
http://www.josmarian.ch [email-masked]
UK tel/fax: 0044.1273.47.48.94  UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420
French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92

'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin
__________________________________________________________________________

- --------------4CE8BEC062C5B045542DCB5E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<i><font size=-1>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:</font></i>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>At 15:04 27.05.2000 +0000, Mark
Measday wrote:</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>Harald,</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>></font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>I haven't read Mr William's original post, so don't
know what he said</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>other than the below. A couple of procedural points:</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>></font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>(i) It was my understanding that suspension from
the list is subsequent to</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>a complaint. Then it is up to the list monitor to
take action if deemed</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>necessary. Did someone complain?</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>Someone complained. I did, too.</font></i></blockquote>
To the list? Surely it has to be a public complaint to the list?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>>(ii) Slander may or may not be
a criminal offence in various different</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>jurisdictions. Similarly the mischievious allegation
of slander may or may</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>not be actionable in the same manner. Is there proof
of slander? If not,</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>you are playing into the hands of your detractors.
List etiquette and law</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>should be separate.</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>Slander is specifically listed on the mailing list
rules at</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00447.html:</font></i></blockquote>
Exactly. I do not believe from what you say that any slander was proven,
although I don't know the circumstances. As an offence, surely someone
has to be judged guilty by a appropriate court (unless you are yourself
constituting yourself as court?) for you to act. This is not the case,
from what you say. Therefore you should reinstate Mr. Williams until such
time as he has been adjudged culpable.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>>- The messages must observe a minimum
of decorum, including:</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>&nbsp;&nbsp; - Not indulging in personal attacks,
insults or slander</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>&nbsp;&nbsp; - Not using offensive language</font></i></blockquote>
Yes, I agree. And this would have been a perfectly good reason for throwing
Jeff off the list. But you didn't say that. You said that he had slandered
some third party, which is unproven. Should that third party provide adequate
proof of slander, then, I assume you could exercise the articles you refer
to, which I have not seen.&nbsp; I doubt whether Yokohama will be bothered
to sue Jeff for slander, should that even be an offence in Japan.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>I agree; the list etiquette and
law are separate.</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>>(iii) The penalty for misbehaviour on the list was
deeemed to be two weeks</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>suspension in previous list corespondence. How is
eight weeks justified?</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>You would seem to be exceeding the brief.</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>This is Jeff Williams' third suspension.</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>Listing rules again:</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of
time (typically 2</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>weeks), and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat
offenders may get</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>correspondingly longer sentences (for instance 4
weeks for a second</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>offense, 8 weeks for a third).</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>The period is decided by the sergeant-at-arms.</font></i></blockquote>
You should reinstate him until such time as you are either able to substantiate
your accusations or to give him appropriate apology
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>>(iv) It would appear that, were
Mr Williams to hire a competent advocate,</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>>you would be putting other list members at considerable
risk.</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>I assume you mean "lawyer" or "attorney"?</font></i></blockquote>
You are wilfully misunderstanding me, Harald.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><i><font size=-1>I don't see what the risk to other
list members would be; I stand ready to</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>defend my actions.</font></i></blockquote>
I assume if the list members have severally authorised you to incur liability,
they may also incur it.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;<i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Harald A</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>--</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>[email-masked]</font></i><i><font size=-1></font></i>
<p><i><font size=-1>--</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked]
list.</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).</font></i>
<br><i><font size=-1>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></font></i></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Mark Measday
<br><font size=-1>__________________________________________________________________________</font><font size=-1></font>
<p><font size=-1>Josmarian SA (Switzerland) Josmarian (UK) Ltd</font>
<br><font size=-1><A HREF="http://www.josmarian.ch">http://www.josmarian.ch</A> [email-masked]</font>
<br><font size=-1>UK tel/fax: 0044.1273.47.48.94&nbsp; UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420</font>
<br><font size=-1>French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92</font><font size=-1></font>
<p><font size=-1>'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin</font>
<br><font size=-1>______________________________________________</font>____________________________
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------4CE8BEC062C5B045542DCB5E--

- --
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:30:27 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

At 07:40 27/05/00 -0700, you wrote:

>
>>IDNO proposal, for all its faults, never got formally considered.  
>
>There was nothing to consider.  

The GA, assembled in Santiago, thought otherwise.

>It was a group entirely without relevant 
>content.
>
It was not the "group" asking for representation for Individual Domain name
owners that was relevant, but the principle that a significant body of
stakeholders should be denied representation on the Names Council.
To state that this was not worthy of consideration is the height of arrogance.
So was the deafening silence of the then ICANN Board.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:11:11 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Meaningful Talk

Dear David

Once upon a time there was a happy land where every body spoke short and
simple words.  Then the French came and lawyers were invented.  Words like
affidavit, government, judiciary, jealousy and armaments were introduced.
Now we don't understand, we comprehend.

Comprendez?

Please start being meaningful by trying to:

(a)    use plain Anglo-Saxon words as far as possible
(b)    talk to people as if they are your equal
(c)    keep sentences short and to the point
(d)    avoid mixing up too many ideas together

The example below is patronising drivel.

Thank you.

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 5:46 AM
Subject: Meaningfulness

> At 03:04 AM 5/28/00 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >Could you PLEASE contribute something meaningful?
>
>
> Glad to.  Please read very carefully and then consider the content even
> more carefully:
>
> 1.  It is trivial to create long -- possibly interesting -- lists, of
> "groups", or "requirements", or whatever.
>
> 2.  It is extremely difficult to create a practical list and harder still
> to implement it.  It is nearly impossible to synthesize a meaningful,
> productive list in an open group consensus process.
>
> 3.  Progress requires action.  Discussion and debate might be necessary
> prerequisites, but they do not constitute progress.
>
> 4.  Consequently it is essential for formulate minimal and simple lists,
> seeking only what is clear -- even obvious -- and essential.  If an entry
> in a list can be deferred, it should be, until there is more experience
> with the topic.
>
> 5.  Most of my previous contributions in fact seek focus and constraint of
> the group effort, in the hope that progress can be made.  It is based on
> many years of working within open group processes that succeed or fail,
> frequently due to only and just the question of keeping initial steps
simple.
>
> 6.  My previous note was extremely meaningful.  Failure to understand that
> suggests a need to read more carefully or learn more about practical open
> processes.
>
> 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
>

- --
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 09:22:04 -0400
From: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Technical contact for At large membership suscription issues

Hi to all:

I suscribed to the GA  but I don't remember my password, as far as I 
remember never a mail confirmation arrived to me.
When I consulted the webpage where password reminder can be sent to me, I 
put the e-mail address that I provided when I filled membership application 
and the respons was that such e-mail address wasn't found.

I am afraid to fill another application again, because I don't want to 
duplicate my name in the database of At Large Membership.

I wish to know to whom I have to address my situation in order to be 
solved?  In the At large membership homepage there's no e-mail contacts in 
case of such technical problems.

Thanks a lot in advance for all the information you can provide me in this 
issue.

Best Regards
Vany

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

- --
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 07:49:36 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

At 08:30 PM 5/28/00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>owners that was relevant, but the principle that a significant body of
>stakeholders should be denied representation on the Names Council.

What issues, perspectives, and the like distinguish this constituency from 
others?

         Not forthcoming.

Where is the groundswell of participation from these stakeholders that 
demonstrates their concern about representation?

         Not forthcoming.

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

- --
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: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:56:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

Dave Crocker wrote:

>What issues, perspectives, and the like distinguish this constituency 
from 
>others?
>

That's an excellent question, that I should have added in my initial 
message.
Personally, I think that individuals, not necessarily just as DN owners,
 but simply as plain Netizens, should have a voice (and a vote) in the 
process, because their interests are clearly separated from every other 
existing Constituency.
This could have been doubtful in the past, when it was not clear how the
 Constituencies would have refined and trimmed their role and charter, 
but it is clear now, IMHO.
The voice of the "laymen" is important, I think. As I posted already, 
the NCDNHC has already excluded (rightfully, IMHO) the individuals/
families from participation in the Constituency. The GA's role and 
function is different: it is an instance where everybody comes together 
(ideally), not the place for who is not in the Constituencies.

If you would like a specific example, take my case: I am participating 
in this process as an individual, with no affiliation with any 
Organization, and I do not belong to any constituency.
While this may be handy now, to guarantee if need there should be that 
the GA Chair is not expression of a Constituency, it is nevertheless 
proof that there is something missing in the structure of the DNSO.

>
>Where is the groundswell of participation from these stakeholders that 

>demonstrates their concern about representation?
>

You can take the above as a first step.
I have no idea on how many people are in the same or similar situation, 
but one of the reasons to reopen the subject is precisely to find out 
whether the question is of general interest or not.

There has been in the past support from the GA to the idea of 
Constituency for individuals, and I believe that the reasons for ICANN 
not to follow up on the question were more linked to the lack of a 
unified proposal (and no possibility at that time to put together one in
 a short time) than a clear "no".

There are, it is true, some ICANN Directors that opposed this project, 
as we have even heard directly in Cairo, but OTOH maybe we should put 
together a proposal for consideration.

Of course, only if there is a sufficient number of interested 
individuals.

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: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:50:49 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Single Letter Domains

At 14:52 27.05.2000 -0700, John Kaufman wrote:
>Dear Mr. Roberts, the ICANN Board of Directors, DNSO, and Other Interested 
>Parties:
>
>This email constitutes an official demand for the sale of "k.com" to the 
>undersigned without delay. Regardless of what many at your and your 
>supporting organizations have said to me about the procedures and policies 
>surrounding the single-letter domain matter, the entire issue is obviously 
>moot given that precedent has been firmly set with respect to the 
>registration of four single-letter domains -- in this case, to four 
>separate and private parties.
>
>Once again, this email constitutes an official demand for the sale of 
>"k.com" to the undersigned without delay.

Given the evidence that other single-letter domains have been allocated 
quite recently in the domains administered by NSI, I now think that the 
necessary next step is for NSI to explain their policy of allocation of 
these domains, since I do not understand it.

ICANN has (IMHO) no business interfering in single allocations; the 
question of who is going to own "k.com" is IMHO not an ICANN matter.
The question of what policy to follow is (IMHO) a matter where ICANN may 
have input.

                      Harald A

- --
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 #76
***********************