Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #77
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 31 2000           Volume 01 : Number 077

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

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 02:42:11 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for Jeff Williams]

Harald,

Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it, you
should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the gentleman
concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action against JW
to refute him, or restore JW to the list.

Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.

MM

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Harald,
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 00:23 29.05.2000 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >Mark and all remaining Assembly members,
> > >
> > >   The truth of the matter is that first there are no "Member Approved"
> > >or VOted in rules.
> >
> > There are chair approved rules.
>
>   And those rules or should I say non-rules are irrelevant as they are
> not in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws as well as in stark violation
> of the White Paper and the MoU, as you well know.  Not only that
> Harald, there is not legitimately elected chair or co-chair, also a fact
> you are well aware of.
>
> >
> >
> > >   Second it is well known that Harald has a personal
> > >dislike for me.
> >
> > true. You have done much to deserve that dislike.
>
>   Such as?  Not that I really care so much, but I know of nothing
> that deserves such visceral and inconsistent behavior on your part.
>
> >
> > However, this does not prevent your message from being in violation of the
> > rules.
>
>   Again there are no legitimate RULES Harald.  You know this, you also know
> that many past assembly members left as a result of a SELECTIVE
> CENSORSHIP.  You also know full well that such a practice is inconsistent
> with normal discourse and discussion/Debate.
>
> >
> >
> > >   Third, the documented evidence of Mr. Cohens
> > >sexual extra circular activities is available to those whom wish to
> > >seek it.
> >
> > As mentioned before, this matter is irrelevant to the business of the GA.
> > Slander does not require that the statement be false; I do not believe the
> > accusation, but I do know that it is irrelevant.
>
>   To charge slander, in a legal sense DOES require that the accused
> proposed "Slander" be false in most courts of law that I am aware of.
> As to relevance, that would be a matter of conjecture.  If a person
> has committed an act that is beyond or contrary to the law, it is relevant
> in almost any context or situation.  Such is the case with Mr. Cohen.
> If you don't believe it, that is fine Harald, but I would say that you need
> to review the necessary court reported documents, as they differ
> greatly with your belief.
>
> >
> >
> > >   Forth, my reference indirectly to Yokohama is a matter of
> > >FACT, not speculation.
> >
> > Your statement about mr. Cohen was speculation.
>
>   No it is documented FACT, in two countries.
>
> >
> >
> >                 Harald
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > [email-masked]
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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
__________________________________________________________________________

- --
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, 29 May 2000 18:10:03 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for Jeff Williams]

At 02:42 AM 5/30/00 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
>Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it, you
>should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the gentleman

No, Mark, he shouldn't.

In fact it is not even reasonable to pursue the matter on this list.

The purpose of such suspensions is because the poster has thoroughly abused 
the rest of us with inappropriate use of the list.  To pursue the matter 
further, on the list, is allow such abuses to succeed as a deprivation of 
service attack.

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: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:13:59 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for Jeff Williams]

At 02:42 30.05.2000 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
>Harald,
>
>Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it, you
>should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the gentleman
>concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action 
>against JW to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
>
>Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.

I see that you have chosen to take this useless discussion back to the GA 
list. I will have to repeat in public what I told you in private.

I will not restore Jeff Williams unless he appeals my decision to the GA 
chair, and the GA chair rules that he should not be suspended.

Some points to ponder:

1) Truth or falsity has very little to do with relevance. The subject 
matter of his message is irrelevant to this list.

2) The proper authority to report what he has alleged to is criminal 
authorities, not the GA list. That he has chosen to make this allegiation 
on the GA list indicates to me that he has no evidence to support it, and 
is only making it to defame the person in public.

3) Jeff Williams has never, as far as I know, offered to produce evidence 
of anything except his own telephone number. His classic response is to say 
that "the evidence is out there" and challenge you to find it for yourself.
I do not want to engage in another such fruitless exercise.

He stays suspended.

                              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

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

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:34:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for Jeff Williams]

Mark,

>
>Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it,
 you
>should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the 
gentleman
>concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action 
against JW
>to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
>
>Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.
>

I am afraid you are missing the point.

The purpose of this list is not to discuss hypothetical or even real 
court cases or individual behaviours unrelated to Domain Names issues.
For this purpose, there may be other lists, or other fora.

Whoever wants to continue this argument, or to discuss the behaviour of 
other individuals (with or without close or remote involvment with the 
DNSO), or continue offending eachother, is most than welcome to move the
 discussion to more appropriate places of his/her choice, and keep this 
place for strictly DNSO-related issues.

In case I had to interpret your message as an appeal for the List 
Manager decision, please be aware that, as Chair, I consider his 
decision fully in order.

Thanks
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, 30 May 2000 18:32:46 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

At 18:56 28/05/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

Roberto,

Has that question not been answered many times already? Some people just
don't want to hear the answer.

You might want to look in the archives of the ICANN membership discussion
list where we have gone over the differences between Domain Name Holders
and other Internet users in extenso.

Isn't it obvious that the concerns of Individual Domain Name owners are not
sufficiently represented by the Business- and the Non-comm constituency?
The Individual DN owners have serious concerns regarding the security of
ownership (licence-to-use?) of their Domain, both in their relation to big
Business (who may bully them into giving up their Domains due to
"extension" of their TM) and  in relation to Registries and Registrars, who
can unilaterally dictate onerous registration and renewal conditions or
otherwise abuse their unequal relation with registrants.
At the moment only one side of the equation is represented on the Names
Council. 

Of course there is a need for representation of Individual DN owners. What
about Free Speech issues? Future rules about "shutting down" domains for
alleged copyright violations?   
This alone is one of the biggest reasons to have the voice of the
Individual Domain Name owners in the Names Council.
I am talking about adding value to the NC.

It not only affects legitimacy, but it is simply unwise to allow a narrow
interest group to dominate the NC. 

>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. 

Many Individual DN owners are far from laymen. In fact many registered
their Domains long before companies got on the DN bandwagon.

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.
>
Roberto, what is a sufficient number in your view?
The fight against the IDNO constituency has been characterized by
unreasonable hostility  to the idea. 
Many individuals are giving up the fight because they no longer believe
that they will get a fair voice in DNS policy through ICANN's DNSO.  
If they knew that ICANN was going to stop opposing the idea of their
representation, the current number of 179 idno members would quickly swell
to include the thousands of DN owners that have already signed up for the
ICANN at-large membership.

Thinking that DN owners are not interested in being represented is akin to
saying that taxpayers may not be interested in being represented. 
I think the history of modern democracy has proved otherwise.

- --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: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:37:49 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for JeffWilliams]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------DE699BB62D3FC48A7E43EEF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald,

My point here is that

(i) you did not follow the appropriate rules of the list for suspending him
(ii) you alleged a criminal offence against him which is unproven
(iii) you now invent other reasons for suspending him when your original reasons
are found to be false.

You suspended him because you don't like him, as he is not of your tribe.

Kind regards,

MM

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 02:42 30.05.2000 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
> >Harald,
> >
> >Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it, you
> >should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the gentleman
> >concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action
> >against JW to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
> >
> >Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.
>
> I see that you have chosen to take this useless discussion back to the GA
> list. I will have to repeat in public what I told you in private.
>
> I will not restore Jeff Williams unless he appeals my decision to the GA
> chair, and the GA chair rules that he should not be suspended.
>
> Some points to ponder:
>
> 1) Truth or falsity has very little to do with relevance. The subject
> matter of his message is irrelevant to this list.
>
> 2) The proper authority to report what he has alleged to is criminal
> authorities, not the GA list. That he has chosen to make this allegiation
> on the GA list indicates to me that he has no evidence to support it, and
> is only making it to defame the person in public.
>
> 3) Jeff Williams has never, as far as I know, offered to produce evidence
> of anything except his own telephone number. His classic response is to say
> that "the evidence is out there" and challenge you to find it for yourself.
> I do not want to engage in another such fruitless exercise.
>
> He stays suspended.
>
>                               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
__________________________________________________________________________

- --------------DE699BB62D3FC48A7E43EEF2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="measday.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Mark Measday
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="measday.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Measday;Mark
tel;cell:0044370947420
tel;fax:0033450209492
tel;home:00441273474894
tel;work:0033450209492
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.josmarian.ch
org:Josmarian SA
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
title:Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;pa Reich & Zen-Ruffinen=0D=0A72 bd St Georges=0D=0A=0D=0A;Geneva;;CH-1205;Switzerland
note;quoted-printable:Josmarian is a swiss virtual rights consultancy company specialising =0D=0Ain advice to international companies and  institutions on appropriate legal and technical =0D=0Astrategies to transition from bilateral or multilateral internationalist to thinking globalist. 
fn:Mark Measday
end:vcard

- --------------DE699BB62D3FC48A7E43EEF2--

- --
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, 30 May 2000 12:02:22 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for Jeff Williams]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------F29D0AFAB9C01AA566240AC3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------082AE4BC06082EB11421A0C3"

- --------------082AE4BC06082EB11421A0C3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roberto,

Quite, Roberto.

Therefore JW should be reinstated.

According to Harald, there was some complaint of slander, slander uttered by
JW of a Mr Cohen, whether Josh, Joe, Jonathan, Benjamin or another is
unclear from the context of the particular email.

This is neither proven nor substantiated, although it might well have been
if Harald had followed appropriate procedures. Therefore JW should be
reinstated.

Should there be a complaint (which I understand there is not) for some
offence against list etiquette, then perhaps JW should be suspended. When it
is it should be examined carefully.

If you start eliminating people on suspicion they have done something wrong,
you soon descend into lynch law, a perversion of justice which can soon be
turned round against you.

I agree the principle should be possibly tested in some civil action, rather
than burdening you and Harald with the responsibility. One hopes that either
JW or his adversary would initiate a resolution.

However, pending such a hypothetical outcome, he should be reinstated as he
is not culpable of the offence for which he was suspended.

I am surprised that a man as sophisticated as yourself should balance his
reputation oin such a matter.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Mark,
>
> >
> >Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it,
>  you
> >should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the
> gentleman
> >concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action
> against JW
> >to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
> >
> >Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.
> >
>
> I am afraid you are missing the point.
>
> The purpose of this list is not to discuss hypothetical or even real
> court cases or individual behaviours unrelated to Domain Names issues.
> For this purpose, there may be other lists, or other fora.
>
> Whoever wants to continue this argument, or to discuss the behaviour of
> other individuals (with or without close or remote involvment with the
> DNSO), or continue offending eachother, is most than welcome to move the
>  discussion to more appropriate places of his/her choice, and keep this
> place for strictly DNSO-related issues.
>
> In case I had to interpret your message as an appeal for the List
> Manager decision, please be aware that, as Chair, I consider his
> decision fully in order.
>
> Thanks
> Roberto

- --
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
__________________________________________________________________________

- --------------082AE4BC06082EB11421A0C3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Roberto,
<p>Quite, Roberto.
<p>Therefore JW should be reinstated.
<p>According to Harald, there was some complaint of slander, slander uttered
by JW of a Mr Cohen, whether Josh, Joe, Jonathan, Benjamin or another is
unclear from the context of the particular email.
<p>This is neither proven nor substantiated, although it might well have
been if Harald had followed appropriate procedures. Therefore JW should
be reinstated.
<p>Should there be a complaint (which I understand there is not) for some
offence against list etiquette, then perhaps JW should be suspended. When
it is it should be examined carefully.
<p>If you start eliminating people on suspicion they have done something
wrong, you soon descend into lynch law, a perversion of justice which can
soon be turned round against you.
<p>I agree the principle should be possibly tested in some civil action,
rather than burdening you and Harald with the responsibility. One hopes
that either JW or his adversary would initiate a resolution.
<p><b>However, pending such a hypothetical outcome, he should be reinstated
as he is not culpable of the offence for which he was suspended.</b>
<p>I am surprised that a man as sophisticated as yourself should balance
his reputation oin such a matter.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Mark,
<p>>
<br>>Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with
it,
<br>&nbsp;you
<br>>should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the
<br>gentleman
<br>>concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action
<br>against JW
<br>>to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
<br>>
<br>>Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.
<br>>
<p>I am afraid you are missing the point.
<p>The purpose of this list is not to discuss hypothetical or even real
<br>court cases or individual behaviours unrelated to Domain Names issues.
<br>For this purpose, there may be other lists, or other fora.
<p>Whoever wants to continue this argument, or to discuss the behaviour
of
<br>other individuals (with or without close or remote involvment with
the
<br>DNSO), or continue offending eachother, is most than welcome to move
the
<br>&nbsp;discussion to more appropriate places of his/her choice, and
keep this
<br>place for strictly DNSO-related issues.
<p>In case I had to interpret your message as an appeal for the List
<br>Manager decision, please be aware that, as Chair, I consider his
<br>decision fully in order.
<p>Thanks
<br>Roberto</blockquote>

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

- --------------082AE4BC06082EB11421A0C3--

- --------------F29D0AFAB9C01AA566240AC3
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="measday.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Mark Measday
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="measday.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Measday;Mark
tel;cell:0044370947420
tel;fax:0033450209492
tel;home:00441273474894
tel;work:0033450209492
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.josmarian.ch
org:Josmarian SA
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
title:Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;pa Reich & Zen-Ruffinen=0D=0A72 bd St Georges=0D=0A=0D=0A;Geneva;;CH-1205;Switzerland
note;quoted-printable:Josmarian is a swiss virtual rights consultancy company specialising =0D=0Ain advice to international companies and  institutions on appropriate legal and technical =0D=0Astrategies to transition from bilateral or multilateral internationalist to thinking globalist. 
fn:Mark Measday
end:vcard

- --------------F29D0AFAB9C01AA566240AC3--

- --
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, 30 May 2000 03:54:17 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

Hello Joop,

Monday, May 29, 2000, 11:32:46 PM, you wrote:

JT> Roberto, what is a sufficient number in your view?
JT> The fight against the IDNO constituency has been characterized by
JT> unreasonable hostility  to the idea.

No, the fight against the IDNO's attempt to enshrine itself as the
constituency for domain name owners is characterized by a dislike for
an organization that was intended to be nothing more than pulpit for
one person, that was never, and definitely is not now, representative
of domain name owners, nor does it have any of the characteristics
one would expect of a constituency.

JT> Many individuals are giving up the fight because they no longer believe
JT> that they will get a fair voice in DNS policy through ICANN's DNSO.  
JT> If they knew that ICANN was going to stop opposing the idea of their
JT> representation, the current number of 179 idno members would quickly swell
JT> to include the thousands of DN owners that have already signed up for the
JT> ICANN at-large membership.

Don't count on it.  The IDNO is greatly flawed, and those flaws are
very transparent.  The IDNO's membership would not swell.

However, I think a true domain name owners constituency would have
such a chance.   However, a constituency is not made by forming an
association and then trying to get that organization dubbed the
official constituency.  A constituency is formed by creating a viable
charter, seeking public comment and input, and then presenting it for
approval by the only group who can create a new constituency, the
ICANN board.

The whole thing about creating an organization and then trying to get
that organization recognized, was a flawed concept from the beginning.
It vested way too much power in one person's hands, the person who
held the keys to that "organization."

What is needed is a fair structure, plenty of public input and comment
on the structure (which is a simple thing to do, base it on the
existing constituency structures), and then present it for approval to
the ICANN board.  This eliminates the problems of personality, which
also plagued the effort known as the IDNO (Joop was a liability
there).  It also eliminates the problems of the "organization" type
setup, which also was a liability and held back the effort.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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, 30 May 2000 05:39:29 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for JeffWilliams]

Hello Mark,

Tuesday, May 30, 2000, 2:37:49 AM, you wrote:

MM> Harald,

MM> My point here is that

MM> (i) you did not follow the appropriate rules of the list for suspending him
MM> (ii) you alleged a criminal offence against him which is unproven
MM> (iii) you now invent other reasons for suspending him when your original reasons
MM> are found to be false.

MM> You suspended him because you don't like him, as he is not of your tribe.

You can attribute as many false motivations and false accusations as
you want.  The fact remains that you are wrong, Mark.

As you are about many things, including your taking it upon yourself
to file an application for membership in the NCDNHC for the IDNO.

Your track record doesn't lend much credibility to your analysis.

Harald acted within the rules, and took the appropriate action.  If
you don't like it, you are free to leave.  The chair has even ruled
the action appropriate.

The bottom line is that you are wrong on this, and the matter has been
settled.  Time to move on.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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, 30 May 2000 07:23:21 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-full] Individuals

On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> 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.

One must consider "sufficient number" in comparison with the 16,000 who
have signed up for icann atlarge membership.  One must also consider
that from the perspective of representation, the atlarge membership of
ICANN controls half the board seats.  This is far more
power/representation than *any* constituency of the DNSO.  There is a
real and legitimate concern that the atlarge membership already tilts
the representation equation far to the side of individuals. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 31 May 2000 02:25:17 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for  JeffWilliams]]]

Il s'agit d'un message multivolet au format MIME.
- --------------4B4B6B308DDA53A1C1AA1274
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FYI. List members can decide whether JW has been unfairly sanctioned

(i) by being accused clandestinely of offences that are unproven
(ii) being banned for offences of which he has not been publicly
accused.

Such misuses of authority concern all, as all are potential victims.

As such this is a matter of concern to anyone in their right mind and I
forward JW's
post to the list.

- --------------4B4B6B308DDA53A1C1AA1274
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2000 06:03:33 +0200
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:23:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
To: [email-masked]
CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
        General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>,
        dnso abuse <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [ga] [Admin] Restoration of posting rights for 
	 JeffWilliams]]

Mark, Harald and all,

  I already have Mark.  Harald is just refusing to acknowledge.  I will
say also say however I don't see that there is anything to appeal in the first
place.  Harald and some unknown or yet to be identified person on the
DNSO GA list made the charge.  It is up to them to prove that their
charge is legitimate.  That is about all I can say about this silly nonsense..

  If you would like to forward this to the DNSO GA list please
feel free to do so Mark.

Mark Measday wrote:

> Are you going to appeal?
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 02:42 30.05.2000 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
> > >Harald,
> > >
> > >Having no view on this, and rather wishing I had nothing to do with it, you
> > >should either challenge JW to produce his evidence, request the gentleman
> > >concerned formally to rebut the allegations by bringing some action
> > >against JW to refute him, or restore JW to the list.
> > >
> > >Not to do so is an arbitrary misuse of your position.
> >
> > I see that you have chosen to take this useless discussion back to the GA
> > list. I will have to repeat in public what I told you in private.
> >
> > I will not restore Jeff Williams unless he appeals my decision to the GA
> > chair, and the GA chair rules that he should not be suspended.
> >
> > Some points to ponder:
> >
> > 1) Truth or falsity has very little to do with relevance. The subject
> > matter of his message is irrelevant to this list.
> >
> > 2) The proper authority to report what he has alleged to is criminal
> > authorities, not the GA list. That he has chosen to make this allegiation
> > on the GA list indicates to me that he has no evidence to support it, and
> > is only making it to defame the person in public.
> >
> > 3) Jeff Williams has never, as far as I know, offered to produce evidence
> > of anything except his own telephone number. His classic response is to say
> > that "the evidence is out there" and challenge you to find it for yourself.
> > I do not want to engage in another such fruitless exercise.
> >
> > He stays suspended.
> >
> >                               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
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                         Name: measday.vcf
>    measday.vcf          Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
>                     Encoding: 7bit
>                  Description: Card for Mark Measday

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --------------4B4B6B308DDA53A1C1AA1274--

- --
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 #77
***********************