Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1198
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1198

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:07:19 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

>The ISO 3166 Mainenance Agency meets in mid May 2002. On the agenda of that meeting
>are several proposals for changes in the lists of ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2.
>
>These include a number of minor changes of country names notified by the United 
>Nations, the likely change of the official name and code elements for East Timor,
>which becomes an independent country on 20 May 2002, and the second ISO 3166-2 
>Newsletter stating changes in the subdivision lists of about 30 countries
(http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/01whats-new/2002-05-10_changes_iso_3166-1_and_-2.html)
[BTW, does anyone know why the ISO site seems so slow?]

East Timor was formerly also known as "Timor Portuguesa" 
(hence .tp?). http://www.iana.org/root-whois/tp.htm

The official country name will now be 
"Republica Democratica de Timor Leste" 
(http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.asp?ID=1071)
which makes .tl for Timor Leste quite probable.

Currently, the East Timor government can be found 
in the gTLD namespace, including the dress code for
the independence day celebrations (Sunday: smart 
casual, Monday: tropical semi-formal).
http://www.gov.east-timor.org/

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:01:05 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC recommendation on the GA

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1FCC8.F98FE3A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

GA,
Let me provide context to recommendation 24 from the Names Council.
This was based on an earlier analysis of the current two roles of the GA =
provided by the GA Chair:
1. a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange
2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the =
constituency scheme participate in policy-making.

The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE =
both of them by a separation.  Don't be confused by use of the generic =
term "general assembly". The second objective is captured in =
recommendation 25, which seems not to have been posted before. And an =
earlier recommendation (19), also sought to incorporate new =
stakeholders.
Philip
- ---------------------------------
Recommendation 24 =96 general assembly. The gTLD policy development body =
should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum =
for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should =
be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy =
development body.
  .....
Recommendation 25 =96 public consultation There should be public =
consultation on proposed new policy within strict time limits, typically =
not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as the channel by =
which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/ =
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared =
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during =
such consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need =
to be made available for public consultation.
..... =20
Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders. Other stakeholders, such as =
individual domain name holders, could be added subject to the =
requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing new DNSO =
constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at www.dnso.org.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1FCC8.F98FE3A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>GA,<BR>Let me provide context to recommendation 24 =
from the=20
Names Council.<BR>This was based on an earlier analysis of the current =
two roles=20
of the GA provided by the GA Chair:<BR>1. a forum for broad =
inter-constituency=20
exchange<BR>2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting =
into the=20
constituency scheme participate in policy-making.<BR><BR>The =
recommendations'=20
objective is to&nbsp;KEEP those two roles and&nbsp;IMPROVE both of them =
by a=20
separation.&nbsp; Don't be confused by use of the generic term "general=20
assembly". The second objective is captured in recommendation 25, which =
seems=20
not to have been posted before. And an earlier recommendation (19), also =
sought=20
to incorporate new=20
stakeholders.<BR>Philip<BR>---------------------------------<BR><STRONG>R=
ecommendation=20
24 =96 general assembly.</STRONG> The gTLD policy development body =
should have a=20
general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for broad=20
inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited =
to the=20
agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development=20
body.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp; .....<BR><STRONG>Recommendation 25 =96 public =

consultation</STRONG> There should be public consultation on proposed =
new policy=20
within strict time limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such =
consultation=20
should serve as the channel by which individuals and parties not fitting =
into=20
the stakeholders/ constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora =
of=20
self-declared interested parties should be specifically requested for =
input=20
during such consultation. The necessary financial and human resources =
will need=20
to be made available for public consultation.<BR></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>.....<STRONG>&nbsp; </STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><B><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Recommendation 19 - =
Other=20
stakeholders.</B> Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name =
holders,=20
could be added subject to the requirements of the Names Council =
"Criteria for=20
establishing new DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of =
procedure at=20
</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>www.dnso.org</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>.</DIV></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00CC_01C1FCC8.F98FE3A0--

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:35:29 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC recommendation on the GA

- --=======4E2B589D=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CC95D6; boundary="=====================_6983420==_.ALT"

- --=====================_6983420==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CC95D6; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Philip,
it would be easier to develop a simple unified concept throughout the whole 
governance.

1. an SO is the interface of the BoD with the external world on a defined 
matter.
2. it is build as a council gathering representatives of co-opted 
constituencies renewed every 3 years (to permit adaptation to the network 
evolution), a constituency may attend all the SO it is concerned with.
3. and by a GA gathering every individual from constituencies or not.
4. the Council elects the BoD directors among a list of the first 
candidates selected by their GA

The assembly of the Members of all the GA form the ICANN/GA, also named 
@large, elects the @large directors, providing a stable election system 50% 
direct and private concerns (@large) and 50% indirect and netwide concerns 
(SOs), as in every modern democracy.
jfc

On 11:01 16/05/02, Philip Sheppard said:
>GA,
>Let me provide context to recommendation 24 from the Names Council.
>This was based on an earlier analysis of the current two roles of the GA 
>provided by the GA Chair:
>1. a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange
>2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the 
>constituency scheme participate in policy-making.
>
>The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE both 
>of them by a separation.  Don't be confused by use of the generic term 
>"general assembly". The second objective is captured in recommendation 25, 
>which seems not to have been posted before. And an earlier recommendation 
>(19), also sought to incorporate new stakeholders.
>Philip
>---------------------------------
>Recommendation 24 – general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
>should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
>broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be 
>limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy 
>development body.
>   .....
>Recommendation 25 – public consultation There should be public 
>consultation on proposed new policy within strict time limits, typically 
>not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as the channel by 
>which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/ 
>constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared 
>interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such 
>consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be 
>made available for public consultation.
>.....
>Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders. Other stakeholders, such as 
>individual domain name holders, could be added subject to the requirements 
>of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies" 
>as set out in the NC rules of procedure at <http://www.dnso.org/>www.dnso.org.
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=====================_6983420==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CC95D6; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Dear Philip,<br>
it would be easier to develop a simple unified concept throughout the
whole governance.<br><br>
1. <b>an SO</b> is the interface of the BoD with the external world on a
defined matter.<br>
2. it <b>is build as a counci</b>l gathering representatives of co-opted
constituencies renewed every 3 years (to permit adaptation to the network
evolution), a constituency may attend all the SO it is concerned
with.<br>
3. <b>and by a GA</b> gathering every individual from constituencies or
not.<br>
4. <b>the Council elects the BoD</b> directors among a list of the first
candidates <b>selected by their GA<br><br>
</b>The assembly of the Members of all the GA form the ICANN/GA, also
named @large, elects the @large directors, providing a <b>stable</b>
election system <b>50% direct</b> and private concerns (@large) and
<b>50% indirect</b> and netwide concerns (SOs), a<b>s in every modern
democracy</b>.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
On 11:01 16/05/02, Philip Sheppard said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>GA,<br>
Let me provide context to recommendation 24 from the Names Council.<br>
This was based on an earlier analysis of the current two roles of the GA
provided by the GA Chair:<br>
1. a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange<br>
2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
constituency scheme participate in policy-making.<br><br>
The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE
both of them by a separation.&nbsp; Don't be confused by use of the
generic term &quot;general assembly&quot;. The second objective is
captured in recommendation 25, which seems not to have been posted
before. And an earlier recommendation (19), also sought to incorporate
new stakeholders.<br>
Philip<br>
- ---------------------------------<br>
<b>Recommendation 24 – general assembly.</b> The gTLD policy development
body should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a
forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership
should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the
policy development body.</font><br>
<font size=2>&nbsp; .....<br>
<b>Recommendation 25 – public consultation</b> There should be public
consultation on proposed new policy within strict time limits, typically
not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as the channel by
which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such
consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be
made available for public consultation.<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>.....<b>&nbsp; </b></font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2><b>Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.</b>
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added subject to the requirements of the Names Council &quot;Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies&quot; as set out in the NC rules of procedure at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/">www.dnso.org</a>.<br>
</font><br>
- ---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02</blockquote></html>

- --=====================_6983420==_.ALT--

- --=======4E2B589D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CC95D6
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======4E2B589D=======--

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:34:38 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] how to deal with liars?

How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his  
identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?  

Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?

Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list 
through e-mail?

Your comments, please.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:33:29 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On 2002-05-15 18:56:36 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:

>We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you 
>might draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if 
>you don't like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. 
>chair.

The current recommendations 18, 19, 24, and 25, taken together, 
certainly do not provide adequate participation for the public and, 
in particular, for individual users' and consumers' interests in a 
DNSO process using them as a blueprint.

 - Recommendation 18 only lists the existing DNSO constituencies.  I  
   believe that it would be wise if the DNSO would include a  
   placeholder for a consumers' interests constituency in this  
   section.  I actually believe that such a constituency, in which  
   _strong_ advocacy groups should be represented, is crucial for  
   balanced policy-making: It could add the necessary political  
   weight to consumsers' interests.  Having these interests  
   represented (in policy-making, as opposed to the board level!) by  
   either an at-large membership or an individual domain name  
   holders' constituency would most likely carray significantly less  
   weight.

 - Recommendation 19 lacks a clear procedure for adding new  
   stakeholders. It is an extremely bad idea to essentially put the  
   participation of new constituencies in the existing  
   constituencies' hands.  Any such addition would affect the  
   current balance of powers, and could be perceived as a risk for  
   constituencies' existing influence.
   
   For this reason alone, it seems unlikely that new constituencies  
   would _ever_ be added without considerable outside pressure.  
   
   (Note that, for this reason, it's also highly unrealistic to  
   believe that the NC could follow my above remark concerning  
   recommendation 18.)
   
   If you continue this line of thought, the next thing to ask for  
   is an artificial balance of user and supplier interests in the  
   council, independently of the number of participating  
   constituencies, by weighting votes accordingly.  One way of  
   implementing this is the gTLD constituencies' recommendation to  
   have separate policy development bodies.
   
 - Recommendation 24 is, quite frankly, unrealistic: Verifying the  
   GA's members' constituency membership is something which has  
   already failed in the past.

   Actually, while the discussions about the currently-running vote  
   were going on, Alexander and I considered the idea of verifying  
   the eligibility of members of the voting registry, in response to  
   James' outside campaigning.  When we asked Roberto and Harlad how  
   this was applied in the past, we learned that these rules have  
   never been enforced - because some constituencies apparently have  
   not been able to either confirm or deny membership of individuals.

   Also, the example of the non-commercial constituency's discuss  
   mailing list demonstrates that (sort of) reasonable and 
   intelligent discussions are certainly possible on mailing lists 
   with public participation.  (As are allegations of slander, libel, 
   and the like - but that's most likely unavoidable around ICANN.)

 - Recommendation 25 describes a public consultation period as "the  
   channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the  
   stakeholders/constituency scheme participate in policy-making".  I 
   believe that this is an extremely poor suggestion for public  
   participation: During such public consultation periods there will  
   typically be no actual dialogue between the public and task force  
   members, which severly limits the impact such comments can have  
   on evolving policy.  Also, since public consultation is to be  
   done on "proposed new policy," this consultation period will  
   occur _after_ any compromises have been carefully worked out  
   between constituencies.  It's not too realistic that any deals  
   made would be re-opened just on the basis of public comment - in  
   particular when there is no or little time between the receipt of  
   public comments and the publication of a task force's final 
   report.

   All a public consultation process could realistically do would be 
   to make visible the most obvious abuses of policy-making process. 
   But these would be visible anyways.  Thus, it's unlinkely that 
   such public comment periods would actually improve the policy 
   which evolves.

Comments?

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:38:45 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of jefsey
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:02 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
|> 
|> On 00:17 16/05/02, Dassa said:
|> >|> -----Original Message-----
|> >|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> >|> On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
|> >|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:18 AM
|> >|> To: [email-masked]
|> >|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> >|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
|> Dear Dassa,
|> since you use:
|> >|>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
|> 
|> to explain your problem, may I underline that "is supposed 
|> to advise" does not mean that it is obliged to only do that. The GA
does 
|> many other things.
<snip>

The purpose of the GA is fairly well defined and the scope is defined by
the documents relating to it's formation and the intentions behind the
formation.  It is not a group that can put the GA stamp of approval on
anything even the majority of members may agree with.

As individuals we may support many positions and advocate many different
ways of tackling the issues facing the DNS scene but as a body, we must
remember why we are here and act accordingly.

In my view, the first motion advocating direct attempts to influence a
government body external to ICANN is way outside of any action the GA as
a body should be involved in.  As individuals we are free to take such
actions certainly and if there was a document circulating that required
a signature to show support for more competition and openness in the
processes complained about, I would certainly sign on for it.  But as an
individual.  I do not agree to using the GA name on such actions.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 06:09:32 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

You know what I think - I think that you should stop behaving
like a child and should be a leader and not a 2 year old.

John
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:34 AM
Subject: [ga] how to deal with liars?

> How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his  
> identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?  
> 
> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
> 
> Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list 
> through e-mail?
> 
> Your comments, please.
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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
> 
> 

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:28:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

On Thu, 16 May 2002, at 12:34 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

> How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his
> identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?

Depends. If somebody likes to hides his true identity, assuming another
one, that is quite different from purporting to be another existing
person. So what are we talking about? Are we not free to moniker
ourselves? Identity on the Net is a tricky business, not like mathematics.

> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?

I do not see, how you could do that. You can block an email address, I
assume, but no more.

> Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list
> through e-mail?

Even criminals are allowed to receive snailmail. So why? And isn't the
list archived anyway?

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:43:38 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Pot, kettle, black.

My own take is the person referred to below does make some valid posts.
Providing everyone is aware they misrepresent themselves there is no
real harm aside from the noise.  It is easy enough to filter the posts
out.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of John Palmer
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:10 PM
|> To: Ga
|> Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?
|> 
|> 
|> You know what I think - I think that you should stop behaving
|> like a child and should be a leader and not a 2 year old.
|> 
|> John
|> ----- Original Message ----- 
|> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
|> To: <[email-masked]>
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:34 AM
|> Subject: [ga] how to deal with liars?
|> 
|> 
|> > How should we deal with someone who purposefully 
|> misrepresents his  
|> > identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?  
|> > 
|> > Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
|> > 
|> > Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving 
|> the GA list 
|> > through e-mail?
|> > 
|> > Your comments, please.
|> > -- 
|> > Thomas Roessler                          
|> http://log.does-not-exist.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
|> > 
|> > 
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:22:22 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

At 12:34 p.m. 16/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his
>identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?

Follow the golden rule: ignore the troll.

Or introduce GA list rules with regards to "False Statements" . For an 
example see
http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/profile.php?mode=register

- --Joop

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:50:45 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> How should we deal with someone who purposefully
> misrepresents his identity, and participates in
> this list on a very active basis?

Expose the fraud. Leave it to individuals to decide
how they wish to react.

> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?

Absolutely not. There are two main issues. One is
that this would be a start down a slippery slope
toward censorship. The other it that it would not
be at all likely to be effective. He could just
re-subscribe under an alias.
 
> Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list
> through e-mail?

No.
- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:52:17 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

ok. everyone else responded to the post so I may as well.
As Joop said, ignore the troll.  But since I have good filters I have no
idea which individuals you are referring to.

and since I am using bandwidth, let me point out that by even having a
discussion about a discussion about the subject, we all kinda just 
ignored the rule.  

Dassa wrote:
> 
> Pot, kettle, black.
> 
> My own take is the person referred to below does make some valid posts.
> Providing everyone is aware they misrepresent themselves there is no
> real harm aside from the noise.  It is easy enough to filter the posts
> out.
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> On Behalf Of John Palmer
> |> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:10 PM
> |> To: Ga
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?
> |>
> |>
> |> You know what I think - I think that you should stop behaving
> |> like a child and should be a leader and not a 2 year old.
> |>
> |> John
> |> ----- Original Message -----
> |> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> |> To: <[email-masked]>
> |> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:34 AM
> |> Subject: [ga] how to deal with liars?
> |>
> |>
> |> > How should we deal with someone who purposefully
> |> misrepresents his
> |> > identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?
> |> >
> |> > Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
> |> >
> |> > Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving
> |> the GA list
> |> > through e-mail?
> |> >
> |> > Your comments, please.
> |> > --
> |> > Thomas Roessler
> |> http://log.does-not-exist.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
> |> >
> |> >
> |>
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:01:32 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

filters, filters, filters !!

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:34 AM
Subject: [ga] how to deal with liars?

> How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his  
> identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?  
> 
> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
> 
> Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list 
> through e-mail?
> 
> Your comments, please.
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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
> 
> 

- --
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC recommendation on the GA

That's nice.  We don't feel improved byi it.  Please try again.

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> GA,
> Let me provide context to recommendation 24 from the Names Council.
> This was based on an earlier analysis of the current two roles of the GA provided by the GA Chair:
> 1. a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange
> 2. a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme participate in policy-making.
> 
> The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE both of them by a separation.  Don't be confused by use of the generic term "general assembly". The second objective is captured in recommendation 25, which seems not to have been posted before. And an earlier recommendation (19), also sought to incorporate new stakeholders.
> Philip
> ---------------------------------

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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 hot 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: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:11:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Why do we care?  Isn't it the ideas and not the personalities that matter?

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his  
> identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?  
> 
> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
> 
> Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list 
> through e-mail?
> 
> Your comments, please.
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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 hot 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: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:16:59 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC BS

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C1FCEC.B99C6380
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thomas's analysis of the recent NC recommendations is I believe overly =
pessimistic.
The logic behind the recommendations is as follows:

1. Identify the stakeholders who should participate in ICANN policy =
development.
2. Factor those stakeholders into a policy development body.
3. Have a consultation mechanism for the rest of the world.

So, if we consider consumer/individual user/registrants as stakeholders =
who should participate, let them do so.
But let's not dismiss these principles based on the failure of the =
status quo or questions about the administration of e-mail lists.
Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C1FCEC.B99C6380
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thomas's analysis of the recent NC recommendations =
is I=20
believe overly pessimistic.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The logic behind the recommendations is as=20
follows:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1. Identify the stakeholders who should participate =
in ICANN=20
policy development.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2.&nbsp;Factor&nbsp;those stakeholders&nbsp;into a =
policy=20
development body.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3. Have a consultation mechanism&nbsp;for the rest =
of the=20
world.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>So, if we consider consumer/individual=20
user/registrants&nbsp;as stakeholders who should participate, let them =
do=20
so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But let's not dismiss these principles based on the =
failure of=20
the status quo or questions about the administration of e-mail=20
lists.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C1FCEC.B99C6380--

- --
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 #1198
*************************