Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1199
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1199

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:31:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC recommendation on the GA

Phillip and all assembly members,

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.

  Yes but this is not complete and does not necessarily reflect the
measured
consensus of the GA members.  I other words it is just the opinion of
the
Chair.  Hence it is only partly accurate and definitely incomplete.

  GA members need to have the right and responsibility to VOTE on
policy issues as part of that participation.

>
>
> The recommendations' objective is to KEEP those two roles and IMPROVE
> both of them by a separation.

  Separation is not necessarily a method of improvement.  In the case of
the
GA it certainly is not.

>  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.

  Yeah, and this is wrong or incorrect.  And this "Recommendation" was
not vetted before the GA members, hence it is not legitimate...

>
>   .....
> 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.

  Fund raising has been attempted and offered by several including yours

truly for the use of the GA, and ONLY the GA for GA related business.
This was turned down the the NC and therefore never went past that
stage.  If the ICANN BoD and staff say there is not funding available
for the DNSO GA and the DNSO GA cannot raise it's own funds
without turning those funds over to the ICANN BOD and staff
than the GA cannot effectively be funded in a legitimate manner.
As such the GA is subject to capture by special interests of various
sorts.

>
> .....
> 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.

  The NC rules of procedure also were not voted on by the GA members
and never vetted their as such the GA members were short changed or
disinfranchized/hood winked as a result.  That in and of itself is
both illegitimate and in violation of the sprit of the MoU and White
Paper...

>
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 06:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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.

The answer to that question is very simple - any person who believes that 
he or she has an interest in participation is a "stakeholder" and should 
be able to participate on parity with any other "stakeholder".

The idea that "stakeholdership" can be confired upon one, or denied to
one, by some outside body or person is a feudal relic.

		--karl--

- --
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 08:43:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Thomas and all assembly members

Thomas Roessler wrote:

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

  You should seek a court injunction as soon as possible..  However
I am not aware of anyone on this list doing what you question
poses...  So if such a person exists in your mind or opinion,
perhaps you should identify that person or poster...

>
>
> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?

  Yes if and only if that person can be proved in a court of
competent jurisdiction as fraudulent or misrepresenting
his/her self in some substantial way.

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

  Same as above.  However unless that person is convicted or
has such a judgment placed upon them to do either would
perhaps constitute a form of censorship.  And Censorship
in any of it's forms is wrong!

>
>
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:22:48 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On 2002-05-16 15:16:59 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   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.

The rest of the world being those who should not participate in  
policy development, such as individuals like Alexander and myself? 
;-)

More seriously, your approach is based on the assumption that 1 and  
2 are easy tasks.  They aren't, as is demonstrated by the problems  
with registrant and consumer representation in the DNSO.  Also, the  
NC recommendations don't contain any realistic suggestions on how to 
accomplish the tasks.

A (reformed!) GA could, on the other hand, provide an avenue for  
participation to those stakeholder groups which are not (yet?)  
involved in constituencies.  I would imagine that such a GA should  
still be relatively open.  Note that an open GA also kind of 
balances a closed task force approach for the actual policy-making 
work.

- -- 
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 10:27:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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.
>
In other words, only the existing constituencies SHOULD participate in 
ICANN Policy Development, and the rest of the world can go hang itself 
because the same NC which recommends this setup is also the single 
greatest obstacle to any more consituencies being introduced into the 
DNSO.  Am I understanding you correctly, Philip?

> 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
>
Question:  If the consumer/individual user/registrants wish to 
participate as stakeholders but have no place in the existing 
constituency structure, how would they participate exactly?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 08:06:50 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

This was taken from a post of Karls' to another thread of TRs seeking to
block participation;

The idea that "stakeholdership" can be confired upon one, or denied to
one, by some outside body or person is a feudal relic.

                --karl--

While an argument should be addressed on its' merits and not on its'
authorship.
I wonder does Karls' statement apply to both in this instant?

As to "purposeful misrepresentation" it would seem that someone may have done
that to wrest control of the GA.

Eric
PS.  As to purposeful; we here in the western US with our dialect are
laughing at this as the root word purpose would suggest a good reason for
doing it.  We use the word intentional, simply meaning that it was intended
to deceive.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Thomas and all assembly members
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > How should we deal with someone who purposefully misrepresents his
> > identity, and participates in this list on a very active basis?
>
>   You should seek a court injunction as soon as possible..  However
> I am not aware of anyone on this list doing what you question
> poses...  So if such a person exists in your mind or opinion,
> perhaps you should identify that person or poster...
>
> >
> >
> > Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?
>
>   Yes if and only if that person can be proved in a court of
> competent jurisdiction as fraudulent or misrepresenting
> his/her self in some substantial way.
>
> >
> >
> > Should such an individual also be blocked from receiving the GA list
> > through e-mail?
>
>   Same as above.  However unless that person is convicted or
> has such a judgment placed upon them to do either would
> perhaps constitute a form of censorship.  And Censorship
> in any of it's forms is wrong!
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 11:06:24 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Philip, to suggest that there are stakeholders is to suggest that some
people are not statekholders.  What would be the basis for saying someone
isn't a stakeholder?  Who exactly do you want to exclude?  If you don't want
to exclude anyone, what are we talking about?

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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 14:44:33 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

- --=======39384AC6=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CC95D6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Chair,
Actually one of the elementary human right is the right to network aliases.
Another is not to be insulted because taking advantage from a right.

That some country's law is not as much developped as others (like the UK) 
is one thing, that as a Chair you ignore the terms of the GA registration 
is acceptable, but that you potentially insult a certain category of 
Members because they take advantage from a lgitmate right of theirs is IMHO 
a mistake.

You question is probably: "some members may use aliases to protect their 
identity. How can we make sure that the same person does not use several 
aliases when voting or being elected". In other terms how can we make sure 
that Thomas is not Alexander and that WXW is not Joop.

If you really ar concerned about contributions and their signatorees it 
would mean that you pay more attention to the form than to the matter. What 
I do not believe.
jfc

On 12:34 16/05/02, Thomas Roessler said:

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>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

- --=======39384AC6=======
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

- --=======39384AC6=======--

- --
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 11:25:23 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

At 04:22 PM 5/16/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2002-05-16 15:16:59 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>   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.
>
>The rest of the world being those who should not participate in
>policy development, such as individuals like Alexander and myself? ;-)
>More seriously,

         But that *is* a serious question.  There are two sets of ways one 
can try to draw a line between "stakeholders" and "rest of the world."  In 
the first set, Thomas and Alexander are not deemed stakeholders and 
therefore may not participate in policy development, except to offer 
meaningless comments after the effective decisionmaking is done.  If the NC 
members want to defend that system on its merits, they should do so.  In 
the second set, Thomas and Alexander are deemed stakeholders, and other 
individuals are not, because, well, Thomas and Alexander are more 
intelligent and responsible than those other individuals.  That line isn't 
workable.

Jon Weinberg
[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 11:24:34 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

FYI, the ISO 3166 country code was not created for the purpose of
assigning TLDs.

And there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between 3166 codes and
TLDs. There are numerous exception.

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> >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

- -- 
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 09:08:29 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

At 12:33 PM 16/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>   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.

Would this idea have been considered if the Chair
and Alt Chair had not opposed James motion? This
borders on paranoia. There is already a procedure
in place for dealing with claims regarding members'
eligibility to post or vote. Was there any evidence
whatsoever that what you choose to call James 'outside
campaigning' had resulted in ineligible members? If
so, what was it? If not, what was the problem you
were attempting to solve?

Coupled with your suggestion that some individual
who makes false claims should not even be able to
read the list (are you proposing the web archives
be removed, or just password protected?), I have
to ask why you are attempting to increase the
power/scope/role of the Chair/Alt Chair, while
also attempting to manage what other's might call
James 'outreach'. Perhaps such actions are better
left to those like Philip Sheppard and M. Stuart
Lynn, they seem to have a knack for it.

If I see a certain Bob Davis, or another non-entity,
posting here, or listed on the GA voting roster
(Bob's not there now), I'll let you know. You can
then deal with it using existing procedure. Isn't
that sufficient to deal with any current problems,
whether real or imagined? -g

- --
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 18:41:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On 2002-05-16 09:08:29 -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:

>This borders on paranoia. There is already a procedure in place  
>for dealing with claims regarding members' eligibility to post or  
>vote. Was there any evidence whatsoever that what you choose to  
>call James 'outside campaigning' had resulted in ineligible  
>members? If so, what was it? If not, what was the problem you were 
>attempting to solve?

Given the eligibility criteria, about the only effect outside  
campaigning could have was adding ineligible members to the voting  
registry.  Combine that with a lot new members, mainly from the US,  
and few to no new subscriptions to the GA, and you at least get a  
reason to suspect that the voting registry is in bad shape.  We then 
learned that the rules were apparently never applied in the past.

>Coupled with your suggestion that some individual who makes false 
>claims should not even be able to read the list (are you proposing 
>the web archives be removed, or just password protected?), 

I specifically said "via e-mail." The reason why this was proposed  
earlier is that it's less work to bother list members when you get  
the messages via e-mail.

>I have to ask why you are attempting to increase the  
>power/scope/role of the Chair/Alt Chair, while also attempting to  
>manage what other's might call James 'outreach'.

If this was a power grab, I wouldn't ask for your comments before.

- -- 
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 12:47:30 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Disputed Registrations in .BIZ: A Case Study of Domain Registrations by John C. Kirkland

I have recently begun to examine and evaluate the sunrise periods of recent
new TLDs, and in that context I have begun my research with a case study of
disputed registrations in .BIZ.

In "Disputed Registrations in .BIZ: A Case Study of Domain Registrations by
John C. Kirkland," I document 66 domain registrations by Mr. John C.
Kirkland, a California lawyer at Greenberg Traurig LLP.  At least one of Mr.
Kirkland's .BIZ registrations has already been challenged successfully,
while at least even more currently face challenges; his domains include
AMEX.BIZ, ATT.BIZ, CDW.BIZ, CNN.BIZ, GAP.BIZ, MGM.BIZ, and NCR.BIZ.  Mr.
Kirkland's domains are registered to his home address and phone number, but
contact information reflects the use of his law firm's email account.  None
of the sites has a working web site, although some have "under construction"
pages.

My work on this subject is available at
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/biz-sunrise/?d>.

In future work, I expect to examine a larger sample of domains from at least
.BIZ and .INFO, quantify their use and disputes to date, and examine any
other notable patterns or trends in registration.  I look forward to
specific research suggestions from GA members, either on-list or via private
email.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

- --
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 12:58:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Bushwhacked by the registries and registrars

The DNSO requested that ICANN provide necessary funding for Secretariat 
services.  It held a vote and submitted the favorable vote results (14-3) to 
ICANN management:   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00517.html

ICANN included the request in its preliminary budget figures.  Now ICANN has 
released the final budget figures... Guess what?  Funding for staff support 
for a DNSO Secretariat as requested by the Names Council is not included.  
Why?  The budget states:  "This request (that was included in the Preliminary 
Budget) was not endorsed by the Budget Advisory Group composed of 
representatives of those constituencies responsible for providing all of 
ICANN's funding."

That says it all.  ICANN only listens to the money-collectors.  Everyone else 
can take a hike.  Registries and registrars can veto the decisions of the 
DNSO.

The budget also refers to a certain "constituency expressing general support 
for the overall budget, but emphasizing their view that greater priority 
should be given to the need for improved contract monitoring and compliance, 
and that lower priority should be assigned to providing funds for the DNSO 
Secretariat (as presented in the Preliminary Budget) or for support of "at 
large" activities."

Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service collects funds from the 
"stakeholders" (citizens) and yet the IRS does not have any say in how those 
funds are to be allocated.  Why then are we conferring budgetary authority to 
those that merely collect the funding, while we that provide the funding (the 
registrants) are totally denied a role in the process?

ICANN has sold its soul to the commercial interests that prop up its regime.  
The budget makes that clear (again).  This ICANN will never reform.   It has 
been poisoned by a cancer that runs too deep to be cut out.  A re-bid of the 
ICANN contracts is a necessary course of action.
- --
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 12:08:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS - Selective Censorship Raises it's ugly head again!

Gary and all assembly members,

  The problem is that Bob Davis does exist and is an entity.  He is one
of our directors.  Hence he is being Selectively Censored.  As such
the DNSO GA at present, and for some time now, have systematically
denied participation of some stakeholders or has ought to do away
with some stakeholders illegitimately...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 12:33 PM 16/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >   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.
>
> Would this idea have been considered if the Chair
> and Alt Chair had not opposed James motion? This
> borders on paranoia. There is already a procedure
> in place for dealing with claims regarding members'
> eligibility to post or vote. Was there any evidence
> whatsoever that what you choose to call James 'outside
> campaigning' had resulted in ineligible members? If
> so, what was it? If not, what was the problem you
> were attempting to solve?
>
> Coupled with your suggestion that some individual
> who makes false claims should not even be able to
> read the list (are you proposing the web archives
> be removed, or just password protected?), I have
> to ask why you are attempting to increase the
> power/scope/role of the Chair/Alt Chair, while
> also attempting to manage what other's might call
> James 'outreach'. Perhaps such actions are better
> left to those like Philip Sheppard and M. Stuart
> Lynn, they seem to have a knack for it.
>
> If I see a certain Bob Davis, or another non-entity,
> posting here, or listed on the GA voting roster
> (Bob's not there now), I'll let you know. You can
> then deal with it using existing procedure. Isn't
> that sufficient to deal with any current problems,
> whether real or imagined? -g
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:13:16 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Thomas,

What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA, and
are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would be
the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Osbourne" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

: At 12:33 PM 16/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
:
: >   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.
:
: Would this idea have been considered if the Chair
: and Alt Chair had not opposed James motion? This
: borders on paranoia. There is already a procedure
: in place for dealing with claims regarding members'
: eligibility to post or vote. Was there any evidence
: whatsoever that what you choose to call James 'outside
: campaigning' had resulted in ineligible members? If
: so, what was it? If not, what was the problem you
: were attempting to solve?
:
: Coupled with your suggestion that some individual
: who makes false claims should not even be able to
: read the list (are you proposing the web archives
: be removed, or just password protected?), I have
: to ask why you are attempting to increase the
: power/scope/role of the Chair/Alt Chair, while
: also attempting to manage what other's might call
: James 'outreach'. Perhaps such actions are better
: left to those like Philip Sheppard and M. Stuart
: Lynn, they seem to have a knack for it.
:
: If I see a certain Bob Davis, or another non-entity,
: posting here, or listed on the GA voting roster
: (Bob's not there now), I'll let you know. You can
: then deal with it using existing procedure. Isn't
: that sufficient to deal with any current problems,
: whether real or imagined? -g
:
: --
: 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 10:57:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 3:34:38 AM, 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 information to the rest of the members, let them make
their own judgements.

> Should such an individual be permanently blocked from posting?

No, Provided they are not violating the multiple identity solution.

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

No, Provided they are not violating the multiple identity solution.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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 11:00:20 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 10:13:16 AM, James Love wrote:

> Thomas,

> What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA, and
> are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
> follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would be
> the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie

Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.

There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1199
*************************