Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1303
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 27 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1303

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:27:30 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Notes from June 25

- --=======1B4C668D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4EC578E7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

They have built a dam.
They are filling it, and all those who though they could stay and survive 
in the valley are going to be flooded and drown, or will survive in their 
craft. The only thing to do now, is to blow the dam. This will not be done 
from the flooded side. It can alonlybe done digging a small hole in it and 
in leaving the tide to do the job. The tide is going to be 500.000.000 of 
users and 188 Govs, plus may be eventually the USA. The digging asks for a 
very small team and some money. I suppose that a few teams will have 
attempts at key points in the dam structure. We will see which one makes it.
I see that even Vint Cef starts understanding from what he said at the ISOC.
jfc

On 18:13 26/06/02, James Love said:

>Esther Dyson wrote:
>>Jamie, you have flat-out misrepresented  what I said - and what I have 
>>written.  Why don't you look at the record instead of making things up?
>>For example, here are my suggested amendments (in all-caps) to one 
>>section of our letter to the board:
>>         ALAC should SELECT [[DELETE appoint]] voting members  [[[DELETE 
>> /liaisons ]]]  to
>>the Board, AND SHOULD WORK TOWARDS THE GOAL OF ELECTIONS TO SELECT BOARD 
>>MEMBERS THAT WILL BE FAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE.
>
>      Esther, I don't know what "record" you are talking about.  I was 
> reporting on your presentation yesterday in the at-large meeting, and in 
> another missive, on your presentation in this mornings GA meeting. (I 
> know you have taken contrary positions in the past.)
>
>         If you want to tell the ICANN board in Bucharest (the press and 
> the  US DoC) that ICANN should allow the at-large to vote, to choose its 
> own leaders, and to elect members of the ICANN board, I look forward to 
> hearing you say this.  Here you have said that at-large members should 
> accept the blueprint framework, which eliminates these rights, and you 
> have endorsed the "at-large structures" approach as progress.
>
>         In my opinion, the at-large "structures" proposal is a cynical PR 
> device to make the elimination of voting rights sound like a good thing 
> for individuals, to distract and undermine real at-large organizing 
> efforts, and  a deliberate effort to confuse people.
>
>    Jamie
>
>-----------
>
>     *  Conducting outreach, identifying individuals/groups worldwide 
> (individuals, academic institutions, businesses, non-commercial/consumer 
> groups, and other non-governmental organizations) interested in relevant 
> Internet user issues and At-Large organizing;
>     * Managing surveys and discussions on specific relevant issues, as 
> determined by user indications of interest or ICANN's policy-making activities;
>     * Identifying common (and conflicting) objectives and interests 
> relevant to Internet users and ICANN's mission; and
>* Establishing mechanisms for coordination and cooperation and policy 
>development among At-Large structures and with ICANN stakeholders, 
>including supporting the Board's directive on At-Large, which states that 
>"the Board Committee on Restructuring, working in conjunction with the 
>President and staff, is instructed to ensure that their ongoing efforts at 
>crafting a blueprint for ICANN reform include (a) workable mechanisms and 
>procedures that enable meaningful opportunities for participation by the 
>full range of Internet users, including individuals, academic 
>institutions, large and small businesses, non-commercial entities 
>(including consumer groups), and other non-governmental organizations, (b) 
>an appropriate role for those interests in ICANN's coordinating and 
>management structures, and (c) appropriate mechanisms to minimize 
>disruption during the reform implementation process."
>
>
>
>>Esther
>>
>>At 09:01 AM 6/26/2002, James Love wrote:
>>
>>>Alexander Svensson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, I believe this misportrays the meeting (and I was there, 
>>>>too). There were few if any people who thought that calling for 
>>>>elections now seems like a /realistic/
>>>>approach. ["not in the play" -- ICANN (Bucharest) Blog]
>>>
>>>
>>>     Ok.   Alexander is right.  Most people in the at-large meeting, 
>>> were not ready to ask the ICANN board to have elections for board 
>>> members, on the grounds that this is not "realistic."  And another way 
>>> of putting this is that they were unwilling to go here, in Bucharest, 
>>> and even ask for elections, in the public meetings.  I asked if they 
>>> thought elections were a sound thing (a good thing) from a practical 
>>> and policy perspective, of if the decision to abandon elections was 
>>> only about not challenging the board.   It seemed to be mostly about 
>>> not challenging the board, but with Esther, it seemed a bit of both.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, since the Blueprint does hardly mention the
>>>>At Large, we were not discussing the official ICANN
>>>>"reform" version of the at large. We were discussing
>>>>how At Large can *become* a part of ICANN.
>>>
>>>
>>>       Actually, the Blueprint *and* at-large.org has a particular view 
>>> of how the at-large will function.  It will be a sham consultation 
>>> process run by the ICANN staff, with zero voting power and zero voting 
>>> mechanisms.  What  do you think its future is?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Esther went on about
>>>>>how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
>>>>>Latin America, and how little support there was for
>>>>>elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, if I remember correctly, she was not talking
>>>>about the non US members of the ICANN Board and she
>>>>was talking about undemocratic, manipulated elections.
>>>
>>>
>>>     She said both.  She said that many non-US members of the board were 
>>> afraid of undemocratic, manipulated elections, so we just skip the 
>>> elections I guess.  What she did not say and what is the bigger problem 
>>> is that board members don't want a legitimate election process that 
>>> elects people they don't like.   That is the real problem, and she knows it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
>>>>>individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats.  In
>>>>>Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members.  Then
>>>>>there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
>>>>>supporting organization, with 3 board members.   Now in
>>>>>the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
>>>>>of a nominating committee.  Can you tell me how that 1
>>>>>member will be chosen?"  At this point, Dyson told me I
>>>>>should stop criticizing people,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, she and several others said that you should stop
>>>>criticizing those people who haven't written the proposals
>>>>you are criticizing.
>>>
>>>
>>>      Actually, she and several of the icannatlarge.com panel members 
>>> said I shouldn't criticize anything.  She did everything she could to 
>>> stop any debate over whether or not the decision to eliminate the 
>>> elections was a bad idea, or to discuss any strategy to reverse this 
>>> decisions.  It wasn't "constructive" because anything that doesn't have 
>>> support on the board isn't constructive.
>>>
>>>>>I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
>>>>>pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
>>>>>ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
>>>>>could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
>>>>>process.  Denise told us that she had 20 years of
>>>>>policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
>>>>>to happen.  She said:
>>>>>The US Senate would do nothing.  The US
>>>>>House of Representatives would do nothing.  The DoC
>>>>>would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
>>>>>fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
>>>>>blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, that's what she said would happen if all you
>>>>did was complain. (I know that's not all you do -- you
>>>>really seem to believe that the US Government will
>>>>intervene to help you, and e.g. I disagree.) The comments with respect 
>>>>to Denise Michel's experience with policy-making came in response to 
>>>>your statement that maybe we all (present at the meeting) didn't have 
>>>>/your/ policy experience.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Actually, that is what she said will happen, regardless of what we 
>>> do.  Denise and Esther were giving us this "resistance is futile" borg 
>>> talk, and I think this is stupid.   The US Congress is sending out 
>>> letters attacking ICANN and NTIA is sending out all sorts of mixed 
>>> signals.   Look, if you don't want to have the US government rebid the 
>>> contract (something your own GA motion called for by the way), tell me 
>>> what your smart idea is.  Plead with the ICANN board to be nice?   Get 
>>> the EU off its butt to do something?   Create an alternative to 
>>> ICANN?   Is resistance futile?   Is ICANN good enough for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Last posting on this, promised.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Ok.  What is your opinion on elections?  Do you agree that zero 
>>> elections is a good thing?   Now is the time to be clear on these issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>------
>>>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>>>http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
>>>voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>>
>>
>>Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
>>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>>writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
>>[email-masked]
>>1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>>New York, NY 10011 USA
>>http://www.edventure.com
>>The conversation continues..... at
>>http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>------
>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
>voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02

- --=======1B4C668D=======--

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 18:14:40 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties 

Folks,

Based on further consideration of the latest ERC recommendations we have
created a new request for comments that outlines the creation of a
commercial disputes arbitration process that need live within the ICANN
structure. This draft proposal synthesises the ideas resulting from a number
of constituency and private conversations at the ICANN Bucharest meeting.
Thank you to all of you that contributed to the ideas in this document
whether you realized that you were contributing or not ;)

The document can be found at the links below - they can be linked to from
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/

HTML
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.html

WORD
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.doc

We will need to discuss the specific processes that the CDA will require. We
request that like-minded individuals join the moderated AWG mailing list by
subscribing via http://www.byte.org/heathrow and begin exploring what this
process will look like.

We strongly feel that adoption of this process within the new ICANN
structure will create significant efficiencies within the new ICANN and
eliminate some of the procedural deadlock that we have seen on a number of
issues.

Comments concerning the draft itself can also be tabled via the AWG
discussion list.

Ce poti lucra astãzi nu lãsa pe mâine.

- -rwr

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 19:01:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Notes from June 25

Jamie and all assembly members,

James Love wrote:

> Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > Actually, I believe this misportrays the meeting (and I
> > was there, too). There were few if any people who thought
> > that calling for elections now seems like a /realistic/
> > approach. ["not in the play" -- ICANN (Bucharest) Blog]
>
>      Ok.   Alexander is right.  Most people in the at-large meeting, were
> not ready to ask the ICANN board to have elections for board members, on the
> grounds that this is not "realistic."

  This not "Realistic" claim has been the Mantra of the ICANN staff
and Board from the beginning.  Hence it is clear that they didn't
know and don't know now what is already being done and has been
over the internet sense 1996.

>  And another way of putting this is
> that they were unwilling to go here, in Bucharest, and even ask for
> elections, in the public meetings.

  This seems to ring more accurate.  But it is again not surprising, as
many of us know, and have known for some time...

>  I asked if they thought elections were a
> sound thing (a good thing) from a practical and policy perspective, of if
> the decision to abandon elections was only about not challenging the board.
>    It seemed to be mostly about not challenging the board, but with Esther,
> it seemed a bit of both.
>
> > Actually, since the Blueprint does hardly mention the
> > At Large, we were not discussing the official ICANN
> > "reform" version of the at large. We were discussing
> > how At Large can *become* a part of ICANN.
>
>        Actually, the Blueprint *and* at-large.org has a particular view of
> how the at-large will function.  It will be a sham consultation process run
> by the ICANN staff, with zero voting power and zero voting mechanisms.  What
>   do you think its future is?

  It's future is either relatively short, or it is just going to end up being a
toy
for the staff to play with to give an impression of being open and
transparent while all the while doing whatever they choose regardless
of the stakeholders/users desires...  It's the old political shell game.
Many of us are well aware and know how this game is played,
along with it's many variations...

>
>
> >>Esther went on about
> >>how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
> >>Latin America, and how little support there was for
> >>elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.
> >
> >
> > Actually, if I remember correctly, she was not talking
> > about the non US members of the ICANN Board and she
> > was talking about undemocratic, manipulated elections.
>
>      She said both.  She said that many non-US members of the board were
> afraid of undemocratic, manipulated elections, so we just skip the elections
> I guess.

  She is dead wrong of course.  I would bet that she could not show
any substantial evidence to support this statement/perception.  Our
attending members waited to see if she would.  Well, they are still
waiting...  So am I...

> What she did not say and what is the bigger problem is that board
> members don't want a legitimate election process that elects people they
> don't like.   That is the real problem, and she knows it.

  Yes Esther knows it, and shares that position, and always has...

>
>
> >>At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
> >>individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats.  In
> >>Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members.  Then
> >>there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
> >>supporting organization, with 3 board members.   Now in
> >>the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
> >>of a nominating committee.  Can you tell me how that 1
> >>member will be chosen?"  At this point, Dyson told me I
> >>should stop criticizing people,
> >
> >
> > Actually, she and several others said that you should stop
> > criticizing those people who haven't written the proposals
> > you are criticizing.
>
>       Actually, she and several of the icannatlarge.com panel members said I
> shouldn't criticize anything.  She did everything she could to stop any
> debate over whether or not the decision to eliminate the elections was a bad
> idea, or to discuss any strategy to reverse this decisions.  It wasn't
> "constructive" because anything that doesn't have support on the board isn't
> constructive.

  Typical Esther Dyson...

>
>
> >>I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
> >>pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
> >>ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
> >>could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
> >>process.  Denise told us that she had 20 years of
> >>policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
> >>to happen.  She said:
> >>The US Senate would do nothing.  The US
> >>House of Representatives would do nothing.  The DoC
> >>would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
> >>fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
> >>blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.
> >
> >
> > Actually, that's what she said would happen if all you
> > did was complain. (I know that's not all you do -- you
> > really seem to believe that the US Government will
> > intervene to help you, and e.g. I disagree.) The comments
> > with respect to Denise Michel's experience with policy-making
> > came in response to your statement that maybe we all
> > (present at the meeting) didn't have /your/ policy
> > experience.
>
>      Actually, that is what she said will happen, regardless of what we do.
>   Denise and Esther were giving us this "resistance is futile" borg talk,
> and I think this is stupid.

  It is, and has been stupid sense around '99...

>  The US Congress is sending out letters
> attacking ICANN and NTIA is sending out all sorts of mixed signals.   Look,
> if you don't want to have the US government rebid the contract (something
> your own GA motion called for by the way), tell me what your smart idea is.
>   Plead with the ICANN board to be nice?   Get the EU off its butt to do
> something?   Create an alternative to ICANN?   Is resistance futile?   Is
> ICANN good enough for you?

  ICANN is not good enough by far.  Resistance is not futile but seemingly
very necessary.  A rebid still seems to be at least one, and maybe
the best, viable alternative.  The EU will do what is best for the EU.
That should not be surprising nor concerning.  Pleading with ICANN
has already been tried on a number of occasions.  It didn't and hasn't
lead to any success with respect to serious issues..

>
>
> > Last posting on this, promised.
>
>      Ok.  What is your opinion on elections?  Do you agree that zero
> elections is a good thing?   Now is the time to be clear on these issues.

  Elections are a must.  An At-Large is a must, where the At-Large
elects at least 51% of all ICANN BOD members, and that non-domain
name holders have the equal opportunity to vote and become full
ICANN At-Large BoD members.

>
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:12:40 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties 

William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me. I have
since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which can be
found here...

http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Bret
Fausett" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments
Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Folks,

Based on further consideration of the latest ERC recommendations we have
created a new request for comments that outlines the creation of a
commercial disputes arbitration process that need live within the ICANN
structure. This draft proposal synthesises the ideas resulting from a number
of constituency and private conversations at the ICANN Bucharest meeting.
Thank you to all of you that contributed to the ideas in this document
whether you realized that you were contributing or not ;)

The document can be found at the links below - they can be linked to from
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/

HTML
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.html

WORD
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.doc

We will need to discuss the specific processes that the CDA will require. We
request that like-minded individuals join the moderated AWG mailing list by
subscribing via http://www.byte.org/heathrow and begin exploring what this
process will look like.

We strongly feel that adoption of this process within the new ICANN
structure will create significant efficiencies within the new ICANN and
eliminate some of the procedural deadlock that we have seen on a number of
issues.

Comments concerning the draft itself can also be tabled via the AWG
discussion list.

Ce poti lucra astãzi nu lãsa pe mâine.

- -rwr

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 20:21:40 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and 

>  I believe it is due to lack of
> ability to travel all over the world for most individuals, the late hour
for so
> many in the US and the feeling of futility resulting from the Blueprint
> document.

It's a conspiracy actually. FIFA has also seized upon the idea that
[North|South] Americans shouldn't be able to participate in an important
event like the World Cup. Rumor has it that the IOC is also considering an
equally restrictive policy. I really hope that Congress is able to make
heads or tails out of this mess. Damned global economy.

Nu-mi place pentru cã-i frumos, ci-i frumos pentru cã-mi place. It's a big
world out here. Give it a shot, you might like it.

- -rwr

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 21:03:39 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Hello Ross,

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 8:12:40 PM, you wrote:

RWR> William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me. I have
RWR> since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which can be
RWR> found here...

RWR> http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf

RWR> -rwr

That link does not seem to work -- it returns a 404.  The HTML and DOC
documents work fine.

allan
- -- 
allan
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:13:11 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 6:03:39 PM, Allan Liska wrote:

> Hello Ross,

> Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 8:12:40 PM, you wrote:

RWR>> William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me. I have
RWR>> since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which can be
RWR>> found here...

RWR>> http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf

RWR>> -rwr

> That link does not seem to work -- it returns a 404.  The HTML and DOC
> documents work fine.

The correct link is
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf

- -- 
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:16:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom - Is Vint Cerf involved?

All assembly members,

  Fraud charges filed against WorldCom.  Is one of the ICANN
BOD members implicated with these bad executive loans?
See Marketwatch article and SEC filing detail at:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?print=1&guid={A4A25DF1-ADB9-4D61-B481-85C0CB786786}&siteid=mktw

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:47:32 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom - Is Vint Cerf involved?

I really think that was uncalled for, Jeff.  Having read articles about 
these "loans," I saw no mention of Vint Cerf anywhere, nor would I 
expect to see his name associated with this case.  I think it is 
irresponsible to post using his name in the subject line and raising a 
redd herring needlessly.  It is bad enough that WorldCom is the subject.

If you worked for a company that was found to have been involved in 
fraud at the highest levels, would you wish to be associated with the 
crime?  I think not.

Leah

On 26 Jun 2002, at 20:16, Jeff Williams wrote:

> All assembly members,
> 
>   Fraud charges filed against WorldCom.  Is one of the ICANN
> BOD members implicated with these bad executive loans?
> See Marketwatch article and SEC filing detail at:
> http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?print=1&guid={A4A25DF1-ADB9-4D61-B481-85C0CB786786}&siteid=mktw
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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-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, 27 Jun 2002 14:46:19 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom

Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] did say:
> I really think that was uncalled for, Jeff.  Having read 
> articles about 
> these "loans," I saw no mention of Vint Cerf anywhere, nor would I 
> expect to see his name associated with this case.  I think it is 
> irresponsible to post using his name in the subject line and 
> raising a 
> redd herring needlessly.  It is bad enough that WorldCom is 
> the subject.

I too am disgusted that someone would even think of this let alone raise it
on the GA list.

The issue, as far as I can tell, is about moving operation expenses to
capital accounts (thus spreading these costs over a number of years and thus
reduce the impact of these costs in that period via deprecation).

Lets let the various enforcement agencies to their work and let the
employees carry on with their work and not have people cast these aspersive
remarks.

I think an apology to Vint is in order esp. in these troubled times of both
ICANN and his employer.

Steven Heath

PS I snipped the original Jeff Williams post which Leah responded to as I
felt no need to further pollute the list archive with those comments.

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 23:23:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Icann Critics Chatroom

FYI an IRC chatroom has been set up.  Connect to http://dal.net, pick a 
nickname and type into command line /join #icanncritics

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 23:38:28 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for C omments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Allan/Ross,

The page could not be found.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Allan Liska [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for
Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Hello Ross,

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 8:12:40 PM, you wrote:

RWR> William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me. I
have
RWR> since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which can
be
RWR> found here...

RWR> http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf

RWR> -rwr

That link does not seem to work -- it returns a 404.  The HTML and DOC
documents work fine.

allan
- -- 
allan
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.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, 27 Jun 2002 00:14:15 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Icann Critics Chatroom - correction

From: [email-masked] 
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:23:17 EDT 

FYI an IRC chatroom has been set up.  Connect to http://dal.net, pick a 
nickname and type into command line /join #icanncritics

Ooops...that URL is actually http://www.dal.net

Regards,
Joanna 
- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 00:44:45 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

The link has been fixed - apologies to all for the additional traffic.

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Allan Liska'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for
Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

> Allan/Ross,
>
> The page could not be found.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Liska [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for
> Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties
>
>
> Hello Ross,
>
> Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 8:12:40 PM, you wrote:
>
> RWR> William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me.
I
> have
> RWR> since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which
can
> be
> RWR> found here...
>
> RWR> http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf
>
> RWR> -rwr
>
> That link does not seem to work -- it returns a 404.  The HTML and DOC
> documents work fine.
>
>
> allan
> --
> allan
> [email-masked]
> http://www.allan.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
>

- --
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 #1303
*************************