Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1360
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1360

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 04:00:03 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Missing Criteria

Honorable Sirs,

I write you both as servants of our great Internet community and ask
that you at least consider a rather direct and important problem.

Our Internet is growing leaps and bounds from a technical perspective.
We are introducing legislation that seems to have a political and
economic base.  The aforementioned issues are well represented within
our global citizenship.

We are allowing ourselves to move forward without a solid base of
discussion and consensus on social implications of such matters.  You
two have failed to help provide for proper inclusion of theoretical
debate on what is best for society in this burgeoning area.  Our social
responsibility in this Information technology runs much higher than that
which has passed before and by your inaction you are allowing commercial
interests to damage inter global Internet stability.  Factions are
coming to pass that dwarf your antiquated notions of regulation and or
legislation.

Please work towards some constructive solutions that will allow for open
and transparent discourse and inclusion within this all important
Information Technology environment.  You are both being passed by
through your failure to provide for open and effective forums.  It can
easily be argued that our failure here puts the US in dangerous
proximity to violations of BTAs and our WTO commitments.

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 04:58:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

Monday, August 05, 2002, 3:05:10 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Ross,
> I don't see any photo of Jeff standing in a dirt farm, neither a road sign
> stating "East Kirkwood Blvd.", nor a house numbered 5. These photos prove
> nothing beyond the fact that several prominent members of the GA and DNSO
> Constituencies are taking pleasure in invading a person's privacy and
> ridiculing a person's character, which are not endearing qualities in any
> person. Remind me not to trust any of you.

The person not to trust is the person who voluntarily posted
information that they swore up and down was accurate, and then had it
proven that they were making fraudulent statements.

Or are you implying that there is some right to fraudulently
represent yourself and not have it exposed?

Get off your high horse, Joanna, you don't belong there.

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> Exactly. He calls into question the credibility of
> anyone associating with him, even if they don't
> wish that association.

but jeff is considered credible.  look at all the press he's gotten over
the years.  obviously these press people have taken the time to research
their stories.  i've seen no retractions.  so we can assume jeff is very
credible at least by the measure of credibility established by the press
at large.  no?

regards
joe

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 10:31:46 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Ummmm todd,
this still does not answer the question. the question was about mgmt of
the root....not about the admin stuff. AFAIK, Karl never requested a
copy of any zone file or other live data...did he?

todd glassey wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
> 
> > ummmmmmm,
> > Karl may correct me at any time but it is my understanding that his suit
> > was about access to records and directors' rights/responsibilities.
> > Nothing in any file documents I read mentioned technical management of
> > the internet.
> 
> > While it may be argued by many (including myself) that there has been a
> > failure on the 'open and transparent' front, I fail to see how Karl's
> > suit was an expample of ICANNs failure to manage the root in an open and
> > transparent way.
> 
> The first problem is that it is State Law that Directors are accorded access
> to the company's books. Any idiot knows that so ICANN's refusing to asceed
> to the law's requirements somehow says that it is not subject to the Laws of
> the State of California and that is a problem in the very least. Further it
> is also negligence on management part to spend good legal money on trying to
> stop a director from looking at the books.
> 
> What I percieve of  Lynn and Cerf is that they may  perhaps be affraid of is
> that they would have to take civil recourse against Karl if he were to leak
> any of ICANN's finaicial information,; But there is another side to this
> too. If per say ICANN's board was doing something financially hinky or
> something they are not chartered to do, the with ICANN operating finacially
> outside of its charter, if Karl as a director were to gain knowledge of
> that, he would have no choice but to disclose it to the people whose
> interests he represents on the Board.
> 
> And possibly to the Department of Justice as well.
> 
> I am not making any threats or statements herein - just presenting a
> potential possibility.
> 
> >
> > Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > todd glassey wrote:
> > >
> > > 8 cc's deleted.
> > >
> > > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for,
> what
> > > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> > >
> > > Possibly.
> > >
> > > > The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
> root,
> > >
> > > The protocols require that there be only one root:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt'
> 
> The reason there is only one root is because some IETF'er said so and for no
> other reason. Why does this limit ICANN or you for that matter? If they
> wanted to support more than one Root Zone they could use my RZP (yes its
> been filed with the IETF), or any of the other Multi-Root solutions like
> BindPlus etc etc etc.
> 
> > >
> > > Methinks ICANN quite obviously have no right to claim they are living
> > > up to their obligations to manage that root in a "open and transparent"
> > > manner. Karl's suit is the most blatant example.
> 
> I agree - But ICANN by its structure and operating models, never could.
> 
> > >
> > > I'd argue that they are failing on other criteria too. Eliminating
> > > publicly elected directors from a "public interest" corporation,
> > > amd generally operating more as a club for various special interests
> > > than in the the public interest.
> 
> These are not issues of structure but in the actions ofthe people operating
> ICANN.
> 
> > >
> > > Overall, I'd question ICANN's right to suggest -- let alone insist --
> > > that they have done a competent job to date, or that they should be
> > > trusted to manage the root in future.
> 
> I would agree but restructuring them is not the idea eathier. I would like
> to split them into several vertical slices. And then provide oversight and
> auditing at all levels especially the registrar's and Registries as well as
> the Standards Arm.
> 
> > >
> > > > or only one Internet.
> 
> Take a deep breath. The concept that there is only one Internet is a
> fantasy.
> 
> > >
> > > There is only one Internet.
> 
> Lwets exlpore my above comment further. What there is, is one public address
> space model used, but there are many Internets. All joined with Network
> Gateways instead of Routers.
> 
> > >
> > > > And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is
> political
> > > > rather than technical
> > >
> > > You support this?
> 
> To some extent. I believe it is the next phase of the evolution of a global
> information back bone and that we will probably spend 10 years or so working
> out to treaties and networking to really make Jon Postel's and Vit Cerf's
> early visions of  a global Internet a reality. Right now the thing that they
> were talking about not only doesn't exist but would be toxis to the
> governmentsw of the world too and that makes it toxic to its users.
> 
> This is not about a one world order, as a society we are decades away from
> that. Its about surviving with eachother in the interim until we can get
> there.
> 
> > >
> > > > and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> > >
> > > That does not follow.
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> > >
> > > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4
> space
> > > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of
> China.
> > >
> > > That doesn't work, at least not with standard NAT. The could use all of
> > > 10.0.0.0/8 in China without problems, but not 0.0.0.0/0.
> 
> No, I disagree. The missing piece is a /8 or a couple of  /8's for global
> Interchange. These would be very well known gateway addresses for
> country-wide Internets. They could also handle many of the global trademark
> names as well.
> 
> > >
> > > > Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent
> namespace
> > > > and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative
> to the
> > > > existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...
> > >
> > > It looks purely imaginary to me. Can you point to docs on the NAT
> > > variant
> > > that you believe will make this work?
> 
> Try my RZP (Root Zone Protocol) draft for instance. get it from the IETF or
> I will send you a better formatted copy. Otherwiase there is all sorts of
> tunneling and header management/forwarding writeups in the routing document
> on file with Sun, Cisco, and IETF as a larger body. Also there are plenty of
> scalar NAT solutions document by their sources.
> 
> > > --
> > > 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
> >

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Wrong.  At least 3 did retract, by editing their stories and reissuing
> them without any reference to Jeff (such as Wired.com's ace reporter),
> and the LA Times reporter he duped also disclaimed him.

thats not a reatraction.  like i said - i have yet to see any retraction
concerning jeff.  and just editing jeff out of a story is not a
retraction.

a proper retraction is when the news source intentionally writes an
article which retracts jeff as a credible source and says why it did such
a thing.  i have yet to see one of those.

regards
joe

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 09:30:37 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

At 10:27 AM 06/08/02 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:

>thats not a reatraction.  like i said - i have yet to see any retraction
>concerning jeff.  and just editing jeff out of a story is not a
>retraction.

It is a retraction of previously published
information. Which isn't to say a cache or
archive might not have the earlier version.

>a proper retraction is when the news source intentionally writes an
>article which retracts jeff as a credible source and says why it did such
>a thing.

Agreed. That is a proper retraction. Proving
only that one should be skeptical of the online
press as well, particularily as information can
be retracted more easily and less transparently
than recalling and re-editing all copies of a
newspaper, for example. One does come to learn,
or fails at one's peril, which online news and
other sources of information are more credible,
and more trustworthy. You're a prankster Joe, so
one must be wary of you. ICANN is also well down
that spectrum, Jeff Williams is near the bottom. -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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:07:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Casting stones

As much as we might criticize Jeff and his supporting staff of characters,

Bob Crawford
Brian C. Hollingsworth
David "Dude" Jenson 
Bob Davis 
Frank Rizzo 
James Touton
Dillon Marshall Esq

at least Jeff has made contributions to the ICANN process to a greater degree 
than most who participate on this list -- Jeff has submitted public comments 
to the the New gTLDs/Famous Marks Task Force, to the .org Task Force, to the 
ERC regarding ICANN reform, and also regarding the nominating committee 
concept, and to the Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning 
Task Force (in which only two on-topic comments were received, one from Steve 
Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property Constituency, the other from 
Jeff).  

When was the last time that any of you submitted any comments?  For all of 
his faults, Jeff does take his responsibilities as a participant seriously.  

The WHOIS Committee has generated a report after a year's worth of sustained 
effort that touches on issues of privacy, contract compliance, and more... 
how many of you have even bothered to look at the report or to make a comment?

Alexander and Thomas took the time to draft an article on GA reform... how 
many of you even noticed, or bothered to forward any remarks?

The Review Task Force produced a report outlining criteria to establish new 
constituencies (such as a constituency for Individual Domain Name Holders)... 
how many of you even looked at their recommendations?  How many bothered to 
make a comment?

For all of your carping, many of you contribute far less than does Jeff.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:17:57 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

Jeff's "comments" are as much as joke as he and the voices in his head
are.

I find it rather amusing you would stand up for him, Danny, and very
telling.

Tuesday, August 06, 2002, 10:07:21 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> As much as we might criticize Jeff and his supporting staff of characters,

> Bob Crawford
> Brian C. Hollingsworth
> David "Dude" Jenson 
> Bob Davis 
> Frank Rizzo 
> James Touton
> Dillon Marshall Esq

> at least Jeff has made contributions to the ICANN process to a greater degree 
> than most who participate on this list -- Jeff has submitted public comments 
> to the the New gTLDs/Famous Marks Task Force, to the .org Task Force, to the 
> ERC regarding ICANN reform, and also regarding the nominating committee 
> concept, and to the Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning 
> Task Force (in which only two on-topic comments were received, one from Steve 
> Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property Constituency, the other from 
> Jeff).  

> When was the last time that any of you submitted any comments?  For all of 
> his faults, Jeff does take his responsibilities as a participant seriously.  

> The WHOIS Committee has generated a report after a year's worth of sustained 
> effort that touches on issues of privacy, contract compliance, and more... 
> how many of you have even bothered to look at the report or to make a comment?

> Alexander and Thomas took the time to draft an article on GA reform... how 
> many of you even noticed, or bothered to forward any remarks?

> The Review Task Force produced a report outlining criteria to establish new 
> constituencies (such as a constituency for Individual Domain Name Holders)... 
> how many of you even looked at their recommendations?  How many bothered to 
> make a comment?

> For all of your carping, many of you contribute far less than does Jeff.  
> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:23:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  [ga] Casting Stones

... and by the same token William, I find it amusing that you claim to have 
read Jeff's comments to these different task forces and yet never bothered to 
submit any substantive comments yourself -- equally very telling.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 10:30:54 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

Should credibility of the personalities of our members be the issue or;
Should issues and Ideas speak for themselves?
I dare say that if it is the former our congress and England's parliament
would get even less done.
Oh goodness did I leave out the other 120 countries contributing to building a
democratic globe whose members of ruling bodies may not meet with Gary's
ethical approval.
Attack of another in light of no attack on your self are not the actions of of
someone who should judge.
How does that go? Judge not lest ye..........

Eric

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 10:27 AM 06/08/02 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >thats not a reatraction.  like i said - i have yet to see any retraction
> >concerning jeff.  and just editing jeff out of a story is not a
> >retraction.
>
> It is a retraction of previously published
> information. Which isn't to say a cache or
> archive might not have the earlier version.
>
> >a proper retraction is when the news source intentionally writes an
> >article which retracts jeff as a credible source and says why it did such
> >a thing.
>
> Agreed. That is a proper retraction. Proving
> only that one should be skeptical of the online
> press as well, particularily as information can
> be retracted more easily and less transparently
> than recalling and re-editing all copies of a
> newspaper, for example. One does come to learn,
> or fails at one's peril, which online news and
> other sources of information are more credible,
> and more trustworthy. You're a prankster Joe, so
> one must be wary of you. ICANN is also well down
> that spectrum, Jeff Williams is near the bottom. -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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:39:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Gary Osbourn Faq 

Gary and all assembly members,

  I have yet to receive a phone call from you.  The phone Numbers
listed in my sig file all work and are valid Phone Numbers.  To my
knowledge none of our directors in which the phone numbers listed
in my sig file forward to at times, has received a Phone Call from
you either.  Nor has there been any message left on the answering
service that each of the phone numbers listed in my sig file.

  The only potentially phony call that was received from
any member of the At-large was from a number
416-769-5384.  I took that call.  It was made to the
primary number of 214-244-4827.  When I called it back
the message I received was: "Incoming calls to this number
outside of the local area code are not excepted".

  So Gary, you are just lying plain and simple..

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> >On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > > These photos prove
> > > nothing beyond the fact that several prominent members
> > > of the GA and DNSO Constituencies are taking pleasure
> > > in invading a person's privacy
>
> It is Jeff Williams himself who chooses to publish and
> widely disseminate a .sig which gives his address and
> telephone number. I am all for privacy, advocating a
> private WHOIS for example, but pointing out that his
> self-published address and telephone number aren't to
> be believed is hardly an invasion of privacy.
>
> >Remind me not to trust any of you.
>
> Consider yourself reminded.
>
> At 02:58 AM 06/08/02 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> >and let us not forget that all we really know about
> >jeff is that he is reported extensively in the press
> >- on issues dns.  obviously the man is a
> >recognized expert.
>
> Exactly. He calls into question the credibility of
> anyone associating with him, even if they don't
> wish that association.
>
> >jeff is in my opinion a dns cultural icon.  who
> >incidentally gives great stock tips in dns companies.
>
> Let me guess, short WorldCom right?
>
> > > Jeff's one vote in the At Large or GA would
> > > never result in the kind of damage that history
> > > will hold Mike Roberts, Esther Dyson and Stuart
> > > Lynn responsible for,
>
> Jeff Williams damages the credibility of the at-large.
> He can be, and no doubt is, pointed to as what one gets
> when one opens ICANN to anyone with an email address.
> An inveterate liar who gives false contact information.
>
> > > and neither, I imagine, has he
> > > ever been in a position to squander the pensions of thousands of employees
> > > like several other Corporate executives I could mention.
>
> Who knows? Perhaps he manages an INEGroup pension fund.
> He seems to have time to do just about everything else:
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0207/msg00457.html
>
> The at-large icon is a net.kook. Cui bono? -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 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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:02:29 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

At 10:30 AM 06/08/02 -0700, [email-masked] wrote:

>Should credibility of the personalities of our members
>be the issue

Well, yes. If I continually receive incorrect or useless
data from a certain source, I cease to use that source
and hunt elsewhere. That is how this internet thing works.

>Should issues and Ideas speak for themselves?

They can't. Someone has to put them forward.

>Oh goodness did I leave out the other 120 countries
>contributing to building a democratic globe whose
>members of ruling bodies may not meet with Gary's
>ethical approval.

That's not what I'm doing. While Jeff Williams is
ethically challenged, he could still be a trusted
source of accurate, useful information. He isn't.

>How does that go? Judge not lest ye..........

Well, seeing as you're judging me, while I don't
usually find you a source of entirely incorrect
information, I do find it almost entirely useless.

In that regard, both Jeff Williams and yourself
seem to suffer from echolalia (e-cholalia?). -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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:46:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WXW Faq

All assembly members,

  WXW is a well known purveyor of making false aspersions.
For instance from the old Domain Policy list:

Subject:
             [Arrant poster 4th occurance William X. Walsh] - Re: 0:212 BIZ
Update
        Date:
             Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:21:03 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             [email-masked]
  References:
             1 , 2 , 3 , 4

List members,

 =====  [Arrant poster bot deployed]

  This is a auto response.  The poster replied to here is temporarily
determined to be and "Arrant Poster" or "Spamm poster" ....
Posters E-Mail Address is suspected to be: [email-masked]
Posters Name is suspected to be: William X. Walsh

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, November 14, 2000, 11:12:21 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Keith and all,
>
> >   Hummm?  I am beginning to wonder if it is not becoming necessary
> > that I send out to our members and interested parties that doing business
> > with DiamondWare Ltd., is not advisable.  That would total some
> > +200,000, businesses, organizations, and corporations.
>
> >   A FAQ database has now been opened accordingly...
>
> Hey Keith, you're company is in big trouble now. Jeff's ant farm won't
> be doing business with you anymore, and you know how much business
> that will cost you!
>
> Better file for bankruptcy now and get it over with  :)
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                           mailto:[email-masked]

William X Walsh wrote:

> Monday, August 05, 2002, 3:05:10 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Ross,
> > I don't see any photo of Jeff standing in a dirt farm, neither a road sign
> > stating "East Kirkwood Blvd.", nor a house numbered 5. These photos prove
> > nothing beyond the fact that several prominent members of the GA and DNSO
> > Constituencies are taking pleasure in invading a person's privacy and
> > ridiculing a person's character, which are not endearing qualities in any
> > person. Remind me not to trust any of you.
>
> The person not to trust is the person who voluntarily posted
> information that they swore up and down was accurate, and then had it
> proven that they were making fraudulent statements.
>
> Or are you implying that there is some right to fraudulently
> represent yourself and not have it exposed?
>
> Get off your high horse, Joanna, you don't belong there.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:52:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WXW Faq #2 -  Casts False Aspersions

Joe and all assembly members,

  I challenge WXW to show the actual URL for any retraction
of any article or interview that I have done for any news
agency from their Web site.

  Again WXW is engaging in casting False Aspersions as he has
done so many times before...

  And thank you Joe for pointing that up for all of us yet again...

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Wrong.  At least 3 did retract, by editing their stories and reissuing
> > them without any reference to Jeff (such as Wired.com's ace reporter),
> > and the LA Times reporter he duped also disclaimed him.
>
> thats not a reatraction.  like i said - i have yet to see any retraction
> concerning jeff.  and just editing jeff out of a story is not a
> retraction.
>
> a proper retraction is when the news source intentionally writes an
> article which retracts jeff as a credible source and says why it did such
> a thing.  i have yet to see one of those.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> --
> 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 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: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:59:27 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On 2002-08-06 13:07:21 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>For all of your carping, many of you contribute far less than does 
>Jeff.  

What I find even more telling is the fact that the Civil Liberties  
community (the folks who brought us the Rebid Vote War ;) isn't  
doing much on-topic, either.

- -- 
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:03:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones - And some corrections...

Danny and all assembly members,

  Thank you for your accurate and honest words.  The exception is your
list of what you dubbed my supporting characters.

  I do not know two of them.  The following are unknown to me
or are not in any way associated with INEGroup at this time:

Bob Crawford - Recent participant on the At-Large list...
Frank Rizzo - One time and sometimes participant on the DNSO GA
forum.

  The following from Danny's list are either members or are
directors within INEGroup:

Brian C. Hollingsworth - Legal eagle...
David "Dude" Jenson - One time Director, now a active advisor and member.
Bob Davis - Current Director.
James Touton - Current Director
Dillon Marshall Esq - One time Director, current advisor, and Liaison for
Far east..

[email-masked] wrote:

> As much as we might criticize Jeff and his supporting staff of characters,
>
> Bob Crawford
> Brian C. Hollingsworth
> David "Dude" Jenson
> Bob Davis
> Frank Rizzo
> James Touton
> Dillon Marshall Esq
>
> at least Jeff has made contributions to the ICANN process to a greater degree
> than most who participate on this list -- Jeff has submitted public comments
> to the the New gTLDs/Famous Marks Task Force, to the .org Task Force, to the
> ERC regarding ICANN reform, and also regarding the nominating committee
> concept, and to the Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning
> Task Force (in which only two on-topic comments were received, one from Steve
> Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property Constituency, the other from
> Jeff).
>
> When was the last time that any of you submitted any comments?  For all of
> his faults, Jeff does take his responsibilities as a participant seriously.
>
> The WHOIS Committee has generated a report after a year's worth of sustained
> effort that touches on issues of privacy, contract compliance, and more...
> how many of you have even bothered to look at the report or to make a comment?
>
> Alexander and Thomas took the time to draft an article on GA reform... how
> many of you even noticed, or bothered to forward any remarks?
>
> The Review Task Force produced a report outlining criteria to establish new
> constituencies (such as a constituency for Individual Domain Name Holders)...
> how many of you even looked at their recommendations?  How many bothered to
> make a comment?
>
> For all of your carping, many of you contribute far less than does Jeff.
> --
> 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 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1360
*************************