Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1361
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 7 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1361

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:15:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

Sorry, if ideas are not held accountable in their own logic to you, we
are intractable.
Perhaps I am too young and idealistic.
May peace be everlasting in your garden of refreshment.
I do thank you for you diligence in bringing what you feel important to
the forefront.
If I may ever be of service, please do not hesitate to ask.
My ideas and statements are meant for a different purpose than practical
application in a technical manner.
Your inability to use them reflects my limitation and not yours, for
this I apologize.
Eric

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> 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, 6 Aug 2002 11:24:24 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Dan -
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

> Ummmm todd,
> this still does not answer the question.

My apologies - I will answer it this time.

> the question was about mgmt of
> the root....

See below in the original text -

> not about the admin stuff. AFAIK, Karl never requested a
> copy of any zone file or other live data...did he?

Not that I know of. What Karl asked for was finances.

>
> 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.

This next paragraphs especially are just my personal opinion and not part of
that of anyone else's necessarily
- ---------------------------------------------------------
becuase as Directors of a NPO, they (the members of the ICANN Operations
Team) forced a director to sue for access to documents that by law he is
required to have access to. This is not particular to the operations of the
root, it is corporate negligence and incompetence in the operations of a
California Corporation. ICANN has set itself up so that there is no feedback
loop so there is really a smokescreen between how ICANN operated and that of
any open corporation.

The Fair and Open operations of the Root include not only the DNS portions
of the Root and its attachements, but also to the business of the
organization that operates the root. So from a corporate stance this is why,
and this is critical to understanding ICANN's current operational health.
For instance if one of the Director's or member of the execom of ICANN was a
crook and had for instance embesseled millions of dollars or was involved in
fixing who could and couldnot be a registrar... it potentially could not be
long before ICANN would be belly up and how would any of the people that
hade paid ICANN $6 for a domain have any recourse?  That's the problem with
being the one and only.

How would we know whether ICANN ExeCom members were flying at the expense of
the organization in first class surroundings to exotic cities half a world
away and then writing the trips off - just to have a staff meeting.You see
these are things that people that invest into something would never
tolerate.

ICANN further exacerbates this by that ICANN has hid from Domain Owners how
much of that Domain Registration Fee goes to ICANN, this further speaks to
ICANN's not wanting public scrutiny of it, or its books. So what is it that
this ICANN really is? My feeling is that we wont know partially until we see
its financials.

"Standard Disclaimers Apply"
Todd

- --
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 13:25:49 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...

Can we please kill this thread and move on with something productive?

Tuesday, August 6, 2002, 12:30:54 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
ehtc> Should credibility of the personalities of our members be the issue or;
ehtc> Should issues and Ideas speak for themselves?
ehtc> I dare say that if it is the former our congress and England's parliament
ehtc> would get even less done.
ehtc> Oh goodness did I leave out the other 120 countries contributing to building a
ehtc> democratic globe whose members of ruling bodies may not meet with Gary's
ehtc> ethical approval.
ehtc> Attack of another in light of no attack on your self are not the actions of of
ehtc> someone who should judge.
ehtc> How does that go? Judge not lest ye..........

ehtc> Eric

ehtc> 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

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 12:30:10 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

At 07:59 PM 06/08/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>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.

As I'm the main (or original in this instance) carper,
if you want to specifically question my record of
contributions, please do so. If I've added less to the
process than Jeff Williams, I'll go jump off a bridge
forthwith. I suppose people who live in dirt fields
should be allowed to cast stones as that is all they
have.

>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.

On what topic? Whose civil liberties? What's next,
citizenship for sock puppets? And they didn't bring
a vote war, they brought a motion. It was a competing
motion that brought the war. Nice retelling of history.

What I find even more telling is that Jeff Williams
is still and again allowed to post (and crosspost) on
the GA. Can he nominate folks again too? 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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 22:36:39 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

- --=======5B421127=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-52882CD4; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:30 06/08/02, Gary Osbourne said:
>If I've added less to the process than Jeff Williams, I'll go jump off a 
>bridge forthwith.

hmmm... you take risks if Jeff does not provide you with an elastic...

among many other things - and according to yourself - Jeff would have 
contributed a lot in the alias name area, what is most probably going to be 
one of the most important issues of the decade, to challenge the digital 
exposure and survive the pax digitalia.
IMHO this is totally on topic at the DNSO :-)

jfc

- --=======5B421127=======--

- --
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, 7 Aug 2002 00:10:23 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On 2002-08-06 12:30:10 -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:

>As I'm the main (or original in this instance) carper, if you want 
>to specifically question my record of contributions, please do so. 
>If I've added less to the process than Jeff Williams, I'll go jump 
>off a bridge forthwith. I suppose people who live in dirt fields 
>should be allowed to cast stones as that is all they have.

Please take Danny's comment with some grains of salt.  Anyone who  
adds reason to this process already contributes a lot.  Anyway, if  
you think that someone is just talking garbage, it may be the best  
thing to just ignore that person.  Replying to that garbage only  
adds to the noise, most of the time, and gives more weight and  
importance to it than it deserves.

>>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.

>On what topic? Whose civil liberties? What's next, citizenship for 
>sock puppets? And they didn't bring a vote war, they brought a  
>motion. It was a competing motion that brought the war. Nice  
>retelling of history.

Calm down, Gary.  What brought us the actual "war" was neither the  
first motion, nor the second motion, but a combination of  
stubbornness and mistakes on both sides.  If you actually look  
through the list archives you'll notice that there may have been one 
or two opportunities very early in the discussion where the conflict 
could have been easily resolved, if both sides had made good use of  
these opportunities.

The point is this one: The most important contribution from the NGO  
and civili liberties community I've seen in the recent past was  
indeed this re-bid vote, and their later letter to the DoC.  In the  
best case, this was just a dumb mistake.  In the worst case, the  
NGOs were acting as useful idiots for Verisign's business interests. 
(Putting on asbestos.)

The latest real, substantial contribution of the NGO community to a  
DNSO task force was the .org policy (mostly the work of Milton  
Mueller).  I haven't seen much from that community on transfers, and 
I haven't seen too much on WHOIS.  I have yet to see that the civil  
liberties folks even start to think about building up a  
counterweight to, say, the IP constituency.

I find that disappointing.

>What I find even more telling is that Jeff Williams is still and 
>again allowed to post (and crosspost) on the GA.

It's a purely pragmatic question: Would the benefit of such a move  
outweight the cost inevitably connected to it?

- -- 
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 15:29:00 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Jeff Williams Faq update 

At 12:39 PM 06/08/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:

>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.

See below.

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

I made it clear in the FAQ that it was another
author's statement. Just more Jeff Williams BS.
If you had a dime to your name I would consider
suing you for calling me a liar. Of course I'd
have to figure out how to serve you. When you
pass yourself off as outstanding in your field(s)
I hadn't realized until recently that you actually
meant: out standing in your (dirt farm) fields.

Jeff Williams .sig as of today:

>--
>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

OK, we know the address is bogus unless Jeff Williams
is a sufficiently lanky Texan to reside in a roadsign,
or sufficiently secretive to live underground, which
I grant you is just possible.

In the interests of an accurate FAQ, I just tried the
first telephone number: 972-244-3801. Out of order.
Readers are welcome to try it for themselves. Hint:
With my telco at least, using *67 first masks your
number from call display, callback, etc. YMMV so RTFM.

And the second: 214-244-4827. Voicemail. A male voice
asks one to leave a message, possibly Jeff Williams,
although he sounds a little young to be a VietNam vet
and former Judge. I say possibly because the message
gives no clue as to whom one has reached, no personal
name, no company (such as INEGroup) name, no nothing.
Not very professional. It could be anybody, and
apparently sometimes is.

Of what relevance is this to the GA? Well, we will
shortly have no elected at-large BoD Directors, partly
due to allegations that online voting is subject to
fraud. It has been alleged today (not originally by
me) that in the just-completed icannatlarge.com panel
elections, one candidate, Bob Crawford, was really Jeff
Williams, who nominated and spoke up for Bob Crawford.
He later denied doing so but the record is clear:
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0207/msg00317.html

I just tried Bob Crawford's self-given telephone number of
866-866-6686. Coincidentally, it also is not in service.

I have sent the following email to the at large discuss
list regarding some of this. Cordley Coit, also
nominated by Jeff Williams, withrew his candidacy too
late to be removed from the ballot. Cordley Coit and
some others in this cluster also have a Jeff Williams
like habit of posting numerous content-free posts.

While on the one hand this means the system is open
to abuse by even a lamer like Jeff Williams, and
could be used as evidence for why there should not
be online elections, OTOH, the wisdom of the
electorate shines through and demonstrably real
(and mostly very good) candidates are elected,
whilst Bob Crawford and Cordley Coit, real or not,
finish at the bottom. So this could also be taken
as evidence that a sufficiently large pool of
electors isn't easily open to capture.

Note that I have also subsequently sent a correction
to the following. (Votes 2 and 3 were single votes)
should read: (Votes 3 and 4 were single votes). -g

- -----------
To: [email-masked]
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 12 Zombi'es on this discussion group

At 10:54 AM 06/08/02 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

>FYI: One of the members of the watchdog and election
>committee reviewed the headers and the arrival records
>for the ballots in question. There is no correlation of
>time, place, IP number, or any other aspect of the electronic
>record to suggest that these came from the same sender.

In fact, if there was a correlation of ballots received
from different IP numbers at the same time, *that* would
be more (but still not completely) conclusive that they
were different senders. One would expect that the same
sender using different IP numbers might also be sending
at different times.

>Not conclusive, but it certainly suggests to me that
>this is a coincidence, not evidence of fraud.

I think it rises to beyond the level of coincidence.

I have replaced unique voter strings with unique
integers beginning at 1, thus voter 1 in the first
list is voter 1 in the second, et cetera:

Bob Crawford         (North America) 1
Bob Crawford         (North America) 2
Bob Crawford         (North America) 5
Bob Crawford         (North America) 6
Bob Crawford         (North America) 7
Bob Crawford         (North America) 8
Bob Crawford         (North America) 9
Bob Crawford         (North America) 10
Bob Crawford         (North America) 11
Bob Crawford         (North America) 12

(Votes 2 and 3 were single votes)

Bruce Young          (North America) 1
Bruce Young          (North America) 6
Bruce Young          (North America) 7
Bruce Young          (North America) 8
Bruce Young          (North America) 9
Bruce Young          (North America) 10
Bruce Young          (North America) 11
Bruce Young          (North America) 12

Cordley Coit         (North America) 2
Cordley Coit         (North America) 6
Cordley Coit         (North America) 7
Cordley Coit         (North America) 8

Of those eight who voted for Cordley Coit and
not for Bob Crawford, six of them also voted
for Bruce Young. There are also other notable
and related clusters I haven't published, but
I may do so in future.

There is, at the very least, a pattern of block
voting here. For those suggesting parties, it
seems that at least one party is becoming a
reality. Call it the e-cholalia party. -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 18:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

We disagree strongly on this point.  Asking for the rebid was and is a
good move, and in the long run not at all consistent with VRSN interests
since it is more likely to open up the namespace than the current frozen
process.  There are only so many hours in the day.  

Just about very US-based NGO person I know thinks time spent inside
ICANN's hall of mirrors is now wasted time.  I can't blame them.  They
don't get postive results, they don't stop bad things, things only get
worse.  In some cases, the situtation is so bad that the bosses, or even
the funders, won't support the staff time for these sort of results.  The
only things that have any hope of results in even the medium term are
outside the utterly neutered sham input ("advisory") organizations ICANN
has created. These are to me not unlike the unions in the ex-USSR.  
Window dressing at best, traps for "useful idiots" (to borrow the rather
strong phrase you used), at worst.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The point is this one: The most important contribution from the NGO  
> and civili liberties community I've seen in the recent past was  
> indeed this re-bid vote, and their later letter to the DoC.  In the  
> best case, this was just a dumb mistake.  In the worst case, the  
> NGOs were acting as useful idiots for Verisign's business interests. 
> (Putting on asbestos.)

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 00:39:50 +0200
From: GA List Monitor <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] REMINDER: On-topic discussion

This is a reminder to everyone.

We have list rules which have been established by a vote of
the GA members. They state:

| - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
| - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
|   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
|   - Not using offensive language
(Full text at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)

The DNSO General Assembly is a forum for participation in the 
work of the DNSO. It is neither a place for in-depth discussions
about the credibility of members nor a place for retaliation of
those members. This discussion must be taken off the list
immediately -- it is irrelevant to the business of the GA and
serves only to discourage and distract from work on the many
domain name and ICANN issues currently on the table. 

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| If you want to discuss personal issues, do so in private      |
| and make sure that you do not accidentally CC to [email-masked]. |
| Members which continue to abuse the GA as a forum for their   |
| off-topic postings are violating our list rules.              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Please do not send follow-up postings to the list. Thanks! :)

Best regards,
/// the GA List Monitor 

- --
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 17:50:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] comments please

Eric and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Interesting observation.
> But I thought the GA was for our own benefit and that we were participating
> for the good of the Internet community.  Are you suggesting that the
> community would be better off without us participating?

  No not at all am I suggesting that the Internet community, which
is obviously much different than what Stuart Lynn refers to as the
ICANN Community, would be better off without us participating.

  Now. I am somewhat sure that there are those within the
ICANN Community, most notably a few within the Registrar
and Registry segment of the Internet community that would
prefer that Joe Baptista, myself, John Palmer, yourself, and
perhaps a choice few others would not participate here
in the DNSO GA...  But as has recently been observed
by yourself, Joe B., Joanna, and some others, such a
consideration or "Wish" is more of using "us" as
a whipping post for exposing poor judgment, bad ethics
and very questionable leadership failings of various
types and over various issues, regarding that leadership
and the decisions it has made...

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> >   None of the below.  Rather it is a lack of trust, ethics and integrity
> >
> > in the DNSO GA via the ICANN BoD and staff...
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Figure it for posterity's sake.
> > > Would you far wiser pundits please comment on the following;
> > >
> > > Why has the GA just plain shrivelled up?
> > >
> > > The Blueprint?
> > >
> > > TR's management?
> > >
> > > The focus on the AL movement?
> > >
> > > No issues?
> > >
> > > Lack of efficacy?
> > >
> > > Or just plain end of interest?
> > > Of course a bit of all the above may well be the answer.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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

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, 7 Aug 2002 01:13:41 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:

>Just about very US-based NGO person I know thinks time spent 
>inside ICANN's hall of mirrors is now wasted time.  I can't blame
>them.

And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By  
what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is  
that?

All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,  
ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist  
battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called  
Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an  
improvement?

Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the  
battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community  
going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews  
the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta  
level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the  
debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)  
are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)

As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not 
in year 1, but now.

(*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.   
thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you  
can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants  
is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
- -- 
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, 6 Aug 2002 19:23:12 -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:

> 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.

oh i see.  so what you are saying is that previously published information
was rewritten.  thats not a retraction - at best these publications are
practicing a form of revisionist history.  and i can't possibly believe
that any publication which claimed some form of journalistic integgrety
would even consider playing the game revisionist historian.

could it be possible these publications were embarrassed by some failure
within them?  i assume they did their homework - thats what i expect of
the press.  no less is acceptable.  so i find it difficult to even
consider that any resposible editor or publisher would in any way
jeopardize their integretty by revising a published article for no better
reason then to reduce their embarrasement.

the proper proceedure for retraction is to highlight the error and then
proceed to explain it.  no where have i found any such retraction
concerning jeff williams in any leading publication.  indeed i feel jeff
williams desearves his own 15 minutes of fame.  he seems to have the
attention of many detractors - and many claims are made one way or the
other.  but non of these claims ever amount to much.  nor has the press
which has quoted him often made any attempts to offer insight.

could you list the urls to articles which were later changed - i'd like to
enquire into this revisionist practice.

and i am firm in my claim - jeff is a cultural icann icon.  the evidence
is clear - prominent self styled members of the dnso and ga are driving by
grapevine paying him homage.  i think he's the sort of cultural icon 60
minutes should investigate.

but the real story here folks is how we spend an enternity discussing the
character of people - instead of what they are saying.  jeff williams has
captivated you.  your obsessed with him.

when we first ran into the jeff williams contraversy some 5 - 6 years ago
= the hunt years = my first decision was to be on a need to know basis
concerning jeff williams.  and i don't need to know.  i have never
investigated him, i have as is my usual duty in life not paid much
attention to the slander and liable comedy hour on jeff williams.

frankly i want to ensure that you understand my reasons why - jeff
williams is irrelevant to our reasons for being here.  let's get our eyes
on the ball people - icann is the reason why were here.

now jeff williams is also very relevant to this mission.  when i said he
was irrelelvant - it is with respect to our mission at .GOD and .SATAN.

as a participant to the show - he has shown a considerable understanding
of the problems at hand.  that why he's interviewed so often by the press.
he knows what he's talking about.  does he live in a silo?  as far as i'm
concerned he could live on mars!  i know he has a lovely accent and can
usually give you the inside scoop on a few icanners.  he even knows where
ester lives - in case i have to send flowers.

he's an asset.  thats for sure.  now - does he lead a core army of 128K -
or is he the advance scout for a massive alien invasion from pluto.  well
so far i have not seen any proof to the contrary - just allegations from
lame brained people who don't have anything better to do then contribute
to the general noise of the conference with all this jeff williams icon
stuff.

it bad enough i have to follow endliss jibbersih concerning the dns in
these conferences without having to revisit the jeff williams society
announcements which come from you people.  i've seen it all already.

i think the press should start doing it's job and you should appeal for
proper retractions - i'd like to see their explanations.

> >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.

ya but i don't like that.  i have noticed over the years that newspapers
and other media sources have been getting sloopy.  and there's no excuse
for it.  i have not seen a investigative reporter in years in the wild.  i
think they are a dying breed.

i'm not surprised that media would be reduced to this sloopy form of
retraction - it's lazy and an improper method - as it is prudent to inform
the reader.

so i am very serious in seeing a list of urls where jeff williams was
edited out.

on a more serious note - if the press is wrong in considering jeff
williams a credible source - as you seem prone to argue, then we can well
imagine the dog's breakfast icann has made of the reporting in general.

certainly the legal community has wandered down the garden path to icann
without bother to check the facts.  and it shows.  recently on the eu list
Patrizzio a literary scholar gave a glowing account of the merits in a
legal argument developed by some lawyers concerning icann.  it was all
based on the premise that icann is a monopoly in root.  a clearly false
premise - but non the less a perfect example of the misinformation
concerning root control.  anyone who knows root knows it is controlled at
it's endpoints - user level.  so what a shock to see governments so
misinformed.

and the same misinformation applies to much of the media - they simply
propagate icann's misinformation as do lawyers and other participants.

> 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

well ... prankster ??? maybe - i know the program.  if you believe richard
sexton ... who said simon higgs heard that someone at the canary
conference called me the most dangerous man in communications .. yada yada
.. well i know that program too.

there are many programs in the joe baptista programming rainbow - so i
have no doubt the message has many flavours - but it's still the same
message regardless of taste.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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 19:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Casting stones

I think there are many other alternatives.  I agree that simply expecting
Congress to pull rabbits out of some hat and solve all these problems is
not realistic.  The challenge is to design better (and even more truly
international) structures that can also achieve substantial buy-in.  I
think that is do-able. But this is not the forum for that discussion.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> 
> And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By  
> what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is  
> that?
> 
> All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,  
> ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist  
> battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called  
> Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an  
> improvement?
> 
> Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the  
> battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community  
> going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews  
> the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta  
> level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the  
> debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)  
> are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)
> 
> As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
> is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not 
> in year 1, but now.
> 
> (*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.   
> thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you  
> can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants  
> is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
> 

- -- 
**NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
"network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1361
*************************