Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1384
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, August 21 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1384

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

Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:55:13 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 19 August 2002 22:06
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat
> 
> 
> > The ITU did not offer to fund any functions.  The ITU 
> offered to provide, as
> > an in-kind contribution, support for a portion of the 
> secretariat services,
> > in particular basic support for meetings (note-taking, 
> document handling,
> > etc.).
> 
>   Ok thanks Richard for the Heads up and clarification here...  >:)
> My only question is what is in the ITU's view a "in-kind contribution,
> support for a portion of the secretariat services" if not in 
> effect being
> willing to pay for those services or provide them at the cost 
> of/to the
> ITU?

This is correct, but there would in fact have no marginal cost to ITU, since
ITU staff attend the GAC meetings anyway and take notes anyway.  Also, the
ITU handles such a large volume of documents that adding the few documents
for GAC would have no measurable impact on costs.

Best,
Richard

> 
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Richard
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> 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, 20 Aug 2002 12:10:12 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent. (from: [email-masked])

Happy calculating!

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>, Louis Touton <[email-masked]>,
	Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>
Cc: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:08:54 +0200
Subject: The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent.
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mail-Followup-To: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>,
	Louis Touton <[email-masked]>, Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>,
	[email-masked], NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>,
	Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Organization: Palpatine's office.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the NCDNHC team for the  
great amount of work spent on its report for the .org bid 
evaluation.

However, the numerical material provided in the report is  
inconsistent.

The most obvious problem occurs in the table on page 49, where 
responsiveness scores are simply sorted in decreasing order.  Here's 
a corrected version of that table:

+-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| name        | responsiveness | support | differentiation | total   |
+-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| unity       |          27.25 |       9 |            20.5 | 24.5575 |
| isoc        |          21.75 |       9 |            14.5 | 20.6725 |
| ims/isc     |             14 |       7 |              15 |   16.78 |
| gnr         |          26.75 |       3 |              14 | 15.8225 |
| uia         |          16.75 |       5 |             7.5 | 12.5225 |
| neustar     |          12.75 |       3 |              15 | 12.4425 |
| dotorg      |           20.5 |       1 |               9 |  10.135 |
| registerorg |          11.75 |       0 |              16 |  9.5725 |
| .org        |              5 |       5 |               5 |    8.35 |
| switch      |              8 |       0 |              10 |    6.16 |
| organic     |              0 |       0 |            11.5 |     4.6 |
+-------------+----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+

(total = 0.27 * responsiveness + support + 0.4 * differentiation)
(Note that I didn't bother to reduce the numbers in the total column 
to the appropriate number of significant digits.)

The data sources I used for this table are on pages 4, 14, and 43 of 
the NCDNHC report.

Note that my results match the ones on page 27 of the report - the  
remaining differences may be due to rounding errors in the weighting 
factors.

When I asked Alexander Svensson to independently verify my concerns, 
he came up with another problem: The table on page 14 
(responsiveness and governance rankings) is inconsistent in itself. 
GNR's score should be 27.75 (instead of 26.75, thereby placing GNR 
on rank 1, ahead of unity with 27.25), while ISOC's score should be 
23.25 (instead of 21.75; no ranking changes caused).

This error also sheds a spotlight on a methdological problem in the  
final evaluation of the NCDNHC's results: By merely averaging  
ranks, small differences in the originating scores (possibly caused  
by minor errors - the mistake in GNR's score corresponds to an error 
of about 3.5%!) are exaggerated in the end result.  In this  
particular case, for instance, the corrected "responsiveness" rating 
would place GNR on the same rank as Neustar in the average ranking 
evaluation on page 26 of the report.

I'll leave it to the NCDNHC team, ICANN staff, and the applicants  
themselves to check and verify the rest of the material provided.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[email-masked]>

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 13:02:51 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To what extent is .name operated by VeriSign?

Dear all,

to what extent is .name operated by VeriSign? This (at 
least to me) surprising question is asked in the Gartner 
.org evaluation report on page 38. Could anyone from
GNR or VeriSign GRS comment on this?

Best regards,
/// Alexander

(http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/gartner-evaluation-report-19aug02.pdf)

>Gartner had a difficult time determining the extent of GNR’s experience.
>GNR claims (source location in parenthesis)
>
>(C18.6) - “3. A registry (partly outsourced) connected to all ICANNaccredited
>registrars through the EPP protocol.”
>
>(C18.6) – “Global Name Registry has transferred a part of the .name
>Registry function to VeriSign under an agreement to operate part of the
>.name TLD, at the same time as Global Name Registry maintains and
>operates a mirrored Registry in the United Kingdom. Global Name Registry
>and VeriSign therefore run similar and redundant services on each side of
>the Atlantic and have thereby created the world’s first inter-continental
>registry.
>
>Gartner wonders if, as a result of a combination of responses and
>specifically the use of the term “mirrored Registry”, the Primary SRS data
>center for the .name gTLD is actually currently operated by VeriSign and
>that GNR is responsible only for the operations of the backup SRS
>datacenter. We found several statements that were difficult to interpret
>resulting in an inability to firmly establish the actual responsibilities for
>operating the .name SRS datacenters.
>
>Should GNR be considered for award of the .org registry, Gartner highly
>recommends ICANN review the agreement between Global Name Registry
>and VeriSign, Inc. for services provided by VeriSign Global Registry
>Services in the .name gTLD to determine the party responsible for the
>operation of the primary SRS data center. Gartner would recommend
>discounting GNR’s experience level should VeriSign prove to be responsible
>for the primary SRS data center operations.

- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 13:37:36 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Where are all the reports?

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:36:25 EDT, you wrote:

>If I remember correctly, the final input from Becky Burr was scheduled for 16 
>August, as was the final input of the names policy-development group.  The 
>preliminary ICANN staff report on the dot org divestiture was due August 19, 
>as was the ICANN staff report on ALAC.  Last minute editing?

The Advisory Group on ALAC, of which I am a member, has just released
its report. ICANN has received it only a few hours ago, so it will
take some time before it's officially published - anyway I have posted
it to the atlarge-discuss list. As it's not so small I won't post it
here in its entirety, but you can read it from the atlarge-discuss
archive at:

http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00886.html
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00887.html

We hope that there will be feedback and comments on this report - it
should be the starting point for a period of public comment.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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, 20 Aug 2002 10:44:11 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Where are all the reports?

What is the difference between this At Large and the one where hundreds of 
thousands of people attempted to signed up to vote for Karl Auerbach?

Will those of us who voted for representation be permitted in the new At 
Large?  I noticed no-one in our office or the offices we support have 
received any information about elections or progress within ICANN's At Large.

Are these separate or the same thing with all the members removed?

~k

'At 01:37 PM 8/20/2002 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:36:25 EDT, you wrote:
>
> >If I remember correctly, the final input from Becky Burr was scheduled 
> for 16
> >August, as was the final input of the names policy-development group.  The
> >preliminary ICANN staff report on the dot org divestiture was due August 
> 19,
> >as was the ICANN staff report on ALAC.  Last minute editing?
>
>The Advisory Group on ALAC, of which I am a member, has just released
>its report. ICANN has received it only a few hours ago, so it will
>take some time before it's officially published - anyway I have posted
>it to the atlarge-discuss list. As it's not so small I won't post it
>here in its entirety, but you can read it from the atlarge-discuss
>archive at:
>
>http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00886.html
>http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00887.html
>
>We hope that there will be feedback and comments on this report - it
>should be the starting point for a period of public comment.
>--
>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
>----------------------> http://bertola.eu.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: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:53:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Monitor & Chair] Reminder and Final Warnings: Sims, Dierker, Field, Fleming

This was obviously sent in error.

Jim Fleming has not posted more than five messages per day to the GA's 
censored list.

I apologize to Mr. Fleming for Mr. Alexander's oversight.

~k

At 06:00 PM 8/18/2002 +0200, List monitor and GA chair. wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>during the last two days, the list climate has deteriorated
>dramatically. This is a reminder to all participants that this is a
>forum with rules:
>
>   The following rules apply to content of messages on the GA list:
>   - 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
>
>   - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
>     of posts per person per day, this must be respected
>
>   - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be a
>     VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>
>(from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)
>
>We hope that we can quickly return to a GA list where all
>participants respect this set of rules and stop all personal attacks
>and insults *IMMEDIATELY*. Those people who keep disrespecting these
>rules -- a minimum of decorum -- will be put under moderation, as a
>mild form of what's suggested in the blueprint for reform.
>
>This warning is directed in particular at the following people:
>
>-- JOE SIMS for personal attacks ("hoping to rescue an otherwise
>    unimpressive career by finding a niche where you can be
>    perceived as the expert";"Junk like the stuff you post";
>    "the real sneers here from serious people are reserved for
>    folks like you")
>
>-- ERIC DIERKER for personal attacks ("self aggrandizing jackass")
>    and offensive language ("shitty advice")
>
>-- JEFF FIELD for offensive personal attacks ("arrogant asshole")
>
>-- JIM FLEMING for breaking the posting limit (Jim Fleming has
>    recently received warnings for off-topic postings; this is
>    the last warning)
>
>Please don't reply to this message.  Thank you!
>
>Alexander Svensson                             Thomas Roessler
>   (List Monitor)                                    (Chair)

- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 11:53:04 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Monitor & Chair] Reminder and Final Warnings: Sims, Dierker, Field, Fleming

Joe Sims wrote:

> And you don't view Froomkin's attack on Jon Cohen as a personal 
> attack?  Please, bar me from posting on this list so I am not tempted 
> to further waste my time.

This is highly amusing.  Mr. Sims, I have yet to see a posting of yours 
that was not an attack/slur of some kind on this list.  If I am wrong, 
please provide some evidence.

Perhaps you should simply unsubscribe yourself as you obviously have had 
difficulties communicating in a humane and constructive fashion with 
other respondents.  Surely you can summon up the strength of will to 
simply send in that 'unsubscribe' note?  Perhaps you could even cc it to 
this list?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:13:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning!

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Alexander,
>
> You are completely out of control.
>
> If you are going to threaten to remove Mr. Baptistas rights; then you
> better follow through with Joe Sims, Kent Crispin, etc.

That's right.  Alexander you are out of control.  We get a litany of abuse
from a corporate lawyer representing ICANN and very little is done.  It is
natural for individuals to speculate on why Sims lost his mind and my
speculation is as valid as any other.  Certainly I have seen drunks exibit
the same behaviour patterns as Sims in their diatribes and this
specualtion is perfectly fair.

We have still to see here an apology - which is due by Sims to Froomkin -
or an explaination from Sims of his diatribe.  Speculation is perfectly
acceptable in this case.

regards
joe baptista

> At 12:40 PM 8/20/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >Joe,
> >
> >stop your personal attacks now or lose your posting rights.
> >
> >/// GA List Monitor
> >
> >Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>:
> > >On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Jeff Field wrote:
> > >
> > >>It's with that view in mind that I am somewhat at a loss for his recent
> > >>obvious self-destructive behavior.  With anyone of lesser intelligence, I
> > >>would pass it off as, "well, that was a stupid thing to do/say".  With
> > >>Joe, however, I am forced to think of ulterior motives and, whether his
> > >>actions stem from some intentional plan or his subconscious.  In any
> > >>case, I guess time will tell.
> > >
> > >maybe it's just heavy drinking.
> >
> >
> >Information about GA list monitoring:
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
> >
> >Adopted mailing list rules of the General Assembly:
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >
> >Excerpt:
> >
> >  The following rules apply to content of messages on the GA list:
> >
> >  - 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
> >  - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
> >    of posts per person per day, this must be respected
> >  - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
> >    a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>

- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 11:48:16 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning!

At 12:13 PM -0400 8/20/02, Joe Baptista wrote:
>We have still to see here an apology - which is due by Sims to Froomkin -
>or an explaination from Sims of his diatribe.  Speculation is perfectly
>acceptable in this case.

Well here's my speculation.

Joe Simms is panicking. Similar to the bizarre material wesaw coming from
Verisign and SnapNames when it was apparent the majority didn't want the
WLS - almost timeed to perfection with the VRSN stock plummet, we now see
Joe Simms seemingly moving to a bizarro world.

I suspect it's mainly to do with Karl's success in court. Joe KNOW'S the
shit is about to hit the fan. His control trip is about to end. He's in a
state of panic.

It's fun to watch. It's going to get very kharmic around here shortly.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 16:54:54 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Monitor & Chair] Reminder and Final Warnings: Sims, Dierker, Field, Fleming

Kristy McKee wrote:

>
>This was obviously sent in error.
>
>Jim Fleming has not posted more than five messages per day to the GA's 
>censored list.
>
>I apologize to Mr. Fleming for Mr. Alexander's oversight.
>

To my count, we have the following between 13:55:32 and 21:00:41 (UTC-5) of 
Friday 2002-08-16:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03436.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03438.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03440.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03446.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03447.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03449.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03450.html

Incidentally, about the other complaint of Kristy:
>Alexander,
>
>You are completely out of control.
>
>If you are going to threaten to remove Mr. Baptistas rights; then you
>better follow through with Joe Sims, Kent Crispin, etc.

I did not see a post from Kent in ages, so this time he should be considered 
innocent.
Maybe he has thought of posting an abusive message, but he did not ;>)

As for Mr. Sims, no matter how shocking his posting has been (at least to me 
it was), if it was the only one for which there has been a complaint to the 
List Monitor it warranted a warning, which is exactly what Alexander has 
done.

This said, I would not mind seeing apologies from Joe Sims and further 
contribution of his on the list.

Now, can we all engage ourselves to keep more decorum, before this whole 
matter gets out of hand?
(and possibly avoid shooting the list monitor every time he does something, 
in particular when he is acting in conformance with the rules, like in these 
cases)

Thanks
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 13:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning!

thank you andrew - we are agreed on this.  i personally am in shock with
what has happened - joe sims i think did attempt to play the fool on this
one and i find it personally offended.  it is i who have played the fool
from the beggining.  if find it offensive sims would be such a prima donna
as to attempt that playing card on this assembly.

to play the fool and win one must pay the toll - indeed joe sims has paid
that toll.  his reputation is libeled and slandered by his own hand.
there is no worst insult to one's self then that.  any insult we can add
to this injury is substandard to the impecible disgrace he has made of
himself before this assembly.  he is after all a solicitor but in his
insult of froomkin

poor sims - he did not know that to play the fool successfully one must
have supporting facts in one's arsenault.  and sims has few of those in
store.

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 12:13 PM -0400 8/20/02, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >We have still to see here an apology - which is due by Sims to Froomkin -
> >or an explaination from Sims of his diatribe.  Speculation is perfectly
> >acceptable in this case.
>
> Well here's my speculation.
>
> Joe Simms is panicking. Similar to the bizarre material wesaw coming from
> Verisign and SnapNames when it was apparent the majority didn't want the
> WLS - almost timeed to perfection with the VRSN stock plummet, we now see
> Joe Simms seemingly moving to a bizarro world.

yes - the infighting at icann began many moons ago.  ester was the first
to panic.

> I suspect it's mainly to do with Karl's success in court. Joe KNOW'S the
> shit is about to hit the fan. His control trip is about to end. He's in a
> state of panic.
>
> It's fun to watch. It's going to get very kharmic around here shortly.

yes it is.  i can feel the glow and the exlectrons have been vibrating
with a certain sexual extasy - indeed if they throw me out i hope they let
me watch ;-)

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, 20 Aug 2002 19:51:34 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Org gets the nod from ICANN

FYI

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954532.html?tag=fd_top
- ---

The Internet's governing body has recommended that the Virginia-based 
Internet Society (ISOC) take over the .org domain. 
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
issued a report Monday recommending the nonprofit ISOC over 10 other 
competitors vying to run the .org domain when domain name registrar 
VeriSign relinquishes it in January. 

In May 2001, VeriSign signed an agreement with ICANN and the Commerce 
Department to relinquish control of the .org domain in exchange for 
keeping the rights to oversee the lucrative .com domain. ICANN has 
been looking for a successor to oversee .org.  

Eleven candidates submitted proposals, and ICANN ordered three 
evaluation teams to study whether the plans met the technical and 
practical requirements of the .org community, which mostly consists 
of nonprofit organizations. 

"The ISOC proposal was the only one that received top ranking from 
all three evaluation teams," ICANN President Stuart Lynn said in a 
statement. "On balance, their proposal stood out from the rest." 

Other applicants included Register.com subsidiary Register 
Organization and the Union of International Associations, which is 
affiliated with VeriSign. 

ISOC is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization involved in 
standards, policy issues and educational workshops. Its members 
include industry bigwigs such as Microsoft and 3Com. It will run .org 
in conjunction with Affilias, operator of the .info domain. ISOC 
officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Upon learning of the proposal, some ICANN watchdogs blasted the plan, 
saying it amounted to an "insider deal" that will derail the .org 
mission of serving nonprofit organizations. 

"The ISOC board is now controlled by corporations that buy 
memberships," Michael Froomkin, operator of ICANNwatch.org, wrote in 
a comment on the site after learning of the report. 

He pointed out that ICANN has two people associated with ISOC on its 
board, including Chairman Vint Cerf, a former head of the 
organization, and Alejandro Pisantry, ICANN's vice chair and chair of 
ISOC-Mexico. 

The proposal for ISOC to take over .org is still open for public 
input.

- ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/CefplB/TM
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email-masked]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

- ----
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, 20 Aug 2002 20:52:30 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Monitor & Chair] Reminder and Final Warnings: Sims, Dierker, Field, Fleming

Roberto,

1)  Why not make the ga-abuse list public if you are going to selectively 
forward postings from it?

2)  Please show three examples of Kent Crispin engaging in polite dialogue 
on this list.  He posted recently, maybe you'll find those to your liking.

I think our abuse archive in combination with the monitored list archive 
proves he, like other members of ICANN receive special posting and 
communication privileges which is unfair.

3)  In reference to Mr. Fleming's over 
posting:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/mail58.html.

That's three on the 16th and five on the 17th according to the dnso.org 
time zone.  True Jim was in his own; but was it really so awful that it 
should be included with a warning to someone whose post was one long 
slander-fest?  And why did Mr. Sims not receive a specific warning?  Rather 
his shocking message was lumped in as offensive as someone who posts more 
than five messages per day.  What kind of message are you intending to 
send, the one received?

~k

At 04:54 PM 8/20/2002 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Kristy McKee wrote:
>
>>
>>This was obviously sent in error.
>>
>>Jim Fleming has not posted more than five messages per day to the GA's 
>>censored list.
>>
>>I apologize to Mr. Fleming for Mr. Alexander's oversight.
>
>To my count, we have the following between 13:55:32 and 21:00:41 (UTC-5) 
>of Friday 2002-08-16:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03436.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03438.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03440.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03446.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03447.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03449.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03450.html
>
>Incidentally, about the other complaint of Kristy:
>>Alexander,
>>
>>You are completely out of control.
>>
>>If you are going to threaten to remove Mr. Baptistas rights; then you
>>better follow through with Joe Sims, Kent Crispin, etc.
>
>I did not see a post from Kent in ages, so this time he should be 
>considered innocent.
>Maybe he has thought of posting an abusive message, but he did not ;>)
>
>As for Mr. Sims, no matter how shocking his posting has been (at least to 
>me it was), if it was the only one for which there has been a complaint to 
>the List Monitor it warranted a warning, which is exactly what Alexander 
>has done.
>
>This said, I would not mind seeing apologies from Joe Sims and further 
>contribution of his on the list.
>
>Now, can we all engage ourselves to keep more decorum, before this whole 
>matter gets out of hand?
>(and possibly avoid shooting the list monitor every time he does 
>something, in particular when he is acting in conformance with the rules, 
>like in these cases)
>
>Thanks
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

- --
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, 20 Aug 2002 20:03:10 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Censoring

Roberto, AS, TR and other similar minded censor types,

The cutting off of the at-large vote is a censorship of the voice of the
people.
The cutting off of the language used by a particular group is a censorship of
the voice of the people.

See how that is the same thing, a voice and a vote are the same when it comes
down to it.
What censorship on this list does is abetting the failure to hear the voices of
the people.
When done in general it is wrong, when done discriminatorily it is down right
evil and must be fought at every turn.  You cannot get away from the fact that
censorship is the same as book burning and every time we have seen that in
history it has lead us down a road to massive human destruction.

The gory details of the abuse of woman in previous regimes and some current is
offensive and my language to describe it would turn your stomach, but the point
is the message must be heard and cutting it off because it offends your
sensibilities is wrong.  If Joe Sims would not have posted his message we would
not know just how deranged and desperate ICANN leadership is getting. Although
I found it offensive I learned a great deal from it.
This is not a past time it is central to stakeholder and user representation in
ICANN.
Eric

Kristy McKee wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> 1)  Why not make the ga-abuse list public if you are going to selectively
> forward postings from it?
>
> 2)  Please show three examples of Kent Crispin engaging in polite dialogue
> on this list.  He posted recently, maybe you'll find those to your liking.
>
> I think our abuse archive in combination with the monitored list archive
> proves he, like other members of ICANN receive special posting and
> communication privileges which is unfair.
>
> 3)  In reference to Mr. Fleming's over
> posting:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/mail58.html.
>
> That's three on the 16th and five on the 17th according to the dnso.org
> time zone.  True Jim was in his own; but was it really so awful that it
> should be included with a warning to someone whose post was one long
> slander-fest?  And why did Mr. Sims not receive a specific warning?  Rather
> his shocking message was lumped in as offensive as someone who posts more
> than five messages per day.  What kind of message are you intending to
> send, the one received?
>
> ~k
>
> At 04:54 PM 8/20/2002 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>This was obviously sent in error.
> >>
> >>Jim Fleming has not posted more than five messages per day to the GA's
> >>censored list.
> >>
> >>I apologize to Mr. Fleming for Mr. Alexander's oversight.
> >
> >To my count, we have the following between 13:55:32 and 21:00:41 (UTC-5)
> >of Friday 2002-08-16:
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03436.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03438.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03440.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03446.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03447.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03449.html
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03450.html
> >
> >Incidentally, about the other complaint of Kristy:
> >>Alexander,
> >>
> >>You are completely out of control.
> >>
> >>If you are going to threaten to remove Mr. Baptistas rights; then you
> >>better follow through with Joe Sims, Kent Crispin, etc.
> >
> >I did not see a post from Kent in ages, so this time he should be
> >considered innocent.
> >Maybe he has thought of posting an abusive message, but he did not ;>)
> >
> >As for Mr. Sims, no matter how shocking his posting has been (at least to
> >me it was), if it was the only one for which there has been a complaint to
> >the List Monitor it warranted a warning, which is exactly what Alexander
> >has done.
> >
> >This said, I would not mind seeing apologies from Joe Sims and further
> >contribution of his on the list.
> >
> >Now, can we all engage ourselves to keep more decorum, before this whole
> >matter gets out of hand?
> >(and possibly avoid shooting the list monitor every time he does
> >something, in particular when he is acting in conformance with the rules,
> >like in these cases)
> >
> >Thanks
> >Roberto
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:24:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrar Code of Conduct

Dear Mike,

As President of the Registrars Constituency, I am sure that you can 
appreciate the need to internalize the spirit of Reform.  I write to you 
because as a representative of the domain name industry you must be keenly 
aware of the fact that registrars still do not have a "Code of Conduct" and 
that such a measure would be well in keeping with the reform initiative 
underway.  For the sake of the integrity of the industry, may I prevail upon 
you to commit yourself to the establishment of such a code?  We all would 
benefit from this type of industry self-regulation, and your leadership in 
this area would be welcomed by many in the registrant community.

Best wishes,
Danny

- --
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 #1384
*************************