Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1628
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 11 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1628

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

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:41:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO/ICANN Board elections: Candidate's statement

John and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> Since we are all just spectators out here in the cheap seats, is there going
> to be a swimsuit or evening gown competition for us to watch.

  ROFLMAO!  >:)  This IS funny!  Yet it seems fitting strangely
enough! >:)

>
>
> I've heard that Mike Palage has a great set of legs.

I hope he has the good taste to ware a one piece swim suit!  >:)
How is his evening gown look?  >:)  I am sure it is JUST stunning!  >;)
But you know John, some of the female candidates might get
a little jealous of Mike...  We wouldn't want that to happen, would
we!  >:)

>
>
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:10:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

Barbara and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Barbara Simons wrote:

> Dear Jeff et al,
> Please see my responses below.
> Barbara
>
> On 3/10/03 4:16 PM, "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Barbara and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
> >
> >
> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >
> >> If I am elected to the ICANN Board, I shall work at making the Board and its
> >> decision making process more open, responsible, and transparent.  In
> >> particular, I pledge to:
> >>
> >>     * Be accessible and responsive to the members of the public;
> >
> > Does this part of you pledge include responsible to the members
> > of the public and/or any and all stakeholders/users as well?
>
> As a Board member, I would attempt to be responsive to all stakeholders and
> users, most certainly including members of the public.  Obviously, a single
> individual cannot communicate with thousands of stakeholders.

  Why do you believe that a single individual cannot communicate with
thousands of stakeholders?  I do it almost every day.  This very post
is going to 10's of thousands of stakeholders for example.

>  But I would
> do my best to be clear about my positions and to listen and be responsive to
> the concerns of others.
>
> >>     * Create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy,
> >> economics, and the law;
> >
> > Would such a advisory "Group of Experts" be open to any and all
> > that wish to participate?
>
> I would be looking for volunteers, but I would select the people who would
> be advising me, based on their expertise, their willingness to work, their
> ability to get along with others, and my comfort at interacting with them.

  Good answer.  Thank you...

>
>
> >>     * Work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive -
> >> and that involves two-way communications from the Board to the public and
> >> from the public to the Board;
> >
> > Very good here!  >;)
> >
> >>
> >>     * Establish well defined procedures that will allow sufficient time for
> >> people to read and comment on issues, proposals, and initiatives;
> >
> > Will any and all interested parties or stakeholders/users in your
> > pledge here also have the contracted right to also have a vote in the
> > determination of any issues, proposals, and initiatives taken as well
> > before considered a standard/regulation by ICANN in your pledge?
>
> I don't see how I could hold a vote on all issues and proposals.

  Well  you could have your own poll at a minimum.  See for instance:
http://www.vote.com/  Over 51,511,000 Votes Cast!  And that is just
one example.  I can of course provide many more if called upon to do so.

>  I have a
> track record of having spent years working in an organization with strong
> democratic principles - ACM.  I care deeply about the future of the
> Internet, and I would do my best to preserve the Internet as an open channel
> of communication.

  THe ACM is a very good organization.  I did notice however that
the democratic principal of one man one vote doesn't seem to be
well represented in the ACM via the internet.  Do you now, and
have you always supported that basic democratic principal?
I also recall that You came out recently strongly opposed to
EVOTING.  Are you still opposed?  If so, can you perhaps
explain why Evoteing (Safely and securely done) is a growing
and desired extension or use of the internet for stakeholders/users
and your opposition recently?

>
>
> >>     * Guarantee that policy decisions are initiated and made by the Board,
> >> not by the staff.
> >
> > Does this include technical policy as well?  Will any and all
> > stakeholders/usres
> > also have a vote before implementation or a decision of such policies are
> > adopted in your pledge?
>
> As I said above, I don't see how I can hold a vote of stakeholders.

Ok, perhaps you need some execution here.  Start with
http://www.vote.com/ and http://www.surevote.com/
than progress to  http://www.evote.com/polls_section/pollingcontents.asp
and http://www.vis.org/visweb/html/ratings.htm

>  As far
> as technical policy issues are concerned, it would depend on how much policy
> was involved with the technology.  We know that some technologies are
> relatively neutral, and others have significant policy implications.  It's
> the later ones about which I have the greatest concern.

  Agreed and understood.  That is why stakeholders/users need to
at least have the opportunity to vote on such issues and policies in
order for the BoD to have a true measured consensus by which
they can than better and much more robustly serve the stakeholder/user
internet community.  Don't you agree?

>
>
> >> One of the aspects of having well defined procedures is that issues would
> >> not be voted on without first providing the public with reasonable notice
> >> and the opportunity to comment.
> >
> > Comment is wonderful Barbara, but is often ignored not considered
> > seriously.  Hence comment only is not good enough.  Therefore,
> > unless or until any and all stakeholders/usres vote on any and all
> > regulations, standards, initiatives, proposals, and/or policies before
> > they can be adopted or otherwise enacted.  Hence the board
> > should act as a enforcement arm of ICANN as much as it does
> > a facilitator.
>
> If I am elected, I'll be only one member of the Board.  I'll do my best to
> bring about the creation of well defined and observed policies and
> procedures within ICANN.  Without such policies and procedures, it becomes
> impossible for small stakeholders and individuals to participate in the
> ICANN process, because they don't have the resources to read and respond to
> documents on very short notice.

  Agreed and yes such procedures are not currently present in ICANN
now.  That is one of ICANN's biggest failings.  The ALSC forum, now
dead of course, had many good and workable ideas presented to address
this short coming of ICANN's.  But that meant that 51% of the BoD
would need to be elected by the stakeholders/users.  This is the
direction that is being called for more and more, and shall continue to
be until or unless ICANN is accountable to the stakeholders/users
directly.

>
>
> >>  Votes would be made in public and the
> >> results, together with how the individual Board members voted, would be
> >> posted in a prominent location on the ICANN website.
> >>
> >> I am uncomfortable with the idea of requiring that all email among Board
> >> members be made public.  I think that such a step would inhibit the give and
> >> take that is required in order for a body to reach a negotiated decision.
> >
> > Why would such inhibit give and take?  It shouldn't..  Openness is
> > always the best policy and practice.
>
> I agree about openness in public meetings.  Additionally, I don't approve of
> policy decisions being made behind closed doors, and would adamantly oppose
> such an activity.  However, I also would need the ability to conduct off the
> record discussions with fellow Board members.  I understand your reluctance
> to go along with such a proposal, and my view is that ICANN is so heavily
> political that it will be impossible to achieve any of the goals that I've
> stated above if I am unable to engage in frank discussions with other Board
> members.

  Understood completely here Barbara.  So I think you missed my meaning
in my previous response.  Any discussions privately or otherwise with
fellow board members pertaining to ICANN activities, regardless of
how trivial, must be available for public review.  This however does
not mean that some (Hopefully few) would be discussed in a public
setting or forum.

>
>
> >> Based on my experiences of working with a group with a variety of opinions
> >> (the U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM), I have found that I frequently
> >> need to engage in side email conversations with individuals in order to
> >> determine both what their primary concerns are and what kind of compromise
> >> might allow them to support a particular position.  These would be very
> >> awkward discussions to have in public, and I believe that my effectiveness
> >> would be reduced were I required to archive such discussions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Barbara

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:42:07 -0800
From: Barbara Simons <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

Dear Jeff,

I'm going to respond to a couple of key points below.  Then I'm afraid that
I'll have to stop this conversation, because I am overwhelmed with other
work that I must get done this week.

Regards,
Barbara

On 3/10/03 9:10 PM, "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> As a Board member, I would attempt to be responsive to all stakeholders and
>> users, most certainly including members of the public.  Obviously, a single
>> individual cannot communicate with thousands of stakeholders.
> 
> Why do you believe that a single individual cannot communicate with
> thousands of stakeholders?  I do it almost every day.  This very post
> is going to 10's of thousands of stakeholders for example.

Of course I would do my best to keep people informed of the issues and my
positions, and the Internet is an excellent tool for doing that. I was
thinking more of a two-way dialog.  I could not interact on an individual
basis with large numbers of people.
 
> Well  you could have your own poll at a minimum.  See for instance:
> http://www.vote.com/  Over 51,511,000 Votes Cast!  And that is just
> one example.  I can of course provide many more if called upon to do so.

I don't know if I would have the resources to conduct an Internet vote.  If
there turns out to be a way of doing so that does not cost anything and is
relatively easy to implement, then I might consider holding such a vote if
there are critical issues on which I would want public input.  I can't see
holding routine votes, but if it turns out to be straightforward and if
there is the interest, I might consider it.
 
> THe ACM is a very good organization.  I did notice however that
> the democratic principal of one man one vote doesn't seem to be
> well represented in the ACM via the internet.  Do you now, and
> have you always supported that basic democratic principal?
> I also recall that You came out recently strongly opposed to
> EVOTING.  Are you still opposed?  If so, can you perhaps
> explain why Evoteing (Safely and securely done) is a growing
> and desired extension or use of the internet for stakeholders/users
> and your opposition recently?

I have always supported the principle of one person one vote.  But I have
recently been very involved with fighting against computerized voting
machines that have no backup.  In other words, there is no way to verify
that your vote is recorded as you think it should be.  The outcome of an
election can be influenced by machine malfunction, software bugs, or insider
malfeasance.  This is a very very dangerous situation.  Anyone who cares
about preserving our democracy should check out
http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html.

I believe that Internet voting may work for obtaining feedback or even for
elections that are not as critical as national political elections, eg
Boards of Directors of corporations.  But Internet voting can be subverted
more easily even than computerized voting.  So I would argue against
Internet voting for any election that really mattered.  I realize that that
creates problems in terms of establishing any kind of democratically elected
ICANN Board members, and I don't know how to deal with that.

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 00:20:54 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

Barbara, thanks for your posting. I do have one question. The view that many have is that policy should be made
by the Councils, not by either the staff or the board. I wondered about your response suggesting that policy decisions would be initiated by the Board... You seem to be elevating policy to the Board, which has been resisted by the broadest set of ICANN participants... perhaps I'm misunderstanding your views here.  Could you comment on the role of the Councils in that case? 
- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:13 PM
To: Barbara Simons; Danny Younger; [email-masked]
Cc: Alejandro Pisanty; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

At 07:44 a.m. 11/03/2003, Barbara Simons wrote:
>If I am elected to the ICANN Board, I shall work at making the Board and its
>decision making process more open, responsible, and transparent.  In
>particular, I pledge to:
>
>     * Be accessible and responsive to the members of the public;
>     * Create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy,
>economics, and the law;
>     * Work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive -
>and that involves two-way communications from the Board to the public and
>from the public to the Board;
>     * Establish well defined procedures that will allow sufficient time for
>people to read and comment on issues, proposals, and initiatives;
>     * Guarantee that policy decisions are initiated and made by the Board,
>not by the staff.

Thank you, Barbara.
Not only for responding, but also for these (huge) undertakings.

- --Joop--
www.icannatlarge.com

Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:44:23 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment  s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- --=======68CA68D8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F0E1EF9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Joe,
The ITU is not perfect. Its main quality is to be predictable (bylaws 
changes takes decades) and fair because people wants a fair ROI as ICANN 
but there they pay in the open. Now let not be abused by the rates. Just 
compare how much the ICANN constituencies are asked to pay per years. The 
NCC would never have been charged anything as a non-profit.

As I explained yesterday, the ITU-T would not be appropriate for us. Its 
rules may help understanding  how the ITU-I could be set-up. Most of all 
there is a need for an ITU-U (users: again not as end-users but as extended 
services providers/developpers on top of the network added value to the 
telephone lines that ITU-T manages).

I would be interested in knowing how many people work at the ITU-T and the 
worldwide Telecom turn-over, and in comparing it to the number of ICANN 
employees and the Internet industry turn-over. I think you would probably 
discover that the bureaucrats are at ICANN.

jfc

On 16:33 10/03/03, Joe Baptista said:

>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Anybody can download up to three ITU-T Recommendations per year for free
> > from our web site.
> >
> > I agree that this is not the same as IETF or ICANN where everything is
> > available for free.
>
>Richard - may i make a recommendation to you.  To remain relevant in
>cyberspace you can't put up roadblocks to propaganda.  The only people who
>are going to be interested in it are indeed very small in number.  If you
>want to be relevant to the internet community then you make your stuff
>free.
>
>This policy is one of those dino affairs.  Obvioulsy the ITU is run by
>professional bureacrats which means in short interent twits.  this is not
>an offence - it is a standard.  The common internet twit is someone who
>knows to little about the internet - but who feel they know it all - and
>as a result cause a great deal of fuss over nothing.  This is essentially
>the state of affairs throughout the internet.
>
>regards
>joe baptista
>
>Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god
>
>   Can you see this domain http://www.baptista.god/
>
>   if ANSWER = NO THEN U.S. government controls your surfing habits
>   if ANSWER = YES THEN your a pioneer and you already know whats going on
>
>       find out more http://www.pacificroot.com/ (Americas)
>                  or http://www.newroot.com/ (Europa)
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======68CA68D8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F0E1EF9
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======68CA68D8=======--

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 09:31:04 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 21:43
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, at 14:31 [=GMT+0100], [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Anybody can download up to three ITU-T Recommendations per 
> year for free
> > from our web site.
> >
> > I agree that this is not the same as IETF or ICANN where 
> everything is
> > available for free.
> 
> Or WIPO, IIRC. Makes one think about IntProp.
> 
> It isn't enough, 3 texts. There are more than 3 documents 
> about e.164. So
> anyone interesting in _studying_ e.164, has to come up with cash, or
> cannot get the full ITU picture. I must say that I find it 
> outrageous that
> we are charged to be able to participate. This does not at all suggest
> that there is a open bottom up process. And even apart from 
> participation,
> standards should be freely available. It is the best road to get them
> implemented, I guess.

These comments have been made before and discussed in ITU.  At present, the
membership feels that it is appropriate to recover the costs of publication.

The topic will certainly continue to be discussed and the consensus might
change in the future.

Best,
Richard
- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 10:01:56 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment  s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- --=======48E569A7=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F0E1EF9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 21:42 10/03/03, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>I do understand that the ITU needs financing. But the path it has chosen,
>to do this in part by charging for texts, has the side effect that it will
>make participation more difficult, except for companies. Is that what you
>want?

Marc,
there is a small difference between ITU-T and what should be ITU-I.

The members are large Telephone companies and Gov civil servants.
These people work on p-documents, not on e-documents. Also, the
ITU-T used to work by sessions like a Parliament where drafts are
proposed in hours, or in half-hours. The paper distribution at coffee
breaks is sometimes impressive (at least when I used to be
there). The paper printing is important. One of the aspect is that
these papers are also mailed to non participants and that members
distribute it a lot in their organizations locally. On-line is just another
way to mail p-mail.

An ITU-I should come IMO with two basic features the lack of are
the reasons why every effort not having them and no staff will fail:

- - a free electonic pdf distribution system, with a good info support
- - a free transparent e-management system of which the use is
   the proof of membership (with voting, information, archiving,
   etc.) mechanism.

jfc

- --=======48E569A7=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F0E1EF9
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=======48E569A7=======--

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 10:26:22 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 17:44
> To: Joe Baptista
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in knowing how many people work at the 
> ITU-T 

There are currently 66 people in the TSB, which is the official name for the
permanent staff of ITU-T.  Of those, about half are people like me who
directly support meetings and the process of producing Recommendations, and
half are "back-office" people who publish documents (electronically or
physically).

The central ITU secretariat provides significant support services (IT,
buildings, etc) to TSB, so about half of the TSB's budget goes to the
central secretariat.

Best,
Richard

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 10:59:04 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, 10 March 2003 23:14
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> Richard and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
> 
> How many free downloadable recommendations
> do ITU member organizations get?

Sector Members have full access to all the information on the ITU's web
site.

>  Do associate members get
> any extra free recommendations? 

Associates have access to the information for the Study Group of which they
are members.

Best,
Richard
- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 12:01:55 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote on 10 March 2003 23:27: 
"All parties to this discussion need to read Carl Malamud's book on his
odyssey to try to publish ITU recommendations on the internet."

For Carl's book see:

http://museum.media.org/eti/

And yes, it is a very good read!

Gordon Lennox

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 12:21:32 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:31:41PM +0100,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 33 lines which said:

> Please see below for free access to ITU-T Recommendations.
...
> Anybody can download up to three ITU-T Recommendations per year for free
> from our web site.

ROTFL! There is not often humour on the GA list. *Three*
recommendations. I download several RFC a week!

> I agree that this is not the same as IETF or ICANN where everything is
> available for free.

Not only available but also redistributable. Often, ITU bureaucrats
explain the impossibility to download documents by the lack of
bandwidth on their servers. The obvious solution is mirroring, like
the IETF does, but it is forbidden by the ITU.

And have a look at the form you are forced to fill in:

https://ecs.itu.ch/cgi-bin/run/ebookshop?choice=
- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 12:25:26 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:01:55PM +0100,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 17 lines which said:

> For Carl's book see:
> 
> http://museum.media.org/eti/
> 
> And yes, it is a very good read!

I fully agree (I tried myself to convince ITU to publish texts) and I
can add that nothing changed in the last years. Very often, people
trying to push for a more important role of the ITU in the Internet
say that the ITU has changed, that it is no longer the bureaucratic
and closed monster it was. But a simple look at ITU publication policy
suffices to show the opposite:

http://www.itu.int/itudoc/gs/subscirc/itu-t/198-8.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, 11 Mar 2003 06:52:20 -0500
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

This is my last e-mail on this subject. 
I think this sets a precedent. 
Now everbody is able to legally call you WIPO people LIERS! 

Max

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:14:40 -0800
To: Max Meier <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> Max and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
> 
>   The sure are and that is a terrible shame!  But as some of us
> have been aware for some time now, it was expected and has been
> ongoing for quite awhile...
> 
> Max Meier wrote:
> 
> > Yes liers act for WIPO as arbitrators and mediators. Unbelievable!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:36:33 -0500
> > To: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>, "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> >
> > >
> > > Hang it up, Max.  Nobody owes you an answer.
> > >
> > > WIPO lied to you when they promised to give you one.
> > >
> > > Get over it.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am still waiting.
> > > > How can one take them seriously if they are not able to answer a simple
> > > question within 3 months?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
> > > > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Meier,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your
> > > question and will come back to you shortly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> > --
> > 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- -- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

- --
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, 11 Mar 2003 06:52:20 -0500
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

This is my last e-mail on this subject. 
I think this sets a precedent. 
Now everbody is able to legally call you WIPO people LIERS! 

Max

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:14:40 -0800
To: Max Meier <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> Max and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
> 
>   The sure are and that is a terrible shame!  But as some of us
> have been aware for some time now, it was expected and has been
> ongoing for quite awhile...
> 
> Max Meier wrote:
> 
> > Yes liers act for WIPO as arbitrators and mediators. Unbelievable!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:36:33 -0500
> > To: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>, "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> >
> > >
> > > Hang it up, Max.  Nobody owes you an answer.
> > >
> > > WIPO lied to you when they promised to give you one.
> > >
> > > Get over it.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am still waiting.
> > > > How can one take them seriously if they are not able to answer a simple
> > > question within 3 months?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
> > > > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Mr. Meier,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your
> > > question and will come back to you shortly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
> >
> > --
> > 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- -- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

- --
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 #1628
*************************