Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1631
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, March 14 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1631

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

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:54:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

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

  Even more frequently publicly held companies board elections by
stock holders is done via evoting systems of one kind or another.
This is simply more cost effective and safer for the stock holders
voting their shares.  I personally have done this many times.

Barbara Simons wrote:

> I agree that corporate elections take place on a regular basis with little
> to no difficulty.  Frequently, they have paper ballots, and they are rarely
> contentious.  If there were a high stakes election with large numbers of
> supporters on both sides and a significant number of votes that were cast
> via computer with no paper ballot backup, then you might start seeing some
> real dissension.  Under the scenario that I describe, there would be no way
> for the winners to prove that they won fair and square, if indeed they did,
> and there would be no way for the losers to convince themselves that they
> had actually lost - especially in a close election.
>
> However, I am much more concerned about governmental elections where the
> stakes frequently are high and people could well be motivated to attempt to
> steal the election.  As I mentioned, the Senatorial race in Georgia in 2002
> resulted in a major upset that contradicted both opinion and exit polls.
> The entire state used computerized voting machines with no backup.
> Consequently, there is no way of knowing whether or not that election was
> stolen.
>
> Please read the material on David Dill's webpage, especially the FAQ, which
> is not long and can be found at http://verify.stanford.edu/EVOTE/faq.html.
>
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> On 3/12/03 12:34 PM, "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > For the purpose of board elections, every publically-traded company in the
> > United States manages to conduct elections which involve the voting of
> > millions of shares of stock owned by people all over the world, and they
> > manage to do so without tremendous difficulty because the concerns in such
> > board elections are not the same as those of political elections in Santa
> > Clara County.
> >
> > The idea that a corporation cannot have a simple distributed voting mechanism
> > for electing board members flies in the face of the reality of corporate
> > elections which are conducted all of the time without any significant
> > problems whatsoever.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel here.
> >
> > Do multinational corporations conduct large scale elections?  Yes.  All of
> > the time.  And without incident.

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: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:19:21 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

>
> However, I am much more concerned about governmental elections where the
> stakes frequently are high and people could well be motivated to
> attempt to
> steal the election.  As I mentioned, the Senatorial race in
> Georgia in 2002 [...]

Fortunately in the context of ICANN, we are not talking about races with
stakes that high.

I fully understand the issue with electronic voting machines and US
political elections.  It is utterly off-topic.

However, what we are talking about here is a corporate board election, which
is a tremendously mundane thing done every day -even when, such as the
recent Compaq acquisition vote, there certainly are hotly contested and
close issues.

One member of the ICANN board who wins a close election is not going to end
up in a position to launch nuclear weapons - that person will still just be
one member of a board [1].  So, while the voting system discussion is
fascinating, it has absolutely nothing to do with the worn out argument that
large scale international corporate board elections is either *new* or
*unworkable*.  This canard about a corporate board election is tiresome.

One has to laugh pretty hard about the hoo-ha surrounding the first ICANN
at-large election, and how it was touted as a first-of-its-kind
earth-shattering event of some kind.  Come on, people, this is a corporate
board election.  It is neither difficult nor a big deal.

John

[1] unless Mike Roberts gets onto the board...
http://www.dnso.com/comics/2002/Feb/6/

- --
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, 12 Mar 2003 17:37:09 -0800
From: Barbara Simons <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: A Question for the Candidates

I agree, and I apologize for being off-topic.  Still, it's really quite
amazing how many people, including voting officials, don't understand the
issues with electronic voting machines.
Regards,
Barbara

On 3/12/03 5:19 PM, "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Fortunately in the context of ICANN, we are not talking about races with
> stakes that high.
> 
> I fully understand the issue with electronic voting machines and US
> political elections.  It is utterly off-topic.

- --
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, 12 Mar 2003 21:20:08 -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,

  I understand your concern, as it seems that John does along with others
regarding SOME types of  " Electronic Voting Machines".  It is equally
amazing how a few technologists, computer scientists, academics and public
interest organization folks that don't understand the issues with in this area

of advancing technology as well.

  However the implications of the use of Evoting with ICANN are
obvious, loom large in the future and have in the past, and are central
to stakeholder/user representation and determination on other internet
issues we all now face..   This must be addressed and settled with all
due but deliberate careful haste...  Thus far failing to do so, has been
debilitating, disruptive, destructive and at least lead to much distrust
in ICANN, and in many stakeholders/users minds, rendered
ICANN in near or complete illegitimacy...

Barbara Simons wrote:

> I agree, and I apologize for being off-topic.  Still, it's really quite
> amazing how many people, including voting officials, don't understand the
> issues with electronic voting machines.
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> On 3/12/03 5:19 PM, "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Fortunately in the context of ICANN, we are not talking about races with
> > stakes that high.
> >
> > I fully understand the issue with electronic voting machines and US
> > political elections.  It is utterly off-topic.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:41:50 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm

Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:30:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Airplane critic gets sued over site -- but insurance pays defense

Declan and all,

  Very interesting case here.  Perhaps the ICANN GNSO/DNSO
UDRP Task force could gain a clue from these sorts of cases.
But somehow I kinda doubt it...
And so the TM - Domain Name wars continue...

  That's sticking it to them Jim and Paul!

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> ---
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:00:49 -0500
> From: "Paul Levy" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: "First they nearly killed me ... now they're suing me!"
>
> That is the theme for the latest in the Internet trademark wars.
>
> Jim Folts, who lives near Knoxville Tennessee, suffered a mishap in a
> private plane that he was flying, and he felt that Piedmont Hawthorne
> Aviation, an airplane repair shop that had serviced his plane, was
> responsible.  He took his problem to the National Transportation Safety
> Board, which found that Piedmont Hawthorne was responsible.  But when
> Folts set up a website titled Aircraft Pilots for Better Maintenance,
> and used Piedmont Hawthorne's name is his domain name and meta tags,
> Piedmont Hawthorne sued Folts alleging trademark and defamation
> theories.
>
> Piedmont appears to have sued the wrong guy, at the wrong time.  It is
> the wrong guy because Folts doesn't like being pushed around and, it
> turns out, he has the luxury of being able to afford to stand up for his
> free speech rights because Folts is covered for this lawsuit by his
> insurance.  So he is going to have a fully financed and high-class
> defense.  Indeed, the first thing I ask any cybergriper who comes to me
> is, do you have insurance coverage so that you can hire a lawyer.  If
> more people thoughy about this BEFORE they got threatened with
> litigation, they'd be a lot better off.  Second, the lawsuit was filed
> within days after the Sixth Circuit decided Taubman v. Mishkoff, which
> would seem to preclude the trademark claims altogether.   (we actually
> decided not to take the case because, in light of Taubman, it seemed
> clear to us that the trademark claims were untenable and the only real
> issues in the case was deframation for which a local lawyer would be
> better)
>
> The story, including information about the lawsuit, is now on Folts'
> website at http://www.aircraft-maintenance.com .  He stopped using the
> Piedmont-related domain name after he consulted a local lawyer.   Now
> that he has experienced trademark counsel, however, that may well
> change.
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:42:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

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

  I heard a rumor from a number of our .AU registrants and members
of the libral party in Australia, that Tony Staley is commonly referred
openly as "Tony the Twit".  I hope that rumor is incorrect!

  In any event, I do know that as a political "Appointee" he doesn't
have the support of the .AU registrants.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
>
> Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
> Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
> Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.
> --
> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] 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

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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:30:14 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

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?
>

I don't want to interfere with Richard, who is best qualified to explain the 
position of the ITU, but I would like to add a couple of bits from my direct 
experience.
Around 1997 (I'm quoting from memory, so it might have been 1996 or 1998) 
there has been a debate at ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute, to change the policy on publication of standards for the general 
public. The decision has been to provide them free of charge (in fact, it 
was cost recovery, but for internet downloads this means 0), and the loss of 
revenue was covered by other means.
At that time, I remember having had dicussions on this topic also with ITU 
people, and the matter was brought up also at TSAG. In private 
conversations, some of the ITU staff told me that they would have welcomed a 
similar decision from ITU, because they personally felt that the core 
business of the ITU was to produce recommendations, not to engage in 
administrative activities to sell them.
I would say, but that was only my personal impression at the time, that a 
range of different forces were pushing in that direction, and the target of 
access to docs at no charge seemed achievable.
ETSI could do it, because it would have recovered the costs from the regular 
membership fees, due to the increasing membership.

I don't know the situation at ITU, but at the IAEA we have a 
"zero-real-growth" budget that pushes us to look for alternative sources.
I would assume that this will be the current situation at ITU, because the 
budgeting policy is set by the Member States uniformly for the UN 
organizations (with few exceptions). Moreover, their non-governmental 
membership being mostly telcos, and knowing the current economical situation 
of the sector, I would not be surprised if the intention of changing the 
business model for dissemination of the recommendations were there, but not 
the possibility to cope with the corresponding loss of revenue.

However, I fail to see the link between the recommendation dissemination 
policy and a possible role of ITU for the Internet: this aspect has been 
even disregarded in the final drafting of the PSO charter in 1997. Nobody in 
a normal state of mind would propose the ITU as replacement of the IETF. 
Some could envisage to transfer to the ITU a small subset of the tasks 
currently under ICANN. I, personally, see the ITU as the natural repository 
for matters that are better placed under international jurisdiction, like 
the root.

IMHO, we are focusing too much on details that could have less relevance, 
and failing to discuss the innovative approach that some, including Karl 
Auerbach, are proposing: not to have one single monolythic gigantic 
all-covering structure, but to assign individual responsibilities to 
individual organizations, either existing or built for the purpose. In other 
words, instead of one solution for all, tailored solutions for specific 
problems.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:37:17 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2003 13:30
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> At that time, I remember having had dicussions on this topic [whether
Recommendations
> should be available for free]
> also with ITU 
> people, and the matter was brought up also at TSAG.

I can confirm that the matter has been discussed by the ITU's membership,
and will certainly continue to be discussed 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:46:35 +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)

At 13:30 13/03/03, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>IMHO, we are focusing too much on details that could have less relevance, 
>and failing to discuss the innovative approach that some, including Karl 
>Auerbach, are proposing: not to have one single monolythic gigantic 
>all-covering structure, but to assign individual responsibilities to 
>individual organizations, either existing or built for the purpose. In 
>other words, instead of one solution for all, tailored solutions for 
>specific problems.

Full agreement. But you know that this does not come easily. People tend to 
go by fashions and passions. To work out an I Sector organization 
proposition, to understand where ICANN fits, what is the IANA today in real 
life operation/governance, with DNS.2, what the ITU-I may bring to the Gov, 
to the world development, what are the dangers, what are the natural 
balance of powers and of protections, what are the relations with the other 
Sectors and development, etc. is what we have to work on. Because no one 
else will do it for us.

Or when a governance reorganization occurs - because it will necessary 
occur and it has already started and we helped it starting - we will have 
no reason complaining.
jfc

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:28:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, at 12:30 [=GMT-0000], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> However, I fail to see the link between the recommendation dissemination
> policy and a possible role of ITU for the Internet:

You are right that the fact that we have to pay to read the ITU texts, is
not central in the discussion. It came up, because Richard stressed that
the ITU did some things for free...

Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.
If you take yourself serious, you don't hide what you have to offer.

As soon as there is participation of those governed into the governing
organization it becomes _imperative_ that all material is accessible.
Otherwise it would be most easy to disqualify would be participants for
lack of knowledge. That is precisely what we want to avoid, I would hope.

So after all it might be more of a principle than it looks at first sight.

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:06:12 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

- ----- Original Message -----
>
> Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
> recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
> If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.

That's great, but then how do you pay the electric bill at the end of the
month?

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:28:08 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

At 3:06 PM -0500 3/13/03, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>>
>> Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
>> recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
>> If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.
>
>That's great, but then how do you pay the electric bill at the end of the
>month?

Wooh! I think I know this one!

Mousetrapping porn banner farm popups?

- -- 
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:01:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

of course it would be someone from the tiny minority of ccTLDs who have
signed contracts promising to obey icann.  Not someone who represents the
majority of ccTLDs.  

A bad sign: Icann is rigging the nomcom

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
> 
> Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
> Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
> Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.
> 

- -- 
		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 warm 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:45:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

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

  I find myself agreeing with Michael here.  This looks really bad.
Much like a Rig job!

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> of course it would be someone from the tiny minority of ccTLDs who have
> signed contracts promising to obey icann.  Not someone who represents the
> majority of ccTLDs.
>
> A bad sign: Icann is rigging the nomcom
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
> >
> > Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
> > Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
> > Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.
> >
>
> --
>                 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 warm 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

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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:57:02 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

Marc Schneiders wrote:

>Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
>recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
>If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.
>If you take yourself serious, you don't hide what you have to offer.
>
>As soon as there is participation of those governed into the governing
>organization it becomes _imperative_ that all material is accessible.
>Otherwise it would be most easy to disqualify would-be participants for
>lack of knowledge. That is precisely what we want to avoid, I would hope.
>  
>
I have been following this discussion with some interest.  The issue 
extends beyond proposed and enacted standards
to include laws and treaties  I represent Peter Veeck in litigation 
currently pending  before
the US Supreme Court contesting copyright of city ordinances (in our 
case, building codes).  The same arguments
are being made in our litigation as on this list.  Anyone interested in 
the court filings, etc., may visit Pete's site
<http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr>

- --
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 #1631
*************************