Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #218
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 31 2001         Volume 01 : Number 218

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:19:05 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
(---)
> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
> matter?

Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
and make it free from so called "trolls".

Regards

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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, 30 Jan 2001 08:54:04 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] status of the GA

Hello Mikael,

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 7:19:05 AM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> (---)
>> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
>> matter?

> Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
> parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
> ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
> GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
> and make it free from so called "trolls".

They got rid of Baptista, and they got rid of all but one of the
sundry personalities of Jeff Williams.

What more do you want?

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:03:35 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

At 05:04 AM 1/30/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Greg,
>>
>>There has been virtually no activity on this list for the past month. I
>>believe that the chair's term has expired. Could someone clarify
>>and  update this, please?

>>Indeed, my term has expired, and due to increasing work and personal 
>>committments started in 2001 I am looking forward to a relay.

>I personally think that the GA should instead elect its chair directly, 
>except that this needs a change in the ICANN bylaws. As I said at the 
>ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey, I could wait for a couple of months to 
>allow the new procedure to be put in place.

I remember the discussion in Marina Del Rey, which is why I brought it up. 
I may be missing something, but I haven't seen this addressed by the NC at 
all. As I recall, an interim solution was suggested, that the NC simply 
pass a resolution declaring their intent to appoint an elected candidate. 
Apparently there has been no discussion of this either, and it doesn't 
appear to be on the current NC agenda.

>This said, thanks for having raised the issue, because I have the 
>impression that nothing moves, and that therefore we may found ourselves 
>at the next meeting at more or less the same point.

Or worse.

>What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
>matter?

I would conclude that the GA is ill-defined, has no mandate to do anything, 
and that the NC has neglected it's duties to "manage the consensus-building 
process" in regards to the GA specifically.

Regards,
Greg

[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:03:13 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

I second that.

Bruce James

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mikael Pawlo" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
(---)
> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
> matter?

Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
and make it free from so called "trolls".

Regards

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01

- --
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, 30 Jan 2001 09:42:01 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] status of the GA

> From: Greg Burton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:04 AM

> >What would you conclude if not that there is not a great 
> interest in the 
> >matter?
> 
> I would conclude that the GA is ill-defined, has no mandate 
> to do anything, 
> and that the NC has neglected it's duties to "manage the 
> consensus-building 
> process" in regards to the GA specifically.

Agreed.
- --
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, 30 Jan 2001 18:57:16 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 08:54 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 7:19:05 AM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > (---)
> >> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
> >> matter?
> 
> > Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
> > parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
> > ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
> > GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
> > and make it free from so called "trolls".
> 
> They got rid of Baptista, and they got rid of all but one of the
> sundry personalities of Jeff Williams.
> 
> What more do you want?

This is too sarcastic, William.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders 

 /"\                         / http://www.bijt.net/ 
 \ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN /  
  X   AGAINST HTML MAIL    / 
 / \  AND POSTINGS        / http://mydomainline.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, 30 Jan 2001 10:02:19 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] status of the GA

Hello marc,

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 9:57:16 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 08:54 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 7:19:05 AM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> > (---)
>> >> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
>> >> matter?
>> 
>> > Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
>> > parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
>> > ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
>> > GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
>> > and make it free from so called "trolls".
>> 
>> They got rid of Baptista, and they got rid of all but one of the
>> sundry personalities of Jeff Williams.
>> 
>> What more do you want?

> This is too sarcastic, William.

I think the blaming of "the Jeff Williams-factor" for lack of DNSO
participation is a very faulty statement to make, Marc.  He has posted
only 2 messages here in the month of January.  The IDNO has had to
deal with him more than the GA has.

But I was NOT being sarcastic, I was serious.  Roberto and Harald
effectively got rid of Baptista, and all but the dominant personality
of Jeff's.  While I would like to see that personality disappear as
well, the fact is that he has a right to participate, even under a
pseudonym, provided he abides by the same rules we do.

I don't see JW has being a factor at all in the apathy in the DNSO.
The problem in the DNSO goes much deeper, and I think the JW comment
incorrectly trivializes the real issues.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:41:49 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

I am sorry, but I must object to this.

Seconding a text ad hominem is making it a motion ad
hominem and is against every rules.  Mr. Jeff Williams
is entitled a proper respect until a competent body removes
him his access rights. The current silence of this list
shows the sillence of the "trolls".

Jefsey

On 17:03 30/01/01, Bruce James said:
>I second that.
>
>Bruce James
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mikael Pawlo" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:19 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA
>
>
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>(---)
> > What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the
> > matter?
>
>Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
>parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
>ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
>GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
>and make it free from so called "trolls".
>
>Regards
>
>Mikael
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked]
>   cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01
>
>--
>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, 30 Jan 2001 19:54:19 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 10:02 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 9:57:16 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 08:54 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 7:19:05 AM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >> > (---)
> >> >> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
> >> >> matter?
> >> 
> >> > Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
> >> > parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
> >> > ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
> >> > GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
> >> > and make it free from so called "trolls".
> >> 
> >> They got rid of Baptista, and they got rid of all but one of the
> >> sundry personalities of Jeff Williams.
> >> 
> >> What more do you want?
> 
> > This is too sarcastic, William.
> 
> I think the blaming of "the Jeff Williams-factor" for lack of DNSO
> participation is a very faulty statement to make, Marc. [...]

Sorry, I did not make myself at all clear. _I_ was trying to be
sarcastic perhaps. I tried to intimate that some people might reply to
your question "What more do you want?": that _you_ go away. Many
people are put off by very long threads involving just 2 or 3
people. I mean no harm. We may both take this matter to heart and
restrain ourselves in posting again and again.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders 

 /"\                         / http://www.bijt.net/ 
 \ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN /  
  X   AGAINST HTML MAIL    / 
 / \  AND POSTINGS        / http://mydomainline.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, 30 Jan 2001 10:59:28 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] status of the GA

Hello marc,

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 10:54:19 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 10:02 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 9:57:16 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, at 08:54 [=GMT-0800], William X. Walsh wrote:
>> >> Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 7:19:05 AM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> >> > (---)
>> >> >> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
>> >> >> matter?
>> >> 
>> >> > Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
>> >> > parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
>> >> > ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
>> >> > GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
>> >> > and make it free from so called "trolls".
>> >> 
>> >> They got rid of Baptista, and they got rid of all but one of the
>> >> sundry personalities of Jeff Williams.
>> >> 
>> >> What more do you want?
>> 
>> > This is too sarcastic, William.
>> 
>> I think the blaming of "the Jeff Williams-factor" for lack of DNSO
>> participation is a very faulty statement to make, Marc. [...]

> Sorry, I did not make myself at all clear. _I_ was trying to be
> sarcastic perhaps. I tried to intimate that some people might reply to
> your question "What more do you want?": that _you_ go away. Many
> people are put off by very long threads involving just 2 or 3
> people. I mean no harm. We may both take this matter to heart and
> restrain ourselves in posting again and again.

They would have no basis.  Since Roberto's last request to do so, I've
restrained myself from posting much of anything, and particularly
avoided the subject of the IDNO, and haven't even posted to the GA
list about the recent....events...in the IDNO.

Other than today, for the rest of this month there had been only one
post from me, and that was a comment on the prices being charged by
ccTLDs, and the accusation of impropriety against .nu.

I treat forums differently.  What I might say on the IDNO forum, or
the domain policy forum, is completely different than what I might say
here or on other forums.

I don't judge your participation here by your actions (or lack
thereof) in the IDNO, perhaps you should do the same.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:23:13 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> I am sorry, but I must object to this. 
> Seconding a text ad hominem is making it a motion ad
> hominem and is against every rules.  Mr. Jeff Williams
> is entitled a proper respect until a competent body removes
> him his access rights. The current silence of this list
> shows the sillence of the "trolls".

Dear Mr Morfin et al,
What's troubling me with the General Assembly of the DNSO is that it's
more of a joke than a serious effort to create a general assembly. The
current chair has utterly failed in creating a GA that inspire confidence
and has clear motives and transparent goals. I have nothing against the
current chairman, but when looking on what's been achieved in this forum
the failure is a fact.

A new chair must be able to create a whole new confidence and an agenda
that is widely accepted in the DNSO.

When you consider my Jeff Williams reference an ad hominem-argument you
probably don't see how low the confidence in the GA is. Also, it seems you
know little of the Jeff Williams FAQ. Check for example:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html

This is way beyond ad hominem. This is just a pretty lame try to disrupt
the process as such. Unfortunately, the current chair has not been able to
fight the constant disruptions from Jeffrey A. Williams and his likes. I
can't say I would have done a better job, since the situation is beyond
anything I have seen in other events. I don't know who's behind all those
disrupting processes, it might be an organized effort, it might not be.

Well, this was just my two cents, anyway.

Best Regards,

Mikael Pawlo
Stockholm, Sweden

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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, 30 Jan 2001 14:32:24 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] status of the GA

Hello Mikael,

2 posts in the last month are a constant disruption?

I think the chair and Harald did an excellent job in controlling JW,
and found the right balance between his right to be here and post, as
any person has that right, and requiring them to adhere to rules of
civil conduct.

Your criticism of them here for not properly handling that situation
is offensive to me, as a member of the GA.

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 12:23:13 PM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>> I am sorry, but I must object to this. 
>> Seconding a text ad hominem is making it a motion ad
>> hominem and is against every rules.  Mr. Jeff Williams
>> is entitled a proper respect until a competent body removes
>> him his access rights. The current silence of this list
>> shows the sillence of the "trolls".

> Dear Mr Morfin et al,
> What's troubling me with the General Assembly of the DNSO is that it's
> more of a joke than a serious effort to create a general assembly. The
> current chair has utterly failed in creating a GA that inspire confidence
> and has clear motives and transparent goals. I have nothing against the
> current chairman, but when looking on what's been achieved in this forum
> the failure is a fact.

> A new chair must be able to create a whole new confidence and an agenda
> that is widely accepted in the DNSO.

> When you consider my Jeff Williams reference an ad hominem-argument you
> probably don't see how low the confidence in the GA is. Also, it seems you
> know little of the Jeff Williams FAQ. Check for example:
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html

> This is way beyond ad hominem. This is just a pretty lame try to disrupt
> the process as such. Unfortunately, the current chair has not been able to
> fight the constant disruptions from Jeffrey A. Williams and his likes. I
> can't say I would have done a better job, since the situation is beyond
> anything I have seen in other events. I don't know who's behind all those
> disrupting processes, it might be an organized effort, it might not be.

> Well, this was just my two cents, anyway.

> Best Regards,

> Mikael Pawlo
> Stockholm, Sweden

> _________________________________________________________________________

>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
>   cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:01:36 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Roberto may help us using the GA for good

Dear Bruce and Pawlo,
FYI  I started reading Jeff Williams' posts and had long fruitful exchanges
with him. He has metaphors and humor of his own. Usually third degree. I
had a lot of fun decrypting his cryptic posts... and took advantage of some.

On 20:23 30/01/01, Mikael Pawlo said:
>When you consider my Jeff Williams reference an ad hominem-argument you
>probably don't see how low the confidence in the GA is. Also, it seems you
>know little of the Jeff Williams FAQ. Check for example:
>http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html
>
>This is way beyond ad hominem. This is just a pretty lame try to disrupt
>the process as such. Unfortunately, the current chair has not been able to
>fight the constant disruptions from Jeffrey A. Williams and his likes.

What you name "his likes" are perturbators. Some are very professional
and you do not notice them before they made a lot of harm. They are a
real danger to net-democracy in a virtual environment where you do not
meet face to face, discussions are asynchronous and people usually
think that on a same forum participants share the same basic concerns.

>I can't say I would have done a better job, since the situation is beyond
>anything I have seen in other events. I don't know who's behind all those
>disrupting processes, it might be an organized effort, it might not be.

Organizing anything in this environment is very costly and consuming.
As everywhere in life there are three kind of people/forces:

- - the people who have no idea and who stick to the rules only because
   they are here
- - the people who have ideas for their own and enjoy playing with the
   forum, either to be pleased others agree with them (the pompous
   bores) or to disrupt the process (perturbators)
- - the people who have ideas for the others. Some will try to use them
   to their benefit and to lead the group (often in manipulating), other will
   serve as gurus or advisors, other will try to keep the system moving.

On the Internet the difficulty of making the system moving is that
e-relations are very weak and an iCANN bylaws change by 10 directors
in a remote room may kill years of e-efforts (look at the DNSO Review
report after so much works/debates at the WG-Review).

So, the only reliable solution to make things moving is to build "aside".
The GA is offering us that possibility. This is an iCANN/DNSO space
which is free of rules. Let set-up our own de facto rules and let work.

How? Let assume that the BoD asks the DNSO a report. If the GA
organizes itself and produces a parallel better report than the NC and
if this becomes something usual the GA organization will prevail.

Is that feasible? I think so. But is up to us. As Karl Auerbach advised
it and we started doing it at the WG-Review: we just have to self-set
up and organize Centers of Interest and have specialized discussions,
accumulating experience, links, competences.

For that we need only one thing: that a certain number of GA
Members together may obtain a DNSO/GA sub-ML to be created
for them to discuss a topic. This is something for Roberto and
Elisabeth to organize. If they do not do it, we will do it by ourselves,
but outside of the DNSO, but inside would be more positive.

BTW I do think Roberto did a good job (I though as you do) but
he was trapped into the bylaws: we have learned with him and
Harald. Next Chair should just do nothing, leaving Harald
moderating (what he does well), protecting us from NC interest.

Jefsey

- --
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, 30 Jan 2001 19:48:21 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] status of the GA

I too have found much of the mail I receive from the GA mailinglist time
consuming, and yet, not productive.  I think the GA could benefit from an
agreed to process which can work so that anyone who wants to  make serious
and on topic contributions can do so, without  rants and raves.  

I'm perplexed about how one can help that happen, but it does seem a
worthwhile goal, and one which is needed before people return to
participate. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Pawlo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:19 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
(---)
> What would you conclude if not that there is not a great interest in the 
> matter?

Don't underestimate the Jeff Williams-factor. I think a lot of interested
parties - like yours truly - got tired of the konstant rants and raves and
ramblings on the GA mailinglist. The most important assignment for a new
GA chair should - in my humble opinion - be to set the GA straight again
and make it free from so called "trolls".

Regards

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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, 31 Jan 2001 08:38:59 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] status of the GA

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I too have found much of the mail I receive from the GA mailinglist time
> consuming, and yet, not productive.  I think the GA could benefit from an
> agreed to process which can work so that anyone who wants to  make serious
> and on topic contributions can do so, without  rants and raves.   
> I'm perplexed about how one can help that happen, but it does seem a
> worthwhile goal, and one which is needed before people return to
> participate. 

If we are a more than a few with this position it might be worthwhile to
achieve it. I'm not against a second period of service for Mr Gaetano if
this goal will be the driving force behind the new agenda of the chairman.
This is, of course, if Mr Gaetano is willing to devote his talents to the
GA once more.

Regards,

Mikael

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:39:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] status of the GA

Hello Mikael,

"This goal" means that you are supporting wholesale censorship.

This is not like what Roberto and Harald so wisely did last year in
enforcing rules of civil discourse, this is wholesale censorship.

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 11:38:59 PM, Mikael Pawlo wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>> I too have found much of the mail I receive from the GA mailinglist time
>> consuming, and yet, not productive.  I think the GA could benefit from an
>> agreed to process which can work so that anyone who wants to  make serious
>> and on topic contributions can do so, without  rants and raves.   
>> I'm perplexed about how one can help that happen, but it does seem a
>> worthwhile goal, and one which is needed before people return to
>> participate. 

> If we are a more than a few with this position it might be worthwhile to
> achieve it. I'm not against a second period of service for Mr Gaetano if
> this goal will be the driving force behind the new agenda of the chairman.
> This is, of course, if Mr Gaetano is willing to devote his talents to the
> GA once more.

> Regards,

> Mikael

> _________________________________________________________________________

>   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
>   cell phone stolen in subway                 http://www.pawlo.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

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:14:35 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP review

Am I mistaken remembering that a review of the UDRP was due somewhat
_now_?

- ---
[In reply to a request to remove a link to a contested UDRP-decision
from ICANN's website:]
"The Committee urges Messrs. Corelli and Trefil to advocate their
views on the publication rule to the broader community during ICANN's
review of the UDRP later this year."

http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-06jun00.htm

(Special meeting of the Board of ICANN 6 June 2000)
- ---

This cannot but mean that later in the year 2000 a review of the UDRP
was scheduled.

Have I not been paying attention?

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

- --
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 #218
************************