Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #232
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 232

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:49:40 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 22:47 9/02/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
[joop]
> > One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off
and
> > leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey
>
> > quote
> >>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive to be heard is
> >>so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might have for the
> >>common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
> > unquote
>
>[wxw]
>Lest anyone think that this message actually described real events
>that Joop is referring to, it is taken out of context, and in no way
>represents what actually happened in the IDNO, such as Joop is trying
>to make it appear.
>

It describes pretty accurately what is happening on the idno-discuss list
right now. 
I invite those who are interested to learn the lessons and see serious
participants resign (www.idno.org/archives) and see for themselves how the
posting privileges of a list can be abused by a few people  "without
consideration for the common good".
Don't take my word for it. Check the last few days for yourself.  
No need to say more about it here. It is sad enough as it is.

- --Joop--
www.idno.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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:57:37 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[5]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From:On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:50 PM
|>Subject: Re[5]: [ga] Reform in the GA?
|>
|>It describes pretty accurately what is happening on the idno-discuss list
|>right now. 
|>I invite those who are interested to learn the lessons and see serious
|>participants resign (www.idno.org/archives) and see for themselves how the
|>posting privileges of a list can be abused by a few people  "without
|>consideration for the common good".
|>Don't take my word for it. Check the last few days for yourself.  
|>No need to say more about it here. It is sad enough as it is.

I disagree with the assessment but support the notion of all interested parties reading the archives and checking for themselves.  Consideration of the common good is such a subjective term, it is often used by politicians to explain why they act in such ways to cause discomfort and concern to the majority.

If you wish to search for specific words I recommend the URL http://www.dhsnames.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=lies&ps=50&o=0&m=all&ul= as a starting point.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:12:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Ben,
> > Thank you for your enlightening post. Time is short now, so I'll be brief.
> > If you can get rid of  - "Of course, not every message can be read or
> > displayed.", you'll be half way to solving the problem IMO.
> >
> > I agree with Dassa that we should consider forwarding all comments as they
> > are made online. Ideally, Liason needs about a 20 second delay between
> > receiving the real time posts and screening to the public arena. That
> would
> > allow sufficient time to pick up on any real abuse and temporarily
> > disconnect, hopefully not crashing in the process, but freezing the screen
> > in the public arena, cutting the offensive post, then unfreezing. I would
> be
> > most interested to know if the technology exists to do this.
>
>   Yes it does.
>
> Great. Let's do it.

  Agreed!  Ben, you should be able to pick up the ball from here I believe?

>
>
> I would add that when the feed unfreezes, it must pick up again in real time
> (plus the 20 second delay), and not where it left off.
> The scribe should also note whose posts that have been cut from the public
> arena as part of standard procedures for the record.
>
> >
> >
> > Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by
> offering
> > at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.
>
>   ANd this was offered free of charge to ICANN before as Ben well
> knows.  It was however refused for some odd unknown reason....
>
> By whom and for what reason?

  Ben here I believe or the ICANN board at the time. As to the reason, I don't
know.  Your guess would be as good as mine....

>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Joanna
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dassa
> > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:08 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General
> > Assembly
> >
> > This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but
> has
> > any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and
> > questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow
> all
> > those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?
> Then
> > they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised
> by
> > someone inhouse if relevent.
> >
> > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
> > |>-----Original Message-----
> > |>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> > |>Edelman
> > |>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
> > |>To: [email-masked]
> > |>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
> > |>the General
> > |>Assembly
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>Joanna Lane wrote:
> > |>
> > |>> ...
> > |>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> > |>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
> > |>
> > |>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re
> > |>what specific
> > |>steps to take to give additional influence to online
> > |>participants.  To date,
> > |>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA,
> > |>Chair of the
> > |>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
> > |>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
> > |>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote
> > |>participants."
> > |>
> > |>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a
> > |>rhythm, we are
> > |>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives
> > |>reflect this) at
> > |>recognizing remote participants.
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
> > |>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
> > |>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed
> > |>some tension in
> > |>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the
> > |>meeting would prefer
> > |>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are
> > |>disappointed to be
> > |>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe
> > |>this factor can
> > |>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
> > |>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm
> > |>confident that
> > |>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to
> > |>reduce subsequent
> > |>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
> > |>in-person attendees.
> > |>
> > |>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation
> > |>system in order
> > |>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
> > |>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
> > |>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote
> > |>participation
> > |>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
> > |>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote
> > |>Participation
> > |>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
> > |>
> > |>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical
> > |>meeting room in
> > |>Melbourne.
> > |>
> > |>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
> > |>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
> > |>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud,
> > |>while others will
> > |>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message
> > |>can be read or
> > |>displayed.
> > |>
> > |>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear
> > |>and concise, and
> > |>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is
> > |>that messages
> > |>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the
> > |>microphones in
> > |>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea
> > |>to send lengthy
> > |>prepared comments using the real-time comment system;
> > |>instead, use ICANN's
> > |>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the
> > |>start of the
> > |>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
> > |>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered
> > |>from each remote
> > |>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in
> > |>the meeting
> > |>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
> > |>commenters who have not already participated."
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>
> > |>Ben Edelman
> > |>
> > |>--
> > |>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
> >
> > --
> > 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 INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:40:16 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Please stop NOW

Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:

I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get 
it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on 
this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..

We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the 
garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to 
respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for 
any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being 
listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't 
listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing 
relevent to listen to.

There are three sets of motions on the table - Jefsey's and Kevin's motions 
on election, and the complete bylaws re-write I'm proposing. There is an 
election that absolutely needs to happen, and nominations in process. This 
is the last day for DNSO comments on the preliminary review task force report.

Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by 
definition isn't it.

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:30:49 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

This appears to be the current status of  GA chair nominations. Since no 
one else has accepted nomination, I will accept, and hope some others do as 
well. If I've missed a response from anyone, I apologize in advance for the 
oversight.

>No response yet:
>Roberto Gaetano
>Barbara Simons
>Emerson Tiller
>Thomas Roessler
>Eric Weisberg
>Bret Fausett
>Rod Dixon
>Jeanette Hoffmann

>Greg Burton - Accepted

>Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
>Michael Froomkin  - Declined
>Harald Alverstrand - Declined
>Alexander Svensson - Declined

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:01:24 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 6:00 pm +1300 2/10/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
>
>>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
>>
>
>Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
>experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.

Evidence suggests that you have not learnt a single thing.

>One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
>leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey

For an example of personal abuse within the IDNO (In fact, possibly the
very first incident), one only needs to read the following email sent by
Joop to selected members of the IDNO (included quotes snipped for brevity).
Note the date it was sent:

****

X-Sender: ter/[email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:52:32 +1200
To: Chris Streatfield <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: The new Leader Speaks..
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

Listen to this:
The new dictator  elected by himself  with the support of only 2 people out
of 10 voters of the SC gets ready to lay down the rules.
Listen to the protest against the "illegal" ballot.  I have heard that one
before, when martial  law  was declared by Marcos.

Wait for him to order suppression of the SC election results (which show me
as getting 67% of the vote) on the IDNO webpage and control of the Polling
Booth.
This is quite unbelievable.

<attributions snipped>

Heil Fuehrer Bradley. Instructions. Transfer of power. Jawohl.
It is urgent that the provisions for snap elections are ratified a.s.a.p.
so that this coup can be stopped.

****

I am not in the habit of posting personal email, but this can hardly be
seen as such (bootstrap of an orgnisation e-mailing committee members,
abusing another committee member). Note the the ICANN board now has
personal knowledge of Joop's modus operandi.

There is also evidence already made public (innocently, it seems, by a
third party) of Joop emailing new and potential members, casting aspersions
on other IDNO members (all members of the original Steering Committee that
he crushed).

For an example of Joop's attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of ICANN,
the DNSO and NC, within his "experiment in open democracy", GA members
should check out http://joy.songbird.com/kent/idno/steering/msg00067.html

The sentence to look out for is "It has helped us politically, but this is
the price we paid for the optical illusion of my "standing down".

Joop is by no means "squeaky clean" as far as responsibility of the mess
the IDNO is now in. I suggest GA members keep this in mind when they
evaluate Joop's posts to this list, and anything he says while appearing at
any ICANN-related meeting, claiming to speak for the IDNO (rapidly
declining, unfortunately) membership.

- -- 
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.domain-owners.org 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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:04:31 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

> This appears to be the current status of GA chair nominations.

Before we get too far along in this process, perhaps we could spend a few
days thinking about what the responsibilities of the GA Chair should be.
That, in some part, will determine whether nominated individuals accept or
not. 

For example, as I see it, two primary responsibilities of the GA Chair
should be to (1) attend all four ICANN quarterly meetings to lead the
half-day in-person General Assembly meeting that precedes the ICANN public
forum; and, (2) participate as a non-voting, ex officio member of the NC in
the monthly NC meetings. That's on top of coordinating the discussions in
the GA. 

That's a substantial time commitment, and we'll be fortunate to find persons
willing and able to make the kind of time and financial commitment that this
job entails. A Chair and Vice-Chair could coordinate the work between them,
but there's plenty of work here to go around. Roberto and Harald have set an
excellent example.

If we are able to get the GA rolling, there may also be a role to play in
coordinating consensus development and overseeing the preparation of
periodic reports from the GA.

Others may wish to add to that overview of the job responsibilities, and
perhaps Roberto can lend his thoughts as well.

For my own part, I am not able to accept the nomination at this time, but
thank you for putting my name forward.

       -- Bret

- --
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:40:44 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

Greg Burton wrote:

> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
>
> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..

Ditto for me.

> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> relevent to listen to.

The real truth of it, of course, is that these people don't listen because they
were not inclined to listen in the first place.  All the claptrap just provides
the evidence they'll use against us.  It is increasingly becoming clear that most
of this is quite probably a sham, and a front play.  The object is clear: to
divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.  What strikes me
as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.  A diversionary
tactic intendended to legitimize one forum, at the very dear expense of another?
I'm awake now!  The change in ICANN can only come from within, this is true.  But
who is "within"?  I think it has become increasingly clear what is going on here.

Why legitimize and give "organization" to the DNSO, and not the World @Large
herself?  At the end of the two-year study, Carl Bildt is going to look at
substance.  When he sees no SUBSTANCE in any @LARGE group, he will conclude it is
an unecessary appendage.  Is any @Large Member here willing to trade their @Large
Membership for some vague, undefined spot in some vague, undefined constituency?
Not to mention that it would be within a vague overall constituency structure and
process...  The ICANN ByLaws clearly state: 9 @Large Directors, yet there are only
5, and you people are making a fuss over A PROPOSAL for *constituency* status in
the DNSO?  The carrot and the mule is a classic tale, surely!

> There are three sets of motions on the table - Jefsey's and Kevin's motions
> on election, and the complete bylaws re-write I'm proposing. There is an
> election that absolutely needs to happen, and nominations in process. This
> is the last day for DNSO comments on the preliminary review task force report.

Why don't we ask ICANN to set up a list for the @Large Membership?  Perhaps we
could take all this discussion into an @Large perspective?  We've had our input...
as much as they're willing to listen to anyway.  Look what's happening now... the
GA list is a circus!  I believe that as soon as the swill began running over from
the IDNO list, it should have immediately been curtailed by the powers that be.
Sadly, it was not, and this fact speaks volumes about the very nature of the
disruptions themselves..

> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
> definition isn't it.

How about we altogether focus on the @Large instead?  Divert all this brain power
and goodwill, and focus it on the @Large?  After all, it's not like the DNSO is
paying us to do their work for them... or are they paying, but just not all of us?

Remember to buy your love a Rose on Valentine's Day,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:28:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Please stop NOW

Saturday, February 10, 2001, 12:40:44 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Greg Burton wrote:

>> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
>>
>> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
>> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
>> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..

> Ditto for me.

You will note that it was a post about the claims of reform in the GA
as a result of the IDNO that started the discussion in here again,
that had stagnated.

>> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
>> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
>> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
>> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
>> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
>> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
>> relevent to listen to.

No one has made such a complaint, Greg.  I've never complained about
someone not listening, and have always encouraged people to use their
own selective judgement in deciding what threads to read, and what
individuals to filter out.  I've even helped a couple of people over
the phone in setting up filters so that they don't have to read my
messages.

> The object is clear: to
> divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.

Please, these conspiracy theories are getting to be a bit much, and,
more so than the IDNO threads, contribute to the arguments about lack
of legitimacy.

> What strikes me
> as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
> at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.

Please share, what is so crucial in the @Large, that couldn't be
accomplished at the same time as things in the DNSO?  Why this
fascination with doing one task at a time?

>> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
>> definition isn't it.

It most certain IS GA business, especially when a DNSO working group
is addressing the issue of an individual's constituency, and those who
are operating under what is a fictional mandate are trying to get an
organization that is flawed at its even most basic levels (much more
so than the DNSO itself really) recognized as that constituency.  This
person claims to be representing the IDNO in this forum, but lacks
even the most flimsy mandate to do that, except that he created it, so
he makes the decisions.

If you don't like a thread, your mail client provides you the means
not to read it.  If you don't like a poster, the same applies.

I receive well over 1000 messages a day, from numerous mailing lists I
am on.  I do not read but a very small percentage of them, exercising
my selective judgement to read only those messages that are in threads
which are of great interest to me, are by people of whom I have
developed a great respect for, or some other reason that grabs me at
the moment and inclines me to read it.

If I read even 1/5 of those messages, it would take far too much of
time.  My mail client provides the tools to help me do this.

I'm sure yours does also, and I would encourage you to learn to use
them.

- -- 
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:45:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

Greg and all remaining Assembly members,

  I am in complete agreement with you Greg.  And that is in part why
I registered an abuse complaint with the DNSO Chair and Co-Chair.
I am waiting on their decision on that complaint.

Greg Burton wrote:

> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
>
> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..
>
> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> relevent to listen to.
>
> There are three sets of motions on the table - Jefsey's and Kevin's motions
> on election, and the complete bylaws re-write I'm proposing. There is an
> election that absolutely needs to happen, and nominations in process. This
> is the last day for DNSO comments on the preliminary review task force report.
>
> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
> definition isn't it.
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:12:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW - The role of the DNSO...

Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

  I changed the subject line here to expand on what you have already rightly
expanded upon here in your response, Sotiris.  Thank you for doing so.

  It is evident and has been for some time now that the DNSO through
it's leadership, have soiled their underwear, so to speak.  To make things
even worse it has displayed it's soiled underwear publicly before
cleaning up.  We as members of the GA, need to insist as Greg
suggests, that this situation gets cleaned up quickly, properly, and
permanently.  This is a tough task at this juncture, to be sure.  But
as you rightly indicate Sortiris, it needs to be done....

  To this end I would like to suggest the following action items:

1.) Get busy with electing a new Chair and Co-Chair, with no
incumbents.  Fresh blood and air is needed here...

2.) Set up a valid and easily usable election process for not only
DNSO officials but also resolutions and /or motions by GA members.

3.) Remove the Selective Censorship practice of the DNSO GA ML's.

4.) Allow for andy and all GA members, and/or stakeholders to
participate freely in any and all Working Groups.

5.) Deal swiftly with all abuse complaints.

  There are some more suggestions I have, but these should be a good
start...

  Thank you all for your cooperation and interest in advance.  >;)

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Greg Burton wrote:
>
> > Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
> >
> > I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
> > it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
> > this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..
>
> Ditto for me.
>
> > We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
> > garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
> > respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
> > any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
> > listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
> > listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> > relevent to listen to.
>
> The real truth of it, of course, is that these people don't listen because they
> were not inclined to listen in the first place.  All the claptrap just provides
> the evidence they'll use against us.  It is increasingly becoming clear that most
> of this is quite probably a sham, and a front play.  The object is clear: to
> divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.  What strikes me
> as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
> at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.  A diversionary
> tactic intendended to legitimize one forum, at the very dear expense of another?
> I'm awake now!  The change in ICANN can only come from within, this is true.  But
> who is "within"?  I think it has become increasingly clear what is going on here.
>
> Why legitimize and give "organization" to the DNSO, and not the World @Large
> herself?  At the end of the two-year study, Carl Bildt is going to look at
> substance.  When he sees no SUBSTANCE in any @LARGE group, he will conclude it is
> an unecessary appendage.  Is any @Large Member here willing to trade their @Large
> Membership for some vague, undefined spot in some vague, undefined constituency?
> Not to mention that it would be within a vague overall constituency structure and
> process...  The ICANN ByLaws clearly state: 9 @Large Directors, yet there are only
> 5, and you people are making a fuss over A PROPOSAL for *constituency* status in
> the DNSO?  The carrot and the mule is a classic tale, surely!
>
> > There are three sets of motions on the table - Jefsey's and Kevin's motions
> > on election, and the complete bylaws re-write I'm proposing. There is an
> > election that absolutely needs to happen, and nominations in process. This
> > is the last day for DNSO comments on the preliminary review task force report.
>
> Why don't we ask ICANN to set up a list for the @Large Membership?  Perhaps we
> could take all this discussion into an @Large perspective?  We've had our input...
> as much as they're willing to listen to anyway.  Look what's happening now... the
> GA list is a circus!  I believe that as soon as the swill began running over from
> the IDNO list, it should have immediately been curtailed by the powers that be.
> Sadly, it was not, and this fact speaks volumes about the very nature of the
> disruptions themselves..
>
> > Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
> > definition isn't it.
>
> How about we altogether focus on the @Large instead?  Divert all this brain power
> and goodwill, and focus it on the @Large?  After all, it's not like the DNSO is
> paying us to do their work for them... or are they paying, but just not all of us?
>
> Remember to buy your love a Rose on Valentine's Day,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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 INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:22:54 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> > What strikes me
> > as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
> > at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.
>
> Please share, what is so crucial in the @Large, that couldn't be
> accomplished at the same time as things in the DNSO?  Why this
> fascination with doing one task at a time?

Usually, it's because things get done properly that way.  In any case, the ICANN bylaws
are clear.  The DNSO is to make recommendations on policy to the BoD.  The *BoD* then
decides whether or not the policy proposals are implemented, as I understand it, there
is no ipso facto implementation clause pure and simple.  Now, unlike the DNSO, the
@Large puts Directors on the Board.  Some of the very same Directors to whom the policy
"recommendations" of the DNSO are going to be presented to in the first place.  I would
say that to-date the Business element in ICANN has been pretty much free to do as it
pleases, and this must now be checked.  The most effective way to check it, to ensure
that the widest interests are being served, is to look to the @Large.  Polypragmatics
can be a virtue, but are rarely -if ever- as virtuous as single-mindedness of purpose
when a job needs to get done.  Time is definitely pressing for the @Large.  Nobody's
launched a two-year study into the DNSO yet...

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:38:01 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

YES.

SS
HN, Inc.

> Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >There is great work underfoot to use the GA to some larger purpose.
> >However I believe it may be misplaced. The At Large is a non-entity at the
> >moment yet it is being extensively reviewed by some grand inquisitor very
> >much associated with the U.N.  But nothing is being done to investigate
> >the very clear mandate to elect/appoint a chair for the GA, and the DNSO
> >refusal. I used the term rudderless ship before, it should have been an
> >SOS.
> >
> >I assume most people, and there are a lot, get the posts from this list as
> >I do.  So let me just do something real easy.
> >
> >IF YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THIS POST PLEASE EMAIL BACK A SINGLE POST
> >INDICATING;  YES

- --
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:22:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

- --------------2DEC195BEF3774296CC61A32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

WXW and all remaining assembly members,

  Again it seems that you WXW, have taken advantage or an opportunity
to again be abusive (Although indirectly) to one of the founders and members
of the IDNO in your response here below on this ML.  I would again
ask you to as Greg and the subject line of this thread suggested:

PLEASE STOP NOW!

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, February 10, 2001, 12:40:44 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Greg Burton wrote:
>
> >> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
> >>
> >> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage. Get
> >> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond on
> >> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the GA..
>
> > Ditto for me.
>
> You will note that it was a post about the claims of reform in the GA
> as a result of the IDNO that started the discussion in here again,
> that had stagnated.
>
> >> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out by the
> >> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but I have to
> >> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much harder for
> >> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not being
> >> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people don't
> >> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> >> relevent to listen to.
>
> No one has made such a complaint, Greg.  I've never complained about
> someone not listening, and have always encouraged people to use their
> own selective judgement in deciding what threads to read, and what
> individuals to filter out.  I've even helped a couple of people over
> the phone in setting up filters so that they don't have to read my
> messages.
>
> > The object is clear: to
> > divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.
>
> Please, these conspiracy theories are getting to be a bit much, and,
> more so than the IDNO threads, contribute to the arguments about lack
> of legitimacy.
>
> > What strikes me
> > as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
> > at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.
>
> Please share, what is so crucial in the @Large, that couldn't be
> accomplished at the same time as things in the DNSO?  Why this
> fascination with doing one task at a time?
>
> >> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage by
> >> definition isn't it.
>
> It most certain IS GA business, especially when a DNSO working group
> is addressing the issue of an individual's constituency, and those who
> are operating under what is a fictional mandate are trying to get an
> organization that is flawed at its even most basic levels (much more
> so than the DNSO itself really) recognized as that constituency.  This
> person claims to be representing the IDNO in this forum, but lacks
> even the most flimsy mandate to do that, except that he created it, so
> he makes the decisions.
>
> If you don't like a thread, your mail client provides you the means
> not to read it.  If you don't like a poster, the same applies.
>
> I receive well over 1000 messages a day, from numerous mailing lists I
> am on.  I do not read but a very small percentage of them, exercising
> my selective judgement to read only those messages that are in threads
> which are of great interest to me, are by people of whom I have
> developed a great respect for, or some other reason that grabs me at
> the moment and inclines me to read it.
>
> If I read even 1/5 of those messages, it would take far too much of
> time.  My mail client provides the tools to help me do this.
>
> I'm sure yours does also, and I would encourage you to learn to use
> them.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --------------2DEC195BEF3774296CC61A32
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
WXW and all remaining assembly members,
<P>&nbsp; Again it seems that you WXW, have taken advantage or an opportunity
<BR>to again be abusive (Although indirectly) to one of the founders and
members
<BR>of the IDNO in your response here below on this ML.&nbsp; I would again
<BR>ask you to as Greg and the subject line of this thread suggested:
<P><FONT SIZE=+2>PLEASE STOP NOW!</FONT>
<P>William X. Walsh wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Saturday, February 10, 2001, 12:40:44 PM, Sotiropoulos
wrote:
<P>> Greg Burton wrote:
<P>>> Joop, William, Dassa, Jeff, and anyone else:
<BR>>>
<BR>>> I resigned from IDNO because of this constant back and forth garbage.
Get
<BR>>> it out of here, please - there is no law that says you have to respond
on
<BR>>> this list, and I'm very offended that it's spilling over to the
GA..
<P>> Ditto for me.
<P>You will note that it was a post about the claims of reform in the GA
<BR>as a result of the IDNO that started the discussion in here again,
<BR>that had stagnated.
<P>>> We have serious work to get done here, and it's getting drowned out
by the
<BR>>> garbage. Did it ever occur to ANY of you that every single "but
I have to
<BR>>> respond because X is saying Y" post you write makes it that much
harder for
<BR>>> any of us to be taken seriously? You all can complain about not
being
<BR>>> listened to as much as you want, the sad reality is that people
don't
<BR>>> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is
nothing
<BR>>> relevent to listen to.
<P>No one has made such a complaint, Greg.&nbsp; I've never complained
about
<BR>someone not listening, and have always encouraged people to use their
<BR>own selective judgement in deciding what threads to read, and what
<BR>individuals to filter out.&nbsp; I've even helped a couple of people
over
<BR>the phone in setting up filters so that they don't have to read my
<BR>messages.
<P>> The object is clear: to
<BR>> divert attention and productive work from the @Large Membership.
<P>Please, these conspiracy theories are getting to be a bit much, and,
<BR>more so than the IDNO threads, contribute to the arguments about lack
<BR>of legitimacy.
<P>> What strikes me
<BR>> as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters
is so preeminent,
<BR>> at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.
<P>Please share, what is so crucial in the @Large, that couldn't be
<BR>accomplished at the same time as things in the DNSO?&nbsp; Why this
<BR>fascination with doing one task at a time?
<P>>> Try to focus on substance related to the GA, please - IDNO garbage
by
<BR>>> definition isn't it.
<P>It most certain IS GA business, especially when a DNSO working group
<BR>is addressing the issue of an individual's constituency, and those
who
<BR>are operating under what is a fictional mandate are trying to get an
<BR>organization that is flawed at its even most basic levels (much more
<BR>so than the DNSO itself really) recognized as that constituency.&nbsp;
This
<BR>person claims to be representing the IDNO in this forum, but lacks
<BR>even the most flimsy mandate to do that, except that he created it,
so
<BR>he makes the decisions.
<P>If you don't like a thread, your mail client provides you the means
<BR>not to read it.&nbsp; If you don't like a poster, the same applies.
<P>I receive well over 1000 messages a day, from numerous mailing lists
I
<BR>am on.&nbsp; I do not read but a very small percentage of them, exercising
<BR>my selective judgement to read only those messages that are in threads
<BR>which are of great interest to me, are by people of whom I have
<BR>developed a great respect for, or some other reason that grabs me at
<BR>the moment and inclines me to read it.
<P>If I read even 1/5 of those messages, it would take far too much of
<BR>time.&nbsp; My mail client provides the tools to help me do this.
<P>I'm sure yours does also, and I would encourage you to learn to use
<BR>them.
<P>--
<BR>Best regards,
<BR>&nbsp;William&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>
<P>--
<BR>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<BR>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<BR>Archives at <A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regards,
<P>--
<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams
<BR>Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
<BR>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
<BR>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
<BR>E-Mail [email-masked]
<BR>Contact Number:&nbsp; 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
<BR>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
<BR>&nbsp;</HTML>

- --------------2DEC195BEF3774296CC61A32--

- --
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 #232
************************