Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #235
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 12 2001          Volume 01 : Number 235

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:24:30 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] oops

Dear GA members,

Well, it wasn't enough to have the flu and travel a couple thousand miles 
this week - I also had my daughters' soccer tournament.....in  which she 
just today broke her arm and chipped a tooth. As a single parent, this is 
going to take a bit more of my time, but as always I will do my best to 
keep up with the incredibly riveting discussion of why a small group of 
people's  continuing soap opera is so terribly important to people who are 
trying to get away from 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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:02:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

Marilyn and all remaining assembly members,

  The current WIPO discussions have been done before.  This is at least
the third go-round with WIPO and no significant changes that are obviously
needed and called for by a overwhelming consensus on active participants
have been put forth twice.  Indeed yes the DNSO is one place where
the UDRP issues need to be discussed as the assembly members do have
an interest.

  As to the @large.  The review that is currently in process is again at
least the third go-round as well.  Wheather or not Mr. Carl Bildt is
highly respected european or not is really of very little relevance.  He
was hand picked by the ICANN board, not elected by the existing
stakeholders that are participants, which would include in no small
measure the DNSO assembly members.  As such, it is pretty much already
ordained what the conclusion of that "Study" will be.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Okay, let's try to sort out what is in the scope of the various groups.  And
> to spend energy where it is useful and where it can make a significant
> difference.
>
> First, the UDRP, whether one likes it as a concept or not, exists. And is
> working. You can go check out the list of cases and make your own value
> judgment about the outcomes.  I don't know what value it adds to suggest a
> boycott.  When infringements occur, some action takes place.  If there is
> objection to the extension to the extension to geographic names, then one
> should participate in the forum where that debate is taking place. It's not
> ICANN. It's WIPO.
>
> You could have chosen to participate by filing comments in RFC-2 of the WIPO
> process. And if you missed that, please still submit comments. I've found
> WIPO open to listening,even if you miss deadlines. The public process for
> comment, by the way, is only beginning, with public meetings being held
> around the world. I've not paid much attention them, but recall that the
> first is in Chicago; others are in Europe and Asia; and that online comments
> are welcomed.   The WIPO considerations are in response to letters from
> member governments. They didn't generate their work program at the request
> of ICANN. You can check out the site at WIPO.int, and see the letter of
> request from 19 member countries.
>
> About the  study of the @large and what is the right approach. There is a
> process to study what should happen next, chaired by Carl Bildt, a highly
> respected European.  There will be a meeting,  I understand, of the @Large
> group to take public comment in Melbourne, in Stockhelm, and in other
> mechanisms. Perhaps that is a better strategy for this group to be focused
> on? To ensure that online participation can be included in those meetings?
> and that the meetings take place at the ICANN Meetings when the largest
> representation of folks can participate?
>
> What is in this group's scope is about the GA. what is the GA doing to do to
> add meaning, create an appearance at least of organizational structure so
> that all can participate. Electing a chair is a first step.
>
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 8:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Sotiropoulos; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Greg Burton; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?
>
> Amen brothers and sisters, this is positive and progressive.  If we are
> going to
> move forward let us look to tommorrow.
> Critical yet moving forward.  Greg it is a conundrum.
>
> Ultreya,
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Sotiris wrote:-
> >  (BTW
> > Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
> > Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is
> > that
> > he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA
> > List,
> > to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having
> > been
> > nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on
> > to
> > complete the WGr? )
> >
> > - Sotiris, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The GA Chair
> > issue is certainly
> > not nebulous and since the GA is a topic on this list, it is hardly
> > inappropriate for Greg to seek feedback from
> > the membership as a way to move both the GA and WG-Review forward.
> > His efforts deserve our support, not criticism.
> > Joanna
> >
> > Sotiris wrote:-
> > One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on
> all
> > pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably
> > coined
> > word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a
> move
> > would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to
> some
> > areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
> > *somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing
> > list of
> > *reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?
> Do
> > we
> > live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
> > problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
> > reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on
> > both
> > sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.
> >
> > - I think this is worth consideration, but hang on, we need a DNDEF don't
> we
> > to come up with a viable alternative?
> >
> > To
> > date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.
> > Correct
> > me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are
> supposed
> > to
> > be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when
> > the
> > decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?
> >
> > - Could your world@large site be used to run elections for the other 4?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > 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
> --
> 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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:59:08 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] oops

Hello Greg,

Sunday, February 11, 2001, 7:24:30 PM, Greg Burton wrote:

>  the incredibly riveting discussion of why a small group of
> people's  continuing soap opera is so terribly important to people who are 
> trying to get away from it.

Perhaps because the person responsible for it is trying to assert
himself into a candidate for NAmes Council at any cost, and is taking
advantage of the good will that the IDNO gained as a result of the
support of the founding members.

In any event, in an effort to put that matter behind us, the people
who did not approve of Joop and his actions took action under the
rules Joop himself wrote to remove him.  Then just when we got enough
support to advance the motion to a hearing, he decides that he wants
the membership to vote on who can and who cannot stay on the mailing
list, regardless of the basis, and despite the fact that his rules do
not permit such things.  It's the exact same type of action that
started this entire IDNO mess back in August and September of 1999
that resulting in the massive split with regard to the IDNO.

Perhaps now you see why this is important?

Some of us take an the concept of an individual's constituency very
seriously, and thus we take this person's attempts to feed his ego and
get himself on the Names Council at our expense as something that is
VERY serious, and very ontopic.

Because of the fact that he controls ALL of the organs of the IDNO,
and has many times (including right now with this latest act) used
that control to manipulate the outcome of events, it many times
becomes necessary make certain things that are happening public on
lists which are appropriate.  This is one of them, even if some don't
like it.

His actions need to be on the record, and that can only be done via
mechanisms that he does not control.

I've BCC'd this to the IDNO Discuss list as well.

- -- 
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:08:50 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

At 12:09 AM 2/11/01, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is that
>he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA 
>List,
>to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having been
>nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on to
>complete the WGr? )

I'm a member of the GA and have been for some time - that's official 
enough. Since much of what WG-Review has been coming up with depends on a 
functional GA, the GA needs to be functioning - no? That includes having a 
chair and deciding where to go.

Seems simple to me, but as you know I'm naive and idealistic.

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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:04:29 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

>> The other part of what makes a potential Chair consider accepting can be
>> the weight of nominations.
>
>  Weight?  Please elaborate as to what you mean by this Joop...
>

Sorry if I was not clear. 
By weight of nominations I meant that the candidate will find himself
confronted with 10 or 12 nomination votes, rather than a single one and
this may give him/her the incentive to accept, knowing that the candidacy
has wide support.

- --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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:29:21 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

This is way out of the arena of speaking in this GA, unless someone can bring it into
focus.  Some folks will go to any lengths to continue distructive threads. I think
mayber Sotiris you should ignore the babies.
Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff et al.,
>
> I would rather he didn't.  I don't want to offend
> anybody, but I think this is hardly the forum for
> such postings.  Perhaps, I am wrong?  But, I don't
> think I am...  I would very much prefer to leave
> what has relevance to the IDNO ML, to the IDNO
> ML.  After all, in *point of fact* I have not
> ANYWHERE seen, read, or heard anything that would
> lead me to believe that should an IDNH
> Constituency be added to the DNSO, that the IDNO
> is even a remote candidate for the position of
> such an appendage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   An excellent question, Sotiris.  Possibly Andy Gardner can answer
> > you questions and share it with everyone here?   Andy, care to
> > answer Sotiris's excellent question?
> >
> > Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Gardner wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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:
> > >
> > > What does this drivel have to do with the GA or ICANN?  If *nothing at all*,
> > > then WHY am I receiving this garbage through the GA ML?
> > >
> > > SS
> > > HN, 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

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:42:46 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

I have a real problem here in that Greg and my thought for co or Alt is
Sotoris.  But in my wild thoughts neither are right because I have other hopes
for both.
So if she will take it I hope that Joanna would consider being our chair.  So
nominated as is Sotoris if he has not been.

Ulterya,

ps messages which are good are already responding, we are alive to a tune(or
toon) of around a hundred. I should of put the  first one off list.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> >> The other part of what makes a potential Chair consider accepting can be
> >> the weight of nominations.
> >
> >  Weight?  Please elaborate as to what you mean by this Joop...
> >
>
> Sorry if I was not clear.
> By weight of nominations I meant that the candidate will find himself
> confronted with 10 or 12 nomination votes, rather than a single one and
> this may give him/her the incentive to accept, knowing that the candidacy
> has wide support.
>
> --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

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:54:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I agree with you here Eric.  Those that wish to bring the problems
with the IDNO and a few of it's more vocal and disruptive and destructive
voices, should keep their internal squabbling in their own house.  I believe
that Joop has also called for this as have I.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> This is way out of the arena of speaking in this GA, unless someone can bring it into
> focus.  Some folks will go to any lengths to continue distructive threads. I think
> mayber Sotiris you should ignore the babies.
> Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Jeff et al.,
> >
> > I would rather he didn't.  I don't want to offend
> > anybody, but I think this is hardly the forum for
> > such postings.  Perhaps, I am wrong?  But, I don't
> > think I am...  I would very much prefer to leave
> > what has relevance to the IDNO ML, to the IDNO
> > ML.  After all, in *point of fact* I have not
> > ANYWHERE seen, read, or heard anything that would
> > lead me to believe that should an IDNH
> > Constituency be added to the DNSO, that the IDNO
> > is even a remote candidate for the position of
> > such an appendage.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >         Hermes Network, Inc.
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,
> > >
> > >   An excellent question, Sotiris.  Possibly Andy Gardner can answer
> > > you questions and share it with everyone here?   Andy, care to
> > > answer Sotiris's excellent question?
> > >
> > > Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andy Gardner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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:
> > > >
> > > > What does this drivel have to do with the GA or ICANN?  If *nothing at all*,
> > > > then WHY am I receiving this garbage through the GA ML?
> > > >
> > > > SS
> > > > HN, 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
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:55:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transparency

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Greg,
>
> Sunday, February 11, 2001, 7:24:30 PM, Greg Burton wrote:
>
> >  the incredibly riveting discussion of why a small group of
> > people's  continuing soap opera is so terribly important to people who are
> > trying to get away from it.
>
> Perhaps because the person responsible for it is trying to assert
> himself into a candidate for NAmes Council at any cost, and is taking
> advantage of the good will that the IDNO gained as a result of the
> support of the founding members.
>

If you were a sabateur and an outright professional hired to prevent
positive
work within the GA this is how you would do it, believe me I spent a
prior
lifetime destroying instead of building.  It is a lawyers and a
lobbyist's
bottom feeders breeding ground.  If that is your intent I applaud you,
you are
good and effective.
On the otherhand????

>
> In any event, in an effort to put that matter behind us, the people
> who did not approve of Joop and his actions took action under the
> rules Joop himself wrote to remove him.  Then just when we got enough
> support to advance the motion to a hearing, he decides that he wants
> the membership to vote on who can and who cannot stay on the mailing
> list, regardless of the basis, and despite the fact that his rules do
> not permit such things.  It's the exact same type of action that
> started this entire IDNO mess back in August and September of 1999
> that resulting in the massive split with regard to the IDNO.
>
> Perhaps now you see why this is important?
>
> Some of us take an the concept of an individual's constituency very
> seriously, and thus we take this person's attempts to feed his ego and
> get himself on the Names Council at our expense as something that is
> VERY serious, and very ontopic.
>
> Because of the fact that he controls ALL of the organs of the IDNO,
> and has many times (including right now with this latest act) used
> that control to manipulate the outcome of events, it many times
> becomes necessary make certain things that are happening public on
> lists which are appropriate.  This is one of them, even if some don't
> like it.
>

What do You want  as against this horrible man?  Why are you so opposed
to
Joop?  Who do you represent Mr. Walsh?  Give us your full background as
you are
truly standing in a glass house and casting the stone, oh sinless one. 
My past
has so many ghosts that I know that I should not try and destroy
another, are
you so pure?
I like your positive input please continue it as it helps the
understanding
completely.

Sincerely,

>
> His actions need to be on the record, and that can only be done via
> mechanisms that he does not control.
>
> I've BCC'd this to the IDNO Discuss list as well.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William
- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:55:51 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

Dear Mr. Burton,

I do not wish to derail this train, but I believe you must address the
foes of
ICW representation.  A rah rah approach is fantastic  and approved but
please
address the issues which are important.
HOW WILL THIS "NEW GA"  COMPETE WITH THE OTHER GROUPS FOR THEIR VIEWS TO
BE
HEARD.  SO FAR I HAVE NOT SEEN A PROPOSAL FOR SUCH COMPETITION.

Sncerely,

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 12:04 PM 2/10/01, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >(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; and
> >(3) Coordinating the discussions on the GA. list; and
> >(4) coordinating consensus development and overseeing the preparation of
> >periodic reports from the GA; and
> >(5) Participating in NC task forces when invited to do so
>
> Sure, I think these are all part of it...and hopefully Roberto WILL add to
> it, if we're missing anything.
>
> >For my own part, I am not able to accept the nomination at this time, but
> >thank you for putting my name forward.
>
> Sorry to hear that, Bret, but it's understandable. I've been looking at the
> report from WG-D, and thinking about ways some of that work could be
> applied here, as well as the work that Danny Younger put into his proposal
> on the APA - derived consensus process. There is a lot that the GA can do,
> if it just focuses on doing what it can.
>
> Hopefully, others will accept - yes, it's a lot of work, and I'm sure
> Roberto and Harald would both say that a lot of it is thankless at best,
> but it needs doing by somebody.
>
> Current Status:
>
> >No response yet:
> >Roberto Gaetano
> >Barbara Simons
> >Emerson Tiller
> >Thomas Roessler
> >Eric Weisberg
> >Rod Dixon
> >Jeanette Hoffmann
>
> >Greg Burton - Accepted
>
> >Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
> >Michael Froomkin  - Declined
> >Harald Alverstrand - Declined
> >Bret Fausett - 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
- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:59:47 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transparency

Hello Eric,

Sunday, February 11, 2001, 9:55:20 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> What do You want  as against this horrible man?  Why are you so opposed
> to
> Joop?

I am not against him, I am against his actions.  I protest ONLY
against his actions.  Why?  Because he asked me to help him for this
organization, and as one of those who did, and helped to get the IDNO
started, I take great exception to what he has done over the last year
and a half.

Don't just take my word for it.  I would be happy to provide you with
some reading material in Joop's own archives that point to it.  Go and
look at what he has done now.  Even his supporters have had their jaws
dropped at his latest actions:

http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-February/004161.html

> Who do you represent Mr. Walsh?  Give us your full background as
> you are
> truly standing in a glass house and casting the stone, oh sinless one. 

I represent no one but myself, and what I think is right and just.  I
am probably one of the very few people on this list who can make that
statement in complete and full honesty.

I have never received money or consideration from any of the major
players.  Oddly enough, I was contracted last year for a programming
job by an alt.root operator, but that was done despite the fact that
publicly I have always, and continue to, oppose most of their
positions on these forums.

I do not accept money that has any strings attached, and I've always
made that clear.  Despite my public positions, that operator has
continued to hire me for occasional work they need done.

So you can try and disparage me and my motives, and try and convince
others that I am some paid operative, but the facts are absolutely
against you.

Some advice, though, Eric.  The GA list rules are on the website.  Be
careful what you say about people and how you say it when you post to
the list.

- -- 
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:16:01 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sotiris wrote:-
>  (BTW
> Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
> Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is
> that
> he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA
> List,
> to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having
> been
> nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on
> to
> complete the WGr? )
>
> - Sotiris, I think you are being a little disingenuous here. The GA Chair
> issue is certainly
> not nebulous and since the GA is a topic on this list, it is hardly
> inappropriate for Greg to seek feedback from
> the membership as a way to move both the GA and WG-Review forward.
> His efforts deserve our support, not criticism.
>

Joanna, all I'm saying is that perhaps it would be more productive if we were to
focus our efforts on one List at a time.  Seems to me, some of us are involved
in multiple lists, and there is no discernible structure, movement, or
productivity in any of the 3 relevant MLs I happen to be currently subscribed
to.  I believe this is a cause for concern.  I'm not singling greg out per se...
but he is the Chair of the WG.

> Sotiris wrote:-
> One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on all
> pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably
> coined
> word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a move
> would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to some
> areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
> *somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing
> list of
> *reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?  Do
> we
> live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
> problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
> reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on
> both
> sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.
>
> - I think this is worth consideration, but hang on, we need a DNDEF don't we
> to come up with a viable alternative?

There should have been a DNDEF in place *before* ANY UDRP was even put in place.

> To
> date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.
> Correct
> me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are supposed
> to
> be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when
> the
> decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?
>
> - Could your world@large site be used to run elections for the other 4?

First, the site is not *mine*, but rather was donated by me to the @Large.  I
like to think of it as a place where the @Large can conduct much of their own
business before presenting any work to ICANN.  I suppose if we can build up
enough support for the site and we put a strong enough case to ICANN, it might
help them to do the right thing (i.e. allow the @Large to vote the rest of its
Directors onto the Board).

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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:30:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transparency

You as I expected are all that Sr. Walsh,

So is Sr. Joop.  It is like my parents getting a divorce.  I want to help Joop and
his group and Walsh's independent ideas are always helpful, can't you two just get
along?

Wait you guys are heavy weights. I propose a heavy weigth battle on Sotoris's site
let's do it, I  am sure the Gov. of  Minn. will moderate. "Titans of the Web" . It
could be part of outreach.  I'll set it up and take a commish.  I am now Don King
of the web!

Or maybe not?

Come on put your $$$$$ where your mouth is!!

Ultreya,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Sunday, February 11, 2001, 9:55:20 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > What do You want  as against this horrible man?  Why are you so opposed
> > to
> > Joop?
>
> I am not against him, I am against his actions.  I protest ONLY
> against his actions.  Why?  Because he asked me to help him for this
> organization, and as one of those who did, and helped to get the IDNO
> started, I take great exception to what he has done over the last year
> and a half.
>
> Don't just take my word for it.  I would be happy to provide you with
> some reading material in Joop's own archives that point to it.  Go and
> look at what he has done now.  Even his supporters have had their jaws
> dropped at his latest actions:
>
> http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-February/004161.html
>
> > Who do you represent Mr. Walsh?  Give us your full background as
> > you are
> > truly standing in a glass house and casting the stone, oh sinless one.
>
> I represent no one but myself, and what I think is right and just.  I
> am probably one of the very few people on this list who can make that
> statement in complete and full honesty.
>
> I have never received money or consideration from any of the major
> players.  Oddly enough, I was contracted last year for a programming
> job by an alt.root operator, but that was done despite the fact that
> publicly I have always, and continue to, oppose most of their
> positions on these forums.
>
> I do not accept money that has any strings attached, and I've always
> made that clear.  Despite my public positions, that operator has
> continued to hire me for occasional work they need done.
>
> So you can try and disparage me and my motives, and try and convince
> others that I am some paid operative, but the facts are absolutely
> against you.
>
> Some advice, though, Eric.  The GA list rules are on the website.  Be
> careful what you say about people and how you say it when you post to
> the list.
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #235
************************