Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #236
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 12 2001          Volume 01 : Number 236

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:44:06 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Sheriff in town

Let us get it on and I ask you to join in an earlier post.

       The procedure set forth at http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml are good
       procedures which can be adopted.  Then they can be modified as problems
       arise.

       Based upon my broad based survey of all working group, committee, SO, GA
       list archives I found the most amount of argument time spent on two
       subjects.

       1. History: Basically how did something come about, what was intended
       and who was responsible.

       2. Definition: Entire threads get misdirected because the two sides
       cannot come up with an agreed upon meaning of what is being said.

       Neither of these two areas have produced positive results EVER!! Yet it
       is what the majority of time, like about 85% is spent on. A review of
       the last House Hearings and the ones underway lead to the same numbers
       and the same result.

       The other results are aggravation from the process leading to lack of
       participation.  An interesting phenomenon is that the bitterness which
       pervades so many discussions does not diminish the activity, but it does
       narrow the participation.

       My conclusion at this point is that before moving on and establishing
       set rules and procedures, as in agreed to histories and definitions,
       each group simply appoint marshals for both of these areas.  Elect your
       internal chair and they appoint their marshals.  Just like the old west,
       before the laws could be written down that would cover the situations,
       the elected mayors would simply hire marshals to keep the peace.
       Of course the marshal would just say ok gentlemen lets take this off
       list and we will agree on moving forward before getting back on list. No
       problem the dissenter gets to post one objection to the marshals
       position but then we move on.

       Sincerely,
       Wyatt Earp

Ok this is ridiculous?  I  think is better and Dassa and Joanna woul make great Marshals,
they are faster draws than any -post  I have seen.

Ultreya,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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

- --
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 01:35:01 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

"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.

I am only suggesting a boycott in cases where no coined word is involved, as
well as in cases where there is no substantial proof of attempting to sell a
domain to a trademark holder.  I think that this is actually quite a reasonable
request.

> 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.

But any WIPO outcome will be incorporated by ICANN, as the UDRP is an
ICANN-sanctioned process.  It's not WIPO that has the registrars include the
UDRP clause in their domain registration agreements... it's ICANN.  Domains are
not governed by WIPO!  Domain policy is not the sole prerogative of WIPO,
surely?

> 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.

You are a somebody with AT&T.  I am a nobody, and so are most of the people who
consider WIPO to be hugely biased.  Although, you may find them open to
listening to yourself and others like you, I'm sure it's a little different for
the little folk; after all, look at the membership rules for the IPC...

> 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.

The country's have their own ccTLDs at their disposal for geographic
designations, why don't they usurp those?  Failing this, why don't they simply
use the .int TLD?  But this is still pretty silly, for who will have first dibs
on ATHENS.INT, or GEORGETOWN.INT (I believe there's like 15 Georgetowns in my
atlas!)  Truly, this is the most grasping move under consideration by WIPO
to-date... this will lead to a great deal of problems if it is pursued.  Let
each of the governments in question either use their .gov.xx subdomains or the
ccTLDs for geographic indications.  The current considerations are ludicrous and
will lead to trouble.  (Of course, the lawyers don't mind, do they?)

> 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.

What should happen next?  What about the 4 remaining @Large BoD seats?  ICANN
has not fulfilled the bylaw requirements of  9 @Large Directors ... how about we
complete that bylaw stipulation before we move on to others like the Study, for
instance?!

> 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?

This is an interesting proposal and consideration, but again, why are the ICANN
bylaws being so flagrantly selectively enforced?

> 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.

I agree that this is an important endeavour for the DNSO.  But, do you agree
that organizing the @Large is also something worthwhile and important for ICANN?

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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:19:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Sheriff in town

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Let us get it on and I ask you to join in an earlier post.
>
>        The procedure set forth at http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml are good
>        procedures which can be adopted.  Then they can be modified as problems
>        arise.

  Sorry to say, but your URL is "Not Found".  You sure you have the right
URL Eric?

>
>
>        Based upon my broad based survey of all working group, committee, SO, GA
>        list archives I found the most amount of argument time spent on two
>        subjects.
>
>        1. History: Basically how did something come about, what was intended
>        and who was responsible.
>
>        2. Definition: Entire threads get misdirected because the two sides
>        cannot come up with an agreed upon meaning of what is being said.

  Well I must agree with number one, but not Number two....

>
>
>        Neither of these two areas have produced positive results EVER!!

  Agreed here as it relates to #1.  However this is due to several factors.
Our survey has indicated that the lack of positive results is mostly
centered in a propensity of denial, by in large...

> Yet it is what the majority of time, like about 85% is spent on. A review of
>        the last House Hearings and the ones underway lead to the same numbers
>        and the same result.

  Well I didn't get the impression from the House Hearings myself...

>
>
>        The other results are aggravation from the process leading to lack of
>        participation.  An interesting phenomenon is that the bitterness which
>        pervades so many discussions does not diminish the activity, but it does
>        narrow the participation.
>
>        My conclusion at this point is that before moving on and establishing
>        set rules and procedures, as in agreed to histories and definitions,
>        each group simply appoint marshals for both of these areas.  Elect your
>        internal chair and they appoint their marshals.  Just like the old west,
>        before the laws could be written down that would cover the situations,
>        the elected mayors would simply hire marshals to keep the peace.
>        Of course the marshal would just say ok gentlemen lets take this off
>        list and we will agree on moving forward before getting back on list. No
>        problem the dissenter gets to post one objection to the marshals
>        position but then we move on.
>
>        Sincerely,
>        Wyatt Earp
>
> Ok this is ridiculous?  I  think is better and Dassa and Joanna woul make great Marshals,
> they are faster draws than any -post  I have seen.
>
> Ultreya,
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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

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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:16:36 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transparency

I would be willing to moderate such a debate.  Once and for all, let's hear it gents!

SS
HN, Inc.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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

- --
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 13:31:48 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Eric Dierker and William Walsh

The list monitor has received a number of complaints about list behaviour 
over the last few days.
In general, they are concerned with William Walsh's attacks on Joop 
Ternstra over IDNO, Joop Ternstra's attacks on William Walsh, Eric 
Dierker's postings on all and sundry, Andy Gardner's posting of private 
email, and Jeff Williams' complaints about the attacks.

The list monitor wishes to remind the members of the language of the list 
rules:

    - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
    - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
         1.Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
         2.Not using offensive language

The two bullets are given as examples of "a minimum of decorum", and are 
not an exhaustive description of "decorum".

It should be quite clear by now that decorum is not the operative term for 
the current debate. In particular, I point out:

Eric Dierker:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00322.html

William Walsh:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00316.html

Andy Garner:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00270.html
(reposting of abusive material, personal attack in commentary)

I am particularly saddened by the fact that William Walsh seems to have 
considered the lifting of his earlier suspension not as a warning against 
his activities, but as a carte blanche to post any kind of attack on Joop's 
behaviour in the IDNO that he considers relevant to the IDNO/GA debate, as 
long as no single word of his many postings can be considered abusive in 
and of itself.

This is neither observing decorum nor a constructive approach to getting 
work done in the GA.

The list monitor, believing that this is the minimum action required, 
therefore hereby suspends the posting rights of William Walsh and Eric 
Dierker for 2 weeks from today.
Joop Ternstra and Andy Gardner in particular are warned that continuing the 
debate in the current style is not consistent with decorum, and that 
continuing the debate about interpretations of the history of the IDNO is 
inconsistent with relevance to the GA.

The suspensions will end on February 26.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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 13:34:49 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Voter Registry

At 16:14 11/02/2001 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Will someone please direct me as to how I go about
>having my name added to the GA Voter Registry?

See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

>TIA (Thanks in Advance),
>
>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

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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 10:59:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Eric Dierker and William Walsh

Harald and allremaining assembly members,

  Thank you Harald for this reminder and the action taken.

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> The list monitor has received a number of complaints about list behaviour
> over the last few days.
> In general, they are concerned with William Walsh's attacks on Joop
> Ternstra over IDNO, Joop Ternstra's attacks on William Walsh, Eric
> Dierker's postings on all and sundry, Andy Gardner's posting of private
> email, and Jeff Williams' complaints about the attacks.
>
> The list monitor wishes to remind the members of the language of the list
> rules:
>
>     - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
>     - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>          1.Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>          2.Not using offensive language
>
> The two bullets are given as examples of "a minimum of decorum", and are
> not an exhaustive description of "decorum".
>
> It should be quite clear by now that decorum is not the operative term for
> the current debate. In particular, I point out:
>
> Eric Dierker:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00322.html
>
> William Walsh:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00316.html
>
> Andy Garner:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00270.html
> (reposting of abusive material, personal attack in commentary)
>
> I am particularly saddened by the fact that William Walsh seems to have
> considered the lifting of his earlier suspension not as a warning against
> his activities, but as a carte blanche to post any kind of attack on Joop's
> behaviour in the IDNO that he considers relevant to the IDNO/GA debate, as
> long as no single word of his many postings can be considered abusive in
> and of itself.
>
> This is neither observing decorum nor a constructive approach to getting
> work done in the GA.
>
> The list monitor, believing that this is the minimum action required,
> therefore hereby suspends the posting rights of William Walsh and Eric
> Dierker for 2 weeks from today.
> Joop Ternstra and Andy Gardner in particular are warned that continuing the
> debate in the current style is not consistent with decorum, and that
> continuing the debate about interpretations of the history of the IDNO is
> inconsistent with relevance to the GA.
>
> The suspensions will end on February 26.
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:04:03 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Melbourne and nominations

Dear GA,

The funding for travel to Melbourne that I hoped for has just fallen 
through, so if attendance is a requirement for the chair, I'll have to 
withdraw my acceptance of the nomination.

My daughter thanks all of you for you sympathy and good wishes on her 
injuries, as do I.

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 21:29:16 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IDNO] - Was: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Andy Gardner wrote:

>
>A number of us consider this relevant to the GA>
>
>If you don't respect our opinions, and learn how to filter your email.
>

A number of people (much larger, according to my personal estimates) 
considers this irrelevant to the GA, though, so a solution should be found. 
The suggestion of activating personal filters is indeed agood one, but how 
on earth could people guess that IDNO-related bickering is disguised in a 
message whose subject line reads "Reform in the GA?"?

Pending decision by the List Manager on whether the issue of 
what-really-happened-in-IDNO (which is a completely different thing from the 
issue of a constituency for individuals) is on-topic or off-topic, I would 
suggest that all messages deling with the history of IDNO, the 
interpretation thereof, the attempt to rewrite it with different words, and 
all the alike clearly contain the string "[IDNO]" in the subject.
This will allow the people that consider this relevant to read it, and the 
people who consider this irrelevant to filter it. With this embedded string 
things will be clear, and readers can make a responsible choice.

Fair enough?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:55:36 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

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,

Not necessarily.
The responsibility could be shared by chair and co-chair.
This was the original plan between myself and Harald for 2000 (like every 
plan I have heard of, things went out differently, though).

>>(2) participate as a non-voting, ex officio member of the NC in the
>>monthly NC meetings; and

At present, this is not true, even if it would be a welcome change.
Of course, nothing prevents the Chair from joining the teleconferences using 
one of the listen-only lines, but there is no provision for active 
participation (i.e. with right to speak) except upon specific invitation 
(which did happen occasionally last year).
But I am sure that the NC will not have anything against the Chair being 
ex-officio non-voting participant to the NC.

>>(3) Coordinating the discussions on the GA. list; and

Indeed. Including receiving appeals to the decisions of the List Manager. 
May include in the future the creation of SIGs, if we go in this direction.

>>(4) coordinating consensus development and overseeing the preparation of
>>periodic reports from the GA; and

Yes.

>>(5) Participating in NC task forces when invited to do so

This can be debatable.
Ideally, in a GA that has a core team of working people, there should not be 
a strict need for direct participation of the Chair: the GA could elect a 
specific delegate, or the Chair could appoint a delegate, depending on the 
importance of the matter and the time to make a decision.

>
>Sure, I think these are all part of it...and hopefully Roberto WILL add to
>it, if we're missing anything.

Nothing else that comes to my mind.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:05:30 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>At 10:49 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
> >How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time 
>as
>the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is
>high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.
> >
>
>Agreed.
>There is no better way to convince the Board to amend the bylaws than by
>responsibly holding a successful election under our own steam.
>The WG-review proved that it can be done in 15 days, when the nominating
>process is web based.

I think consensus is emerging that we should go forward.

>
>In this case the Melbourne Meeting  on April 10 should function as the
>logical  deadline.

???
March 10, you mean ;>) less than a month away.

Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:28:31 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Ben Edelman wrote:
>
>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.

I would like to take full responsibility of what happened in MdR in relation 
to the remote comments, and apologise.

It has been always my intention to take remote comments, and I believe that 
this co-ordination between Ben (and all the Berkman folks) and the Chair did 
work well in Cairo and in Yokohama.
I am sure that Ben tried to call my attention to the remote contributions, 
including votes, but the development of the events on site caught all my 
attention, not leaving any left for the communication from the Berkman crew. 
I apologise again.

Maybe the only modification is to authorize the Berkman people to make more 
active signs and catch the attention of the Chair.

Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #236
************************