Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #343
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, April 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 343

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:23:11 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

David Farrar wrote:-
The question then before us is whether we run another election with fresh
calls
for candidates.  One can argue this has some merit as some may not have
accepted nomination because Jon was a nominee.

No, sorry. This is changing the rules in the middle of an election.

The other option is that as we are fortunate enough to have a preferential
voting system (lowest polling candidate drops off until someone gets 50%+1)
one
can re-allocate votes for Jon according to the next preferences and declare
that person the GA nominee for Chair.

Yes. This is following the rules.

I believe that the GA itself has to decide this issue and that a quick poll
should be done of whether we wish to re-open nominations *if Jon is the
winner*
or just allocate preferentials.  I believe such a vote should be held
without
knowing who the 2nd placed candidate is (ie delay the detailed results
publication).

Yes, the GA has to decide this issue, but no, not in the middle of an
election sorry. After the election, this question may be addressed.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:37:45 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Let's not blow things out of proportion.

- -I agree with you 100% on this one William. There is no crisis. 
Joanna
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:43:46 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

 If however Jon wins and resigns
we have a vacancy and it is quite legitimate to hold another election.

If and when that situation arises, we will address it. In the meantime,
there are Board directives to review how current operations of DNSO can be
improved, with a deadline of April 16.
Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:26:23 +1000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisignagreements

Agreed.  As you will have noted from the agenda for the next NC meeting, I
will be proposing a response for consideration by the NC .

I think your comments re .net and .org are very much to the point and should
b reflected in amendments to the NC business plan .
I would like to see the proposed .net and .org TF tasked with preparing a
policy options paper which:
(i) identifies the key issues and the options avbailable ;and
(ii) will provide a clear focus for further discussion and consultation on
the issue.

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 7:54 AM
Subject: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisignagreements

> Erica:
> Thanks for your well-considered suggestion. I support Options 1 and 2, but
do not think that Option 1 would be effective, given the obvious desire of
ICANN staff to circumvent the DNSO when convenient. They know we are
concerned. They don't care.
>
> I would take careful note of who on the Board voted for and against the
proposal. We can keep this in mind when we elect the next DNSO
representatives. We should also take seriously those working for a more
representative Board via more rapid implementation of at-large elections.
>
> More significant than either of those, however, would be for the NC to be
more pro-active.
>
> Why don't we start a task force _now_ on ORG and NET divestiture. This
group could develop authoritative policy recommendations regarding the
status of ORG, and the seletion of a registry operator for NET?
>
> --Milton Mueller, Noncommercial constituency
>
> >>> "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]> 04/02/01 08:02AM >>>
>
> As I see it, we have three options before us:
> 1.  Write to the Board reiterating our expression of concern about the
lack
> of due process;
> 2.  Propose  a formal policy requiring an appropriate consultation process
> on all issues which are viewed by two or more DNSO constituencies as
> involving policy issues;
> 3:  Do nothing
>
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:40:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiropoulos,
>
> [excess CC's removed since everyone gets a copy from the ga list
> anyway]
>
> Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 6:35:11 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> > corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
> > The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> > from.
>
> > I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe otherwise.
> > I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I urge
> > others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
> > concern?  Somehow I doubt it...
>
> Let's not blow things out of proportion, it really doesn't help you or
> your view, or the GA.

The only two matters which Mr. Sotiropoulos left out were:

That the election go forward AND the NC appoint those so chosen.

And that he is constant and helpful contributor to this process, currently
undertaking the thankless job of Chairing the WG-REVIEW, and that he has been
watching and learning and being here since the very beginning and before of ICANN.
(he also has a habit of disagreeing with a post and putting it a manner that is
constructive and leads to far better understanding and input)

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:50:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 11:40:20 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> Hello Sotiropoulos,
>>
>> [excess CC's removed since everyone gets a copy from the ga list
>> anyway]
>>
>> Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 6:35:11 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>> > If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
>> > corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
>> > The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
>> > from.
>>
>> > I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe otherwise.
>> > I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I urge
>> > others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
>> > concern?  Somehow I doubt it...
>>
>> Let's not blow things out of proportion, it really doesn't help you or
>> your view, or the GA.

> The only two matters which Mr. Sotiropoulos left out were:

> That the election go forward AND the NC appoint those so chosen.

> And that he is constant and helpful contributor to this process, currently
> undertaking the thankless job of Chairing the WG-REVIEW, and that he has been
> watching and learning and being here since the very beginning and before of ICANN.
> (he also has a habit of disagreeing with a post and putting it a manner that is
> constructive and leads to far better understanding and input)

None of which justifies blowing this one issue out of proportion.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:01:32 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> None of which justifies blowing this one issue out of proportion.

100% I agree with you but he is not doing that, however your taking issue with it is
blowing it out of proportion.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:11:37 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 12:01:32 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> None of which justifies blowing this one issue out of proportion.

> 100% I agree with you but he is not doing that, however your taking issue with it is
> blowing it out of proportion.

Really?

> If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
> The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> from.

Looks like it to me, and probably any other reasonable person, Eric.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:26:46 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:03 PM

> Sorry David, in true ICANN fashion I'm going to flip-flop now...
> 
> I think we *should* cancel the election ASAP.  I wish to make 
> a motion of
> it.  Who will second?
> 
> (Also, if this motion is carried, I wish to nominate Marilyn 
> Cade, Kent
> Crispin, and Dave Crocker as candidates for any new election 
> for GA Chair).

Damn, I could have sworn that April Fools day has already passed. I'll not
endorse any part of that ticket, including the motion.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:32:23 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Is this another one of your jokes Sotiris?

No Roeland, no joke.  The motion stands and seeks a second.  What's the
point of wasting more time by having the results of this election annulled
later by the NC or the `watchdogs', and then calling for another election?

As for the "joke" issue, well let's just say that I think we pretty much all
know what the real joke is here, don't we?

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:57:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

I believe this means a return to the WG-Review and some serious work, and I
invite all to join except for Mr. Walsh ;-), seriously your comments are
always welcome, if only to me.

Sincerely,

Joanna Lane wrote:

>  If however Jon wins and resigns
> we have a vacancy and it is quite legitimate to hold another election.
>
> If and when that situation arises, we will address it. In the meantime,
> there are Board directives to review how current operations of DNSO can be
> improved, with a deadline of April 16.
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:59:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] lighten up

Ok let us have some fun and recognize these quotes.  and make pointed
sarcastic points regarding them.

" I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.  Debating
the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it does
likewise."

"We have a long time to go and a short time to get there" (ok thats me)

Something like "I am so lonesome I must be good"

"We have a short time to get there and a long ways to go"

 "the deal is done so what is there to complain about?'

"When policy and theory enter into the picture we are going down the
wron path"

"the only unnacceptable solution is the status quo"

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:58:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and Mr. Crocker
and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post this concept from the
Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we are not outnumbered but only have to
vote.  I finally realized why these list centurions were against campaigning, it might
upset the goal they were sent to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view
off the active participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
the same thing.

Well we have precedence.

More on the behind the scenes capture of votes later.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Eric,
> > >
> > > None of which justifies blowing this one issue out of proportion.
> >
> > 100% I agree with you but he is not doing that, however your taking issue with it is
> > blowing it out of proportion.
>
>   I would have to agree with you very well put evaluation here Eric.  Thank
> you for making it.
>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
> 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:16:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

And Mr. Sir,

It is coming down to whether we "dot commoners" stick together or not.  I fear
from the shear brutal terrors of the corporate gun slingers that people will
stay away from the poll. Why would anyone risk the attacks of Crispin, Crocker
and Walsh in order to state their opinion.  Sure they win if the behind the
scenes deals work and if commom folk don't come out and vote there own mind.
But this has been going on for years and only a few folks can take it, well I
cannot, but I will for this purpose of gettin someone elected that is not
intimidated, or hiding an agenda.

I stand against the status quo and for Mr. Auerbachs' positions.

If you do not like this campaigning it is jsut because you do not want the
issues raised.

Sincerely,

p.s. I beg the other candidates to state their real opinions, although I realize
that both of the other candidates have decided it is far better to lay low on
their opinions and therefor win by not making the players mad.

.....
Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > Is this another one of your jokes Sotiris?
>
> No Roeland, no joke.  The motion stands and seeks a second.  What's the
> point of wasting more time by having the results of this election annulled
> later by the NC or the `watchdogs', and then calling for another election?
>
> As for the "joke" issue, well let's just say that I think we pretty much all
> know what the real joke is here, don't we?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:01:27 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:32 PM

> > Is this another one of your jokes Sotiris?

> As for the "joke" issue, well let's just say that I think we 
> pretty much all know what the real joke is here, don't we?

I'm not so sure. I've been away for some time. Why don't you enlighten me?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:03:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

I of course agree with this.  And so I post it.  I do not expect to be elected but I do expect
to press a few points.  As Harald already said, even though I am a popular candidate and not a
hand picked one like him, he refuses to even consider my posts.  And even though I will discuss
my corporate situation but he considers it an insult to do so, other people are not as good
because they do not have the credentials necessary.  This elitist snobbery must end and it must
end now!!!
    Because we do not posess Mr. Crispin's contracts or Mr. Crockers stats does mot mean that we
are not stakeholders, I resent the constant attacks on us commoners, through me because I
represent those who do not speak,  but if we do not speak up now when will we?

But the then look at I History i was banned for taking on Mr. Walsh who is the most notorious
for forcing people off the list by his meaness.

Ah you decide, Status Quo or something closer to your children.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   Any method of banning is of course, both inappropriate and inconsiderate
> with respect to the the White Paper and the MoU, not to mention a
> critical stamp on free speech rights.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:53:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:58:52 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and Mr. Crocker
> and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post this concept from the
> Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we are not outnumbered but only have to
> vote.  I finally realized why these list centurions were against campaigning, it might
> upset the goal they were sent to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view
> off the active participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
> the same thing.

Oh please.  Eric, your issue with my stating to the list why I felt
you were not suitable for the position of GA is getting a little out
of hand here.

And all you have done in response to it is prove that I was right all
along.

I told you once off list, now I'll tell it to you on the list.

You need to learn some maturity, and you need to learn how to live
with criticism.  I've wasted a lot of time on you, off list, trying to
make you understand some things, to make you a better GA member.  I
didn't try and convert you to my views on things, I focused
EXCLUSIVELY on how your way of responding and reacting to things was
working against you, and your credibility.

The above message gives me grounds to file a complaint against you,
but I'm not doing that yet.   I know from posts to me in private when
I've insisted on responding to you on list lately that a number of
people, on both sides of these issues btw, have already added you to
their filters.  You really are not coming across in a way where you
can or will have the kind of impact you think you should have.

You think that you can come on the seem in an aggressive way, and
immediately be a driving force.   The respect that is needed to be a
driving force is something that you can earn only over time, and you
don't earn it by the way you react to things.

For what it is worth, on matters of POLICY, on the list, we agree on
much.  But your personality and attitude get vastly in the way of
people understanding that.

Normally I would make this kind of post privately.  But your reaction
to my last and final attempt to do that intimates to me that maybe the
only way to get through to you is by making these points publicly.

If I didn't think you had good points to make, I would not have wasted
my time off-list trying to explain the things I was trying to get
across to you.  You do not do yourself, or your points, justice.

I assistant coached a high school forensics team for a year, as a TA.
The most effective leader on that team was a senior who had
transferred in from another school, and wasn't that well known on a
personal level by the students on our team.  What made him an
effective leader, was that he went about his way of doing things
quietly and without a big deal.  Because his ways were, in fact, the
right ways, the others followed in way they never would have had he
been more assertive about his ways and approaches being correct.  He
ended up being the driving force of that team, a position he didn't
directly seek, and overshadowed the seniors who had been on that team
for the 3 previous years.

There's a lesson in there I hope you hear.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:58:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 3:03:45 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> But the then look at I History i was banned for taking on Mr. Walsh who is the most notorious
> for forcing people off the list by his meaness.

No, you were banned for inappropriate behavior, and you need to accept
responsibility for that.  (BTW, you are again approaching that level)

That you tend to blame others for all of your problems, something you
have been doing a lot of since you became active here, speaks volumes.

It is always someone else's problem, it's my fault and the
"establishment's" fault in the event you don't get elected, it's my
fault you got disciplined, it's always someone else's fault Eric.

You are beginning to show patterns.

I have one more matter to address, but I'll address that one in
private.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:45:00 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:58:52 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and Mr. Crocker
> > and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post this concept from the
> > Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we are not outnumbered but only have to
> > vote.  I finally realized why these list centurions were against campaigning, it might
> > upset the goal they were sent to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view
> > off the active participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
> > the same thing.
>
> Oh please.  Eric, your issue with my stating to the list why I felt
> you were not suitable for the position of GA is getting a little out
> of hand here.
>
> And all you have done in response to it is prove that I was right all
> along.
>
> I told you once off list, now I'll tell it to you on the list.
>
> You need to learn some maturity, and you need to learn how to live
> with criticism.  I've wasted a lot of time on you, off list, trying to
> make you understand some things, to make you a better GA member.  I
> didn't try and convert you to my views on things, I focused
> EXCLUSIVELY on how your way of responding and reacting to things was
> working against you, and your credibility.
>
> The above message gives me grounds to file a complaint against you,
> but I'm not doing that yet.   I know from posts to me in private when
> I've insisted on responding to you on list lately that a number of
> people, on both sides of these issues btw, have already added you to
> their filters.  You really are not coming across in a way where you
> can or will have the kind of impact you think you should have.
>
> You think that you can come on the seem in an aggressive way, and
> immediately be a driving force.   The respect that is needed to be a
> driving force is something that you can earn only over time, and you
> don't earn it by the way you react to things.
>
> For what it is worth, on matters of POLICY, on the list, we agree on
> much.  But your personality and attitude get vastly in the way of
> people understanding that.
>
> Normally I would make this kind of post privately.  But your reaction
> to my last and final attempt to do that intimates to me that maybe the
> only way to get through to you is by making these points publicly.
>
> If I didn't think you had good points to make, I would not have wasted
> my time off-list trying to explain the things I was trying to get
> across to you.  You do not do yourself, or your points, justice.
>
> I assistant coached a high school forensics team for a year, as a TA.
> The most effective leader on that team was a senior who had
> transferred in from another school, and wasn't that well known on a
> personal level by the students on our team.  What made him an
> effective leader, was that he went about his way of doing things
> quietly and without a big deal.  Because his ways were, in fact, the
> right ways, the others followed in way they never would have had he
> been more assertive about his ways and approaches being correct.  He
> ended up being the driving force of that team, a position he didn't
> directly seek, and overshadowed the seniors who had been on that team
> for the 3 previous years.
>
> There's a lesson in there I hope you hear.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]

Damn straight and a big Thank you!
And if that kid would of offended everyone and his words were right he would have been rebuked.
I get your point. Yoour point is well taken this school is only for kids who have been here for
awhile, lest I do things quietly for my first little while I ain't gonna make it. Ah whatthe
heck you are right no one likes a guy like me. I guess it comes from being youngest of six,
getting a philosophy and law degree and being a prick, but I hope you can attest I did try
before I quit.

Adios,

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:51:40 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Kent Crispin wrote:-
 All the evidence points to this being a relatively last minute brainstorm
on VRSN's part.

If so, all the evidence points to this being a relatively last minute
agreement on ICANN's part.  Not exactly appropriate behaviour for a
corporation that is supposed to go through a consensus procedure involving
interested stakeholders before giving away a key contract worth potentially
billions of dollars.
Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:00:34 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On 2001-04-03 14:53:23 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> Now, if the clear intent of the California law was that anyone
>> who's asked by board resolution to vote for board seats is a
>> member in the sense of the California code, why did the
>> legislation put in that note on a SPECIFIC PROVISION?

> How do you know the clear intent?

> One of the things the courts look at in clear intent is not
> always the literal interpretation of the words, but the
> statements by the authors and others in the legislature when the
> law was being drafted and debated.

Just answer my question.  If the clear intent was that a board
resolution suffices, why does the law call for a SPECIFIC PROVISION
IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES?

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:28:10 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Kent Crispin wrote:-
I don't see that much coverage at all in mainstream, relatively objective
media; and
most of the highly critical reports seem informed by the same
misunderstandings about ICANN that drive a lot of the criticism on
these lists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1256000/1256964.stm

Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:35:11 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

>I don't see that much coverage at all in mainstream, relatively objective
>media; and
>most of the highly critical reports seem informed by the same
>misunderstandings about ICANN that drive a lot of the criticism on
>these lists.

Kent,

Please stop mistaking our disgust at this giant facade that you and your
buddies have constructed for any sort of misunderstanding.

We know EXACTLY what's going on here.

All we can do right now is wait until enough non-corporate-aligned US
Senators get the message and put a stop to it.

- -- 
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:55:43 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Thomas,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 2:00:34 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-04-03 14:53:23 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>>> Now, if the clear intent of the California law was that anyone
>>> who's asked by board resolution to vote for board seats is a
>>> member in the sense of the California code, why did the
>>> legislation put in that note on a SPECIFIC PROVISION?

>> How do you know the clear intent?

>> One of the things the courts look at in clear intent is not
>> always the literal interpretation of the words, but the
>> statements by the authors and others in the legislature when the
>> law was being drafted and debated.

> Just answer my question.  If the clear intent was that a board
> resolution suffices, why does the law call for a SPECIFIC PROVISION
> IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES?

I think the court will have to decide that, because it certainly isn't
clear.  And that's the court's job, to interpret the meaning of the
law.

I've heard analysis that your reading is out of context, and that the
clauses are not exclusive of each other as you are presenting them.
That would mean that a specific provision is NOT mandated, only
provided for as one option as to how members may be recognized as
existing.

So like I said, this is a nice exercise, but like so many laws, until
it is tested with this specific set of circumstances, and a court
actually addresses those circumstances and how they fit with what the
law intended, what we have to say here is of little relevance.

- -- 
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 #343
************************