Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #351
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 351

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:29:47 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Wow!  Suspension of Dave Crocker

> Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> is hereby suspended from the 
> list for 2 weeks, until April 19, 2001.

I believe that this is the first time I have *ever* seen him called on this.
But, this is also the first time I have seen him step so far over the line.
He usually toes up as close as he can get.

I'm impressed ... by the whole sordid mess.
- --
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:58:21 +0100 (BST)
From: Joe Gluza <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

<snip>
> >
> > But probably not for much longer.  The story is that the US
> > is about to use the
> > WTO to overturn EU privacy laws concerning Data Security
> > which are thought to
> > constrain US business.
>
> Can you provide URL for this?
>

This was thought to have been sorted in about March 2000 - the EU allowed the
export of personal information about individuals to US businesses provided the
US business could show that it would apply the same level of Data Security as
was required in the EU.

In March 2000 no agreement had been reached about the Financial Services
industry.

I am unable to provide a URL for the recent story as I cannot remember in which
newspaper I read it.

You can find the March 2000 story at http://news.bbc.co.uk if you search for
"data protection EU US" on that site.

Joe

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gluza                      Cambridge University Computing Service,
[email-masked]                 New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
[email-masked]        England.  Phone: +44 1223 334701
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:05:04 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

I have actually spoken to Joanna Lane over the telephone, as have other
members of this List.  Not to mention that Joanna also updates the
www.internetstakeholders.com web site.  Hope this settles any uncertainty.

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

> For God's sake.  One may or may not agree with Ms. Lane's
> positions, but there is no doubt that she is a living, breathing person.
> Mr. Semich notwithstanding, I had no difficulty finding a year-old message
> from Ms. Lane on the web on a topic completely unrelated to ICANN.  For
> Mr. Langdell's benefit, I'll point out that RCN is an Internet service
> provider (presumably Ms. Lane's), and that her username is hardly adequate
> basis for his assumption that she is a UK resident.
>
> Whether this suspension was the best way to handle the nasty tone
> on the list is another matter, but I respect Roberto's request that people
> take that up with him privately.  Now can we get back to business?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
>
> > While agreeing this should not be endlessly debated in the public forum,
I
> > too note that "rcn" -- whom Joanna Lane appears to work for
> > [email-masked])  -- does not appear to have a UK office. Perhaps Ms Lane
> > could respond?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker
> >
> >
> > > I also object, for the same reasons.
> > >
> > > And I'd like to request verification that the entity referred to,
jo-uk,
> > is
> > > an actual, individual person, and not a personality "created" by some
> > > "real" person for GA posting purposes only, in effect as a JOKE.
Searches
> > > on the Web only turn up references to this email address and name WRT
> > ICANN
> > > - no other identifiable activity appears anywhere else, on any other
> > topic.
> > > The email address, the jo-uk, seems to have spontaneoulsy come to
earth as
> > > one of the many side effects of the creation of ICANN. No surprise
that
> > > some members of this list might think a JOKE is being played on them
by
> > the
> > > entity behind the email address jo-uk.
> > >
> > > Bill Semich
> > >
> > > At 08:39 AM 4/5/01 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> > > >I object.
> > > >I object to the lack of even-handedness.
> > > >While so many posters on this list feel not the least constrained by
the
> > > 5-posts per day limit, others are squashed for making the very obvious
> > > observation that the non-suspended partner in the exchange does indeed
> > have
> > > an email address that makes an English speaker think that it's some
kind
> > of
> > > JOKE.
> > > >
> > > >Okay, go ahead. I said it too. You wanna suspend me now, too?
> > > >
> > > >Kevin J. Connolly
> > > >Attorney and Counselor at Law
> > > >Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
> > > >1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
> > > >New York, NY 10104
> > > >212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
> > > >This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come
> > with
> > > an invoice.
> > > >
> > > >Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
> > > >     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
> > > >          And dance, like no one's watching.
> > > >
> > > >>>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> 04/05/01 05:38AM
>>>
> > > >The monitor has watched with sadness and some amazement the degree of
> > > >innuendo and accusations being tossed around in the debate between
Dave
> > > >Crocker and Joanna Lane.
> > > >
> > > >However, a new low was reached in
> > > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00133.html, the last
sentence
> > ofD
> > > > ave Crocker's mail.
> > > >
> > > >This was entirely irrelevant, inappropriate, and probably intended to
be
> > > >insulting.
> > > >(not being a native English speaker, I'm not even sure I get the
> > point...)
> > > >
> > > >Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> is hereby suspended from the list
for 2
> > > >weeks, until April 19, 2001.
> > > >
> > > >BTW: Initial complaints came from William Walsh and Chris Ambler. The
> > > >source of complaint was not a factor in the evaluation, but it is not
> > onlym
> > > > e who think this was over the line.
> > > >
> > > >             Harald Alvestrand
> > > >             List monitor
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:20:21 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

Here you are Roeland:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5070401.html

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: 'Joe Gluza' <[email-masked]>; Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

> > From: Joe Gluza [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:20 AM
> > 
> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > > Especially for Individual Domain Name Holders privacy of their home
> > > adresses and protection against abuse of their email 
> > adresses is a crucial
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > At this point in time, only EU citizens enjoy such protection.
> > <snip>
> > 
> > But probably not for much longer.  The story is that the US 
> > is about to use the
> > WTO to overturn EU privacy laws concerning Data Security 
> > which are thought to
> > constrain US business.
> 
> Can you provide URL for this?
> --
> 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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:39:00 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:12 AM

> I also object, for the same reasons. 
> 
> And I'd like to request verification that the entity referred 
> to, jo-uk, is
> an actual, individual person, and not a personality "created" by some
> "real" person for GA posting purposes only, in effect as a 
> JOKE.

Get off it Bill. I was on the WG-Review conference call with her, last Jan.
I've also spoken with JW often, over the years.

Joanna has a pronounced British accent. JW is unmistakably, a Texan.
Joanna is female. JW is male.

I'm actually surprised that you posted this.
- --
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:39:40 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New Privacy Initiative

> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:20 AM
> 
> Here you are Roeland:
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5070401.html

Thanks. This doesn't bode well.
- --
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:57:09 -0400
From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Adequate verification received and noted. My apologies to Ms. Lane.

Bill Semich

At 10:39 AM 4/5/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:12 AM
>
>> I also object, for the same reasons. 
>> 
>> And I'd like to request verification that the entity referred 
>> to, jo-uk, is
>> an actual, individual person, and not a personality "created" by some
>> "real" person for GA posting purposes only, in effect as a 
>> JOKE.
>
>Get off it Bill. I was on the WG-Review conference call with her, last Jan.
>I've also spoken with JW often, over the years.
>
>Joanna has a pronounced British accent. JW is unmistakably, a Texan.
>Joanna is female. JW is male.
>
>I'm actually surprised that you posted this.
>
Bill Semich
President and Founder
WorldNames, Inc.
http://www.worldnames.net
[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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:20:31 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Jefsey:

I can understand your frustration with all the discussions about 
California Law and the APA.  However, since ICANN is, in fact, a US 
corporation that has its incorporation in California, it is extremely 
relevant.  As a matter of fact, it is this very fact that has caused 
so much consternation.  It is just a small CA corporation and is 
acting like a world governing body.  The CA law is quite strict, 
actually, regarding membership for this type of entity and that could 
actually be important for anyone who desires to pursue it.  
International law would have no control in this case.

As for the APA, that is also a US situation.  Please consider that it 
was precisely to avoid the APA that ICANN was established.  This 
was stated at the Congressional hearing on February 8, by 
Representative Pickering.  Since the Department of Commerce is 
actually the authority for com/net/org and the USG rootzone, it is 
especially crucial that they be brought to task under the APA.

I has always been my contention that the DoC should not be able 
to wriggle out of adhering to the APA, yet they claim it does not 
apply to these issues.

If this list were to ignore the fact that both US federal and state 
laws apply to ICANN and DoC and that these entities must be held 
to the laws that govern them, we may as well end the discussions.  
It is the agreement (MOU) between ICANN and the DoC that create 
the framework under which they operate.  

I would also agree, however, that aside from any legal issues 
surrounding ICANN/Doc, this list is for those who are trying to work 
within the framework of the ICANN bylaws and are attempting 
valiantly to have a voice.  It's all relevant, Jefsey, IMO.

Leah

> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> I am sorry to say that this discussion is of absolute no interest.
> Either iCANN has international pretence and is and behaves as such, or
> is a private interest californian corporation and is of no interest to
> us.
> 
> Is anyone serious considering if a NY juge could veto the Gulf war,
> interfere with the Anti-Nuclear Treaty or order a stop to the
> Afghanistan conflict because the UN are located in Mahattan ?
> 
> I am truely puzzled by the subjects of this GA ML. We currently
> have a major change in the very nature of the Internet and of its
> control. This will probably lead to a fossilized Internet with a
> direct control of the SLDs and huge attempts to privacy in various
> countries (China, USA, Italy, UK, may be France, ..) the whole thing
> taking advantage/helping the ICANN/Staff private take over. This take
> over ultimately leading to anti-trust action which may result in a
> full governmental sterilization of the net.
> 
> And we discuss the way to add 100 votes together, the bags of
> @large enveloppes, the californian law, the US administrative
> procedures, the unpolitness of Mr. Crocker ... I wonder if this is
> appropriate?
> 
> Jefsey
> 
> 
> 
> On 01:24 04/04/01, Roeland Meyer said:
> >See Karl's answer below;
> >
> > > From: 'Kent Crispin' [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:17 PM
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:23:43PM -0400, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > > Kent, I've copied a message I had prepared in response to
> > > this same argument
> > > > of yours on the WG-Review on Jan. 31st
> > > >
> > > (http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02292.html),
> > > for the benefit
> > > > of all on the GA List.  It went like this:
> > > >
> > > > "Ok Kent, I've read it a few times over and also gone to the
> > > > CNPBCL Code.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Since, however, the @Large is able to vote in Directors of the
> > > Board, does it not follow that such members are actually acting
> > > according to the CNPBCL definition of "members" (i.e.  "5056.  (a)
> > > "Member" means any person who, pursuant to a specific provision of
> > > a corporation's articles or bylaws, has the right to vote for the
> > > election of a director or directors...) ??? I'd appreciate a
> > > response."
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't mean that.
> > >
> > > To reiterate: 1) Contrary to the statement that started this
> > > thread, a CNPBCL is not required to have members; 2) The ICANN
> > > bylaws make it very clear that the "Members" defined in the bylaws
> > > do not qualify as members under the CNPBCL code.  Karl Auerbach
> > > has a mischievous interpretation of those laws, which you have
> > > picked up and will defend to the death, but the people who crafted
> > > those bylaws knew what they were doing.
> > >
> > > I have been told that Karl bases his creative reading on a
> > > fundamental misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of the legal view
> > > of whose benefit the bylaws are written for -- the bylaws are
> > > written for the benefit of the corporation; they are not written
> > > for the benefit of outside parties.  If the corporation writes
> > > bylaws that state that "we are going to allow people to help us
> > > select directors, but that they are not to be considered members
> > > as defined in the CNPBL", then that's how things are.
> > >
> > > So, bottom line, ICANN does not have members (as defined by the
> > > CNPBCL), and it is under no legal obligation to have them.  There
> > > really is no question about this.
> >
> >Yes there is ... and I'd rather take the word of a member of the
> >California State BAR over yours. I note that you have made no IANAL
> >disclaimers, are you pretending to be a lawyer?
> >
> >Thanks to Karl Auerbach for the following (posted with permission);
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:26 PM
> > >
> > > The person who posted gave only part of the story and as such
> > > comes to an incomplete conclusion.
> > >
> > > Sure the California statutes do allow non-membership corporations.
> > >
> > > But membership may arise from either a positive explicit
> > > declaration in
> > > the Corporation's organic documents (Articles of Incorporation or
> > > the By-Laws) *OR* by the indirect consequences of procedures
> > > written into those same documents.
> > >
> > > And one of those procedures through which a corporation comes to
> > > have members is by having elections for directors pursuant to
> > > provision in the Articles or Bylaws. (Section 5056 of the
> > > California Corporations Code.)
> > >
> > >   5056. (a) "Member" means any person who, pursuant to a specific
> > >   provision of a corporation's articles or bylaws, has the right
> > >   to vote for the election of a director or directors... "Member"
> > >   also means any person who is designated in the articles or
> > >   bylaws as a member and, pursuant to a specific provision of a
> > >   corporation's articles or bylaws, has the right to vote on
> > >   changes to the articles or bylaws.
> > >
> > > And under that section those who get the power to vote thereby
> > > become members.
> > >
> > > (One can argue about the effectiveness of ICANN's use of an
> > > resolution to try to avoid the "pursuant to a specific provision"
> > > part of the statute.)
> > >
> > > A corporation can't override the statute and say that that
> > > that implict declaration of membership (i.e. the election of
> > > directors) doesn't cause membership to arise.
> > >
> > > See: http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members
> > >
> > > The provision that Crispin quoted is merely a catchall that
> > > serves to say that if nothing in the Articles or Bylaws either
> > > explicitly or implicitly causes a membership to arise, then the
> > > corporation is still legal.
> > >
> > > There is no iconsistency between section 5310 and 5056. The
> > > presence of a section 5056 election means that a corporation
> > > has not effectively provided "in its articles that it shall
> > > have no members."
> > >
> > > A draftsman can create a set of corporate documents, such as
> > > ICANN's, in which there is both a declaration of no-membership and
> > > provisions that do create membership.  But that is just slopply
> > > lawyering.
> > >
> > > Notice that the first sentence of section 5310(a) merely allows a
> > > corporations to *state* in its articles or bylaws that it shall
> > > have no members.  But such a provision is, in and of itself,
> > > nothing more than a bald statement.  The second sentence of
> > > 5310(a) is the real meat - according to that sentence it is only
> > > the *absence* of any membership-causing provision, such as 5056,
> > > anywhere in the articles or bylaws that causes there to be no
> > > membership.
> > >
> > >               --karl--
> >--
> >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-full" 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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:29:56 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Are we not carrying this too far?  For years, list members have 
referred to the "crispy-crocket" duo and there  have been parody's 
of other list members' names.  While it is not the preferable method 
to refer to members, it is certainly not grounds for being banned 
from the list.  I have been the target of such posts in the past as 
well, especially from the duo.

I would rather see a name parody than some of the really cruel 
things said here.  It is simply a sign of frustration.  

I have a feeling that Joanna Lane has a thick enough skin to 
consider the source, ignore it and move on.  

Personally, I believe that the duo are paid disrupters who do a good 
job at their intended purpose.  I also think that the "delete key" is 
an ample method to ridding oneself of the lies, innuendo and attacks 
by them or anyone else.  I do not believe in banning for those posts 
as much as I feel they do no one any good.

Just my opinion.

Leah

> While agreeing this should not be endlessly debated in the public
> forum, I too note that "rcn" -- whom Joanna Lane appears to work for
> [email-masked])  -- does not appear to have a UK office. Perhaps Ms
> Lane could respond?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]> Cc: <[email-masked]> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001
> 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker
> 
> 
> > I also object, for the same reasons.
> >
> > And I'd like to request verification that the entity referred to,
> > jo-uk,
> is
> > an actual, individual person, and not a personality "created" by
> > some "real" person for GA posting purposes only, in effect as a
> > JOKE. Searches on the Web only turn up references to this email
> > address and name WRT
> ICANN
> > - no other identifiable activity appears anywhere else, on any other
> topic.
> > The email address, the jo-uk, seems to have spontaneoulsy come to
> > earth as one of the many side effects of the creation of ICANN. No
> > surprise that some members of this list might think a JOKE is being
> > played on them by
> the
> > entity behind the email address jo-uk.
> >
> > Bill Semich
> >
> > At 08:39 AM 4/5/01 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> > >I object.
> > >I object to the lack of even-handedness.
> > >While so many posters on this list feel not the least constrained
> > >by the
> > 5-posts per day limit, others are squashed for making the very
> > obvious observation that the non-suspended partner in the exchange
> > does indeed
> have
> > an email address that makes an English speaker think that it's some
> > kind
> of
> > JOKE.
> > >
> > >Okay, go ahead. I said it too. You wanna suspend me now, too?
> > >
> > >Kevin J. Connolly
> > >Attorney and Counselor at Law
> > >Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
> > >1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
> > >New York, NY 10104
> > >212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
> > >This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would
> > >come
> with
> > an invoice.
> > >
> > >Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
> > >     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
> > >          And dance, like no one's watching.
> > >
> > >>>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> 04/05/01 05:38AM
> > >>>> >>>
> > >The monitor has watched with sadness and some amazement the degree
> > >of innuendo and accusations being tossed around in the debate
> > >between Dave Crocker and Joanna Lane.
> > >
> > >However, a new low was reached in
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00133.html, the last
> > >sentence
> ofD
> > > ave Crocker's mail.
> > >
> > >This was entirely irrelevant, inappropriate, and probably intended
> > >to be insulting. (not being a native English speaker, I'm not even
> > >sure I get the
> point...)
> > >
> > >Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> is hereby suspended from the list
> > >for 2 weeks, until April 19, 2001.
> > >
> > >BTW: Initial complaints came from William Walsh and Chris Ambler.
> > >The source of complaint was not a factor in the evaluation, but it
> > >is not
> onlym
> > > e who think this was over the line.
> > >
> > >             Harald Alvestrand
> > >             List monitor
> > >
> > >--
> > >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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >*********************************************************************
> >******
> > ****
> > >The information contained in this electronic message is
> > >confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client
> > >privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges,
> > >trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from
> > >disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> > >recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
> > >distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly
> > >prohibited.  If you have received this communi- cation in error,
> > >please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at
> > >212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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
> > >
> > >
> > Bill Semich
> > President and Founder
> > WorldNames, Inc.
> > http://www.worldnames.net
> > [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-full" 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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:41:26 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

At 2:29 pm -0400 4/5/01, JandL wrote:

>Personally, I believe that the duo are paid disrupters who do a good
>job at their intended purpose.

The place just wouldn't be the same without the C&C Propaganda Factory to
entertain us with their blind support of the party line.

- -- 
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:49:28 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:21 AM

> If this list were to ignore the fact that both US federal and state 
> laws apply to ICANN and DoC and that these entities must be held 
> to the laws that govern them, we may as well end the discussions.  
> It is the agreement (MOU) between ICANN and the DoC that create 
> the framework under which they operate.  

I agree. Ignoring jurisdiction is exactly what has gotten the international
Internet into problems in the first place.

Can someone kindly spell out "APA"?
- --
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:47:17 -0700
From: Frank Rizzo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis

I second the nomination. I just had a high ball with Bob the other 
night. Great fella.

- -RiZZy

At 6:03 PM -0800 3/22/01, Jeff Williams wrote:
>All remaining assembly members,
>
>To: GA-nominations
>with CC to the GA and Bob Davis
>
>   1a. Full name of the nominee: Robert A. Davis
>   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
>   2a. Full name of the nominator: Jeffrey A. Williams
>   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
>   2c. Type of GA membership: GA
>       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
>        GA-voting registry
>
>  I nominate Bob Davis because of his steller preformance as a
>leader and facilitator in our organization, a execellent business
>community leader in his community, a knowledgable individual
>in areas of internet affairs, ecommerce.  He has been a participant
>of the DNSO GA for some time and understand the issues
>involved.
>
>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

- --
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:47:46 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

APA = Administrative Procedures Act

> > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:21 AM
> 
> > If this list were to ignore the fact that both US federal and state
> > laws apply to ICANN and DoC and that these entities must be held to
> > the laws that govern them, we may as well end the discussions.  It
> > is the agreement (MOU) between ICANN and the DoC that create the
> > framework under which they operate.  
> 
> I agree. Ignoring jurisdiction is exactly what has gotten the
> international Internet into problems in the first place.
> 
> 
> Can someone kindly spell out "APA"?
> 

- --
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:54:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Mr. Semich,

I think you know that no apologies were required.  And yet you did the
gentlemanly thing and sent it anyway.  Speaking for myself, in trying to curb
the abuses I became abusive, and I apologize for that.

Thank you for setting a worthy example and helping to start this new era with
dignity and respect.

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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:34:50 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Leah,

>
>I can understand your frustration with all the discussions about
>California Law and the APA.  However, since ICANN is, in fact, a US
>corporation that has its incorporation in California, it is extremely
>relevant.

It is relevant indeed, and it is exactly the point Jefsey was making in 
wondering how credible can be a Corporation that is only subject to 
California law (and I would assume also US Federal law) in making policy 
decision worldwide.

I am not complaining, we knew in advance that this was the case: I am just 
trying to explain Jefsey's frustration, as I interpret it.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #351
************************