Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #352
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 6 2001            Volume 01 : Number 352

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

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:35:10 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's?  Shouldn't we
discuss substantive issues instead of personalities?    Aren't we threatening
the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?

> >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.

- --
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 14:48:13 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

>Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's?  Shouldn't we
>discuss substantive issues instead of personalities?
That was nothing to do with personalities.

It was about plants paid by persons unknown, here to steer discussions the
way their masters want, and to throw spanners into cogs wherever possible.

They are masters of this game. Wouldn't you be interested to know exactiy
WHO is paying them to do it?

I sure would.

>Aren't we threatening
>the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?

You're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, Eric.

Have they pulled the wool over your eyes?

- -- 
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 13:15:22 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Hello Roberto and Jefsey,

The problem is a basic one, the company has to be incorporated somewhere.
Would you rather the ICANN be a USG operated regulator, like the FCC? In
that instance, no one whom is not a US citizen would have any voice ...
period. That was the only alternative.

What is an unrealistic expectation is, that the USG would allow off-shore
incorporation of someone making recommendation for operations, of the root,
that is ultimately controlled by the DOC (a USG agency). Given that;
on-shore (US perspective) incorporation is a requirement. The only variable
allowed was the home State of incorporation. That the interim ICANN BoD
chose California, is an issue to actually [under present circumstances] be
thankful for. Many of us recommended Delaware or Nevada jurisdictions, with
good reasons, at that time (yes, we were nievely considering good faith
intentions). We also argued for for-profit status (another thankful miss).

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:35 PM
> 
> 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.
- --
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 13:23:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Hello Eric,

Thursday, April 05, 2001, 12:54:52 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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.

Not to mention your propensity for publishing private emails to the
list, not a trait that makes you well suited for Chair.

- -- 
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:40:03 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Sorry about the PS;

I failed to point out that the chief prosecutor of California is the only
one that can bring ICANN to task. With the current energy crunch, it is
unlikely that it will get much air-play. They all have larger fish to fry.
Politically, it is a lower priority.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:15 PM
> To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
> 
> 
> Hello Roberto and Jefsey,
> 
> The problem is a basic one, the company has to be 
> incorporated somewhere.
> Would you rather the ICANN be a USG operated regulator, like 
> the FCC? In
> that instance, no one whom is not a US citizen would have any 
> voice ...
> period. That was the only alternative.
> 
> What is an unrealistic expectation is, that the USG would 
> allow off-shore
> incorporation of someone making recommendation for 
> operations, of the root,
> that is ultimately controlled by the DOC (a USG agency). Given that;
> on-shore (US perspective) incorporation is a requirement. The 
> only variable
> allowed was the home State of incorporation. That the interim 
> ICANN BoD
> chose California, is an issue to actually [under present 
> circumstances] be
> thankful for. Many of us recommended Delaware or Nevada 
> jurisdictions, with
> good reasons, at that time (yes, we were nievely considering 
> good faith
> intentions). We also argued for for-profit status (another 
> thankful miss).
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:35 PM
> > 
> > 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.
> --
> 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 13:42:34 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell, PhD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

> For
> Mr. (sic) 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.

Thanks Jon. But Joanna herself also already cleared that up earlier today.
Apparently a number of us are Brits, and none of us actually located in
the UK ...

Tim

- --
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 20:18:36 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

At 09:11 05.04.2001 -0400, J. William Semich wrote:
>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.

Bill,
it is perfectly within someone's rights to create a fictious name for use 
on the GA list.

>  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.

Other people have created special mail accounts for use on the ICANN lists 
too. As long as they use only one of them, it is not sanctioned against.

- --
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 14:11:40 -0700
From: Frank Rizzo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis

Hi Jeff, you silly prankster. Of course I'm in Tialand. I'm 
consulting with INEG on the NTP-> NNTP Protocol Transponder, code 
named NTPNNTPPT. You really should get a little more sleep. I know 
this project has been running you ragged.

Others, yes, I highly recommend Bob "Jangles" Davis for this 
position. With Bob's exhaustive knowledge of negative photon 
analysis, we could do no better.

- -rizzY

At 2:24 PM -0700 4/5/01, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Frank and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Some how I seriously doubt you did, Frank.  I'll ask Bob on our
>conference
>call this evening though...  You see Frank, Bob is in Tialand at the
>moment...
>Are you?
>
>Frank Rizzo wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:13:57 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

> Wouldn't you be interested to know exactly
> WHO is paying them to do it?

No.  Everyone is here out of motivation. I think it is counter-productive to get
off on that inquiry with each post rather than dealing with validity of its
substance.

And, even if I were interested in motivation, would I get "incriminating"
information through such inquiry?  Or, would I start an endless cycle of
recrimination which gets us nothing but white noise?
Who will stick around for that?

> >Aren't we threatening
> >the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?
>
> You're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, Eric.
> Have they pulled the wool over your eyes?

I don't think so (on either account).  Nor, do I perceive my point being taken.

This assembly is struggling toward function and relevance.  Great strides have
been taken in that direction with the institution of opinion polls and
elections.  Some think we should have the status of a constituency.  That trend
can continue to fruition or we can self-destruct.   I think we should keep our
eyes on the prize.

- --
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 14:15:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

I think that we have two valuable lessons to learn from the suspension.

There is a small turning point where the generally pleasant majority, got vocal
against antagonism which was clearly designed to prevent achievement and
participation.  No one needs to name names because the past is just that, the
past.  But I can garauntee you that if it starts to rear its' ugly head again us
newbie dotcommoners will not tolerate it.

You will note that I like to work on Outreach, multilingualism and Education.  My
bottom line on the conduct was that it hurt Outreach intentionally.  And I think
that we should note that the gravaman of this latest banning was over sustained
brutal conduct and not really a freedom of speech thing at all. It also should be
noted it happened to a non-elected member of the voting watchdog group.  I
believe the action is the first in a long line of the beginning of
internetstakeholders forcing the controllers to act in reaction to their
opinions. This GA is turning the corner.

Secondly, I believe it illustrates that we need a better mechanism for dealing
with the problem.  I really believe an easy informal selection/election of a
group of three should handle the banning.  If the allegations are really dealing
with protected speech we need to be very careful, otherwise banning will always
be viewed as a top down censoring of opposing opinions. I ask that Dave, Harald
and Jeff get together on this a prepare process to move this in this new
direction, between them the document should either satisfy all or none and either
is good.

Sincerely,

Andy Gardner wrote:

> >Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's?  Shouldn't we
> >discuss substantive issues instead of personalities?
> That was nothing to do with personalities.
>
> It was about plants paid by persons unknown, here to steer discussions the
> way their masters want, and to throw spanners into cogs wherever possible.
>
> They are masters of this game. Wouldn't you be interested to know exactiy
> WHO is paying them to do it?
>
> I sure would.
>
> >Aren't we threatening
> >the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?
>
> You're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, Eric.
>
> Have they pulled the wool over your eyes?
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 23:18:04 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Eric Weisberg qrote:
>
>Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's?  Shouldn't we
>discuss substantive issues instead of personalities?    Aren't we 
>threatening
>the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such 
>tangents?

Yes, IMHO.
(to both questions)
RG

>
>
>
> > >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.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:25:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Jo

- --part1_77.12a5a887.27fe3cde_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joanna ... there is absolutely no reason why you should have to identify 
yourself to anyone on a list - nor explain your ISP or your nick .

There are still a few people around who do not try to use the mailing lists 
to promote their own businesss (or their ego)  and in my opinion Joanna is 
one of the few.

A lot of us have known her thru the lists for some time. 

Jess

- --part1_77.12a5a887.27fe3cde_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>Joanna ... there is absolutely no reason why you should have to identify 
<BR>yourself to anyone on a list - nor explain your ISP or your nick .
<BR>
<BR>There are still a few people around who do not try to use the mailing lists 
<BR>to promote their own businesss (or their ego) &nbsp;and in my opinion Joanna is 
<BR>one of the few.
<BR>
<BR>A lot of us have known her thru the lists for some time. 
<BR>
<BR>Jess
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_77.12a5a887.27fe3cde_boundary--
- --
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 16:21:52 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

At 4:13 pm -0500 4/5/01, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>> Wouldn't you be interested to know exactly
>> WHO is paying them to do it?
>
>No.  Everyone is here out of motivation. I think it is counter-productive
>to get
>off on that inquiry with each post rather than dealing with validity of its
>substance.
>
>And, even if I were interested in motivation, would I get "incriminating"
>information through such inquiry?  Or, would I start an endless cycle of
>recrimination which gets us nothing but white noise?

As it turns out, it appears that according to IETF records, Dave is on
Neustar's payroll.

All analysis of his comments in this forum should be done with that
information in mind.

- -- 
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, 05 Apr 2001 14:26:06 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Bill,

I know this should be of list but If I owe you a special apology then it is only
right to do it publicly.  I was having work done on all three of my computers
yesterday and was on a temporary, that is the reason for the wierd times on my
posts. It also may have contributed to an error in posting, I am a habit creature
and not very technically adept.  I also note that I was pleasantly admonished, and
rightly so for posting to much.

I offend you well enough by the substance of my comments, so I certainly did not
intend to take any action to aggravate you unduly. As you are sure my posts were in
error I take you on your honor and I sincerely, apologize.  I also appreciate you
mailing me by name, so that I have this opportunity to make amends.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Thursday, April 05, 2001, 12:54:52 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Not to mention your propensity for publishing private emails to the
> list, not a trait that makes you well suited for Chair.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:39:10 -0400
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's?  
>Shouldn't we discuss substantive issues instead of 
>personalities?    
>Aren't we threatening the stability and function 
>of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?

Objection:
#1: If you're going to make statements against Mr. Crocker, 
have the simple decency and civility to do it when he can 
actually respond.

#2:  What stability? What function? What legitimacy?

And, while we're on the subject, it begins to look as though 
the chair and vice-chair are going to sandbag and stonewall 
until Dave's suspension expires by lapse of time. Dave should 
never have been suspended. His suspension, without good 
cause and without a hint of due process, highlights that this 
body is in no way representative of the Internet Community. 
It is instead a mutual admiration society in which those whose 
opinions are disfavored find themselves insulted (heaven 
forfend we should return the favor) and worse. I'm surprised at 
the delay in reinstating Dave: the injustice of his suspension 
should be incontrovertible at this point.

> >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.

- --
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 

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.

*******************************************************************************
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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

There is a ga-full list, to which I subscribe, and to which anyone may
post, whether suspended from the list you are on or not.  

Perhaps it is time for the list deities to repost the instructions on how
to subscribe to it?

(I should add that since I killfile several people, including I think
everyone who's been suspended so far, the difference in my case is
academic.  But YMMV.)

> 
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> 
> And, while we're on the subject, it begins to look as though 
> the chair and vice-chair are going to sandbag and stonewall 
> until Dave's suspension expires by lapse of time. Dave should 
> never have been suspended. His suspension, without good 
> cause and without a hint of due process, highlights that this 
> body is in no way representative of the Internet Community. 
> It is instead a mutual admiration society in which those whose 
> opinions are disfavored find themselves insulted (heaven 
> forfend we should return the favor) and worse. I'm surprised at 
> the delay in reinstating Dave: the injustice of his suspension 
> should be incontrovertible at this point.

> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:08:21 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Roeland,
>
>The problem is a basic one, the company has to be incorporated somewhere.

I already said that I am not complaining, I knew that the rule of the game 
was that US had to remain in control of the system.
I just point this out as a seldom remembered constraint.
But this is far from being the "only theoretical solution", is just the only 
solution that satisfies the requirement of who has the power to lay out the 
rules of the game.
But please don't pretend that this is the "only" possibility.

On the matter:
Why, pray tell, should it be "incorporated" somewhere?
Why should it be a "corporation" at all?
Hint: Air Traffic Control is very similar to Network Traffic Control. Where 
is ICAO incorporated? Is it incorporated at all?

>Would you rather the ICANN be a USG operated regulator, like the FCC? In
>that instance, no one whom is not a US citizen would have any voice ...
>period. That was the only alternative.

No.
You are listing only alternatives suitable to the US.
I agree that US had the power to impose the rule of the game to the rest of 
the world, but these were not, by any means, *the only alternative(s)* in 
absolute, but just the only alternatives within the subset of all the 
possible alternatives that USG liked.

>
>What is an unrealistic expectation is, that the USG would allow off-shore
>incorporation of someone making recommendation for operations, of the root,
>that is ultimately controlled by the DOC (a USG agency).

Nobody ever spoke about "off-shore incorporation". The theoretical point is 
not "which country" but "national or international".
As you rightfully say, USG has control of the root, and therefore the 
Internet. Period.
As I said, I knew it, and I accept that the stronger sets the rules.

Given that;
>on-shore (US perspective) incorporation is a requirement. The only variable
>allowed was the home State of incorporation. That the interim ICANN BoD
>chose California, is an issue to actually [under present circumstances] be
>thankful for. Many of us recommended Delaware or Nevada jurisdictions, with
>good reasons, at that time (yes, we were nievely considering good faith
>intentions). We also argued for for-profit status (another thankful miss).

Given the above, you have all the elements to realize why I always said that 
I could not care less about Delaware vs. Nevada vs. California, for-profit 
corporation vs. not-for-profit corporation, California laws about 
membership, and all the alike.
I judge by the effect: and the effect is before us.
ICANN is *not*, by any possible measure, balancing the international point 
of view.
This has not prevented it from doing some good things, but this should 
explain why I disagree with you and others on the priorities for a 
corrective action on ICANN.

Going back where we started a couple of days ago: the whole legal issue 
about membership under California law is of no interest whatsoever to me.
I prefer to seek the answer to the question on how an individual that 
accesses the Internet from a cybercafe in Hyderabad, or Iquique, or 
Tombuctou, or Vladivostok, can influence this process.
Hint: if you had to pay the way they do for a 9600 baud connection, would 
you rather spend hours on these mailing lists, or rely on somebody 
representing your interests? The issue of membership is important in 
developed countries, but there is more than that that needs to be adressed. 
And the US-centric approach does not make me confident that these issues 
will be ever adressed.

Regards
Roberto

>
>
>
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:35 PM
> >
> > 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.
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:18:17 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] privacy

     (c) The Government acknowledges that data submitted by applicants
in connection with the IANA function is Confidential Information.
     To the extent permitted by law, the Government shall accord any
data submitted by applicants in connection with the IANA function
     with the same degree of care as it uses to protect its own
confidential information, but not less than reasonable care, to prevent
the
     unauthorized use, disclosure or publication of confidential
information. In providing data to the United States Government that is
     subject to such a confidentiality obligation, the Contractor shall
advise the United States Government of that obligation.

This is from the IANA contract, how does this square with the privacy
policy that is in place?  It seems all backwards. But the IP group did
not have input on this and they did on the other.

- --
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 #352
************************