Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #353
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 6 2001            Volume 01 : Number 353

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:51:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Hello Kevin,

Thursday, April 05, 2001, 2:39:10 PM, 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.

Dave was suspended for breach of the rules, and for doing something
that traditionally he has been so loud about accusing others of doing.

His statement was a clear personal attack.

He won't be reinstated.

- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:57:35 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Appeal

Folks,

I have received several requests for reconsideration of the sanction against 
Dave Crocker.

It is indeed a difficult decision, and I am aware that in any case it will 
make somebody unhappy (and most probably nobody happy). But that's life.

I would like first to provide some motivation to my decision: those who 
prefer to "jump to the conclusions" are welcome to <PgDn> to the end of the 
message.

For the others, I would list qhat are, IMHO, the points against and in 
favour of Dave.

Against:
- - the sanctioned post was just the straw that broke the camel's back, some 
complaints have been received also on previous posts
- - Dave is one of the most experienced and long time personalities in this 
debate. I know this will sound "old-fashioned" (that's how I probably am, so 
I can't help), but I would expect him (as others, on either side of this 
year-long debate) to be an example of behaviour for newcomers rather than 
somebody that actively contributes to the disruption of this list

For:
- - as correctly guessed by a distinguished individual asking for 
reconsideration, there has been no warning, and no attempt to privately 
contact Dave to cool off - not from my part, at least
- - the post came after a series of attacks to him and to Kent Crispin, that 
were indeed sometimes heavier and more off-limits than the post that 
originated the sanction
- - in a private message, Dave stated that he did not intend to be offensive 
with the post, that he thought about it as a funny but not offensive thing 
to say, and that he apologized

My personal opinion, as said above, is that the post in itself would not 
justify the exclusion from the list, but that the continuous "approaching" 
and sometimes "crossing the border line" (not just by Dave, though) needed 
an intervention by the List Monitor.

All considered, I decide that the suspension of posting right of Dave 
Crocker shall be revoked.
I would appreciate Dave sending to the list the apologies he announced me 
privately, as he did not have the intention to offend.
This decision is not a critique of the sanction applied by the List Monitor: 
it is highly dependent from my personal interpretation of the low offensive 
potential of the comment made, and on the intention of Dave to explain this 
to the list, which is a new element that the List Monitor did not know at 
time of decision.
I would also appreciate if this incident could sound as a warning to all 
those who find necessary to use personal attacks to make the point.
Maybe some of the rules should be revised. Maybe the new Chair, AltChair, 
List Monitors, will treat the matter better, or at least in a way that will 
raise less concerns to the Assembly: for the time being I shall note that 
the major problem this Assembly had when myself and Harald took office was 
the disruption and the low signal-to-noise ratio.
I do believe that we managed to bring these items to a more acceptable 
level, and this is the main reason why we did gain also the confidence of 
the NC and some recognition. It is sad that now, in this period of 
uncertainity before a new leadership will take over, the ghosts of the past 
try to poison the air again.

I wish that the participants to the General Assembly of the DNSO could find 
again the way to positively interact to produce something that is meaningful 
for the Internet Community, and that everybody will think twice before 
firing off useless personal attacks, and will give the correct value to the 
personal attacks he/she receives: zero!

Best regards, and good night for today: this is my fifth and last.
Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:18:40 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] MultiBind Testers Wanted

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_019F_01C0BDFC.D7012A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new =
version called MultiBind.  MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root =
networks on
the internet by allowing the specification of more than one root.cache =
file.

Cache files are processed in order of sysadmin-specified preference. =
When looking for a TLD, MultiBind searches each of the RSNs until a =
match is found.

MultiBind will also allow the sysadmin to specify RSN-TLD preferences so =
that control is not just at the root server level.

We are looking for testers - anyone who would like the code, please =
respond here. The beta release will be ready on May 1, 2001

Lion
http://www.nic.lion

- ------=_NextPart_000_019F_01C0BDFC.D7012A80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>American Webmasters&nbsp;is completing=20
modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new version called MultiBind.&nbsp; =
MultiBind=20
solves the problem of multiple root networks on</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the internet by allowing the =
specification of more=20
than one root.cache file.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cache files are processed in order of=20
sysadmin-specified preference. When looking for a TLD, MultiBind =
searches each=20
of the RSNs until a match is found.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>MultiBind will also allow the sysadmin =
to specify=20
RSN-TLD preferences so that control is not just at the root server=20
level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We are looking for testers - anyone who =
would like=20
the code, please respond here. The beta release will be ready on May 1,=20
2001</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lion</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.nic.lion">http://www.nic.lion</A></FONT></DIV></FONT><=
/DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_019F_01C0BDFC.D7012A80--

- --
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 01:26:58 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Fifth or sixth post, I don't think I can let this pass without comment, and 
since this is the kind of message that makes me *really* angry, I don't 
think I should answer this tomorrow: either now, or in a couple of days, 
when I will have the freedom given by the fact of no longer being Chair.

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>
>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.

The statement was against Andy Gardiner (and Leah, I suppose), exactly 
making the point that they violate the same rules.

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

By indulging in ad-nominem attacks and irrelevant polemics we indeed 
threaten at least the effectiveness and recognition of this Assembly.
I concur with Eric.

>
>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.

It is I-don't-know-what-time, over here.
I have spent the whole morning and good part of the afternoon in meetings 
for my day job. The little time I had to dedicate to the Internet, I did 
concentrating on what I thought was the most important problem: the risk of 
not having proper elections. I called Harald (I pay also my DNSO-related 
phone calls from my own pocket, as you all know) and discussed *this*, I'm 
sorry to consider the issue of having or not a properly elected Chairman 
more important.

You have now a proper election process, where you can re-cast your vote, and 
possibly elect somebody that will give to the GA business the priorities 
that you wish.
Oh, by the way, please elect somebody that will be available to respond to 
your messages H24, independently of time zones, and of other personal or 
professional business. Somebody that can dedicate all his/her time to the GA 
list, that can consider your appeals with the highest priority.

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.

Sorry to express a different opinion.
It has been for me probably the most difficult decision since in office.
And I can easily predict tons of bits flowing from either side, proving that 
the matter is far from being incontrovertible.

Just one last question: why did you not present your candidature?

Regards
Roberto

P.S.: On second thoughts, my previous post about the appeal on Dave should 
not be counted against the limit, as it was a consequence of my duty as 
Chair - alternatively, I should have postponed it until tomorrow :>).

Roberto
Feeling better, and re-gaining his sense of humour

_________________________________________________________________________
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 19:45:35 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Hello all.

Several weeks ago, a newspaper reporter asked me to "clarify" some
information about ICANN, and the "bottom-up, consensus-based process" we use
to arrive at recommendations for global internet policy.

I gave him, as a reference, some GA archives.

Now there is another call (which I have not returned yet) asking me if "this
stuff" on the list is really the basis for internet governance.

What can I say?

That is a rhetorical question.

Is it possible for this list to focus on substantive internet policy?

I really would hope so, aqnd i would hope that those on this list realize
that the media is watching (or at least reading).

Peter de Blanc
(chair, ccTLD AdCom, and ccTLD NC rep)

- --
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 19:44:55 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

I would normally not respond to this type of post.  However, I must 
take exception to it in that it refers to me.  I would like to know 
when I have broken the rules and to what post you referred your 
targeted remarks.

I believe I objected to the banning of Dave Crocker in light of the 
common nature of his post and that the best method to rid onesself 
of unwanted posts is the "delete" key.  I believe I also said that 
parody of names is somewhat better than out and out slander or 
some of the more angry posts we have seen.

Would you please explain to me where you were headed with your 
reference to me and whether you think perhaps it might have been 
in error?

leah

> Fifth or sixth post, I don't think I can let this pass without
> comment, and since this is the kind of message that makes me *really*
> angry, I don't think I should answer this tomorrow: either now, or in
> a couple of days, when I will have the freedom given by the fact of no
> longer being Chair.
> 
> Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> The statement was against Andy Gardiner (and Leah, I suppose), exactly
> making the point that they violate the same rules.
> 
> >
> >#2:  What stability? What function? What legitimacy?
> 
> By indulging in ad-nominem attacks and irrelevant polemics we indeed
> threaten at least the effectiveness and recognition of this Assembly.
> I concur with Eric.
> 
> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> It is I-don't-know-what-time, over here.
> I have spent the whole morning and good part of the afternoon in
> meetings for my day job. The little time I had to dedicate to the
> Internet, I did concentrating on what I thought was the most important
> problem: the risk of not having proper elections. I called Harald (I
> pay also my DNSO-related phone calls from my own pocket, as you all
> know) and discussed *this*, I'm sorry to consider the issue of having
> or not a properly elected Chairman more important.
> 
> You have now a proper election process, where you can re-cast your
> vote, and possibly elect somebody that will give to the GA business
> the priorities that you wish. Oh, by the way, please elect somebody
> that will be available to respond to your messages H24, independently
> of time zones, and of other personal or professional business.
> Somebody that can dedicate all his/her time to the GA list, that can
> consider your appeals with the highest priority.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Sorry to express a different opinion.
> It has been for me probably the most difficult decision since in
> office. And I can easily predict tons of bits flowing from either
> side, proving that the matter is far from being incontrovertible.
> 
> Just one last question: why did you not present your candidature?
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: On second thoughts, my previous post about the appeal on Dave
> should not be counted against the limit, as it was a consequence of my
> duty as Chair - alternatively, I should have postponed it until
> tomorrow :>).
> 
> Roberto
> Feeling better, and re-gaining his sense of humour
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___ 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-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, 05 Apr 2001 18:54:32 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Appeal

Roberto & All,

Dave (obviously) broke the rules:  it's his time to be punished.

I don't think he deserves special treatment.

:)

~k

- --
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 20:33:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] (no subject)

- --part1_37.131c46f4.27fe68db_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

In all probability the correct way for setting up ICANN would have been based 
on the Securities industry - which has been proven efficient for many years 
and the basis of many such organizations internationally.

It would also be an excellent and efficient format for the TLDA 

jess

- --part1_37.131c46f4.27fe68db_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>&lt;&lt;The problem is a basic one, the company has to be incorporated somewhere&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>In all probability the correct way for setting up ICANN would have been based 
<BR>on the Securities industry - which has been proven efficient for many years 
<BR>and the basis of many such organizations internationally.
<BR>
<BR>It would also be an excellent and efficient format for the TLDA 
<BR>
<BR>jess
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_37.131c46f4.27fe68db_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 20:56:27 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

From: Peter de Blanc :
> Several weeks ago, a newspaper reporter asked me to "clarify" some
> information about ICANN, and the "bottom-up, consensus-based process" we
use
> to arrive at recommendations for global internet policy.
>
> I gave him, as a reference, some GA archives.
>
> Now there is another call (which I have not returned yet) asking me if
"this
> stuff" on the list is really the basis for internet governance.
>
> What can I say?

Easy, send them to the WG-Review List.
;-)

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 6 Apr 2001 10:53:59 +1000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: US Government investigations into ICANN

In the midst of all this procedural to-ing and fro-ing about elections and
suspensions, I have a substantive question:

I am attempting to review the various U.S. Committee and Subcommittee
investigations into the activities of ICANN.  Can anyone direct me to an
up-to-date list of all investigations, with links to transcripts?
Alternatively, is anyone aware of a summary of all recent investigations?

Thank you.

This email and any attachments are confidential, and may be subject to
legal privilege.
If you received this email in error, please let us know immediately by
return email.

- --
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 21:20:14 -0400
From: "Russ Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

> and the "bottom-up, consensus-based process" we use
>to arrive at recommendations for global internet policy.

...
>i would hope that those on this list realize
>that the media is watching (or at least reading).

As soon as you hear the term "bottom-up, consensus-based process" in a
serious tone when speaking about ICANN it is clear that the rest of the
interview will be nothing more than rhetoric.  That is why you have all
these arguments and banning on this list.  I do not believe anybody really
believes that statement and as soon as you hear someone talking like that
there is no point in arguing because you are arguing with a politician who
has an agenda rather than a legitimate discussion.

That is also why there is so much discussion about ICANN and the rules about
being a California corporation.  People are looking for law, rules, etc. to
try to get information from ICANN because they will not take the
responsibility, or put out the effort, to have an open process.

It is too much trouble, people just want to slow us down, they don't need to
know, people will try to stop what we are doing, yada yada yada.  One of
most unbelievable statements was mad by Andrew McLaughlin to the Politech
mailing list:

"I'm always amazed by the amount of misreporting & hyperventilation about
domain name stuff -- this one's no exception."

I thought it was Mr. McLaughlin's job to make sure this stuff doesn't
happen!  I have made numerous requests to ICANN for detailed explanations
about how the various panels and committees were chosen and even asked to
review tax returns which they are required to provide me by law.  I have
never received any of the information I requested.  If this would have been
done by the Dept. of Commerce rather than ICANN I would be able to get at
least some of the information via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
ICANN doesn't even come close to meeting the FOIA standard (which is not
that good to begin with).

I believe it is ridiculous to try blame ICANN's dismal public image on a
bunch of wild posting on this list.  When ICANN does get a complaint about
their image they should be able to point to information sources (such as
their web site) and say, "See, here is the information about the process."
Instead the attitude is that there are all these troublemakers out there and
we have to keep everything secret or they will slow us down (and, of course,
we know we are right).

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net

- --
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 21:33:21 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: US Government investigations into ICANN

I don't know of any comprehensive list.  Both House and Senate 
hearings are archived on their respective websites.  www.house.gov 
and www.senate.gov.  You have to go the committees and then 
the action archives.  I know that the House/commerce site lists 
actions by sub title, so it's fairly easy to sort them out.

Leah

> 
> 
> In the midst of all this procedural to-ing and fro-ing about elections
> and suspensions, I have a substantive question:
> 
> I am attempting to review the various U.S. Committee and Subcommittee
> investigations into the activities of ICANN.  Can anyone direct me to
> an up-to-date list of all investigations, with links to transcripts?
> Alternatively, is anyone aware of a summary of all recent
> investigations?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> This email and any attachments are confidential, and may be subject to
> legal privilege. If you received this email in error, please let us
> know immediately by return email.
> 
> --
> 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 18:41:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appeal

Thursday, April 05, 2001, 3:57:35 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> All considered, I decide that the suspension of posting right of Dave
> Crocker shall be revoked.

There we go again with lack of consistency and equal application of
the rules.

- -- 
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 22:51:21 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Appeal

Roberto, without interpreting your suggestions, I can forsee  that our focus
should be the benefit of the GA and remind us all that we have a common
objective:  communication and understanding, even when we disagree.

I hope to get past those phases, and get on with working on issues of mutual
concern. And tolerating disagreement

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Appeal

Folks,

I have received several requests for reconsideration of the sanction against

Dave Crocker.

It is indeed a difficult decision, and I am aware that in any case it will 
make somebody unhappy (and most probably nobody happy). But that's life.

I would like first to provide some motivation to my decision: those who 
prefer to "jump to the conclusions" are welcome to <PgDn> to the end of the 
message.

For the others, I would list qhat are, IMHO, the points against and in 
favour of Dave.

Against:
- - the sanctioned post was just the straw that broke the camel's back, some 
complaints have been received also on previous posts
- - Dave is one of the most experienced and long time personalities in this 
debate. I know this will sound "old-fashioned" (that's how I probably am, so

I can't help), but I would expect him (as others, on either side of this 
year-long debate) to be an example of behaviour for newcomers rather than 
somebody that actively contributes to the disruption of this list

For:
- - as correctly guessed by a distinguished individual asking for 
reconsideration, there has been no warning, and no attempt to privately 
contact Dave to cool off - not from my part, at least
- - the post came after a series of attacks to him and to Kent Crispin, that 
were indeed sometimes heavier and more off-limits than the post that 
originated the sanction
- - in a private message, Dave stated that he did not intend to be offensive 
with the post, that he thought about it as a funny but not offensive thing 
to say, and that he apologized

My personal opinion, as said above, is that the post in itself would not 
justify the exclusion from the list, but that the continuous "approaching" 
and sometimes "crossing the border line" (not just by Dave, though) needed 
an intervention by the List Monitor.

All considered, I decide that the suspension of posting right of Dave 
Crocker shall be revoked.
I would appreciate Dave sending to the list the apologies he announced me 
privately, as he did not have the intention to offend.
This decision is not a critique of the sanction applied by the List Monitor:

it is highly dependent from my personal interpretation of the low offensive 
potential of the comment made, and on the intention of Dave to explain this 
to the list, which is a new element that the List Monitor did not know at 
time of decision.
I would also appreciate if this incident could sound as a warning to all 
those who find necessary to use personal attacks to make the point.
Maybe some of the rules should be revised. Maybe the new Chair, AltChair, 
List Monitors, will treat the matter better, or at least in a way that will 
raise less concerns to the Assembly: for the time being I shall note that 
the major problem this Assembly had when myself and Harald took office was 
the disruption and the low signal-to-noise ratio.
I do believe that we managed to bring these items to a more acceptable 
level, and this is the main reason why we did gain also the confidence of 
the NC and some recognition. It is sad that now, in this period of 
uncertainity before a new leadership will take over, the ghosts of the past 
try to poison the air again.

I wish that the participants to the General Assembly of the DNSO could find 
again the way to positively interact to produce something that is meaningful

for the Internet Community, and that everybody will think twice before 
firing off useless personal attacks, and will give the correct value to the 
personal attacks he/she receives: zero!

Best regards, and good night for today: this is my fifth and last.
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
- --
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 20:15:32 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Mr. Smith,

I may well have disagreement with some of your post but I believe the thrust is
110% accurate.  I have the great pleasure of dealing with many foreign
developing countries.  The good ones are emerging market countries, and their
biggest problem is decemination of knowledge, both from infrastructure and
cultural perspective. In that ICANN is in it's infancy as an organization it is
suffering the same growing pains. So do many growing churches.
    Knowledge is power and power is knowledge is the rule that must be
understood and then shared and made moot because everyone has access to the
knowledge/power. I beg you to join with us working in the WG-REVIEW to create a
true Outreach, Education and Multilingualism structure and funding to help
guide/lead ICANN through this difficult time period.
     I also take this post to beg for a continuance of that list for the effort
toward this most worthy endeavor. Mr. Smith you are right on the money. It is
time to stop pointing out what is wrong and join the crowd (or at least a few on
the corner) in trying to take positive measures to make it better.

Sincerely,

Russ Smith wrote:

> > and the "bottom-up, consensus-based process" we use
> >to arrive at recommendations for global internet policy.
>
> ...
> >i would hope that those on this list realize
> >that the media is watching (or at least reading).
>
> As soon as you hear the term "bottom-up, consensus-based process" in a
> serious tone when speaking about ICANN it is clear that the rest of the
> interview will be nothing more than rhetoric.  That is why you have all
> these arguments and banning on this list.  I do not believe anybody really
> believes that statement and as soon as you hear someone talking like that
> there is no point in arguing because you are arguing with a politician who
> has an agenda rather than a legitimate discussion.
>
> That is also why there is so much discussion about ICANN and the rules about
> being a California corporation.  People are looking for law, rules, etc. to
> try to get information from ICANN because they will not take the
> responsibility, or put out the effort, to have an open process.
>
> It is too much trouble, people just want to slow us down, they don't need to
> know, people will try to stop what we are doing, yada yada yada.  One of
> most unbelievable statements was mad by Andrew McLaughlin to the Politech
> mailing list:
>
> "I'm always amazed by the amount of misreporting & hyperventilation about
> domain name stuff -- this one's no exception."
>
> I thought it was Mr. McLaughlin's job to make sure this stuff doesn't
> happen!  I have made numerous requests to ICANN for detailed explanations
> about how the various panels and committees were chosen and even asked to
> review tax returns which they are required to provide me by law.  I have
> never received any of the information I requested.  If this would have been
> done by the Dept. of Commerce rather than ICANN I would be able to get at
> least some of the information via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
> ICANN doesn't even come close to meeting the FOIA standard (which is not
> that good to begin with).
>
> I believe it is ridiculous to try blame ICANN's dismal public image on a
> bunch of wild posting on this list.  When ICANN does get a complaint about
> their image they should be able to point to information sources (such as
> their web site) and say, "See, here is the information about the process."
> Instead the attitude is that there are all these troublemakers out there and
> we have to keep everything secret or they will slow us down (and, of course,
> we know we are right).

- --
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 20:38:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [Fwd: New Privacy Initiative (fwd)]]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------EE7F1A0CC8303FD47EDFBDC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    This post is a perfect example of why we must be very careful on
banning and I hope we can work out a better system.  For any who do not
know, I am born and raised near the Grand Canyon in Flagstaff Arizona
and a Texan is about as repugnant to us as a New Yorker and that is
bad.  Just a societal truth.  I can get over it and try to learn from
Mr. Walsh as well as Mr. Williams.  They delight in being frank to a
point of rudeness for the rest of America both Texans and NYers. In fact
it is a Multilingual issue because it deals in differences in culture,
and even different language, like NZ and SA.

    But Ms. Vany is sterling here and we must come to grips with the
wonderful group she and YJ and Mr. Pisanty represent.
(as a side I hope that all non-coms look at the IANA contract and
realize you probably should not be having to pay for services, it is one
of those Americanisms hidden in the Compensation Clause, only Fair and
Equitable charges, approved by the contracting agent. it is weird but
generally that means that the money makers pay for the charities) I have
a dang fine lawyer and her name is Jennifer and she is one of my
childrens godparents.

Sincerely,

- --------------EE7F1A0CC8303FD47EDFBDC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:09:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
To: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: New Privacy Initiative (fwd)]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------8BA18EA138C023155A664C57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Eric,

  Here is something of interest for you to review....

- --
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

- --------------8BA18EA138C023155A664C57
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
To: NCDNHC list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New Privacy Initiative (fwd)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:26:40 -0500
Reply-To: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi to Alejandro and all:

I think that this is of the interest of the NCDNHC since there is a resol=
ution
passed in Melbourne by the members present there concerning the same subj=
ect
http://www.ncdnhc.org/docs/resolution/Melbourne/ME-privacy.html

I have read the Tucows proposal, and I think it is compatible with the
resolution passed at NCDNHC in Melbourne, with the exception of the WHOIS
information since this part of the resolution is not addressed by TUCOWS
proposal (and personally I think that information provided by WHOIS as it=
 is
actually should still be available unless ICANN creates other
system/procedure/protocol where someone is able to query databases for le=
gimit
purposes as verification of data, and any other lawful purposes).

My opinion is that as far as this proposal of modification is concerned o=
nly
with the bulk access, mass marketing, etc.  I like it, I think it is impo=
rtant
that the Registrant have the option to elect if their data has to be incl=
uded
in mass marketing and/or bulk e-mai, I think the Registrant has the right=
 that
their data not being sold without Registrant authorization (and if Regist=
rant
data is actually sold...don't you think that the Registrant should receiv=
e a
monetary compensation?)

What others think?

Best Regards
Vany

El mi=E9, 04 abr 2001, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM escribi=F3:
> Hi!
>=20
> have some of you already read this? what are your thoughts? I would won=
der
> if the constituency did not have an opinion on this!!
>=20
> Alejandro Pisanty
>=20
>=20
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . =
 .  .
>       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty=20
> UNAM  -  Educacion Abierta y a Distancia
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-5) 622-8713, 622-8633 Fax 550-8405
>=20
> http://www.cuaed.unam.mx
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isocmex.org.mx, www.isoc.org
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> ---->> Internet y Sociedad? www.istf.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . =
 .  .
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:19:49 -0700
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] New Privacy Initiative
>=20
> Kudos to Tucows for taking the first steps in making the privacy of
> registrant data a new ICANN consensus policy. You can find a letter sen=
t
> today from Tucows to the ICANN Board, DNSO Names Council, and registrar
> community here:
>=20
>   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00465.html
>=20
> The goal apparently is to create a new ICANN consensus policy that will
> prevent the misuse of a registrant's personal data for mass marketing
> purposes.=20
>=20
> This seems like something that the General Assembly could and should
> support.
>=20
>      -- Bret
>=20
> --
> 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
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]=
soc.org
- --=20
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail:  [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- ---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

- --------------8BA18EA138C023155A664C57--

- --------------EE7F1A0CC8303FD47EDFBDC0--

- --
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 #353
************************