Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #354
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 6 2001            Volume 01 : Number 354

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

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:19:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Eric's silly games

I politely and as a friend challenge this notion;

I put it to this list that i will give a MacDonalds certificate to the needing
child of the winner's choice in any country, MacDonalds because they are every
where, to the winner of my game.

We have four serious issues going on right now;

1.  The versign contracts,

2.  Privacy,

3.  ICANNs' exceptance of us (the GA) as a legitimate force of representation
of the White paper goals.

4. The IANA contract - or the contract with the USG taking over the function

I know this is unfair to newbies, but the rules are no on list request for
help.  You are graded upon your positive statements replying to a previous
post, conspiring is allowed, you can cheat and bring in a new issue if it is
of substance.  Anything personal in response is a DSQ. (disqualification) You
can reply in your native non-English tongue but you have to supply a link to a
translation engine.
Remember it is the positive endorser and contributor who wins.

I think Danny and Patrick should be the judges, after the election of course.
You have 24 hours and postings are to be judged harshly if they hung around to
the end.

Before you hate this think about the powerful outreach and healing effect it
can have,  we have to start behaving in a positive way and what better way, I
can hardly wait for a positive post from my freind Mr. Walsh, i will finish it
with great aplomb and win hands down

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 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

- --
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 01:00:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Whoa !  Multilingual?

- --part1_88.4cf079e.27fea788_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 4/5/2001 10:42:50 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<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. >> 

Whoa!  

 <<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. >>

It seems you have already learned rudeness from them!  Williams we don't 
claim as a Texan!   Jeff has all the earmarks of being  a misplaced  
Arizonian that's been chewing on a little too much Peyote for too many years! 

<<In fact it is a Multilingual issue because it deals in differences in 
culture, and even different language, like NZ and SA.>>

Excuse me - perhaps you should find a dictionary and look up the word 
"multilingual" !     

The last time I was in New York, they were still speaking English there.  The 
same was true in NZ and SA (assuming you are referring to New Zealand and 
South Africa)   

Jess

- --part1_88.4cf079e.27fea788_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 4/5/2001 10:42:50 PM Central Daylight Time, 
<BR>[email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt;This post is a perfect example of why we must be very careful on
<BR>banning and I hope we can work out a better system. &gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt; For any who do not know, I am born and raised near the Grand Canyon in 
<BR>Flagstaff Arizona and a Texan is about as repugnant to us as a New Yorker and 
<BR>that is bad. &nbsp;Just a societal truth. &gt;&gt; 
<BR>
<BR>Whoa! &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR> &lt;&lt;I can get over it and try to learn from Mr. Walsh as well as Mr. Williams. 
<BR>&nbsp;They delight in being frank to a point of rudeness for the rest of America 
<BR>both Texans and NYers. &gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>It seems you have already learned rudeness from them! &nbsp;Williams we don't 
<BR>claim as a Texan! &nbsp;&nbsp;Jeff has all the earmarks of being &nbsp;a misplaced &nbsp;
<BR>Arizonian that's been chewing on a little too much Peyote for too many years! 
<BR>&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt;In fact it is a Multilingual issue because it deals in differences in 
<BR>culture, and even different language, like NZ and SA.&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Excuse me - perhaps you should find a dictionary and look up the word 
<BR>"multilingual" ! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>The last time I was in New York, they were still speaking English there. &nbsp;The 
<BR>same was true in NZ and SA (assuming you are referring to New Zealand and 
<BR>South Africa) &nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Jess
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_88.4cf079e.27fea788_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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:40:04 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: ga-full instructions (Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker)

At 17:45 05.04.2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>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?

send "subscribe ga-full" in the body of a message to [email-masked]

>(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

- --
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 08:49:17 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

At 19:44 05.04.2001 -0400, JandL wrote:
>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.

The following two sentences have been complained about:

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

Andy:
 >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.

In the judgment of the list monitor, both are inflammatory personal 
attacks, and serve no purpose except to raise the temperature of the list.

The list monitor has decided that he will issue a warning (for once, ON the 
list); the list monitor will have a new person in the appeals chain in a 
few days, and wants to consult with that person. But I judge these 
statements to be well outside what is permitted by list rules.

             Harald Alvestrand
             Speaking as 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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:30:20 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Whoa !  Multilingual?

At 01:00 06.04.2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>It seems you have already learned rudeness from them!  Williams we don't
>claim as a Texan!   Jeff has all the earmarks of being  a misplaced
>Arizonian that's been chewing on a little too much Peyote for too many years!

whoa....even Jeff Williams deserves SOME respect...

>   <<In fact it is a Multilingual issue because it deals in differences in
>culture, and even different language, like NZ and SA.>>
>
>Excuse me - perhaps you should find a dictionary and look up the word
>"multilingual" !
>
>The last time I was in New York, they were still speaking English there.  The
>same was true in NZ and SA (assuming you are referring to New Zealand and
>South Africa)

As George Bernard Shaw observed, the English-speaking communities are 
"divided by a common language". Being a non-native speaker of English 
sometimes gives rise to quite unintended bouts of hilarity when two 
English-speaking persons think they are both speaking plainly and clearly, 
and totally fail to communicate.

Anyway, the SIL ethnologue (www.sil.org) lists 31 languages in South Africa 
and 4 in New Zealand.
I wonder how many they would count in New York....

- --
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 00:56:36 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Whoa !  Multilingual?

> I wonder how many they would count in New York....

At least 12, one for each Borough.
- --
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 04:54:36 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

This is probably a waste of one of my five posts for the day.  
However, I take exception to complaints regarding an individual's 
personal opinion about politics within the ICANN framework.  It is 
one thing to call a person names.  It is quite another to make a 
personal comment on one's politics and/or motives.  There are 
constant political statements made on this list.  That's a large part 
of dealing with the policies in ICANN.  

I think we're drawing a line in the sand with this interpretation of list 
rules.  I also think there could be a backlash from silencing political 
free speech which is what those two statements were, IMHO.  

I sincerely hope this list will not go the way of censorship.  If it 
does, half the posters would have to be banned for making political 
comments.

Leah

> At 19:44 05.04.2001 -0400, JandL wrote:
> >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.
> 
> The following two sentences have been complained about:
> 
> You: (jandl)
>  >Personally, I believe that the duo are paid disrupters who do a good
>  >job at their intended purpose.
> 
> Andy:
>  >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.
> 
> In the judgment of the list monitor, both are inflammatory personal
> attacks, and serve no purpose except to raise the temperature of the
> list.
> 
> The list monitor has decided that he will issue a warning (for once,
> ON the list); the list monitor will have a new person in the appeals
> chain in a few days, and wants to consult with that person. But I
> judge these statements to be well outside what is permitted by list
> rules.
> 
>              Harald Alvestrand
>              Speaking as 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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:50:19 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Dear Roeland,

As Roberto told it, my point was not that discussing if the APA, membership
for a California corporation, etc... was irrelevant in the case of a 
Californian
corporation. My point was that if the iCANN is only a Californian corporation
interested in such a kind of petty protection at $ 100.000 a month, it is 
of no
interest to us and (international by nature) users.

I agree that there was no other possibility at the time (not now) to
discuss a non US iCANN. But there were two possibilities to play it:

- -  as an international body incorporated in California and hence
    refering every five minutes to its international nature, interests and
    duties and making its best to use the californian rules to the best
    of its international role.

- - as a petty californian trick, using every coma in the 5XXX paragraph,
   and every other non writen semicolumn in the APA not to be bound
   by it while it should, and then every ignorance of the DoC to violate
   the White Paper and every power abuse to cheat the bylaws....

What I say is I am fed up with e-Napoleon and Mr. Tricks and I want
the iCANN to become an organization in line with the White Paper
and a revised by the users and for the users RFC 1591. When you
think that the document documenting the Member ploy (santiago)
*never* alludes to the international nature of the iCANN and of its
members and sets-it up like a retired people Golf Club (please
reread it)....

So today IMHO there are more interesting issues that discussing
the US law. IMO there is a need for action. We are the only group
of people which does already exist and may understand what is
happening now, agree and may be carry an action to oppose it.

The first action being - once having commonly identified the true
situation - to explain it around, in 243 countries, as Leah does it
in the USA.

But what hurt Leah is just a piece in a pattern. There is obviously
far more. Also, since Leah started fighting - for us all - things have
developped and extended a lot.

I do not care to know if I am or not a Member of the iCANN. I
say that to be credible in front of the press, of Govs, of users
the iCANN must be something better that a petty californian law
trick.

The iCANN must have international Members (IMHO the national
and marketing internet communities - i.e. the NICs).  If they still
want to have no Members (it is just bylaw change) it is up to us
to expose this trick until they are forced to change.

IMHO there  are not so much time left before the Intenet is
Staffsterilized. Just think: how do you want to propose an innovative
TLD with a standard TLD agreement already detailing everything....
You can only be a CC of .com.

Jefsey

On 22:15 05/04/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:57:41 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

It should be pointed out that this list makes up just a small subset of the
consensus building process and it should also be pointed out that the
process itself is still in the development process.  Much work remains to be
done to refine it.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 7:46 PM
To: [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
- --
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 16:37:29 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker

Leah,

>
>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?

This looks like the famous "Who's on first?" to me.

From my point of view, since you address this to me, I mentioned your post 
in the reply to Kevin, saying that when he was quoting Eric thinking that 
the statement he (Eric) made was against Dave Crocker, in reality I 
understood it as a remark on Andy Gardiner (and follow-up post from you).

As this thread develops, the analogy with the Marx' gag (and before somebody 
starts on politics, let me say that I mean the brother Marx, i.e. Chico, 
Harpo and Groucho, not Karl {by Karl I mean Karl Marx, not Karl Auerbach, 
just in case}) gets more evident.

Anyway, I never objected to your posting, I just said that Eric Weisberg was 
referring to you and Andy in 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00183.html, not to Dave.
Which I believe is a correct interpretation, cross-checking with 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00176.html and 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00177.html.

This said, since you ask, let me tell you that IMHO to call people "paid 
disruptors" is far from expressing just a "personal comment on one's 
politics and/or motives", as you claim in 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00223.html.

Should you be suspended for this?
Not at all (and to the best of my knowledge you weren't).

Was it appropriate to point out that that's not the best way to conduct 
business on the GA list?
Yes. Probably useless, as this will not stop this saga from going on, but 
highly appropriate.

I hope it clears up the matter.

Regards
Roberto

>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:17:31 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

You mention in this post that "ICANN is *not*, by any possible measure, 
balancing the international point of view.  This has not prevented it from 
doing some good things, "

Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made aware of 
their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN appears 
to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct 
sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to 
know about it.

:)

~k

At 12:08 AM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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

- --
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 11:22:27 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Privacy/WHOIS

Dear Paul,

As the issue of privacy is of great concern to many members of the General
Assembly, I, and assuredly many others, would be grateful for the
opportunity to participate in your WHOIS Committee activities.
Unfortunately for those of us interested in pursuing this issue, there seems
to be some difficulty finding any public archives listed that record your
committee's dialogue on this topic.  I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly)
that you communicate via a mailing list, and that such archives are
available for public review.  If you could advise the URL, it would be most
helpful and sincerely appreciated.

Fortunately, I have been able to find the preliminary report of your
committee (13 Dec 2000)
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00571.html which states:

"Objective of this Report

This initial effort aims at evaluating whether it is proper for ICANN
staff to set up the Whois Committee through lack of consultation
process with other relevant interest parties which has brought up
criticisms such as lack of openess and its transparent procedural flaw."

Can you perhaps provide an update?   It would be nice to know if your
initial objective has been met.   Have you reached conclusions with regard
to the ICANN staff issues?  It has been now almost four months since the
release of your report... may I ask if you have moved on to policy
considerations?  If so, might you briefly summarize those considerations?

It is my belief that many members of the General Assembly are more than
willing to assist the Committee in its efforts to deal with the Privacy
issue as it relates to WHOIS.  I for one would certainly welcome the
opportunity to participate in a working group devoted to this topic.  Can
you advise if you are willing to convene such a working group?

Thanking you for your assistance,
Danny Younger

- --
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 09:10:41 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List decorum

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Harald and Roberto for 
giving them such an unpleasant task at the end of their tenure.

Second of all I would like to apologize to the list for my lapse in 
professional decorum.

In my own opinion, my attempt at humor was frankly less bothersome than the 
overall tone of the note it was in.  (I was, and continue to be, amused by 
the pronunciation "pun".  But this underscores the dangers of indulging in 
humor in a public forum.)

That tone was to attack the person and that tone was definitely in my 
heart.  It does not matter whether I might or might not think that they 
"deserved" that tone.  It does not even matter whether my tone and comments 
might or might not be accurate, according to some sort of objective measure.

That tone is simply not acceptable in public forums, even in response to 
someone else's personal attacks.  Not from me, and not from anyone else.

And that, I believe, underscores a very real and very deep problem on this 
list:  People believe it is acceptable to make personal attacks, directly 
or by implication.  Note that the thread discussing my suspension contained 
four or five vicious ad hominem comments about me or Kent.

Very much contrary to Roberto, I believe that it is almost always 
unacceptable -- in fact, entirely offensive -- to focus on the person 
rather than their content.  (There is a difference between citing a 
person's comments, versus focusing on them personally.)

What is most bothersome is Roberto's assessment that direct slander does 
not cross the line of acceptability.  The reason it is bothersome is not 
merely that it is so very wrong but that it is widely held on this list.

I used the word slander quite carefully.  The statement Roberto was 
commenting on was both false and malicious.  Yet folks on this list are 
quite casual about tossing such comments around.

(Lest one claim that I am attacking Roberto, let me be clear that I am 
not.  I am attacking a problem in allowing ANY focus on people as 
legitimate content.  The example I am citing shows just how slippery this 
slope is, not matter how serious and diligent a person might be.)

If the GA list is ever to be productive, it needs to focus on content and 
not on people's affiliations or motives or competence or....  If the devil 
sends a note saying that the sky is blue, should we focus on the fact that 
it is the devil is speaking and even question its veracity?

Focusing on the person is almost always entirely irrelevant to serious 
content.

It does not matter whether the focus is an explicit attack, such as 
impugning their integrity or claiming that a particular affiliation lowers 
their credibility, or whether the focus is implied, such as touting who you 
filter.

Such focus has nothing at all to do with productive work.

So again, I will apologize for my transgression.  It was wrong.  Always 
hoping that something can be learned from errors, I entreat the list to use 
this unfortunate event as a turning point, to resolve to eliminate ad 
hominem content.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 #354
************************