Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #398
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 398

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:33:58 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

At 04:13 17/04/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Not everybody was present when the rules were formulated, understands what
>they were "intended" to be or has the benefit of second sight.
>
>As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-
>
>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.

Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
should be sanctioned like other bad list behaviour. 

It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go forward.
These are threats that concern us all.

- -joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:44:18 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 2:33:58 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 04:13 17/04/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>Not everybody was present when the rules were formulated, understands what
>>they were "intended" to be or has the benefit of second sight.
>>
>>As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-
>>
>>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.

> Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
> should be sanctioned like other bad list behaviour. 

But out of line demands by a Chair off list to participants is ok?  It
is bad "list" behavior to complain about inappropriate actions?

> It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go forward.
> These are threats that concern us all.

With a bad list Chair we cannot go forward either.

The threat is that the ALTERNATE Chair feels it is his position to
expand his role and the list rules without approval by us, and that he
can send demands to list participants to not discuss things because he
doesn't like it.

There was no threat.  There was a very carefully laid out consequence
to inappropriate behavior by this alternate chair, that if he
continued to act inappropriately that complaints would be filed. This
is ENTIRELY appropriate, and in fact it is the ONLY means of redress
against inappropriate actions by the Chair, since the GA has no
authority to "recall" or "vote no confidence" against the Chair.

And the acknowledgement and reminder that there was in fact a course
of action was sent off list, an acknowledgement that the tone may have
been inappropriate for a list post.

Therefore I did not post it to the list.  The person who did must
assume the responsibility for any resulting inappropriate post to the
list as a result of his action(s).

The role of the GA chair is a VERY limited one.  The alternate chair's
role is even more limited.  Expansion, especially into areas of list
content, without mandate from the GA itself, or at a minimum the NC,
is something that is ENTIRELY appropriate to address, on or off list,
and to have pointed out that continued attempts to do that warrant a
FULLY JUSTIFIED question and examination into that person's
suitability to continue in that role.

You may disagree with my conclusion, but the action itself was and is
appropriate.  The post made to me that sparked it was not appropriate,
and was sent privately in order to fly under the radar.  As he was
acting in his role as alternate chair, and assuming responsibilities
for list moderation, it was ENTIRELY appropriate that his message be
made public, and that he be called to justify it.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:01:51 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free"

Jefsey,

>you will certainly use all the wrong subtilities to show you are right to
>be wrong.... :-)

One thing we can surely agree upon, and that is that we have a different 
perception of what is right and what is wrong.

>
>We went over that a long ago and at the end of the day you gave up saying
>that it was like private PABX. I suppose that nobody is going to validate
>an extension into your own .com PABX?

The reason why I give up saying things is that, when I think that I made my 
point across, I do not fight for having the last word.
It serves no purpose for me (it is useless loss of time) and no purpose for 
the others, because it usually not only does not convey additional 
information, but makes people tired of hearing the same stuff and bizanthine 
counter-examples.

This is why I let you continue arguing alone that time, and will do again 
this time. Feel free to think that I thought to be wrong this time as well 
;>).

Regards
Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:52:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

Dear Dassa,
the whole confusion in the current analysis is a lack of analysis.
I see that you want absolutely to join the flock of the non-analysers who
want to propose an analyze. I am sorry for that: you shown you had
a good step by step approach of the legal issues. You could also
have had a good approach of the reality (the law is logic, the reality is
measurable) .

You will therefore continue to say, "let assume that I name private the
left third leg of the bird, I say that the public arm of the cow is to be
leading the tail policy of the hippo". And I will keep saying "let first
consider that a bird has two legs, the hippo no real tail and the cow no
arm". To what you will respond that I am generic and that in your
context you understand yourself. This is probably true, but I don't
and I am unable to use your points for both of us to go ahead...

As long as you want the whole to be part of a part of the part... you
will get yourself sometimes a problem. And I will not understand you.
Cheers,
Jefsey

PS. Your use of Public for legacy and Private for non-legacy is
debatable (depending on trade, history, etc... there are con and
pros we might discuss: I used them at a time) but confusing since
not descriptive enough and not widely accepted. Also it is quite
deceptive internationally as there is a gap on the matter between
liberal and socialist cultures where the words are not only differently
understood but used for different issues.

Frankly the best is to stick to people initial claims. The iCANN
always claimed that it got the legacy of its founder. I am not a
worsiper of Jon Postel and I accept that what I do not no part of its
legacy. This is clear. The Inclusive Name Space (the DNS Name
Space if you will) is thereofre easily split between legacy and non
legacy Name Space. I do not see where is your difficulty with
that?  I just tend to favor Inclusive as supportingthe idea that it
may include strings which are not part of the DNS yet.

Now when Lynn Stuart comes and talk about the stability of the
DNS, we are certainly near from the fall of the Empire... see my
mail on the matter.

On 11:49 17/04/01, Dassa said:
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
>|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:39 PM
>|> To: [email-masked]
>|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
>|>
>|>
>|> Dear Dassa,
>|> your points would be better made and constructive would you
>|> consider the true nature of the things.
>|>
>|> - the name space is the entire spaceof names that the human being
>|>    may come with.
>
>Hello Jefsey
>
>That is a generic interpretation of the term "name space" in the
>context as used when referring to the legacy DNS and the so called
>alternative DNS (I have since decided that the terms alternative and
>inclusive do not actually apply in this situation and that the terms
>"public" for the legacy DNS and "private" for the so call inclusive
>name spaces are more appropriate) is not appropriate.  We are dealing
>with practical issues here, not abstract theory.  The legacy DNS is
>made up of interconnecting name spaces in a hierarchical structure.
>It was built using cooperative methods as evidenced by the RFC
>archives.  For those interested I suggest you read the following
>RFC's, 236, 247, 280, 606, 623, 625, 627, 675, 752, 756, 774, 791,
>799, 819, 830, 849, 881, 897 and 1591 for starters.  Then what ever
>takes your interest from there.  I haven't reviewed them all as yet
>myself.  The above however clearly evidence the cooperative efforts
>and agreements that were reached to build the legacy DNS as we know it
>today.
>
>|> - that name space is distributed in various ways such as:
>|>    - languages
>|>    - indivudual names
>|>    - trade marks
>|>    etc...
>|>    On the distribution is the DNS acceptable strings which use a
>|>    limited character set and a repartition in several
>|>    levels. Its name
>|>    should be "DNS name space", but the religion dispute between
>|>    some made it named "inclusive name space" when refering to
>|>    the whole of it and "legacy name space" when refering to the
>|>    portion of it directly managed by the iCANN.
>|>
>|> This is a mathematical analysis. You may want to change the
>|> wording but you cannot change that there is a whole, a part of
>|> that whole on technical criteria and a part of that sub-whole on
>|> operationnal criteria.
>
>It is not a mathematical analysis but an attempt to apply a
>theoretical definition to a practical real world example that doesn't
>fit the theory.  We are still seeing the development of standards for
>the application of alternative character sets to the DNS, trade marks
>do not currently impinge at the TLD's (which is the subject under
>discussion), trademark issues, individual name issues, copyright, IP
>property issues etc are all involved at the 2LD and higher levels.
>Although they are a part of the name space (which ever one you use),
>they are not applicable to this discussion.  My analysis defines the
>legacy name space as the public name space and all others as private
>name spaces.  Anyone can set up a private name space, the public name
>space is however, tightly controlled.
>
>|> I certainly accept that you may oppose to third parties to
>|> operate part of the Inclusive Name Space and want it to be
>|> exclusive to the iCANN. But to be understood and for your
>|> points to be debatable better for you not to make the whole
>|> a part of one its parts.
>
>I have no objections to anyone running their own private name space,
>either connected to the legacy DNS or totally independent.  But, I do
>not accept them as being binding on the public legacy name space.
>They are private name spaces, be it that the owners may sell or give
>away access to the services to members of the public.
>
>|> Also, you have mentionned that you understand that some
>|> may want to make money out of the Name Space, implying
>|> that non-legacy would target that. From experience this is
>|> mostly the other way around: legacy TLDs look at their
>|> bottom line (some time with big figures) while non-legacy TLDs
>|> mostly look at their individual DN owners' freedom and best
>|> interests.(when the ownership of the TLDs is notto the IDNHs
>|> themselves).
>
>I accept that the motives behind a great many of the private names
>spaces is not totally financial in nature and a great many are
>instigated and managed with high public ideals behind them.  I also
>accept that a number have been instigated due to frustration with the
>way the legacy name space is being managed.  A lot of others may
>follow, myself included.  However, I deny the right of such break away
>groups to force the legacy name space to take notice of the private
>name spaces.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>--
>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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:12:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy vs Contracts?

Dear DPF,
you are fully right. What only show that the holy trinity has no more
concern for the DNSO and the rest of us politically than contractually
wise. If you want to spend five minutes with a sheet of paper analyzing
the reality, you will understand why.

1. take a sheet of paper and assume it is the name space, i.e.
     every string the human being may come with.

2. start drafting circles for each kind of use of the name space:
     - languages
     - geographical names
     - national communities and governments
     - human names
     - insults, blasphemes, adult words
     - trade marks
     - business names
     - phone numbers
     - your best friends names (like the ccTLD two letters)
     - domain names (what is named the inclusive name space to
       say all what could be used by the DNS now or in the future).

3. divide the domain name area in two : the legacy TLD area
     and the non legacy area. And now within the legacy area,
     divide it in smaller parts: one per TLD

Now, try to paint in black the areas you can say stable today.
from you observation of the iCANN policy. You will see that you
can paint in black only the .com area which interesects with the
TM Name Space circle.

Now try to figure out everything you should do to enlarge that
black area. You will get a fair idea about at what Louis Touton
is spending his nights thinking. First thing you will decide is
that DNSO/GA people are NOT going to get a pen and screw
up your nice draft.

Jefsey

On 12:22 17/04/01, DPF said:
>The recent furore over the revised Verisign agreements highlighted an
>interesting difference in viewpoints between the Names Council and the
>Board - namely what is a policy matter and what is a contractual
>matter.
>
>I don't intend to revisit that particular argument but would like to
>generate debate on the wider issue - where do we draw the line.
>
>I note that in all the new registry agreements there is a contractual
>item which forbids the registry from allowing iso3166 2 letter codes
>to be registered at the 2nd or 3rd level without the permission of the
>ccTLD administrator and/or Government concerned.
>
>Now I would have thought that such an issue is a policy matter.  I
>would have thought the DNSO should have debated whether ISO3166 codes
>should be banned from registrations in gTLDs.  There are interesting
>arguments on both sides for it.  Certainly no-one ever seems to get
>too confused by there existing a nz.com website.
>
>So if the above is not a policy issue, what issues are policy issues?
> From a narrow viewpoint it seems that the one and only policy that
>ICANN has is to have the UDRP and every other issue is merely
>contractual and may be changed without reference.
>
>I am not proposing exactly where the line should be drawn but that
>maybe it is time we start to debate this issue.
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:52:44 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

At 04:44 17/04/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
[joanna]
>>>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.
> [JT]
>> Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
>> should be sanctioned like other bad list behaviour. 
>
>But out of line demands by a Chair off list to participants is ok?  It
>is bad "list" behavior to complain about inappropriate actions?
>
>
William, please!
The Chairs are unpaid volunteers. The GA list has elected them.
Participants on the list who respect democracy should give them enough
latitude to do their job as they see fit.

Accusing them of inappropriate actions should only take place when their
action is so seriously in conflict with the best interests of the GA as a
whole that a motion of no-confidence would likely succeed. It should be
done on -list.
Threatening a chair privately with "a concerted campaign" is not acceptable
"list" (in the broader sense) behaviour.
IMHO.

>> It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go
forward.
>> These are threats that concern us all.
>
>With a bad list Chair we cannot go forward either.
>
I see no evidence (yet) that we have elected bad Chairs.

>The threat is that the ALTERNATE Chair feels it is his position to
>expand his role and the list rules without approval by us, and that he
>can send demands to list participants to not discuss things because he
>doesn't like it.
>
>There was no threat.  There was a very carefully laid out consequence
>to inappropriate behavior by this alternate chair, that if he
>continued to act inappropriately that complaints would be filed. 

Playing semantics. What you wrote privately came across  as a challenge and
a  threat. 

This
>is ENTIRELY appropriate, and in fact it is the ONLY means of redress
>against inappropriate actions by the Chair, since the GA has no
>authority to "recall" or "vote no confidence" against the Chair.
>

That is something that needs to be addressed. Just like the GA should have
the right to elect its own chair, a procedure for the recall of a chair
should also remain in the hands of the GA. 
A "concerted" campaign by two individuals complaining to the NC should not
be able to remove a chair or induce him to resign. 
Fortunately, the Chairs themselves can call for a no-confidence vote and
abide by its outcome, making NC action unnecessary.
But pushing him to do this over a trivial action of attempted
list-moderation is not in the interest of most of us assembled here.

- --joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:52:18 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
|> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:52 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
|>

Hello Jefsey

<SNIP>
|> You will therefore continue to say, "let assume that I
|> name private the left third leg of the bird, I say
|> that the public arm of the cow is to be leading the
|> tail policy of the hippo". And I will keep saying "let
|> first consider that a bird has two legs, the hippo no
|> real tail and the cow no arm". To what you will respond
|> that I am generic and that in your context you
|> understand yourself. This is probably true, but I don't
|> and I am unable to use your points for both of us to go ahead...
<SNIP>

The main problem with such analogies is that they are misleading and
confusing.  To rephrase your one to fit the view I hold.  We have a
bird that gradually evolves with two legs.  Someone comes along with
the idea of adding another leg to the bird but it resists so that
person trails along attempting to affix a third leg that is shorter
than the other two as they think the bird would benefit from having a
third leg.  The bird evolves a bit more and starts to grow a third leg
along the same lines as the two other legs it has.  The person
trailing along attempting to affix their own third leg is affronted at
this, it was their idea the bird would benefit from having another leg
and attempts to force the bird to use their leg.

As you can see, such stories can be made to fit any position.  We can
agree to disagree.

One of the issues I have with the private name spaces having
precedence over the public name space, for instance in the .biz case
is that anyone can create a private name space and lay claim to the
TLD's created without any due process and auditing of the processes
involved being in place.  I can have a .dhs TLD in operation within
hours and have it populated with over a 100,000 users within a month.
The ability to do so does not assign me any rights over the public
name space.  If I want the .dhs TLD in the public name space I need to
follow the procedures and process assigned to the establishment of
such TLD's.   The current process is slow, expensive and very
dissatisfying for a large number of people.  However, it is evolving
and by participating we can assist it to evolve in directions that the
majority wish or will best serve the public interests.

I do not see giving additional rights to private name spaces as
serving the public interest.  I may be wrong.

One thing I do know, if the private name space TLD .biz forces ICANN
to not release the public .biz or if ICANN grants the operator of the
private TLD .biz additional rights to others, it will encourage myself
and a lot of others to create their own private name space TLD's and
lay claim to them.  Not a situation we would want to see I suggest.

It is not my intention to preclude negotiation between ICANN and the
private name space operators.  However, I would like to see such
negotiation bound to attempts in bringing the private name spaces back
into the public name space, not granting them rights to any TLD's but
negotiation on process and the restrictions on creating and granting
Registry status to new TLD's within the public name space.

I would like to see the process of creating additional TLD's less
restrictive and timely.  We are not totally at odds Jefsey. :)

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:05:33 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee

William Walsh has availed himself of the opportunity to comment on his view
of the appropriateness of the actions of the elected Chair and Co-Chair of
the General assembly, several times.  It is his prerogative to do so.  He
has argued that the role of Chair and Co-Chair has been defined by the
precedent established by Roberto and Harald.  To some degree this is true.
It is equally true that Patrick and I campaigned on a platform of change,
recognizing that the DNSO is an evolving institution which requires a
modicum of change to meet the challenges we must now embrace.

The voters of the GA made the decision to select the two of us to champion a
new effort to focus the efforts of the General Assembly.  This was the
collective will of an electorate that recognized the need for change.  As
such, it is my sentiment that this Assembly should take a very dim view of
Mr. Walsh's implied threat to launch a campaign directed at the Names
Council to overturn the decisions of this body -- the GA is not well served
by such measures.

The voters of the General Assembly through an election process have made
their intent known, offering us the opportunity to do our jobs as best we
can.  We know our duty and we will continue to work for the benefit of the
GA.  While some may have issues with our performance in the scant few weeks
that we have held these elected positions, what is abundantly clear to
everyone is that this list suffers from a lack of proper decorum.  It is a
factor which has driven many away from the list and which continues to
compromise efforts to enhance participation in the activities of the GA.

This pattern of constant sniping and badgering must come to an end.  As the
topic of rules and protocols has recently been raised by a number of
commentators, I am now calling for the establishment of a committee to
address this and related issues and to draft a proposal for consideration by
the full membership of the GA.  This committee will be self-organizing, open
to all, and will temporarily post to [email-masked] (archives at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/ ) until such time as we
can arrange with the DNSO Secretariat for a permanent committee mailing
list.  I expect a document by the time we are ready for Stockholm, if not
sooner.

Danny Younger
GA Chair

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:22:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] My policy on postings - and slurs

I've received several private emails alleging I am the victim of a
personal attack on this list, and also seen one amusing slur quoted in an
post (without the original source of the posting listed) in email entitled
"Re: iCANN's protection". Perhaps therefore I should mention again that I
routinely killfile (instruct my mailer to delete unread) postings from (or
cc:) many of the more active posters on ICANN-related lists.

While it's sometimes interesting to learn what people are saying about me,
I don't respond to even forwarded trolls from people on my killfile - life
is too short. I also have no intention of seeking to invoke any list rules
(or other means) to seek to have them silenced.  I opposed the list rules
when they were instituted because I think they are a mistake and a
distraction on a public list when it's so easy to killfile people whose
posts you prefer not to be bothered with.

On the issues of substance, I'm comfortable that my published work speaks
for itself, and am happy to discuss serious responses that are either
published in a serious journal or communicated to me directly (that
excludes email from people in my killfile, however, since ALL email from
them, and almost everything cc'd to them, goes to the trash automagically;
if they really want to communicate with me they can send snail mail).  I
would note that to date AFAIK no one has published a counter-argument to
my ICANN paper, although given the legal publishing cycle you wouldn't
really expect anything before this fall or even winter.  I briefly set out
what I think the most likely counter-arguments would be in an interview
published in the Duke Law and Technology Review,
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/ARTICLES/2001dltr0001.html

The following names in my killfile are potentially relevant to this list.
I list them not to cast aspersions, as this killfile is fundamentally no
more than a reflection of my personal choices as to how I spend my time,
but to explain to other members of this list why you may not see me reply
to messages from certain people.  Order is somewhat random, sorry.

julswig
wassup
mjsion
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
dcrocker
jwkckid1
baptista
DillonM0081
Dnsipv
Remulac
bigbird.earth-net.net
frizzo
INEGroup
Goodspeed
Hollingsworth
lisse.na
RHIZOME
Broomfield
Bholling
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
reba.com
pacifier.com
McMillin

- -- 
		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 hot 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:54:59 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

IPv8 exists in the imagination of some wierdos out there - it isn't real.
These same people think we should enhance the dns by adding "galaxy numbers"
to the dns so that we can welcome aliens onto the internet when we find
them.

You can ignore IPv8 - there is no such thing.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>; "(Kristy McKee)"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> Shoot.....Just when I get IPv4 down and IPv6 running someone comes out
with
> another thing I *just* have to learn....:)    IPv8 is going to have to
> wait.....:)
> I think I see IPv16 in the horizon...:(
>
> /Bruce
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: "(Kristy McKee)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>
>
> Hello Kristy,
>
> Monday, April 16, 2001, 12:51:37 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > We haven't
> > been all that successful in the IETF in working with the brighter
> > individuals and as a result IPv8, and many other advanced technologies
are
> > being used in development spaces and Internet Root systems that are not
> run
> > by the USG.
>
> Let's leave Jim Fleming's fantasy IPv8 out of this discussion.
>
> We need to stick to things that had a basis in reality.
>
> --
> 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
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:25:29 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Remember when you were a kid, and under certain circumstances (usually
involving something unpleasant and/or odoriferous, the details of which are
best left to the imagination), your mother always told you to just "ignore
it"? You would roll your eyes and ask, "How can I ignore it when it's right
there in front of me?" and she would give you a
you'll-understand-when-you're-an-adult look. Now that we're older, we can
see the wisdom of such advice: Some problems are too small to worry about,
and calling attention to them can be more embarrassing than if you had done
nothing at all.

/Bruce
:-)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>;
"[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:44 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 2:33:58 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 04:13 17/04/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>Not everybody was present when the rules were formulated, understands what
>>they were "intended" to be or has the benefit of second sight.
>>
>>As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-
>>
>>With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.

> Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
> should be sanctioned like other bad list behaviour.

But out of line demands by a Chair off list to participants is ok?  It
is bad "list" behavior to complain about inappropriate actions?

> It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go
forward.
> These are threats that concern us all.

With a bad list Chair we cannot go forward either.

The threat is that the ALTERNATE Chair feels it is his position to
expand his role and the list rules without approval by us, and that he
can send demands to list participants to not discuss things because he
doesn't like it.

There was no threat.  There was a very carefully laid out consequence
to inappropriate behavior by this alternate chair, that if he
continued to act inappropriately that complaints would be filed. This
is ENTIRELY appropriate, and in fact it is the ONLY means of redress
against inappropriate actions by the Chair, since the GA has no
authority to "recall" or "vote no confidence" against the Chair.

And the acknowledgement and reminder that there was in fact a course
of action was sent off list, an acknowledgement that the tone may have
been inappropriate for a list post.

Therefore I did not post it to the list.  The person who did must
assume the responsibility for any resulting inappropriate post to the
list as a result of his action(s).

The role of the GA chair is a VERY limited one.  The alternate chair's
role is even more limited.  Expansion, especially into areas of list
content, without mandate from the GA itself, or at a minimum the NC,
is something that is ENTIRELY appropriate to address, on or off list,
and to have pointed out that continued attempts to do that warrant a
FULLY JUSTIFIED question and examination into that person's
suitability to continue in that role.

You may disagree with my conclusion, but the action itself was and is
appropriate.  The post made to me that sparked it was not appropriate,
and was sent privately in order to fly under the radar.  As he was
acting in his role as alternate chair, and assuming responsibilities
for list moderation, it was ENTIRELY appropriate that his message be
made public, and that he be called to justify it.

- --
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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:57:33 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

I second the motion

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DPF" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:21:34 +1200, you wrote:
> 
> >At 07:01 17/04/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
> >.
> >>
> >>I would suggest a third.  The WIPO 2 report has some very significant
> >>recommendations and I believe it would be useful to have a mailing
> >>list to start discussing these earlier rather than later.  If the NC
> >>set up a working group then any prior work done can flow into that.
> >>
> >
> >David,
> >
> >If you can reformulate this as a motion, I second it.
> 
> Okay here goes.  I move that the General Assembly set up the following
> dedicated mailing lists (can be voted on separately).
> 
> 1) A WIPO mailing list ([email-masked]) to discuss the third interim
> report of the second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.
> 
> The WIPO report is wide reaching with recommendations dealing with
> personal names, Pharmaceutical INNs, international inter-governmental
> organisations, geographical names and tradenames.
> 
> 2) A DNSO Review mailing list ([email-masked]) to continue
> discussion on ways to improve the structure and functioning of the
> DNSO
> 
> 3) An alternative roots mailing list ([email-masked]) to provide
> a specific forum for the subject in terms of what bearing if any they
> have on ICANN
> 
> And finally a piece of trivia - did anyone else know that world
> intellectual property day is 26 April :-)
> 
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:00:28 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

At 03:07 AM 4/17/2001, DPF wrote:
>It would have been more useful to have pointed out the flaws in
>Michael's reasoning IMO that merely saying not all lawyers agree (a
>truism if I have heard one).

You were given the single most important flaw yet you are dismissing it 
cavalierly.

It is not merely that some lawyers disagree with another lawyer, but that 
lawyers practising in the relevant area and with a legal responsibility for 
getting the topic handled properly disagree with a lawyer who is 
essentially a lone voice.

That's not just a matter of some disagreement, but a matter of who is 
likely to be correct.

> >By the way, when something is difficult to understand, it is less likely
> >that it can be validated.
>
>Difficult to understand though is in the eye of the beholder.

In fact that is not correct.  There are plenty of objective and valid ways 
to assess comprehension difficult.  It is easy enough, in fact, that 
Microsoft Word has a tool for assessing readability.

> >>Being objective is to be "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
> >>prejudices".  I am not aware Michael has any commercial interests
> >>which would lead to be not objective or that he has any personal
> >>prejudices.
> >
> >Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent.  He seeks to criticize
> >ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every turn.  His motives might
> >be less clear, though the instant he starts getting public exposure for his
> >efforts, then it is clear that he is serving to promote his career.
>
>Well if this is not a personal attack I do not know what is.

In case you had not noticed, referencing personal matters has become the 
norm on this list.  Even outright slander has become acceptable.

Further you chose to assert that Prof. Froomkin IS objective, by citing a 
criterion of "commercial interest".  That invites a response that looks for 
other factors.

>You claim that because he is a constant and publicised critic his
>motivation is venal and self serving - namely promoting his career,

My language was rather stronger than what you describe.  Since you chose to 
miss the strength of it, I'll state it even more strongly:  Prof. Froomkin 
seeks ONLY to criticize and he manipulates facts towards his 
arguments.  That is called "not playing fair".

>Do you truly believe that every single critic of ICANN's is motivated

I said nothing like that.  Please do not overextend my statements.

However it is worth making the matter more clear:

1.  A constructive participant is not ONLY a critic.  A constructive 
participant shows behavior that is contingent.  The positions they take 
depends upon the matters under discussion.  If they only attack and never 
support, they have some agenda other that constructive participation.

2.  A constructive participant takes a tone of constructive 
negotiation.  There is flexibility in their participation, in recognition 
of the presence of more than one legitimate perspective and need.  Rigidity 
in a position ensures a failed outcome.

3.  A constructive participant refrains from inflammatory language, since 
such language only serves to entrench positions and make constructive 
negotiation impossible.

I'm sure there are more points, but three seems enough for now.

>I find the attack on Michael's motives curious especially as in NZ
>anyway Professors have no need to promote their career as they have
>tenure for life.

Human psychology is dramatically more complex than your statement 
suggests.  Job safety is one issue, yes.  Another is ego.  Ego leads to 
other issues, such as seeking to inflate one's sense of importance.  (And, 
by the way, such a path can also lead to inflated consulting fees; in the 
US professors often consult.)

> >1.  Prof. Froomkin's paper is interesting from an academic standpoint, but
> >has received no demonstration of legal force.  The best that can be said
> >about it is that graduate law student deemed it worthy of publication.
>
>One wonders if you try to be insulting.

Alas, no.  The paper is cited as if its mere existence in a law journal 
means that its contents are compelling legal positions.  It is therefore 
important to make clear what the document does and does not mean, in terms 
of its use in an ICANN discussion.

You continue to dismiss the significant point that multiple lawyers who had 
the formal and official job -- that is, they were obligated -- to get the 
issues correct have entirely different views about ICANN legitimacy than 
does this lone professor at a University.  That lone professor has no legal 
obligation to get matters right.  He is free to toss off any line of attack 
that sounds interesting.

This difference in obligation is not a guarantee that he is wrong.  It 
does, however, suggest very, very strong differences in the required effort 
to be correct.  Hence it is essential to take his work as "interesting" and 
no more, absent the assessment of a judge, as you note.  Folks cite his 
paper as if a judge has already ruled in its favor.

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 #398
************************