Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #399
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 399

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:46:17 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

on 4/17/01 5:33 AM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] wrote:

>> 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 behavior.

For me, this issue is not about private insults on the list, it is about how
the GA should deal with complaints against its officers.

This distinction might be helpful:-
. 
1) What is said between two or more members of the General Assembly in the
course of private correspondence is of no concern to other members, whether
or not the contents relate to GA business. This would be a personal matter
subject to privacy concerns and should not be posted to the public archive
unless the contents are subject to other rules in force relating to
professional disclosure (to be agreed).

2) What is said by an officer of the GA in the course of undertaking their
duties, is of concern to other GA members. Officers represent not only
themselves, but also they represent the GA as a whole by their actions.
While it is both desirable and necessary for officers to communicate in
private from time to time, as they see fit, the method of communication
should not have a bearing on the standards the GA can reasonably expect
their officers to meet. In an organization that is run in an open and
transparent manner, an officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to
find sanctuary in rules related to matters of personal privacy.

Whether or not the procedure that was followed in this particular instance
is considered the best way to deal with a complaint against an officer of
the GA is a matter of debate, but I suggest a formal procedure must be
established to avoid possible future misunderstandings, as clearly there is
not one in place on which all have agreed.

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

I agree, which is why everybody needs to be absolutely clear about what are
the correct procedures at their disposal when something goes wrong. Even
Chairs should be subject to sanctions, but equally, they should be extended
the same courtesy as every other member in that respect- private evaluation
of the complaint by a small group of their peers.

Personally, I would have thought it better to push a complaint against an
officer *upwards* to another officer, (in this case, to the Chair for
comment and guidance), rather than pushing it *downwards* to the GA, (which
inevitably causes disruption, hostility and even instability on the list).

In the almost inconceivable circumstances that both Chairs and all three (or
more) list moderators would be the subject of complaints at the same time,
then, and only then, would I suggest consulting the GA openly as a "last
resort".

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,
Joanna
> 
> -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 08:05:08 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:49:48PM +1000, Dassa wrote:
> I have no objections to anyone running their own private name space,
> either connected to the legacy DNS or totally independent.

Connected is bad.  Contrary to popular opinion, because of cache
pollution issues it is really not safe to connect arbitrary name spaces. 
When you do a lookup on a name, DNS sends back extra information,
including name servers information for the name you are looking up. 
This is information you didn't explicitly ask for, and there is no way
to tag that nameserver as to which root it comes from.  Moreover, there
are other uses of DNS that create connections that cut across the tree
structure -- inverse delegations are one such; mx records are another. 
For example, you could look up IP address 4.3.2.1 and get back
"a.b.alt" as the associated name, *and NS information* that tells you
how to look up names in the "b.alt" domain.  As a result of this 
lookup, you are suddenly hooked up to alternate servers.  Moreover, if 
there are multiple ".alt" tlds, you have absolutely no guarantee which 
one you getting *regardless* of what root zone you are using.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 08:21:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 4:52:44 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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.

List moderation is never a trivial issue, Joop.

- -- 
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 08:23:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Bruce,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 7:25:29 AM, Bruce James wrote:

> 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, list moderation issues are never too small to worry about.

II am not embarrassed at all.

That you think this is "too small to worry about" frankly bothers me.

- -- 
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 10:28:09 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

>>That you think this is "too small to worry about" frankly bothers me.<<

    I am concerned, but I think that things will work out.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane"
<[email-masked]>; "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>; "[GA]"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:23 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Hello Bruce,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 7:25:29 AM, Bruce James wrote:

> 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, list moderation issues are never too small to worry about.

II am not embarrassed at all.

That you think this is "too small to worry about" frankly bothers me.

- --
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 10:41:18 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists?

I am in favor.

~k

At 08:57 AM 4/17/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>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

- --
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 08:41:56 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee

At 06:05 AM 4/17/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>This pattern of constant sniping and badgering must come to an end.

It probably does not further the stated goal to have an elected GA official 
engage in slander.

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:44:29 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Thanks, that is what I was planning to do....:)  I have other things to
worry about first.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:54 AM
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

- --
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 09:10:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

> I would remind everybody, without exception, that list 
> protocols as outlined on
> the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone have a 
> complaint, they should
> address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance with the proper procedures.

I suggest an additional link in the footer of each message, pointing to list
rules and complaint procedure.

- --
> 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:18:30 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

Dear Joanna

Whilst I understand your general sentiments some of what you have said is
misdirected and not relevant at this particular time.  The Chair has said:

On Monday, April 16, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: [ga] List Monitors Needed

> I support the initiative of our Co-Chair Patrick Corliss who has called for
> increased attention to list decorum.  He is also correct in noting that the
> General Assembly has need of volunteers to function as List Monitors.
> Please forward your expressions of interest accordingly.   Thank you.

My initial comments were made onlist to Christopher Ambler in response to a
posting he made which referred to a posting by Kent Crispin.  I did not want to
get involved in the substantive issue merely to rermind people that there was a
proper procedure if anyone wanted to submit a complaint.

My comment were quite clear and very moderate along the lines of:

> I would remind everybody, without exception, that list protocols as
> outlined on the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone
> have a complaint, they should address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance
> with the proper procedures.

Christopher Ambler responded by saying

> There was no personal attack at all in my post.

I was therefore compelled to post another message clarifying that aspect:

> My comments were not meant to suggest that there was.  Such issues
> are determined by the List Monitors on receipt of a complaint in the
> proper form.

It was then that William Walsh decided to intervene.  My whole purpose of asking
people to make complaints to the list monitor was to reduce the volume of such
postings.  Once my efforts were undermined, this became impossible.

Since then William has made several more postings as have several other persons.
David Crocker took up the comment originally made by Kent Crispin which led you
to say:

> I have to agree that this comment about Professor Froomkin is deliberately
> portraying a colleague in a derogatory manner. This is an outrageous
> statement to make, amounting to character assassination. Sorry, I'm not
> actually sure who said it, as it's a long thread involving several people.

As this is EXACTLY what I was trying to prevent, I find it most surprising that
you should join in the general criticism of my role.  In fact, as I had already
drawn the issue to your attention, your proper course of action was to make your
complaint to [ga-abuse].  You have left yourself open to another complaint.

It would not be improper for me to write to you privately with a reminder that
you may have breached the rules.  This at least would give you the opportunity
to mitigate any grievance before a complaint was lodged.  I have every intention
of using my good judgment to decide what is and what is not appropriate.

I therefore decided to write privately to William along the following lines:

> You are not in a position to judge how many complaints are received on
> a daily basis in respect of comments such as these.  The fact that people
> are disposed to make complaints suggests that the issue of "ad hominem"
> attacks is a matter of concern.

> The posting by Kent Crispin falls into the category of making comments
> of a personal nature.  It suggests that Michael Froomkin is biased.  Chris
> Ambler's response was unfair as he attributed to Kent Crispin what was
> said by Dave Crocker.

> All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.

I find there is nothing objectionable in these explanatory comments.  They are
clearly reasonable and private.  I concluded my remarks by saying:

> If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases
> which may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules
> onlist.

Clearly William took objection to this request. There are two important issues
involved.  One is that further discussion would interfere with the List Monitors
ability to adjudicate.  Another is the general trend to argument on the list.

It is really not sensible to be inundated with complaints from everybody when it
is not at all clear who started, who responded and who makes it worse.  It would
lead, in the worst case, to a general suspension of too many people.

In my view, William has made several unsupported criticisms.  The basic rule
says "respect to the participants is mandatory".   Note the word "respect".

The rule continues to say that "messages must observe a minimum of decorum,
including not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander."

It is easy to see that this rule has been breached.   In particular I find that
my moderate, private letter to William X. Walsh was reposted to the list (in
itself not showing respect to the list participants) and mischaracterised as:

(a)    exceeding my authority
(b)   demanding and unreasonable
(c)    inappropriate and improper
(d)    outside the scope of the rules
(e)    an expansion of my role

As well, having identified a lack of "respect to the participants" my attempt to
moderate the onlist behaviour was subsequently undermined as I predicted.
Bringing the Co-Chair into disrepute allowed other participants to engage in the
same behaviour.  I have tried very hard to show due respect to my critics.

I now note the Chair's post in which he has called for a lifting of standards.
It is my view that the above rules already cover the behaviour complained of.
Whilst it might be appropriate to clarify the rules more precisely, the present
rules are easily interpreted.  The most difficult aspect is determinig the most
suitable penalty.  I feel that two weeks supension is often not desirable.

As I understand it it, you value your own privacy.  You wrote:

> In an organization that is run in an open and transparent manner, an
> officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to find sanctuary
> in rules related to matters of personal privacy.

If I, or anyone else, wrote to you in a harassing or threatening fashion I would
expect you to report the matter to the proper authorities.  You would then be
covered by "qualified privilege".  However, IANAL.

Such proper authorities could include, in the first instance, a persoin's
supervisor or superior officer.  In the case of the GA, it could include the
Chair or even the Names Council.  This is a matter that may need to be
determined.  I don't know what the situation is in the reverse case.

What is improper however, is to threaten, badger and bully me to perform my role
in a manner subservient to any member of this list.  In fact I already wrote the
following comments onlist to Mr Walsh:

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:39 PM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

> As you have challenged and threatened me on the very first occasion I tried to
> bring some moderation to the list, I would ask you to propose a motion of
> no-confidence in the Co-Chair.

Mr Walsh has since replied to the effect that this is not possible.  In the
circumstances, he can take whatever action he feels is appropriate.

My view is that this sort of behaviour wastes everybody's time.  I cannot
understand why mature, sensible and intelligent people should try so hard to
sabotage our efforts to progress the agenda of the General Assembly.

As I have said repeatedly, it also brings the whole General Assembly into
disrepute.  I am quite confident that Mr Walsh will respond and thus provoke
further debate.  In fact I note that the issue is still being canvassed onlist.

If you wish to show that my private letter to Mr Walsh, quoted above, is
improper, please do so.  My view is that my approach was designed to spare the
list from exactly the sort of personal attack you complained about (above).

I also believe that your hypothetical debate (below) could have been postponed
until there is something worthy of consideriation as a genuine complaint.

We could, for example, set up the Review Working Group mailing list first.  At
present we need mailing lists, working groups, comment on the review, a DNSO
Secretariat, funding, list monitors and even an agenda for what we are going to
do.  Instead we are bogged down by this little exercise in futility.

Please believe me when I tell you that many people are being driven away from
this list.  I now intend to gather statistics to demonstrate this effect.

Of course the issue is not resolved because the List Monitors will now have to
deal with the flood of complaints against you, me and half a dozen other people.

No wonder we don't get any real work done @!!

Given your appeal for openness and transparency I post this to the list.  I also
risk being suspended myself.  If this happens I'll see you in two weeks time.

Yours Sincerely
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
To: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>; Patrick Corliss
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

> on 4/17/01 5:33 AM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] wrote:
>
>
> >> 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 behavior.
>
> For me, this issue is not about private insults on the list, it is about how
> the GA should deal with complaints against its officers.
>
> This distinction might be helpful:-
> .
> 1) What is said between two or more members of the General Assembly in the
> course of private correspondence is of no concern to other members, whether
> or not the contents relate to GA business. This would be a personal matter
> subject to privacy concerns and should not be posted to the public archive
> unless the contents are subject to other rules in force relating to
> professional disclosure (to be agreed).
>
> 2) What is said by an officer of the GA in the course of undertaking their
> duties, is of concern to other GA members. Officers represent not only
> themselves, but also they represent the GA as a whole by their actions.
> While it is both desirable and necessary for officers to communicate in
> private from time to time, as they see fit, the method of communication
> should not have a bearing on the standards the GA can reasonably expect
> their officers to meet. In an organization that is run in an open and
> transparent manner, an officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to
> find sanctuary in rules related to matters of personal privacy.
>
> Whether or not the procedure that was followed in this particular instance
> is considered the best way to deal with a complaint against an officer of
> the GA is a matter of debate, but I suggest a formal procedure must be
> established to avoid possible future misunderstandings, as clearly there is
> not one in place on which all have agreed.
>
>
> > It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go
forward.
> > These are threats that concern us all.
>
> I agree, which is why everybody needs to be absolutely clear about what are
> the correct procedures at their disposal when something goes wrong. Even
> Chairs should be subject to sanctions, but equally, they should be extended
> the same courtesy as every other member in that respect- private evaluation
> of the complaint by a small group of their peers.
>
> Personally, I would have thought it better to push a complaint against an
> officer *upwards* to another officer, (in this case, to the Chair for
> comment and guidance), rather than pushing it *downwards* to the GA, (which
> inevitably causes disruption, hostility and even instability on the list).
>
> In the almost inconceivable circumstances that both Chairs and all three (or
> more) list moderators would be the subject of complaints at the same time,
> then, and only then, would I suggest consulting the GA openly as a "last
> resort".
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
> >
> > -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 09:20:25 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A threat to te list itself.

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:18 AM

> > Toss something like this at me again, and not only will I 
> make sure it
> > is publicly documented as I did this time, but I will start 
> a serious
> > concerted campaign to have the Names Council replace you, something
> > that will not help the "integrity of the list."

It looks like someone threatening to do to this list, what they did to the
IDNO list.
- --
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 09:12:18 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:56:15PM +1200, DPF wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >1) While extremely erudite, the paper is fundamentally just a legal
> >*theory*, justified by obscure and abstruse legal research.  
> 
> Why does the fact you find his research hard to understand (dictionary
> definition of abstruse) mean it is any less valid?

I did not say his research isn't valid, and my understanding of the
argument really isn't the issue.  I said his paper expounds a legal
*theory*.  People appear to be confusing legal *theory* with legal
*fact*.  Of course, Froomkin also adduces many legal facts to support
his theory, but the question is, does his paper adequately consider
alternate theories.  James Boyles piece indicates that there are
respected legal scholars that disagree with Froomkin's premises. 

Indeed, there is a great deal of value in Froomkin's paper.  I read it, 
and I believe that I largely understood what I read.  It presents an 
interesting view of things.  It's just a pity that it wasn't written by 
someone with a bit less of a ax to grind.

> >4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective 
> >observer, but he is not.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Apart from the fact you disagree with what he says in what other way
> is Michael not objective?

I deduce that from the emotional tone of some of his writings.  eg:

    "From the news: Mike Roberts shares his lessons learned from ICANN
    (health warning: don't be swallowing anything when you read the
    first one)."
             Posted by michael on Friday, April 13 @ 08:58:23 MDT
             http://www.icannwatch.org

    "Mike Roberts stepped down as 'temporary' CEO of ICANN this week,
    leaving the stage to M.  Stuart Lynn, who must have one of the 
    easiest acts in history to follow."

    "Read on for a few pearls from the wit and wisdom of Mike
    Roberts-the man who, more than anyone except perhaps Joe Sims, is
    responsible for the widespread belief that ICANN has contempt for  
    and freezes out anyone who doesn't either agree with it or credibly
    threaten to sue it."
             Posted by michael on Friday, March 16 @ 08:03:16 MST
             http://www.icannwatch.org

You probably agree with Froomkins writings, above, and probably find
them witty.  But I don't see how either of his ICANNWatch articles from
which the above quotes came could be reasonably construed as anything
but gratuitious personal attacks directed at Mike Roberts.  But perhaps
I'm missing something? Perhaps you could explain to me how these
articles are actually objective attempts to deal with serious issues?

It is also interesting that my comments concerning Froomkin's paper
generate such response -- it's really not *scripture*, you know.  It's
also amazing to me that people claim that my comments are some kind of
serious personal attack directed at Froomkin.  Saying that someone is
"not an objective observer" -- wow!...  perhaps that calls for pistols
at dawn?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 09:32:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE]  List Rules and Protocols

I am very much saddened to see this. I have seen it before, different list,
different personality, same antagonist. We don't need the GA list to devolve
into war. Neither, do we need the elected leadership being second-guessed at
every turn (they won't be able to do their jobs). We also don't need to be
running continuous elections, which is what will happen if this gets as
out-of-hand as it has on other lists.

I suggest that all sides take a time-out (24-hours).

IMHO, we were finally begining to make headway into substantive discussions.
Let's not take the 12-steps backwards that this is threateniing to do.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:39 AM
> To: William X. Walsh
> Cc: [ga-abuse]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [GA]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
> 
> 
> Dear Mr Walsh
> 
> You have reposted my private mail onlist.
> This was clearly marked [PRIVATE].
> 
> Not only that you did it deliberately.
> 
> I have now returned the favour, as I suspect you knew I 
> would.  You have then
> criticised me for posting your private email which clearly 
> relates as much to GA
> business as mine does.
> 
> As you have challenged and threatened me on the very first 
> occasion I tried to
> bring some moderation to the list, I would ask you to propose 
> a motion of
> no-confidence in the Co-Chair.
> 
> I also lodge a formal complaint to [ga-abuse] and ask that it 
> be condidered by
> the current List Monitor, Mr Harald Tveit Alvestrand, as a 
> matter or urgency.
> 
> I'm sorry to impose of list members, but it's clear that I 
> cannot perform my
> role when subject to this sort of unwarranted abuse.
> 
> So let's put it to a vote.  Perhaps you might like the position?

- --
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 09:39:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee

Hello babybows.com,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 6:05:33 AM, babybows.com wrote:

> 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.

There is no such "platform" for the DNSO GA.  That is not the role of
the GA Chair.

> 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.

No, that is not what they did. They selected you as the person to
coordinate consensus on the list, and to advocate that consensus to
the Names Council.

If you do not see that, then I DO ask the members of this Assembly to
ask the Names Council to review their decision in selecting the Chair
and Co-Chair.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:43:50 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Think twice before sending [Was: RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free"]

Hi.
In re-reading my post (below), and JFC's original, I think I did 
misinterpret it and my answer was not to the mark.
Maybe this can bring me (and maybe all of us) to a reflection about how 
things are going in these last few days on the list.

The conflictuality is rising beyond acceptable limits, the [ga-abuse] has 
more traffic than the GA list itself, people (including me in my last post) 
argue and reply almost automatically. The amount of things to read is 
raising so much that I start doubting that anybody with a day job can read 
all posts, and down to the last row.

This is creating further misunderstandings, further replies, further appeals 
to [ga-abuse].
Can we stop it for a minute, and take a breath before restart?

I cannot understand how otherwise reasonable peopel can tear eachother to 
pieces in a mailing list.
The [ga-abuse] is supposed to be there to handle the supposedly few 
exceptions that go beyond the reasonable decorum. More than better define 
exact rules, which will mean that from the next post we will watch which 
post will pass these limits, we need collaboration in keeping the arguments 
sound and the tone correct.

We are getting back to where we started 1.5 years ago, when the situation 
was such as the GA did not have any credibility. If we continue along this 
path, there will be no point in making a good argument, because the GA will 
be so short of credibility that nobody "outside" will pay any attention.

Anyway, can I just ask everybody to think twice before hitting the "send" 
button for a message that contains text with dubious decorum, and to avoid 
personal arguments? Think that the more we argue in this way, the less we 
all globally count, no matter who is right and who is wrong.

Regards
Roberto

P.S.: my apologies to Jefsey for having misinterpreted his message, and 
overreacted about.

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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #399
************************