Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #403
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 403

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:07:39 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] moderation and voting

On 04:34 18/04/01 +0000, [email-masked] said:

>I make no comment about the content of Mr Walsh's posts as this ruling did
not 
>judge them.  He has been suspended only for breaching the posting limit.
>

I suspect that the weight of complaints sent to ga-abuse has an impact on
decisions taken by the moderator. Problem is that this lacks transparency.
IMHO, it would be better if suspensions and their duration depended on an
anonymous  vote of the list participants.
<snip>
>
>Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective 
>judgement of some sort.  

That 's why it would be best if each listmember can make that subjective
judgement for him/herself.

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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 10:22:11 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Good morning.

William X. Walsh wrote:

>
>The so called "previous announced daily posting limits" was from a
>post over 14 months old which did not in fact state that the posting
>limits were in effect, but asked the list administrator to find a way
>to enforce such limits.  And even if this message is taken as placing
>the limit, to infer that it is still in effect today, after 14 months,
>including EXTENDED periods of nearly no activity on this list during
>that time, is absolutely a meritless justification, and is merely
>being used a convenient excuse to quiet criticism.

It was not the only message about posting limits.
Just check for reference the last one:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01683.html

where the List Monitor explicitely waived the 5-post-limit *for the 
candidates to GA Chair* and *during the election week*.
Why would there be any need for waiving a limit, if the limit did not exist?

Anyway, the matter can be easily solved, we can ask DNSO Secretariat to 
issue an automatic reminder of the rules periodically (monthly? weekly? 
daily? evey hour? how long will a rule last if it is not reminded? - I'm 
sure most will understand the point).

On the subject on whether other people should be judged by the same rule, my 
unauthoritative opinion is "Yes, either nobody or all".
If I may further chime, given the current emergency circumstances, I would 
rather sanction everybody who failed to comply rather than nobody. But 
that's just my opinion.

Anyway, the List Monitor said that other decisions are on the pipe.

On the subject of the time window, the List Monitor has clarified this 
already: the window applied is 00:00 to 23:59, local time of the poster as 
appears from the time stamp.

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:28:17 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Roberto,

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 1:22:11 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> where the List Monitor explicitely waived the 5-post-limit *for the
> candidates to GA Chair* and *during the election week*.
> Why would there be any need for waiving a limit, if the limit did not exist?

I was wondering the same thing.  I thought it was rather redundant of
you, personally, since the limit was not in place.

Had you issued a call for limits, that would be one thing.

You never issued such as a call.

> Anyway, the matter can be easily solved, we can ask DNSO Secretariat to 
> issue an automatic reminder of the rules periodically (monthly? weekly? 
> daily? evey hour? how long will a rule last if it is not reminded? - I'm 
> sure most will understand the point).

That isn't the point.  The list rules state specifically that the 5
post limit is only in place when the chair invokes 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:29:49 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Roeland,

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 12:52:27 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> We all agreed, at the time, for the rate of 5 postings per 24-hour period.

No, we all agreed that the chair could call for temporary posting rate
limits of 5 posts per day.

No such call has been in effect.

Apparently even the chair at the time had forgotten that the limit
required explicit action from him, but the rule on that is CLEAR and
not really open to interpretation.

- -- 
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:15:06 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

William,

>
>Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 1:22:11 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > where the List Monitor explicitely waived the 5-post-limit *for the
> > candidates to GA Chair* and *during the election week*.
> > Why would there be any need for waiving a limit, if the limit did not 
>exist?
>
>I was wondering the same thing.  I thought it was rather redundant of
>you, personally, since the limit was not in place.
>
>Had you issued a call for limits, that would be one thing.
>
>You never issued such as a call.
>

Please see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html.
The call was issued and never revoked.
(or maybe you can provide us with a pointer that proves the contrary)

> > Anyway, the matter can be easily solved, we can ask DNSO Secretariat to
> > issue an automatic reminder of the rules periodically (monthly? weekly?
> > daily? evey hour? how long will a rule last if it is not reminded? - I'm
> > sure most will understand the point).
>
>That isn't the point.  The list rules state specifically that the 5
>post limit is only in place when the chair invokes it.
>

Again, please see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html, and 
tell me what makes you think that it had to expire after a certain time? And 
if this is the case, after how long, and why?

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:28:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Roberto,

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 3:15:06 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William,

>>
>>Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 1:22:11 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> > where the List Monitor explicitely waived the 5-post-limit *for the
>> > candidates to GA Chair* and *during the election week*.
>> > Why would there be any need for waiving a limit, if the limit did not 
>>exist?
>>
>>I was wondering the same thing.  I thought it was rather redundant of
>>you, personally, since the limit was not in place.
>>
>>Had you issued a call for limits, that would be one thing.
>>
>>You never issued such as a call.
>>

> Please see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html.
> The call was issued and never revoked.
> (or maybe you can provide us with a pointer that proves the contrary)

It is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to believe that such a call
was still in effect.  Over 14 months have passed since then, and the
list has seen numerous lulls in the list activity during that time,
when the list was practically dead.  There is no way that anyone could
make a reasonable argument that a 14 month old call is still in
effect.

Futher, YOU NEVER MADE THE CALL, even in that email.

> I am recommending the list administrator to limit the maximum number of
> messages that any subscriber can send per day to 5.

You were instead RECOMMENDING to Elizabeth that you come up with a way
to limit the number of posts.

YOU NEVER asked the list members to confine themselves, and further,
there is no reasonable way at all for this call to still in effect
even if it did exist.  How can ANY reasonable person believe that a
call 14 months ago, LONG before many of the current participants were
even on this list, would be in effect today?  It was brought up to
address the CURRENT SITUATION in Feb 2000.  That situation changed,
repeatedly, over the last 14 months.

You know it, I know it.

You know that you and Harald were grasping at straws, ANY STRAWS, and
had to go back 14 months to find anything EVEN CLOSE, because you knew
that in fact you did not comply with the rules in enforcing any
limitations any time recently that could possibly be construed as
being still in effect.

You might get more respect for just admitting that the rule was not
properly in effect, and apologizing for that.

- -- 
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:22:39 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello

I would say that singling out any one member under the posting limit
rule is an abuse of position and that for such rules to be applied,
they must be applied without fear or favour and against all
transgressors.

From the posts below, there may be some confusion as to when the limit
was imposed.  It would appear to have been specifically applied before
1 April 2000 (second quote).  A request was sent for participants to
restrain themselves on 13 March 2001.  The request would seem to
indicate the rule was relaxed sometime between 1 April 2000 and 13
March 2001 as can be demonstrated by practical example on the number
of posts within this period.  One has to assume the request was
intended to reintroduce the posting limits but it is a fair stretch to
say it is actually calling for the posting limit to be in force.

Perhaps the current Chair can post an actual call now for the posting
limit to be applied.  It would be my belief that it has been a
voluntary limiting by participants up until such an explicit call is
made and that any penalties using this mechanism applied at this time
would be unfair.

With regard to the actual posting limit being applied I have found the
following in my archives:
(no other relevant material was found in my archive after 28 March
2000, my personal archive may not be complete)

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:25:42 +0100
To: [email-masked]
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting limit reminder
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

At this time of intense traffic, I wish to remind everyone that people
should try to confine themselves to speaking only when they have
something
to say, and except in exceptional cases, they should restrain
themselves to
less than 5 messages per day.

This is a request from the chairs under the mailing list rules.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 04:41:56 +0930
To: [email-masked]
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
Status:

I have to remind the participants of Roberto's earlier announcement of
a limit of 5 messages per participant per day.

Yesterday (Mar 30), William Walsh had 13, Simon Higgs had 11, and
Christopher Ambler had 13.

I am happy to see that the tone of messages has calmed down a bit, but
I have to admit that I see the value of the continued discussion as
very low.

And the volume of it is WAY too high.
Please throttle your postings, gentlemen.

                   Harald T. Alvestrand
                    List moderator, GA
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------------------

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:20:10 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Sotiris
|> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:38 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for
|> mass postings
|>
|>
|> To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended
|> along with William.
|> Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is
|> a 5 post limit. <SNIP>

I certainly agree that any such rule when applied should be applied to
all who have broken the rule.  Now if we look at those who have broken
the rule even if only taken into account posts since the beginning of
the year, the list is impressive. I personally appear to have exceeded
5 posts twice this year.  You, Soltiris, from my records, have
exceeded 5 posts a day on 6 different days since the beginning of the
year.  The list of offenders is large.

This raises some questions and points to ponder.

Point 1.  Is any rule valid when it is not applied consistently.
Point 2. Should additional warnings be sent to offenders before
consideration is given to impose penalties.
Point 3. Posting limit rules are to cut down on traffic, should not
any cc and bcc addresses on any posts count as multiples.  The habit
of cc'ing both to the list and to the person addressed means the post
is sent twice to person cc'd.  Unless this is taken into
consideration, the posting limit is not effective in achieving the
stated goals.
Point 4. I have documented evidence of other offenders that infringed
the 5 post rule on a frequent basis since February 2000, should not
such a rule be applied objectively and no other criteria used outside
of the rule in its invocation.
Point 5. Should the GA consider posting participant posting statistics
on a weekly basis with warnings for any who are over the limit and if
they transgress at any time in the following two weeks, the penalties
automatically imposed?  Perhaps an automatic script to achieve this so
no human intervention is necessary to improve objective application of
the rule.

Just a few things for the list to mull over.

Personally, I will abide by any rules imposed by the group that are
applied in a consistent and appropriate manner.  I question rules that
appear to be applied in an unfair manner.

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:27:49 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

I feel a simple warning to *all* would be a good choice of action.

Mr. WXW has created his own bed of bad behavior, the two weeks off should
serve him well and be enforced.

His further postings on the ga-full list do not show any remorse, but have
only gone down hill in proper list decorum. IMHO.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Sotiris
|> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:38 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for
|> mass postings
|>
|>
|> To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended
|> along with William.
|> Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is
|> a 5 post limit. <SNIP>

I certainly agree that any such rule when applied should be applied to
all who have broken the rule.  Now if we look at those who have broken
the rule even if only taken into account posts since the beginning of
the year, the list is impressive. I personally appear to have exceeded
5 posts twice this year.  You, Soltiris, from my records, have
exceeded 5 posts a day on 6 different days since the beginning of the
year.  The list of offenders is large.

This raises some questions and points to ponder.

Point 1.  Is any rule valid when it is not applied consistently.
Point 2. Should additional warnings be sent to offenders before
consideration is given to impose penalties.
Point 3. Posting limit rules are to cut down on traffic, should not
any cc and bcc addresses on any posts count as multiples.  The habit
of cc'ing both to the list and to the person addressed means the post
is sent twice to person cc'd.  Unless this is taken into
consideration, the posting limit is not effective in achieving the
stated goals.
Point 4. I have documented evidence of other offenders that infringed
the 5 post rule on a frequent basis since February 2000, should not
such a rule be applied objectively and no other criteria used outside
of the rule in its invocation.
Point 5. Should the GA consider posting participant posting statistics
on a weekly basis with warnings for any who are over the limit and if
they transgress at any time in the following two weeks, the penalties
automatically imposed?  Perhaps an automatic script to achieve this so
no human intervention is necessary to improve objective application of
the rule.

Just a few things for the list to mull over.

Personally, I will abide by any rules imposed by the group that are
applied in a consistent and appropriate manner.  I question rules that
appear to be applied in an unfair manner.

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:55:04 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

At 04:34 18.04.2001 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
>Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also
>breached the 5 posts per day limit.
>
>Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
>Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
>Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
>Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
>Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
>Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April
>
>I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also.  I merely
>suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be
>revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half 
>dozen or
>more people who have done much the same.

Thank you for the counting.
William Walsh had been previously warned about the posting limit, and has 
chosen to go on "shouting".

These other people will also get a warning.

(Dave Crocker was warned on April 14, and has since kept within the limit, 
according to my count)

- --
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 10:11:54 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

If it means that I must be punished as well, then so be it!  But the
subversive activities (even if they're not intentional) must be stopped
here and now.  I will gladly take the suspension verdict against myself
Darryl, even though I am unaware of any abuse reports against me to the
List Monitor.  This ML must not be allowed to go the way of the IDNO ML.
It sickens me to constantly hear the reply: "But so and so is not being
punished, why should so and so be punished then?"  Well, how about TO
RESTORE LIST ORDER?  I think it would go a long way towards bringing
things back into focus if the suspensions were carried out against all the
offenders (yes, including myself!).  Now, who has a problem with that?
Sooner or later the rules must be applied, because they have not been so
to date does not mean they should never be...  Examples have to be made
(and remade if necessary!).

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of Sotiris
> |> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:38 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for
> |> mass postings
> |>
> |>
> |> To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended
> |> along with William.
> |> Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is
> |> a 5 post limit. <SNIP>
>
> I certainly agree that any such rule when applied should be applied to
> all who have broken the rule.  Now if we look at those who have broken
> the rule even if only taken into account posts since the beginning of
> the year, the list is impressive. I personally appear to have exceeded
> 5 posts twice this year.  You, Soltiris, from my records, have
> exceeded 5 posts a day on 6 different days since the beginning of the
> year.  The list of offenders is large.
>
> This raises some questions and points to ponder.
>
> Point 1.  Is any rule valid when it is not applied consistently.
> Point 2. Should additional warnings be sent to offenders before
> consideration is given to impose penalties.
> Point 3. Posting limit rules are to cut down on traffic, should not
> any cc and bcc addresses on any posts count as multiples.  The habit
> of cc'ing both to the list and to the person addressed means the post
> is sent twice to person cc'd.  Unless this is taken into
> consideration, the posting limit is not effective in achieving the
> stated goals.
> Point 4. I have documented evidence of other offenders that infringed
> the 5 post rule on a frequent basis since February 2000, should not
> such a rule be applied objectively and no other criteria used outside
> of the rule in its invocation.
> Point 5. Should the GA consider posting participant posting statistics
> on a weekly basis with warnings for any who are over the limit and if
> they transgress at any time in the following two weeks, the penalties
> automatically imposed?  Perhaps an automatic script to achieve this so
> no human intervention is necessary to improve objective application of
> the rule.
>
> Just a few things for the list to mull over.
>
> Personally, I will abide by any rules imposed by the group that are
> applied in a consistent and appropriate manner.  I question rules that
> appear to be applied in an unfair manner.
>
> 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:15:27 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Hello Kent!

From memory, I think ICANN was called "a totally new
institutional animal" by the Economist, so I agree
that it is useful to compare it to various existing 
institutions and to see what we learn from it:

Kent Crispin wrote on 17.04.01, 16:46:37:
> I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is *very* far
> from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real nature or even it's
> possible nature.  I think a far better model for ICANN would be a
> professional society, or a industry standards body.  I'm thinking of
> organizations like the American Bar Association, or the American Medical
> Association, or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
> or the Underwriters Laboratories (Sorry these are all american
> institutions -- just the ones I'm familiar with).  
>
> These kind of
> organizations have quasi regulatory powers; they are frequently
> recognized by law; they are monopolies.  However, NONE of them have an
> "at-large membership" that makes them "accountable" to the public at
> large.  Instead, they rely on the fact that the entities involved
> compete against each other, but have a common interest in standards.

Hmmm. It is a bit difficult to use U.S. examples, because
frankly I don't know all that much about e.g. the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), but from what
I gather on the web, Certified Public Accountants enjoy a
government-protected monopoly of providing certain accounting
jobs. If AICPA decides do drop their professional standards
yet at the same time doesn't want non-CPAs to do certain jobs,
those others would seek protection against AICPA overstepping 
their role from (a) the U.S. legislator, (b) the U.S. courts.
(I would assume that this also roughly applies to the other 
professional organizations you mention.)

Problem regarding ICANN: We don't have a world legislator 
or a world court, and we probably both agree that it would not 
be a good idea to leave the decisions on the global Net to a 
single national legislator/court. Some may argue that the 
closest we get to a world legislator is an assembly of all
legislators in the world, but I have seen little support
for the idea that the GAC becomes a supervisory board...
So how else do we keep such a public check? E.g. by electing
representatives to the Board.

I assume the common interest you would refer to when talking 
about ICANN is a stable Internet. What about the other White 
Paper principles: competition; private, bottom-up coordination;
representation? What do we do if they are in conflict, and
who makes the choice?

> The decisions made by these bodies most certainly have an impact on the
> general public, but the general public doesn't have direct
> representation.
Because there are other mechanisms in place and people are
reasonably happy with them. This does not seem to apply here.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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 10:45:57 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:15:27PM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Hello Kent!
> 
> From memory, I think ICANN was called "a totally new
> institutional animal" by the Economist, so I agree
> that it is useful to compare it to various existing 
> institutions and to see what we learn from it:

It's good to think "outside the box" on occasion :-)

> Kent Crispin wrote on 17.04.01, 16:46:37:
> > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is *very* far
> > from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real nature or even it's
> > possible nature.  I think a far better model for ICANN would be a
> > professional society, or a industry standards body.  I'm thinking of
> > organizations like the American Bar Association, or the American Medical
> > Association, or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
> > or the Underwriters Laboratories (Sorry these are all american
> > institutions -- just the ones I'm familiar with).  
> >
> > These kind of
> > organizations have quasi regulatory powers; they are frequently
> > recognized by law; they are monopolies.  However, NONE of them have an
> > "at-large membership" that makes them "accountable" to the public at
> > large.  Instead, they rely on the fact that the entities involved
> > compete against each other, but have a common interest in standards.
> 
> Hmmm. It is a bit difficult to use U.S. examples,

Please forgive my provincialism.  I don't know similar examples 
elsewhere, though I'm sure they must exist.

> because
> frankly I don't know all that much about e.g. the American 
> Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), but from what
> I gather on the web, Certified Public Accountants enjoy a
> government-protected monopoly of providing certain accounting
> jobs.

Well, they are certified; they get licenses, in the same way that a
doctor or lawyer is certified and gets a license.  While you could call
that kind of certification/licensing  "a government-protected 
monopoly", it's a fairly weak monopoly.  There is a fairly stiff test 
you have to take to be certified; anyone can stand for the test.  I'm 
not at all sure about the processes in detail.  At a very generic 
level, the other examples I mentioned (the american medical 
association, the american bar association) share this characteristic.  
The government really isn't the best agent to define the certification 
requirements.

It is certainly true that organizations like this have a pervasive
effect on the ecomomics of their respective professions.  The american 
medical association has been criticized for artificially restricting 
the supply of doctors by setting the standards for medical schools too 
high.  It is also true that organizations like this can be intertwined 
with the government in interesting ways -- it was news recently when 
the Bush administration let it be known that the American Bar 
Association would no longer be consulted on candidates for federal 
judges.

The basic point is that the government grants to these trade 
organizations certain "powers" that look much like regulation.

A similar model is one provided by standards bodies.  Imagine that
Cisco, Juniper Networks, and several other Internet infrastructure
companies got together and produced a bunch of proprietary standards 
that they cross-licensed to each other.  Anti-trust authorities would 
be very suspicious.  But if Cisco et al participate in the IETF, where 
the standards are open, then it is cool.

> If AICPA decides do drop their professional standards
> yet at the same time doesn't want non-CPAs to do certain jobs,
> those others would seek protection against AICPA overstepping 
> their role from (a) the U.S. legislator, (b) the U.S. courts.

Through anti-competition authorities.

> (I would assume that this also roughly applies to the other 
> professional organizations you mention.)
> 
> Problem regarding ICANN: We don't have a world legislator 
> or a world court,

Fortunately, none is needed.  The rational for government oversight of
trade organizations is concern about competition; trade organizations
are basically controlled through anti-trust authorities.  And ICANN
falls under the anti-trust jurisdiction of every country in the world in
which it has a significant impact on competition.  That is, for all
practical purposes, ICANN is under the thumb of every anti-trust
department in the world.  The idea that there is no oversight over
ICANN, that ICANN is "unaccountable", is a pernicious myth.  The US 
dept of justice, the EC's DG-4, and other anti-trust agencies all 
provide oversight.

> and we probably both agree that it would not 
> be a good idea to leave the decisions on the global Net to a 
> single national legislator/court. Some may argue that the 
> closest we get to a world legislator is an assembly of all
> legislators in the world, but I have seen little support
> for the idea that the GAC becomes a supervisory board...
> So how else do we keep such a public check? E.g. by electing
> representatives to the Board.

Election of representatives to   the board is not necessary for oversight,
and there are tremendous practical difficulties with the "ICANN as
government" model.

Also, in terms of fundamental legal and control relationships, ICANN is
much closer to a trade organization than it is to any kind of
government.  *All* it's contractual committments are with the "trade",
not the public at large.  Moreover, the sheer mechanics of contracts and
negotiation give a great deal of direct and immediate influence to the
contracting parties -- contracts, even contracts with governments, are
never negotiated publically.

More important, though, is that it is clear that the "elected
representative" model simply won't work.  This was demonstrated with
crystal clarity in the at-large elections -- they demonstrated without
question that capture on that scale was possible, and they also
demonstrated without question that the elected board positions became
purely political.  Both of these problems are death for any idea
ofICANN as technical coordinating body.

> I assume the common interest you would refer to when talking 
> about ICANN is a stable Internet. What about the other White 
> Paper principles: competition; private, bottom-up coordination;
> representation? What do we do if they are in conflict, and
> who makes the choice?

The ICANN board.  If they make the wrong decision, DOJ and DG-4 haul 
them into court.

> > The decisions made by these bodies most certainly have an impact on the
> > general public, but the general public doesn't have direct
> > representation.
>
> Because there are other mechanisms in place and people are
> reasonably happy with them. This does not seem to apply here.

No, I would argue that this applies here, as well.  The mechanisms are
certainly there.  And indeed there are unhappy people, but there are
people unhappy with trade associations, as well, and on the whole, in
either case, most people simply don't care.  

Moreover, ICANN is still in its formative stages.  It is causing lots 
of change, and there are fundamental policy choices that do have to be 
made -- this is an inevitable consequence of birth; that is why the USG 
keeps its hand in -- consider the analogy of the *beginning* of the 
Board of Accountancy:  there would have been unavoidable serious policy 
decisions, and they would impact the practices of current accountants.  
There would be lots of controversy, lots of angry people.  But after 
the fundamental policy decisions are made, things change dramatically.  
The Board of Accountancy is utterly boring to most people nowadays.

- -- 
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:22:20 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

To:  David Farrar <[email-masked]>

Dear David

On Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:34 PM (AEST), you wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

> I make no comment about the content of Mr Walsh's posts as this ruling did not
> judge them.  He has been suspended only for breaching the posting limit.
>
> Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also
> breached the 5 posts per day limit.
>
> Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
> Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
> Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
> Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
> Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
> Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April
>
> I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also.  I merely
> suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be
> revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half dozen
or
> more people who have done much the same.
>
> Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective
> judgement of some sort.  However applying a posting limit should IMO be done
> far more objectively.

Whilst you are not asking for these people to be disciplined, this is, in fact,
a likely effect of your complaint as you clearly recognise.  A similar effort is
required to counter Mr Walsh's argument that there is, or was, no limit in the
first place.

However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I would advise that there
has never been any intention to enforce the daily limit blindly.  The intention
of the restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on the list.

Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and posts six or even seven,
emails, I would personally not consider this of utmost gravity.  But what we are
talking about here, as far as I can see, is a systematic and deliberate breach
of list protocols.  This is exactly the problem, and the harm, that the posting
rules were introduced to combat in the first place.  It is not a minor matter.

There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and other lists.  My feeling is
that we have constructive work to do and even your post is not assisting that
task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week working on list research
and debate.

To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or two, here or there, I am
talking about sustained effort for days and days.  With very little to show for
it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a wasted effort unless we have
your support.

As I have been named (and now warned) I have checked my posts for the days in
question.  This is not a trivial task because I am in Australia and perhaps 19
hours difference in time from the West Coast of the States.  The details are
below for ease of checking by anyone on the list who feels they need to do that.

On 14 April 2001, the list archive shows that I made no less than 9 postings.
By my Australian time five of these postings were made on 14 April and four were
made on 15 April 2001.  The list archive shows one posting was made on 15 April

So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on both 14 and 15 April.

The 16 April is more problematic.  The list archives show 16 postings but, by my
Australian time 10 of the were made on 17 April 2001.  This leaves 6 postings on
the 16 April.  One of these, the last post on my 16 April  was an official
notice about "Excessive Postings".  It was my reminder to the list of the
posting limit.

So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 16 April also.

However, I am now left with 10 postings on 17 April  2001.  This was, of course,
the day that I tried to bring the list to order in my official capacity as
Co-Chair.

POSTINGS ON 17 APRIL 2001

(1)    Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusive Name Space SIG ML
(2)    [ga] The International Association of Top Level Domains ("IATLD")
(3)    Re: [ga] List Monitors Needed
(4)    [ga] Chinese Internet
(5)    [ga] Keeping Up The Barriers
(6)    [ga] List Rules and Protocols
(7)    [ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols
(8)    [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly
(9)    [ga] Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
(10)    Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

By my count, five of these namely (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) were clearly
official
And without checking, I think you'll find that I signed them as such.

So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 17 April also.

It is clear that I have taken great care to maintain my posting rate at exactly
the five posts per day limit.  The fact that I reminded other people about the
limit shows the genuine nature of my compliance.  I ask the the Chair to lift
the warning

You noted that Christopher Ambler breached the posting limit on 12, 14, 15
April.  You will also recall that much of this was a debate with Mr Walsh.  I
leave each of you to make your own judgment on its merits.  Mr Ambler is not now
subscribed.

However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting that I posted the onlist
reminder of the posting limts on 16 April, my local time.  I also intervened the
next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that officials are entitled to
expect some co-operation and goodwill from those who only so recently elected
them.

On Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:53 AM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 5:55:04 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > Thank you for the counting.
> > William Walsh had been previously warned about the posting limit, and has
> > chosen to go on "shouting".
>
> No limit was in effect.  In fact, no limit is in effect today.

Many reference have been made to the posting limit and it was clearly adopted by
the present administration by my posting addressed to Mr Ambler and Mr Walsh.

From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>; William X. Walsh
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings

> Hi Everybody
>
> I can see this particular issue taking quite a few more postings to resolve.
> For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all try to keep to our five
> postings per day limit.
>
> Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
Monitor.

In case it is not still not clear, I again remind everybody of this list that
there is a limit of five postings per day.  This is calculated on the basis of
the posting party's own local time ending at midnight.  The List Monitors are
given the discretion to allow minor and occasional breaches in circumstances of
genuine attempts to comply.

List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this ruling is designed to
address when applying their discretion towards postings over the daily limit.

Yours faithfully
Patrick Corliss

Note:    Although this posting contains an official reminder I must include it
in my daily posting count.  Supporting documentation about my postings follows:

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNSO Mailing List Archives
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/maillist.html

2001 Apr 13
Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Christopher
Ambler
RE: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Roeland Meyer
Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Bret Fausett
Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace Joanna Lane
RE: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Roeland Meyer
Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace DPF
Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) William X. Walsh
Re[2]: [ga] Collisions in Namespace William X. Walsh
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 13
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Jeff Field
[ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Milton Mueller
RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace Jeff Field
RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace JandL
[ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... PacificRoot Hostmaster
RE: [ga] Collisions in Namespace Roeland Meyer
Re[2]: [ga] Collisions in Namespace William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... Alexander Svensson
[ga] Confirmation of our new Chairs Joop Teernstra
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Jefsey Morfin
[ga] motion to the Chair Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic Robin Miller
Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] motion to the Chair Kristy McKee
RE: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic Roeland Meyer
Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Marc Schneiders
[ga] New.net tactics Sotiris
Re[2]: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... JandL
RE: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[ga] Call for a Working Group Kendall Dawson
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] New.net tactics Jefsey Morfin
RE: [ga] Collisions in RFC 1535 space Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group JandL
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roeland Meyer
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) JandL
Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Bruce James
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roeland Meyer
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 APRIL 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 14
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Kendall Dawson
Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
[ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Erica Roberts
Re: [ga] motion to the Chair Joop Teernstra
Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
[ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jefsey Morfin
Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Jeff Field
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Sandy Harris
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 14
Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
- ------------------------------
POSTING 1 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME
[ga] ICANN Under Fire Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Cc: Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN Under Fire
- ------------------------------
POSTING 2 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME
[ga] Confusion in the Namespace Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 4:38 PM
Subject: [ga] Confusion in the Namespace
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dave Crocker
[ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace William X. Walsh
- ------------------------------
POSTING 3 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME
[ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace
- ------------------------------
POSTING 4 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME
[ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: Confusion in the Namespace Andy Gardner
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
- ------------------------------
POSTING 5 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... Alexander Svensson
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Roeland Meyer
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Sandy Harris
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Derek Conant
RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Confirmation of our new Chairs Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] vote appeal Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Jefsey Morfin
Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Derek Conant
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space John Charles Broomfield
- ------------------------------
POSTING 6 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #1 of 15 APR 2001
[ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Patrick Corliss
To: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 06:17:49 +1000
Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: confusing.... Derek Conant
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Jeff Field
Re: [ga] Re: confusing.... Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Derek Conant
Re: [ga] Re: confusing.... Derek Conant
- ------------------------------
POSTING 7 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #2 of 15 APR 2001
[ga] Call for a Working Group Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Jeff Field <[email-masked]>
Cc: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:18 AM
Subject: [ga] Call for a Working Group
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Re: confusing.... Dave Crocker
- ------------------------------
POSTING 8 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #3 of 15 APR 2001
[ga] Non-Disclosure of Vested Interests Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:15 AM
Subject: [ga] Non-Disclosure of Vested Interests
- ------------------------------
POSTING 9 ON 14 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #4 of 15 APR 2001
Re: [ga] List decorum Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 APRIL 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 15
[ga] Sorry - wong answer John Palmer
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
Re[2]: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] List decorum Dassa
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] List decorum Dave Crocker
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Derek Conant
RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group Jeff Field
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Sandy Harris
Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer John Palmer
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space John Charles Broomfield
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 15
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Jeff Field
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Derek Conant
Re: [ga] Sorry - wong answer PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Christopher Ambler
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group John Palmer
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roeland Meyer
RE: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Roeland Meyer
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Jeff Field
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Dassa
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dassa
RE: [ga] ICANNWatch Comment on MultiBind Dassa
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roeland Meyer
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dassa
RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Roeland Meyer
Re[6]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space PacificRoot Hostmaster
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML JandL
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dassa
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML JandL
Re: [ga] Attn: GA Chairman Younger.... JandL
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML JandL
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) JandL
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Dave Crocker
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Dave Crocker
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Roeland Meyer
Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group John Charles Broomfield
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Thomas Roessler
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML JandL
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group JandL
Re: Re[6]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Christopher Ambler
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group Dave Crocker
Re[8]: [ga] Call for a Working Group William X. Walsh
[ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management Jefsey
Morfin
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Jefsey Morfin
[ga] Dave: "they are free" Jefsey Morfin
[ga] WIPO Seeks Comment On Domain Name Process Darrell Greenwood
RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency) Jeff Field
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management Roberto
Gaetano
[ga] WG direction. Roeland Meyer
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roberto Gaetano
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jeff Field
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Sandy Harris
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Marc Schneiders
[ga] Re: WG direction. Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re[2]: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Patrick Greenwell
- ------------------------------
POSTING 1 ON 15 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #1 of 16 APR 2001
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] sub-ML for the request of a WG-Inclusive Name SpaceManagement Joanna
Lane
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 APRIL 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 16
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dassa
- ------------------------------
POSTING 1 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #2 of 16 APR 2001
[ga] Atlantic Root's Disclaimer Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>; Leah Gallegos, JandL <[email-masked]>; Jeff Field
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: [ga] Atlantic Root's Disclaimer
- ------------------------------
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dassa
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 16
- ------------------------------
POSTING 2 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #3 of 16 APR 2001
[ga] Fracturing the Internet Patrick Corliss
To: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fracturing the Internet
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:21:04 +1000
Sender: [email-masked]
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Milton Mueller
Re[2]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
Re[2]: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Re: WG direction. Christopher Ambler
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
- ------------------------------
POSTING 3 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #4 of 16 APR 2001
[ga] Demanding Inclusion Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: [ga] Demanding Inclusion
- ------------------------------
RE: [ga] Fracturing the Internet Dassa
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Marc Schneiders
[ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Milton Mueller
- ------------------------------
POSTING 4 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #5 of 16 APR 2001
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space
- ------------------------------
RE: [ga] Fracturing the Internet Andy Gardner
- ------------------------------
POSTING 5 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #6 of 16 APR 2001
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free"
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Demanding Inclusion Christopher Ambler
Re[4]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roeland Meyer
Re: Re[4]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re[6]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
Re[2]: [ga] Demanding Inclusion William X. Walsh
Re: Re[6]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re[8]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
Re: Re[8]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
- ------------------------------
POSTING 6 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #7 of 16 APR 2001
[ga] Excessive Postings Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>; William X. Walsh
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Re: [council] Collisions in Namespace Dave Crocker
Re[10]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Sandy Harris
Re: Re[10]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re[12]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" William X. Walsh
[ga] Additional Mailing Lists? babybows.com
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Derek Conant
[ga] List Monitors Needed babybows.com
Re: Re[12]: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Sotiris
RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Jeff Field
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jeff Field
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? DPF
[ga] JCB's post Jefsey Morfin
[ga] the probable final solution: Jeff Field's wrong analogy Jefsey Morfin
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Joop Teernstra
RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Joop Teernstra
Re: [ga] JCB's post John Charles Broomfield
[ga] iCANN's protection Jefsey Morfin
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jefsey Morfin
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Marc Schneiders
- ------------------------------
POSTING 7 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #1 of 17 APR 2001
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusive Name Space SIG ML Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Darryl Lynch <[email-masked]>
Cc: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusive Name Space SIG ML
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] List Monitors Needed Joanna Lane
- ------------------------------
POSTING 8 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #2 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] The International Association of Top Level Domains ("IATLD") Patrick
Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Gennady Pritsker <[email-masked]>; Gennady Pritsker <[email-masked]>
Cc: auDA, Board <[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: [ga] The International Association of Top Level Domains ("IATLD")
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: iCANN's protection Roberto Gaetano
- ------------------------------
POSTING 9 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #3 of 17 APR 2001
Re: [ga] List Monitors Needed Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger <[email-masked]>; [GA]
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors Needed
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Roberto Gaetano
RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Kristy McKee
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Bruce James
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? DPF
Testbed and precedent (Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free") Marc Schneiders
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Sandy Harris
- ------------------------------
POSTING 10 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #4 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] Chinese Internet Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>; Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:59 AM
Subject: [ga] Chinese Internet
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 16
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Kristy McKee
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Roberto Gaetano
Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Kristy McKee
2001 Apr 17
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Joop Teernstra
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Bruce James
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Kent Crispin
Re: Testbed and precedent (Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free") Kent Crispin
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Sotiris
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Kent Crispin
Re: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Christopher Ambler
[ga] Re: [icann-announce] Revised .com/.net/.org Agreements Forwardedto Commerce
Department Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Kent Crispin
- ------------------------------
POSTING 11 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #5 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] Keeping Up The Barriers Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>; Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: [ga] Keeping Up The Barriers
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Christopher Ambler
- ------------------------------
POSTING 12 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #6 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] List Rules and Protocols Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>; Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>;
[GA] <[email-masked]>; [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: [ga] List Rules and Protocols
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols Christopher Ambler
Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
- ------------------------------
POSTING 13 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #7 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>; [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: List Rules and Protocols
- ------------------------------
[ga] An agenda for the SIG "WG-Inclusive Name Space Management Proposition"
Jefsey Morfin
- ------------------------------
POSTING 14 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #8 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly Patrick
Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly
- ------------------------------
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? DPF
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection DPF
[ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly William X.
Walsh
- ------------------------------
POSTING 15 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME -  POSTING #9 of 17 APR 2001
[ga] Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:17 PM
Subject: [ga] Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
- ------------------------------
[ga] Re: Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
[ga] The fall of the iCANN Empire? Jefsey Morfin
RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Joanna Lane
Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
- ------------------------------
POSTING 16 ON 16 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #10 of 17 APR 2001
Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
- ------------------------------
Re[2]: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Dave Crocker
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dassa
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection DPF
[ga] Policy vs Contracts? DPF
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusive Name Space SIG ML Dassa
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Joop Teernstra
Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Joop Teernstra
Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
RE: [ga] Dave: "they are free" Roberto Gaetano
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Jefsey Morfin
Re: [ga] Policy vs Contracts? Jefsey Morfin
Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Joop Teernstra
RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Dassa
[ga] Rules & Protocols Committee babybows.com
[ga] My policy on postings - and slurs Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection jp
Re: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Bruce James
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? jp
Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Dave Crocker
Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML Kent Crispin
Re[3]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
Re[4]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols William X. Walsh
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 APRIL 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Apr 17
Re: Re[4]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Bruce James
Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists? Kristy McKee
Re: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee Dave Crocker
Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection Bruce James
RE: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Roeland Meyer
- ------------------------------
POSTING #1 ON 17 APR 2001 PER LIST TIME - POSTING #1 of 18 APR 2001
Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols Patrick Corliss
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

<snip>

- --
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 #403
************************