Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #490
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 27 2001             Volume 01 : Number 490

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 02:19:10 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 305 Voters

Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
for millions. Amazing!

Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up"
operation by ICANN might arise because it has almost
no "bottom?"

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 02:25:53 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Pardon me for this

The GA has 305 voting members, while Jeff Williams' INEGroup has
"over 118k" members.  Jeff, could you talk to some of your members
and see if some of them might like to join this jolly GA bunch?

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 06:47:01 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pardon me for this

At 2:25 am -0700 5/27/01, William S. Lovell wrote:
>The GA has 305 voting members, while Jeff Williams' INEGroup has
>"over 118k" members.  Jeff, could you talk to some of your members
>and see if some of them might like to join this jolly GA bunch?

Noooooooooooo!

Damn! Where's the URL to the Jeff Williams FAQ when you need it?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:56:11 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

Complaint Against William X. Walsh
Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
"Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
it."

I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
or without the titles).

With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.

The list members can decide for themselves whether they wish to achieve
anything constructive on this forum.  Meanwhile the list monitors can
adjudicate my complaint.  Of course, I will not be involved in the process.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
(personal posting)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Cc: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>; [ga] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

> Hello Patrick,
>
> Saturday, May 26, 2001, 10:17:42 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting
rule.
> > This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".
>
> Hold it.  The "no cross-posting rule" is not in fact a no cross
> posting "rule" but a policy setup WITHOUT CONSULTATION with this
> assembly by the list administrator, and enforced by rules that the
> list administrator sets up that filter out messages CC'd to particular
> addresses.
>
> There is in fact no sanction-able rule on cross posting.
>
> > This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite
the
> > contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply
with
> > the simple rules outlined above.
>
> Except of course for you, because you feel that by putting "List
> Admin" in your from address you can somehow exempt yourself from the
> posting limits because the posts you send using that name are posts
> you think are important, even though they are not related to this
> fictional title of "List admin" you have created for yourself.
>
> I just want to point out that the current moderators feel there is one
> standard for everyone else, and another for themselves.  Or more
> directly, let me simply limit that criticism to Mr Corliss, who
> offered to stop using the List Admin title if I would not object to
> his posting reposts from other lists/news articles/other stuff he
> thinks the GA should see, but without having those posts take away
> from his posting limits (which from any other GA member would of
> course count towards their posting limits) because he wanted those
> counted as "official business."
>
> Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved
> in it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:[email-masked]
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 05:11:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, May 27, 2001, 4:56:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Complaint Against William X. Walsh
> Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
> That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
> "Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
> it."

> I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
> simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
> is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
> or without the titles).

Did you, or did you not, tell me that you were using the method of
using the "List Admin" name to get around complaints about posting
limits by making those posts look like "official posts" ?

I'll save you the trouble of answering.  From an email (of which I
will be willing to provide the ENTIRE text to any member who asks)
from you to me this week:

===========
Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 3:51:59 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
"The only reason I use the title is because I think it important to
re-post things like public announcements or relevant mail from other
lists."

"If I use the title I can argue that it was an "official" posting."
===========

> With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
> available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
> is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.

No one said that.  What WAS said was that your post stating that this
was against the rules was NOT in fact true.  And you do not have the
right to MAKE such a rule by yourself.

I am stating facts, and in fact making a public complaint about our
"elected official."  As such it was not a personal attack.

As an elected official, you do not have the right to assert "personal
attack" in response to criticisms of you and your actions in your
"official role."

This is just further evidence of your intent to act in bad faith by
using the abuse process to claim personal attacks when called to
answer for your own statements and actions.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

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

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 08:17:25 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

As one quite possibly speaking for my age group/generation, I don't find
it very hard to believe that nobody in the 18-21 (give or take) bracket
seems very interested in entering and dealing with such a highly
politicized area whose importance seems rather limited and where petty
rivalries seem to the be the rule.

My suggestion is to find a way to make domain policy in general a much
more important issue to the minds of the general non-technical,
non-policy-minded public. Most people I've talked to my age (and older)
could not tell you what UDRP is, who ICANN is, the difference between
registry and registrars, etc. Start changing that and you might start
seeing more people interested enough to participate in domain policy
discussions and actions.

~Ladi

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
S. Lovell
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] 305 Voters

Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
for millions. Amazing!

Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up" operation by
ICANN might arise because it has almost no "bottom?"

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 05:16:37 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

In the quote section I meant to also include this statement from his
email:

"I'm more than happy to use my personal name except when it really is an
"official" posting if you and the other naysayers, Eric and Jeff (good
company you are in!!) agree to discount repostings when criticising me for
exceeding my posting limit."

Thus recognizing that those posts were not in fact official and that
he only reason for using the title was to attempt to circumvent rules
that everyone else must follow.  I stand by what I said as a factual
and ontopic criticism of the behaviors, statements, and actions of
this "Elected" official of the GA.

The full email will be made available to anyone who asks, since I am
in effect being called a liar by Patrick who is claiming that my
factual accounting of his actions is instead a baseless personal
attack.

Or better yet, I'll put it on the web.

http://www.userfriendly.com/email/corliss1.txt

Headers are intact.

Sunday, May 27, 2001, 5:11:27 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Patrick,

> Sunday, May 27, 2001, 4:56:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>> Complaint Against William X. Walsh
>> Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
>> That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
>> "Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
>> it."

>> I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
>> simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
>> is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
>> or without the titles).

> Did you, or did you not, tell me that you were using the method of
> using the "List Admin" name to get around complaints about posting
> limits by making those posts look like "official posts" ?

> I'll save you the trouble of answering.  From an email (of which I
> will be willing to provide the ENTIRE text to any member who asks)
> from you to me this week:

> ===========
> Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 3:51:59 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> "The only reason I use the title is because I think it important to
> re-post things like public announcements or relevant mail from other
> lists."

> "If I use the title I can argue that it was an "official" posting."
> ===========

>> With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
>> available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
>> is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.

> No one said that.  What WAS said was that your post stating that this
> was against the rules was NOT in fact true.  And you do not have the
> right to MAKE such a rule by yourself.

> I am stating facts, and in fact making a public complaint about our
> "elected official."  As such it was not a personal attack.

> As an elected official, you do not have the right to assert "personal
> attack" in response to criticisms of you and your actions in your
> "official role."

> This is just further evidence of your intent to act in bad faith by
> using the abuse process to claim personal attacks when called to
> answer for your own statements and actions.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

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

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 07:41:28 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thank you for pointing out our failure. I agree, we do need more input from
more people of the Internet. This list is made up of *old timers*, who date
back to the early days of the Internet. (and before) Things really have
changed, in Internet time.

Most of todays users don't know and/or don't care about the Who, How or Why
the Internet wroks. All they really care about is that it works.

Would you please help us by giving us your ideas on how we can reach the
real users of the Internet in a more simple language than we use here? We do
need more Outreach!

Regards,
/Bruce

- - ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 27, 2001 07:17
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

As one quite possibly speaking for my age group/generation, I don't find
it very hard to believe that nobody in the 18-21 (give or take) bracket
seems very interested in entering and dealing with such a highly
politicized area whose importance seems rather limited and where petty
rivalries seem to the be the rule.

My suggestion is to find a way to make domain policy in general a much
more important issue to the minds of the general non-technical,
non-policy-minded public. Most people I've talked to my age (and older)
could not tell you what UDRP is, who ICANN is, the difference between
registry and registrars, etc. Start changing that and you might start
seeing more people interested enough to participate in domain policy
discussions and actions.

~Ladi

- - -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
S. Lovell
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] 305 Voters

Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
for millions. Amazing!

Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up" operation by
ICANN might arise because it has almost no "bottom?"

Bill Lovell

- - --
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-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBOxD19otDk+p459CQEQJ3EACfUrmjbRMOVqSJQkfjO7a25JCewY4AoOTW
zuc+Giv0JQxqn/KRB17HE8eD
=lI6e
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 09:05:04 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

Just a few random ideas on my way out the door (and some of these are
entirely selfish because I'm tired of getting funny looks from my
friends when I tell them to find a good international copyright lawyer
before selling their desirable domain name to someone in Europe who
emailed them randomly):

- -Encourage those under UDRP or other actions against their domain names
to not only post cease-and-desist letters or UDRP texts (and many do
that at least), but also information about *who* WIPO is, links to
similar cases, commentary, etc. Perhaps an "information packet" can be
prepared to help domain owners put something like this up.

- -Create an easily findable list of domain resources (with real-world
contacts where possible/necessary) -- people who are knowledgeable and
have the expertise to deal with selling domains properly and responding
to UDRP. Consider a mailing list or better yet, an online forum/bulletin
board for these people to post questions and experiences without being
afraid of jumping into a political flamewar.

- -Along with the above, create a website that simply explains the
process, how it is used, where domain owners should watch out if they
are considering selling their domain, etc. Simple language and
explanations should go without saying.

- -Issue statements about/against major UDRP decisions that impact many
internet users. The recent ruling against Aimster could have been (and
still can be) a rallying point for younger people who use(d) Aimster and
related services. Even the Harry Potter decisions are a great starting
point for dialogue and for public outreach: "Hey...UDRP *can* be good --
let's remind everyone how and why and while we have their attention,
what *is* bad about it and how they can act."

- -Instead of focusing entirely on domain policy, align with other related
issues on the internet such as general copyright concerns -- the people
who spend time teaching users that copying that really cool picture from
a website and using it on their small business site could be helpful to
us (and us to them) in terms of reaching a wider audience.

~Ladi

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:41 AM
To: Ladi; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thank you for pointing out our failure. I agree, we do need more input
from more people of the Internet. This list is made up of *old timers*,
who date back to the early days of the Internet. (and before) Things
really have changed, in Internet time.

Most of todays users don't know and/or don't care about the Who, How or
Why the Internet wroks. All they really care about is that it works.

Would you please help us by giving us your ideas on how we can reach the
real users of the Internet in a more simple language than we use here?
We do need more Outreach!

Regards,
/Bruce

- - ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 27, 2001 07:17
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

As one quite possibly speaking for my age group/generation, I don't find
it very hard to believe that nobody in the 18-21 (give or take) bracket
seems very interested in entering and dealing with such a highly
politicized area whose importance seems rather limited and where petty
rivalries seem to the be the rule.

My suggestion is to find a way to make domain policy in general a much
more important issue to the minds of the general non-technical,
non-policy-minded public. Most people I've talked to my age (and older)
could not tell you what UDRP is, who ICANN is, the difference between
registry and registrars, etc. Start changing that and you might start
seeing more people interested enough to participate in domain policy
discussions and actions.

~Ladi

- - -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
S. Lovell
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] 305 Voters

Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
for millions. Amazing!

Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up" operation by
ICANN might arise because it has almost no "bottom?"

Bill Lovell

- - --
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-full" in the body
of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBOxD19otDk+p459CQEQJ3EACfUrmjbRMOVqSJQkfjO7a25JCewY4AoOTW
zuc+Giv0JQxqn/KRB17HE8eD
=lI6e
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 09:13:06 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

Some evidence that the GA actually can influence policy might also be
helpful.  Not only in terms of the debates, but in terms of ICANN
actually following through on GA resolutions.   Jamie

Ladi wrote:
> 
> As one quite possibly speaking for my age group/generation, I don't find
> it very hard to believe that nobody in the 18-21 (give or take) bracket
> seems very interested in entering and dealing with such a highly
> politicized area whose importance seems rather limited and where petty
> rivalries seem to the be the rule.
> 
> My suggestion is to find a way to make domain policy in general a much
> more important issue to the minds of the general non-technical,
> non-policy-minded public. Most people I've talked to my age (and older)
> could not tell you what UDRP is, who ICANN is, the difference between
> registry and registrars, etc. Start changing that and you might start
> seeing more people interested enough to participate in domain policy
> discussions and actions.
> 
> ~Ladi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
> S. Lovell
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] 305 Voters
> 
> Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
> Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
> vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
> for millions. Amazing!
> 
> Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up" operation by
> ICANN might arise because it has almost no "bottom?"
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org
1.202.380.3080 fax 1.202.234.5176
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: Sun, 27 May 2001 06:20:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

Would someone else explain to Mr. Corliss what responsibilities come with
running for and excepting public office. (Whatever you want to call ICANN and
the GA is a part thereof, it is public)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but;  The alt-chair may have to fork over
some dough to pay his own expenses, he may have to put in long hours of hard and
ungratifying hard work, he may have to withstand criticism and public scrutiny
of his actions, while he gets nothing from the job he may lose his reputation
and friends while doing it. Why do they give those fancy awards and heap huge
praise on people who undertake to do such tireless work? Why do people who do
this earn my respect to the highest degree? Why do they get to have their
picture taken with royalty and presidents?

Someone explain that he has an opportunity to stand tall and make many proud.
He also has the free will to chose the opposite

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Complaint Against William X. Walsh
> Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
> That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
> "Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
> it."
>
> I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
> simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
> is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
> or without the titles).
>
> With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
> available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
> is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.
>
> The list members can decide for themselves whether they wish to achieve
> anything constructive on this forum.  Meanwhile the list monitors can
> adjudicate my complaint.  Of course, I will not be involved in the process.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> (personal posting)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>; [ga] <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse
>
> > Hello Patrick,
> >
> > Saturday, May 26, 2001, 10:17:42 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting
> rule.
> > > This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".
> >
> > Hold it.  The "no cross-posting rule" is not in fact a no cross
> > posting "rule" but a policy setup WITHOUT CONSULTATION with this
> > assembly by the list administrator, and enforced by rules that the
> > list administrator sets up that filter out messages CC'd to particular
> > addresses.
> >
> > There is in fact no sanction-able rule on cross posting.
> >
> > > This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite
> the
> > > contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply
> with
> > > the simple rules outlined above.
> >
> > Except of course for you, because you feel that by putting "List
> > Admin" in your from address you can somehow exempt yourself from the
> > posting limits because the posts you send using that name are posts
> > you think are important, even though they are not related to this
> > fictional title of "List admin" you have created for yourself.
> >
> > I just want to point out that the current moderators feel there is one
> > standard for everyone else, and another for themselves.  Or more
> > directly, let me simply limit that criticism to Mr Corliss, who
> > offered to stop using the List Admin title if I would not object to
> > his posting reposts from other lists/news articles/other stuff he
> > thinks the GA should see, but without having those posts take away
> > from his posting limits (which from any other GA member would of
> > course count towards their posting limits) because he wanted those
> > counted as "official business."
> >
> > Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved
> > in it.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
> > mailto:[email-masked]
> > Owner, Userfriendly.com
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 06:39:09 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pardon me for this

Mr. Lovell,

We have been through this a few times and I note with regret that I read
of several times on the NetSol domain policy list several more.(God rest
it's soul).  Just for fun assume I do represent the world wide group
known as the dotcommoners, 1 million - no, 1 billion strong.  As an
Outreach and Education specialist you do not really expect me to bring
them into this gladiators colliseum so as to introduce them to the
democracy of Rome do you?

Mr. Williams and countless like himself and myself represent many.  Do
not expect me to subject my CEO or our graphic designers to this dante's
paradise, they would quickly "run away".

But your point is good to keep in mind and reminds me to remind you and
everyone to support our chair in Stockholm. He faces a nasty group of
carnivores with only his wits as a weapon, since it is impossible to
give him more without the At-Large. Please use the remote tools to let
your voices be heard. In Melbourne Sotiris through remote made more of
an impact than my obese butt sitting in a chair.

Sincerely,

(has anyone else notice we are supposed to have representatives on the
BoD?)

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> The GA has 305 voting members, while Jeff Williams' INEGroup has
> "over 118k" members.  Jeff, could you talk to some of your members
> and see if some of them might like to join this jolly GA bunch?
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:21:46 +0800
From: "erica roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Talking of the original purpose of the GA ....
Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I would like to see the GA become a real
forum for cross constituency discussion with a view to building consensus on
key policy issues amongst constituencies and others not represented within
existing constituencies.
In my more pessimistic moments, I am concerned that the GA may be becoming
merely a forum for grandstanding and personal vituperation -  and thereby
making itself irrelevant to the real business if ICANN.

erica

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 3:37 AM
To: 'Bret Fausett'; [ga]
Subject: RE: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Bret, I recall that the following regularly attend the GA meetings... at
ICANN ...

- --BC members, ISP members, Registrar, IP, non-commercial... ccTLD...and I
think that the gTLD also attends...

Were you thinking of maybe that people don't post to the GA?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 1:32 PM
To: [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Danny, I'd like to see "outreach to existing constituencies" put on the
agenda. There are a couple of constituencies that do not participate in the
GA at all, from what I can tell. This would be a more productive forum if we
could bring all the constituencies together here. That was the original
purpose of the GA, and I'd like to see if we can make that a reality.

Thanks,

Bret

- --
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:27:49 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mailing List Logic

Dear, Dear William

So we have an interesting situation here.

(1)    If I explain the list rules to Eric Dierker, you can feel free to
treat what I said as an abuse of my position such that it justifies you
attacking me on a completely unrelated subject.  And without even
validating what I said or addressing the issues being discussed.

(2)    If I try to explain the cross-posting rule then I am wandering off
topic or causing a diversion.  If you divert the debate that's your right as
a member.  Of course, any attempt by me to focus the debate must be
"censorship" or "abuse of power".

(3)    If I write to you privately, you can feel free to publish anything I
say as evidence of my bad faith.  However, I am prohibited from publishing
anything you or anyone else writes as this is private and must be respected.

(4)    If you attack me, I must just take it as an "elected official".  But
if I say anything derogatory about you or anyone else, you must, of course,
submit a complaint.

(5)    If I submit a complaint then I am abusing my official position but if
you submit a complaint, that is your perfect entitlement as a list member
under the rules.

(6)    If I get off lightly I must have "got at" the list monoitors or
otherwise abused my official position.  If you get off lightly then it was
proper, just and appropriate in the circumstances.

(7)    If act fairly or impartially, e.g if I recuse myself as a list
monitor, then I have been forced to do so against my will by justified
criticism of my hidden agenda.

(8)    If I act as a List Administrator and post or re-post a message that I
didn't write (for example, a *bounced* post from a non-member) then I must
comply with the five posts a day limit like everyone else.  If you exceed
the five post a day limit, then the rules don't apply to you because the
Chair didn't "announce" them after the election.

(9)    If I sound as if I am in favour or opposed to anything at all then it
must be because of my hidden agenda.  If you say anything, however biased or
outrageous, that is your right as a free spirit floating around the
universe.

(10)    If I say anything like the above then it is a "personal attack" and
must be stamped on.  If you make a real "personal attack" well that is just
vigorous debate and I must be thin-skinned or overly-sensitive to criticism.

(11)    Finally you can threaten or bully me, privately, all you like.
That's fair dealing.  If I say anything amiss, or republish your threats, I
am a bully abusing my position.

I can't argue with that logic.  Please do not ever write to me privately.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 #490
************************