Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #531
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 531

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:41:46 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Novating the General Assembly

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/11/01 10:11 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > OK.  So what to do?  Well, part of it is obvious:
> >
> > (1)    Generate independent funding to reduce dependence on Names Council.
> > (2)    Develop more structured debate ("board room rather than chat room").
> > (3)    Set up working groups to tackle specific issues.  Provides better
> > focus.
>
> (4) Membership drive.

A friendly, open, inviting and helpful membership drive.  I've been told that
ICANN - internet user relations per se do not fall under the aegis of the
DNSO, but should be in the At-Large.  I have to agree, but the problem
is, there is no At-Large, so where else is a person to go but to the GA?
(And I agree entirely with what Patrick says.)

Bill Lovell
- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:32:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Joanna,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 7:37:05 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> Since its formation, the GA-SYS list has largely focused on Privacy issues
> in relation to the EU laws and WHOIS databases. To say that this is a matter
> of deep concern to Individual Domain name Holders and the public at large,
> (whose interests are not currently represented elsewhere is the DNSO
> process), is an understatement.

For the record, the bulk of the posts above that are said to be
"focused on privacy issues in relation to the EU laws and whois
databases" have been from Joanna.

Not much else has gone on there.

The list is particularly useless.

- -- 
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:47:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
> > against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
> > increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
> > accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
> > readily by the rest of the world.
>
> Joanne, with all due respect, I don't believe it is fair to generalize the
> position of an entire country based on the opinions of one individual.

  I agree if you are referring to WXW's position to which Joanna referred
to.

>
>
> Further, Britian has enacted some of the most intrusive legislation
> related to the Internet that exists, the Regulation of Investigatory
> Powers, which among other things gives British authorities the right
> to intercept ALL Internet traffic as well as force individuals to turn
> over encryption keys WITHOUT a warrant. I'd hardly call Britain a model of
> privacy....

  I think you may have missed the gist of Joannas first sentence in her
remarks above.  She was and does take the EU position not the UK's.
As the UK is a reluctant member of the EU in some respects, many of
the UK's citizens support the EU's position that I posted a URL
regarding about two weeks age from the COE.

>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 11 Jun 2001 22:55:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hello David,
>
> on 6/11/01 2:35 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
> >> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> >> systems
> >
> > Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
> >
> > DPF

Excellent response by Joanna. In the first place, measuring the value of
a list by the amount of traffic it has is an extraordinary misperception of
the process.  Take out the flame wars from GA and how much real
traffic is there? (Lately, I'll grant it has been getting much better -- even
the formation of a little clique comprising those whom I put into the
class of Internet radicals is better than nothing but that familiar burning
smell.)

As to privacy, I have long preferred the EU standard myself.  And it was
France that got the "right of attribution" and similar terms into the copyright
law, which I also highly favor.  William X. Walsh is the ultimate economic
Darwinian -- "may the strong overpower the weak, by almost any means
available," and on such issues we have and will no doubt continue to cross
swords.

Bill Lovell

> With the greatest respect, it would be helpful if you would actually check
> this list before disseminating a value judgement which amounts to summary
> execution.
>
> Since its formation, the GA-SYS list has largely focused on Privacy issues
> in relation to the EU laws and WHOIS databases. To say that this is a matter
> of deep concern to Individual Domain name Holders and the public at large,
> (whose interests are not currently represented elsewhere is the DNSO
> process), is an understatement.
>
> For your information, the NC is currently conducting a survey on WHOIS,
> which is one of the few things that they have actually asked us to do, and
> to that end, they have issued a lengthy questionaire that requires a
> response by the deadline of July 31st.
>
> This is the GA's opportunity to have a say in how the Whois is to be
> constituted and run, and should we fail to respond, either individually, or
> collectively, we cannot complain about the result. Those that belong to the
> GA-SYS list recognize the importance of this issue to individuals, even
> though they themselves may represent other interests. They are to be
> commended, not trashed.
>
> The number of posts to the GA-SYS lists is few compared to the GA main list,
> and that is to its credit. Members only post when they have something
> meaningful to say, which is the way it should be. You will see direct
> cross-constituency dialogue developing there between individuals, such as
> myself, technicians such as Roeland Meyer, and policy advocates, such as
> Ross Nadar of Tucows, to mention a few.
>
> As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
> against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
> increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
> accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
> readily by the rest of the world. More research is needed to establish a
> worldwide consensus position. It's healthy stuff.
>
> I would also mention that this is the only list that, to my knowledge, has
> produced any documents at all since its creation. Several papers have gone
> through a first draft stage, for further consideration by the full
> membership, under the working title of Freedoms, part 1,2 and 3. In
> addition, a summary of discussions on the list was recently posted, for
> those interested in clarifying the issues and furthering/ joining the
> debate.
>
> I can accept that you have no particular interest in all of the above, but I
> cannot accept that you would kill a list that has added more value to the GA
> in past weeks than possibly any other, and is producing quality
> cross-constituency dialogue, with no noise.
>
> Finally, it has not passed me by that your lack of concern and understanding
> about these issues are voiced at a time when your name has been put forward
> as a potential candidate to represent the best interests of individuals to
> the NC. For this reason, I regret that I cannot support your nomination for
> the position.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna Lane
> http://www.internetstakeholders.com
>

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:17:02 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

on 6/10/01 4:29 PM, Danny Younger at [email-masked] wrote:

> It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
> efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
> vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> ExCom to direct list activities.
> 

> As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
> people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
> decline such an appointment):
> 
> 1. Sotiris Souteropolis
> 2. William Walsh
> 3. Jefsey Morphin
> 4. Marilyn Cade
> 5. Eric Dierker
> 6. Leah Gallegos
> 7. Joop Teenstra
> 8. Bret Fausett
> 9. Joanna Lane 

I accept.

Regards,
Joanna 

- --
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, 11 Jun 2001 23:42:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello William,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 10:55:14 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Excellent response by Joanna. In the first place, measuring the value of
> a list by the amount of traffic it has is an extraordinary misperception of
> the process.

Ok, ignore the one sided low traffic levels.  What purpose has the
list served that would not have been served by having those issues on
the main GA?

To be honest, I see the removal of this issue to the ga-sys sublist as
more harmful to Joanna's (and apparently your own) cause.  The list
will only attract people and posts from polar opposites.  We have
already seen that.

The subject is more likely to get better coverage, and much broader
debate and higher level of input, by being right here on this list.

The GA-SYS list does not help progress on the issues Joanna has
raised.

I'm not advocating the dissolution of the list because the subject
discussed there is one I do not agree with.

I advocate the dissolution of the lists because they serve no purpose
but segregation and division, and do not contribute in any substantive
way towards progress.

- -- 
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:57:16 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Achieving Some Work-Output

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:42:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> I advocate the dissolution of the lists because they serve no purpose
> but segregation and division, and do not contribute in any substantive
> way towards progress.

Hi William

Thank you for your clarification.  Could I ask you whether you see a place
for working groups with the General Assembly?  Or do you see the whole
thing as a single "chat room" as Eric has called it?

Personally I would like to achieve some work-output.

How do you think this would best be achieved?  I'd value your opinion.

Truly ;-)

Best 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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:27:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Achieving Some Work-Output

Hello Patrick,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 11:57:16 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:42:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> I advocate the dissolution of the lists because they serve no purpose
>> but segregation and division, and do not contribute in any substantive
>> way towards progress.

> Hi William

> Thank you for your clarification.  Could I ask you whether you see a place
> for working groups with the General Assembly?  Or do you see the whole
> thing as a single "chat room" as Eric has called it?

I don't agree that these are the only two options, Patrick.

I've pushed our chair to act like a chair and to be an instrument of
consensus.  Our chair should be guiding discussion, prioritizing
subjects of discussion and debate, and helping us by pulling out the
points where we agree and using them to help bring us about to points
of consensus on the subject.

Jonathan Weinberg's leadership in NC Workgroup C on gTLDs is an
excellent example of how to do that, in what was probably the most
hotly contested issue in the DNSO to date.

We need a chair who will lead us, not come in every few days and
preach more about dismantlement, and chastise people for not
accomplish anything when the real cause is his failure to be a
presence on this list that coordinates and works with us.

And it doesn't take a lot of time to do that.  Again I hold Jonathan
up as an example of that.

The co-chair should be stepping in and assisting him in doing that,
and helping him to be a stabilizing presence here and in helping bring
about consensus on the issues that need to be addressed (and that
means recognizing when his own agenda is not going to be adopted and
be willing to set it aside).

- -- 
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:48:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

WXW and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> Monday, June 11, 2001, 10:55:14 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Excellent response by Joanna. In the first place, measuring the value of
> > a list by the amount of traffic it has is an extraordinary misperception of
> > the process.
>
> Ok, ignore the one sided low traffic levels.  What purpose has the
> list served that would not have been served by having those issues on
> the main GA?

  This is and excellent question.  I would have to say honestly, none
that could not have been served on the DNSO GA list.  However,
there are some on the DNSO GA list that are not interested in the
subject areas discussed on the ga-sys list and therefore do not wish
to be impacted on the DNSO GA list with posts related to those
subject areas.

>
>
> To be honest, I see the removal of this issue to the ga-sys sublist as
> more harmful to Joanna's (and apparently your own) cause.  The list
> will only attract people and posts from polar opposites.  We have
> already seen that.

  Polar opposites are not going to go away because of a list being
done away with and the subject matter moved to the DNSO GA
list.  Two sides or more are not uncommon with some if not most
subjects or issues, such as Whois privacy, ect...  So this is not
a good argument for eliminating the ga-sys list either.

>
>
> The subject is more likely to get better coverage, and much broader
> debate and higher level of input, by being right here on this list.

  This is debatable, to be sure as we have already seen in the past...

>
>
> The GA-SYS list does not help progress on the issues Joanna has
> raised.

   Doesn't hurt it either.  But I would prefer to see a broader forum
available to discuss these issues.

>
>
> I'm not advocating the dissolution of the list because the subject
> discussed there is one I do not agree with.

  I think you mean the positions of most of the subscribers to the GA-SYS
list are not in agreement with yours.

>
>
> I advocate the dissolution of the lists because they serve no purpose
> but segregation and division, and do not contribute in any substantive
> way towards progress.

  With the Whois issue I tend to agree.  I am not sure any venue or forum
would provide any progress.  It seems that the different governments
and the ability of those whom advocate a particular position will garner
the support in any method available to them.  As we have seen in the EU,
and with many of our members advocating the Opt-in position of Whois
privacy, that a multitude of venues or forums will do more to gain support
that any single one can do or has done.

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:25:16 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-sys] British Privacy Laws

Hello Joanna,

Welcome back to the GA list.

Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 12:26:43 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hello Patrick,

> Welcome to the GA-SYS list, where I have now forwarded your comments,
> together with my reply below.

> Regards,
> Joanna

<snip>

>> Further, Britian has enacted some of the most intrusive legislation
>> related to the Internet that exists, the Regulation of Investigatory
>> Powers, which among other things gives British authorities the right
>> to intercept ALL Internet traffic as well as force individuals to turn
>> over encryption keys WITHOUT a warrant. I'd hardly call Britain a model of
>> privacy....

> Irrelevant. First, Britain is only one of 15 countries in the EU. It is
> often outvoted, which is why the UK no longer sells gallons of fuel and
> pounds of potatoes, instead it's litres and kilos. Second, you are talking
> police authorities accessing information in the line of duty to prevent
> crime. I am talking about all the crackpots in the world who have access to
> your physical contact details for any reason whatsoever. Apples and Oranges.

Only because you elected to not take advantage of opportunities to
protect your own privacy.

The fact is that there are costs to increased security.  It is not an
absolute right.

If you want more security for your house, you purchase a security
system.  If you want more protection in your neighborhood, you hire a
private security patrol.

If you want your contact information to be private, you hire a service
for that as well.  You get a mail drop/PO Box, you get a cheap
voicemail service, you do the things you need to do to protect your
own privacy as you see fit.

The responsibility lies with you.

There is a growing tendency in these forums for people to not want to
take personal responsibilities for the things they need and want.
They expect those things to be done for them by someone else.

These things require work, they require an investment, either in time
or in money, or some other trade off.

If the price is too high, there are numerous anonymous third level
domain services that can fill your needs. The trade off is that you
must abide by a much more rigid registration agreement, which means
that if you break the rules (spam, etc) you lose your domain.  This is
not the case in the world of second level and ccTLDs domains for the
most part.

So each individual has to decide for themselves what level of privacy
they want, and want price they are willing to pay for it, either in
moving from the second to third level and agreeing not to do certain
things with your domain, or by getting a maildrop or voicemail service
to protect your private data.

These things are best left to the INDIVIDUAL.

- -- 
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:30:28 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:37:05 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>I can accept that you have no particular interest in all of the above, but I
>cannot accept that you would kill a list that has added more value to the GA
>in past weeks than possibly any other, and is producing quality
>cross-constituency dialogue, with no noise.

If I was the one who decides such things I would be more guarded in my
remarks.  I was merely offering an opinion that I had not seen much
content which IMO is relevant to ICANN.  But each to their own.

>Finally, it has not passed me by that your lack of concern and understanding
>about these issues are voiced at a time when your name has been put forward
>as a potential candidate to represent the best interests of individuals to
>the NC. For this reason, I regret that I cannot support your nomination for
>the position.

I wasn't aware I had accepted any such nomination so any such support
is at this time a non-issue.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:50:58 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-sys] British Privacy Laws

on 6/12/01 4:25 AM, William X. Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> Hello Joanna,
> 
> Welcome back to the GA list.

William, the only game I'm willing to play with you is the killfile game.
All the points you raised have already been answered fully on the ga-sys
list for all to see. Reposting these comments from one list to another, in
some sort of circular game, is not very clever. I do not know anybody who
takes kindly to being played for a fool and deliberately wasting a person's
time usually leads to rejection. Welcome to my killfile.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:57:45 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

on 6/12/01 5:30 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:

> If I was the one who decides such things I would be more guarded in my
> remarks.  I was merely offering an opinion that I had not seen much
> content which IMO is relevant to ICANN.  But each to their own.

WHOIS is not relevant to ICANN? The Registrants Bill of Rights is not
relevant to ICANN? The TUCOWS Privacy initiative is not relevant to ICANN?
These are issues begging to be addressed aren't they?

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 05:16:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [ga-sys] British Privacy Laws

Hello Joanna,

Tuesday, June 12, 2001, 3:50:58 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/12/01 4:25 AM, William X. Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

>> Hello Joanna,
>> 
>> Welcome back to the GA list.

> William, the only game I'm willing to play with you is the killfile game.
> All the points you raised have already been answered fully on the ga-sys
> list for all to see. Reposting these comments from one list to another, in
> some sort of circular game, is not very clever. I do not know anybody who
> takes kindly to being played for a fool and deliberately wasting a person's
> time usually leads to rejection. Welcome to my killfile.

Your choice, as always, Joanna.  But the point is that these issues
are important enough that the GA would benefit from their being
presented here, instead of to the extremely small subset of
participants on ga-sys, where nothing substantive has happened on
these issues.

The debate rightly belongs here, where those who are not at the
extremes as you and I can share in the debate and perhaps come to a
conclusion that you and I and the small subset on ga-sys never would.

I'm doing you a favor.  Had I wanted your comments to remain in
obscurity, I could have left them on the ga-sys list that hardly
anyone reads or responds to.

It's not a game, Joanna, I put the comments on the forum where I felt
they belonged in the first place.  And in doing so, brought in a much
larger group who can discuss the issue (if only our leadership
starting guiding discussions in a proper fashion so that we could
actually make some progress).

- -- 
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:41:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Novating the General Assembly

Mr. Corliss please feel free to place this in the right sub-list, if there be one.

When a church wants to conduct some outreach, it combines it with funding and has a
bakesale combined with some fun and games and music.  I leave the legalities to
those more organized than I.

I propose a digital vitual all net domain name blind aution for the benefit of the
GA.  Within the day I will have a name or two to donate in my company's name.  My
company in return will get to flag wave it's donation and thereby drive eager
participants to the auction and thereby cross market the GA. (I guess I could
donate ICANNTALK.com since I don't have time to develop that site. But I was hoping
to put the donated Net Sol List archives there).  Leah can you get us a good dotBIZ
name I am sure the publicity would not hurt your cause.  Mr. Tucows certainly you
could use some good will about now.  Mr. Walsh we know you have some old domains
just sitting in your attic come on bust out.  Mr. Corliss will you please ask the
TLDA to come up with a name or two.  Who is here from dotCN it would be a kick to
have a domain name in that wonderful language.   I think we need some serious umpf
so that WECANN make some news and pull the THEYCANN up from its bottoms.

When you all complain about negative posts and derisive infighting, be careful what
you ask for in replacement, this feel good crap is nauseating.

Eric the Sincere

ps. Is NetSol.com being used?

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > on 6/11/01 10:11 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > OK.  So what to do?  Well, part of it is obvious:
> > >
> > > (1)    Generate independent funding to reduce dependence on Names Council.
> > > (2)    Develop more structured debate ("board room rather than chat room").
> > > (3)    Set up working groups to tackle specific issues.  Provides better
> > > focus.
> >
> > (4) Membership drive.
>
> A friendly, open, inviting and helpful membership drive.  I've been told that
> ICANN - internet user relations per se do not fall under the aegis of the
> DNSO, but should be in the At-Large.  I have to agree, but the problem
> is, there is no At-Large, so where else is a person to go but to the GA?
> (And I agree entirely with what Patrick says.)
>
> Bill Lovell
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:46:07 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:50:58 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> William, the only game I'm willing to play with you is the killfile game.
> All the points you raised have already been answered fully on the ga-sys
> list for all to see. Reposting these comments from one list to another, in
> some sort of circular game, is not very clever. I do not know anybody who
> takes kindly to being played for a fool and deliberately wasting a
> person's time usually leads to rejection. Welcome to my killfile.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:57:45 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> WHOIS is not relevant to ICANN? The Registrants Bill of Rights is not
> relevant to ICANN? The TUCOWS Privacy initiative is not relevant to ICANN?
> These are issues begging to be addressed aren't they?

Hi Joanna

Are you saying they can all go on GA-ICANN mailing list then ?

Or perhaps you should look more closely at the following post:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02513.html
where you will find all sorts of interesting comments about mailing
lists and professional behaviour.  I made the following comment:

> My concern is simply that mailing lists should be operating effectively.

It was the need for clearly defined scope of each list that led me to
perform that analysis.  It seems that I was wasting my time also.

Your response, which I saw as unhelpful, was made at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02517.html

I then repeated my analysis more carefully for further input:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02540.html

> Danny decided on his own initiative, to add another list GA-REVIEW for the
> purposes you have outlined.  Whilst I had no objection to the list, I saw
> there was a possible difficulty as it was not clear where the new
> boundaries were between the several lists.  It was a "scoping" problem.

And if that was not enough, I explained the whole thing again at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02569.html

with a description of a possible structure made at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02570.html

For me, at least, I can see that you have defended <ga-sys> and <ga-review>
but you have not addressed the more substantive issue of the purpose of the
lists and how they will interact.

How, for example, will these lists relate to the Organizing Committee?

Of course, you can continue not to discuss the higher-level issues but you
shouldn't then be surprised when people continue to post to the <ga> list.

Best 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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:03:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Mr. Corliss,

You of course make some excellent points here sir.  Please take it to a positive
step and follow through with establishing rules as discussed below. If it
appears disjointed you can follow through on a quick review of the rules
sublist.

Patrick Corliss wrote:
Hi Joanna

>
> Are you saying they can all go on GA-ICANN mailing list then ?
>
> Or perhaps you should look more closely at the following post:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02513.html
> where you will find all sorts of interesting comments about mailing
> lists and professional behaviour.  I made the following comment:
>
> > My concern is simply that mailing lists should be operating effectively.
>
> It was the need for clearly defined scope of each list that led me to
> perform that analysis.  It seems that I was wasting my time also.
>
> Your response, which I saw as unhelpful, was made at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02517.html
>
> I then repeated my analysis more carefully for further input:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02540.html
>
> > Danny decided on his own initiative, to add another list GA-REVIEW for the
> > purposes you have outlined.  Whilst I had no objection to the list, I saw
> > there was a possible difficulty as it was not clear where the new
> > boundaries were between the several lists.  It was a "scoping" problem.
>
> And if that was not enough, I explained the whole thing again at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02569.html
>
> with a description of a possible structure made at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02570.html
>
> How, for example, will these lists relate to the Organizing Committee?
>
> Of course, you can continue not to discuss the higher-level issues but you
> shouldn't then be surprised when people continue to post to the <ga> list.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Ladies and Gentlemen here are some fantastic criticisms and constructive
> advice to proceeding. Please follow suit so that we may get this done.
> The lists have proven helpful, but we must fine tune the little buggers
> to get them right.  Marilyn's most recent posts on this issuue are a
> must read for those interested. We must do this legitimately with real
> rules allowing their creation and maintanence.
>
> > 1) Your motion does not permit to cancel a list. This should be voted
> > by
> > the list.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > 2) if you want an ML to succeed it must have an owner/stewart (I mean
> > someone more implicated than a moderator). I suggest that the stewart
> > of
> > the list will be the person having introduced the motion.  ie:
> >
> > - someone introduces a motion to start a list
> > - he needs to have 10 seconds and a positive vote
> > - or 20 seconds (it is likely the list will be used)
> >
>
> Sounds like the much maligned term governor, but it correct. An active
> participant that guides and helps.
>
> > 3) the list rules must be kept simple and open
> >
> > - list rules are standard netiquette
> > - additional list rules (from GA or elesewhere) should be indicated in
> > the
> > motion
> >
>
> KISS keep it simple stupid; that way even I can follow it.
>
> >
> > 4) the list should be copied on the GA-Full.
> >
> > 5) every approved list should have link on the dnso.org site (none has
> > today)
>
> These are a must for openness and transparency, and to monitor the
> monitor.  Should we attach a work group to each list and let the GA
> Chair appoint a liason chair to get one elected once the list/group gets
> rolling, like we did in the WG-Review? I like it.
>
> Eric
>

This was in reply to an anonymous critic of my earlier post our GA rules can be
easily modified to allow a smoothe use of sublists.

Sincerely,

- --
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 #531
************************