Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #548
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 17 2001            Volume 01 : Number 548

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

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:26:04 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

    Mr. Walsh:

  The 5 posts per calendar day (24 hours) is from 00:00 to 23:59 your local
time.

    Regards,
    /Bruce-LM

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 21:28
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules of the General Assembly of the DNSO

Hello Bruce,

Not to get into a big debate on that, but to be technical, the
precedent set is that it is 5 posts per calendar day from midnight to
midnight your local time.

Not necessarily per 24 hour period (which could be abused by list
monitors claiming 10 posts between, say 5pm to 5pm, when in fact that
was 5 posts per calendar day and no other posts were made on either
calendar day by that person.

I know it may seem minor to you, but we have seen the list rules
misapplied in the past simply because a list monitor didn't like the
subject being discussed, and the less clear and concise the rules are,
including when they are brought up by those like yourself who have
been appointed list monitors, the more opportunity there is for those
rules to be misapplied.

Saturday, June 16, 2001, 5:56:16 AM, Bruce James wrote:

> Rules of order for the mailing lists of the General Assembly of the DNSO:

> Please be advised, there is a *FIVE* (5) post limit,  per list,  per
> *Twenty-Four* (24) hours.  The time is based on your local time. The
*other*
> rules are listed here:

> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

>        The List Monitor Team
> General Assembly of the DNSO

> /Bruce-LM

- --
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 06:52:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

I make no apologies for my excitability.  Over the last year I have grown to be quite
proud of Joanna.  She is one of the most productive and caring members of the Internet
community. What's my point??;

This is it!  For policy considerations regarding the Internet, This is it.  On this U.S.
fathers day we look to our fathers and our children and realize this is it.  Maybe the
Internet is not important, maybe it is. But this is it when it comes to open and
transparent decision making regarding said net. Excited-- Hell yes!  Simply being allowed
to participate is Exciting.  This may or may not be a Chat or Board room but it is the
only room where the world gets to watch in horror or gaiety at the process that truly
shapes the policy of the Internet. You got one place where Messrs.. Morphin, Lynn,
Flemming, Williams, Froomkin, Fausset, Mueller, Probst, Lovell, Lane, Gallegos,
Soritopolis, Cerf, and me and my beloved dot commoners thrash out the issues of the day,
of hour,or minute.

Excited and excitable hell yes, don't ever suggest that my Ho Chi Minh City shoeshine boy
or my Sudanese doctor are not worth getting excited about.  You walk on their rights to
access to knowledge and the world and I will be one screaming meemy on your back.

Happy day to all, and thank you for being here.
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bill and all assembly members,
>
>   I would have to agree that there are a disproportionate number of
> "Excitable" participants on this forum.  However that is to be expected
> and understood as what we are all are witnessing is something of
> great interest to many.  And as such, many are seeing the terrible
> inequities and inconsistencies of the "ICANN Experiment" that
> are draining the life blood from the internet.  That is likely to be
> disturbing and create excitement....
>
> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Both of you are right but in your brutality you are both wrong.  Joanna I am a
> > > proud US citizen yet my views on privacy make yours pale in comparison. You chose
> > > to make this an American versus UK issue you will lose.  Please do not smack my
> > > conutrymen in order to gain points.  You do not represent a position against me as
> > > I and every representative of my country is the US position.
> >
> > I "represent" this country (the U.S.), as you put it, but most certainly do not
> > subscribe to the market model of William X. Walsh, but on this point will
> > adopt the EU view. In very broad strokes, I see nothing wrong with Joanna's
> > generalization as to a "UK" and a "US" view, so long as it is understood ("as
> > any fool can plainly see," as the saying goes) that there are similarly no doubt
> > many UK (or EU) citizens that would favor the "US view."
> >
> > Point is, though, that this discussion has no point. No one is lobbing shots
> > across "the pond" here at all, but simply using a useable shorthand.
> >
> > (Very excitable people in this place, methinks!)
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > > I am not offended but
> > > I will be shortly!
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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....
> > > >
> > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > > >                                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-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
> >
> > --
> > Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> > to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> > "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
>
> 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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:17:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Geographical representation (was:Re: [ga] DNSO Secretariat) 

On 04:58 17/06/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>Jefsey, I hope you realize that the "geographical representation" need is 
>only there to block certain candidates when such would be needed. <g>

I never though of that :-)

>On the net the only boundaries are cultural and this does not always 
>co-incide with geographical regions.  ANZ is an entity that you just 
>created, (it's the trademarked name of a Bank <g>), un esprit .

I suppose you mean "vue de l'esprit" otherwise you would fully agree with 
me :-)

>It exists under the name ANZAC
>But culturally AU NZ is still  largely Europe. The English part.
>What is it that needs representing on the Board most? Europe? In all it's 
>diversity?
>Asia, in all it's diversity? Are they not represented as such already?
>How big a Board is optimal?
>It is good to think about these questions. They are going to be relevant 
>to ICANN.

IMHO the real issue is the diversity of the iCANN or DNSO "cultures". This 
is why I tried to use an unusual name. I mean: what in the view of the 
discuted matters make difference. We need consensus not vites. Uniformity 
is the last thing we want.

>We are talking here about DNS stakeholders, regulation and political 
>philosophy.
>It's quite a contrast than between AU and NZ.
>.NZ  essentially democratic, although higly imperfect,  "owned" by a 
>society of volunteers.
>.AU is still autocratic.
>(and both's  ccTLD interests are represented)

You see from your side. What I see:
- - population of small size consistently of the langage as the BoD
- - wide area with low population density
- - new at network systems and services
- - access problems (DoS to the whole NZ, 50% packets retransmission in AU). 
Satellite lines.
- - sophisticated local population with a need for three local root servers 
(2 in Australia, 1 in N2) to get a secure service.
- - common law based legal culture

If you consider equivalent criteria round the globe you will observe that 
no one less can represent you.

>"Representing ANZ" on the Names Council or on the Board, would  have to be 
>a hard act when it comes to explaining policies.<g>

We are not here in term of democracy but in term of problem coverage and 
operational priorities. This being said the Secretariat of the DNSO should 
reflect our outreach policy and should not IMHO be manned by a person of 
English mother tongue. Pilar Luques shown us enough the necessity of 
translation and we observed the complexity of our vocabulary and its 
instability. A multilingual lexical is of the essence: this is the job of 
the Secreariat. IMHO only an informed person used to the English Internet 
words but of not of English mother tongue and fluent in several other 
languages can adequately carry such a task.

We also need to have a Secretariat welcoming new people. We have quite 
noone active in here from China, India, Africa, Middle-East, 
Eastern-Europe, Japan, South America ... A strong sign to them is  our own 
Staff to be one of them.....

Jefsey

- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 07:56:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 2:29:28 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> It should be obvious to any member with the slightest common sense that the
> [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to discuss mailing list rules and
> protocols.  Including time zones.  It was thought this would free up the
> main [ga] list for substantive rather than procedural issues.

Can it Patrick.  You already lost this debate. It was thought by you
and Danny, no one else.

> Could I ask members to indicate their preference for (a), (b) or (c)?

No you cannot. Your little survey is out of order, irrelevant, and
doesn't follow the guidelines for a vote of the GA.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 11:36:04 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "whois" survey

Joop, how about including your comments in the comments section?  I took a
look and I think it is hard to envision that a personal and governmental
registration would be the same; or that a personal and commercial
registration. I think that perhaps some might think that a non-commercial
and personal registration might be the same, but I would really make a
distinction in my own mind. For instance, I register a name for my
"personal/individual" use, but I also register a different name for an ad
hoc non-profit group I chair.... the latter is non-commercial or "other" in
my mind, not personal.

Was that example helpful as an illustration of what you were concerned
about? I wasn't sure and wanted to better understand what your question was
about the categories.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] "whois" survey

An example of the bias from the survey introductory text:

"Names are also are registered by individuals who are holding names to 
resell, or possibly use in the future. It is the disclosure of data about 
individuals' registrations that has raised privacy issues."

No mention is made of  the common occurrence of registration for actual 
personal use in the present.

Example of the restriction in choice:

What was the general purpose of your registration:
a.commercial
b.governmental
c.personal
d.noncommercial organization
e.other

There is no possibility to tick more than one choice, while DNames could 
have been registered for any or all of these purposes.

Perhaps the survey can be adapted to correct these obvious shortcomings?

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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, 18 Jun 2001 02:11:39 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE

Hi William

<snip pedantic stuff>

It's a guide, a "call for a vote".  Not a "vote".

OK, how about a motion to use Joop's polling booth.
Any seconder?

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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:24:09 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Somone is spreading the Snow White virus again

I don't know whether it is coming from this list or others I belong to, 
but I've been mailed the snow white virus several times over the 
past few days.  I would suggest people check their systems.

Leah

~ Leah G ~
- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 12:39:54 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Somone is spreading the Snow White virus again

>I don't know whether it is coming from this list or others I belong to,
>but I've been mailed the snow white virus several times over the
>past few days.  I would suggest people check their systems.

I suggest people stop using Microsoft Outlook.

- -- 
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, 17 Jun 2001 13:39:51 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE 

(b)

On 17 Jun 2001, at 19:29, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Derek
> 
> > If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be
> based
> > upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive
> system
> > itself, not one's local time.
> >
> > Are the list monitors trying to confuse people here, or what?
> 
> Everybody in the world knows their own local time so it is naturally easier
> for them to abide by it.  As well their posts are invariably time stamped
> and dated with their own local time.  Should there be any complaints later,
> it is a simple matter for that person to sort or extract postings in date
> order.  The person posting can easily see their own emails in their own
> time.
> 
> The use of a set time zone, such as you suggest, would be most burdensome.
> Every person posting would then have to manually calculate times in time
> zone other than their own.
> 
> However, the list monitors are not particularly fussy what time zone you
> live in.  If you wish you can probably set your own PC to Central European
> time, make that your local time, and use it on your travels wherever you go.
> Australia, Sweden Uruguay, etc.
> 
> The fact that your emails will be time stamped in a zone different from
> where you ae located is something that you, personally, will have to deal
> with.
> 
> The fact is that it is very easy to resolve such queries by writing to me
> directly.  Or indeed the Chair or any of the List Monitors.  What surprises
> me most is that (a) people so like to argue and (b) when they argue they
> want the greatest audience possible.  At least 300 people.
> 
> It should be obvious to any member with the slightest common sense that the
> [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to discuss mailing list rules and
> protocols.  Including time zones.  It was thought this would free up the
> main [ga] list for substantive rather than procedural issues.
> 
> However, asking people to use the appropriate list is a no-no.  People post
> whatever they like to whatever list they like without any complaint being
> possible.  I am certainly surprised that intelligent people allow their atte
> ntion to be diverted in this way !!!
> 
> MOTION
> 
> That the use of the [ga-rules] mailing list be determined by the members as
> follows:
> 
> (a)    The [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to provide a forum for the
> discussion of list rules, protocols and procedural issues and should be used
> for that purpose.
> (b)    The [ga-rules] mailing list is not needed.  All issues relating to
> list rules, protocols and procedural issues should be discussed on the main
> [ga] mailing list.
> (c)    Don't know, don't care or don't think it makes any difference.
> 
> Note.  People who are fed up with GA discussion about lists should vote (a).
> 
> Could I ask members to indicate their preference for (a), (b) or (c)?
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

~ Leah G ~
- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 10:56:05 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New wine in old bottles

William X. Walsh and I have been engaging in a debate over
what are the responsibilities of persons joining into this whole
ICANN process, and what are those of the long time participants
who are familiar with the process, the internet, the technology, etc.
Let me say for the record that given Mr. Walsh's premise, his
citations to the ICANN documents are totally accurate, his logic
is impeccable, and his conclusions are exactly right. I want to
respond more generally here, though, because this subject matter,
at least to me, happens to pinpoint a central reason why there is
and must be, profound decisions relating to the basic structure of
ICANN.

The problem with Mr. Walsh's conclusions is that the Internet,
and the ICANN, to which those original ICANN documents
referred, no longer exist.  If one has a "technical coordinating
body" that sees to IP allocations and all of the rest of the work
that is fundamental even to having an Internet, of course one
must show some technical expertise and qualifications in order
to have a right to be heard.  One cannot carry out that kind of
work -- the work defined in the original ICANN "charter," if
every ignoramus on earth can jump in and spout utter nonsense
and thus effectively bring the real work to a halt.  However, that
was the old ICANN; this is the new, and the documents to
which Mr. Walsh refers have been bypassed by events.

Commencing with the Network Solutions decision to stick its
nose into domain name issues -- NOT in the sense simply of
ensuring technical compatibility, etc., but as to who gets which
one, the Internet has been co-opted by the trademark and
commercial interests, and the fears of the original scientific
community which said that "commercialization" of the Internet
would corrupt its value have been realized many times over.
To everyday users, and registrants of domain names, it is not
necessary to know an IP from a DNS to have a right to speak
out on those kinds of issues.  The tradition within the technical
community, however, is to deprecate the "clueless newbie" and
try to chase that poor soul out of the process -- even while
others are trying to generate some real body of people (i.e.,
more than 305) so that a functioning system that could reach
a consensus on at least something could be shown.  Thus,
there is not just one ICANN, there are two, and they are both
incompatibly trying to follow the same set of rules.

There thus seem to be three possible solutions:

1) Restructure ICANN

2) Start over with an entirely new organization

3) Re-direct ICANN back to its sole and only
    technical coordination function and form a
    second organization -- not an ICANN (since
    the function of this organization would not be
    about "assigned names and numbers" at all
    -- the function of such new organization to be
    that of addressing matters of international
    social policy that fill the pages of these lists
    and have nothing whatever to do with the
    original ICANN function. Read "The Internet
    Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
    I don't see anything in there about any UDRP
    or other such abominations, nor do I see, or
    have I ever seen, any document that gives either
    ICANN, the USG, or anyone else even the
    slightest legal basis for making up rules on the
    subject. International law (excluding the traditional
    (common law) has but two possible legitimate
    foundations: treaties, or     the consensus of
    individual people, and ICANN (and WIPO, etc.)
    have neither.

I myself would suggest option 3.  Someone just
posted something which said that as a matter of
cold, hard fact, ICANN is the only body that has
even the slightest chance of gathering in the approval
of the entire international community to carry out the
technical function of running an internet, so while its
abolishment is simply out of the question, at the same
time it has shown itself utterly incapable of dealing
with social issues in a manner that will be acceptable,
and that is not likely to change. The opinion has been
expressed that we now have not an ICANN but an
ICANN/NSI-Verisign duopoly -- the capture has
been complete, and the $$$ will not allow the kind
of restructuring that ICANN would require. Power
is power, regardless of whether it has any legal basis.

The issue of having a new organization and abolishing
ICANN was just answered.

With no. 3, a first step would be to restructure ICANN
to get rid, if possible, of the "bottom-up" fiction.  In the
technical running of an internet, the policy SHOULD be
"We're the experts, we'll do it the way we decide it
should be done based upon our best judgments, and if
you are not prepared to contribute substantively to
the reaching of those judgments, based upon a real
understanding of the issues involved, go away." The
USG documents that call for "bottom-up" governance
should be re-negotiated, with that requirement removed.
(Or alternatively, ICANN could be seen as supporting
the development of an "Internet Policy" organization,
that runs on (roughly) democratic principles and allows
everyone with a concern to have a voice, thereby
actually fulfilling that mandate.)

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, 17 Jun 2001 14:23:10 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Properly organizing the GA should be the first priority - Re: [ga]  Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE

The problem with proposals concerning separate workgroup mailing lists is that it
is not clear to GA members that the other GA lists exist.  This problem exists
primarily because GA members are not properly organized and members lose interest
in following GA developments.  Some GA members may disagree with this.  However,
those GA members probably do not understand the first thing about organizing a
group and this may be why they appear unsuccessful at moving the group forward or
recognizing the problem.  So, it appears that they cannot understand the problem
facing the GA, refuse to properly address the problem nor able to fix it
themselves.

It is difficult sometimes to stay focused within a group that appears
disorganized and that has not made any real progress.  I have also expressed my
concern that the GA is being spread thin with the many GA mailing lists coupled
with poor management of those lists.

Communication to inform and update GA members should be improved.  I believe that
few people use the the DNSO Web site at http://dnso.org for updated information
after they have signed up for the GA mailing list.  I was not aware of the 5 post
per day limit or the other workgroup mailing lists until only a few days ago.

It appears that it is not worth the time and effort to suggest the creation of
new mailing lists (or anything else for that matter) within a group that is not
properly organized.  Properly organizing the GA should be the first priority of
interested parties if it can be understood, however, I have already tried to
suggest this to the GA and apparently to no avail.

In my opinion, there is not enough substance in GA discussions to warrant any
other or new GA mailing list at this time.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Patrick,
>
> Sunday, June 17, 2001, 2:29:28 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > It should be obvious to any member with the slightest common sense that the
> > [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to discuss mailing list rules and
> > protocols.  Including time zones.  It was thought this would free up the
> > main [ga] list for substantive rather than procedural issues.
>
> Can it Patrick.  You already lost this debate. It was thought by you
> and Danny, no one else.
>
> > Could I ask members to indicate their preference for (a), (b) or (c)?
>
> No you cannot. Your little survey is out of order, irrelevant, and
> doesn't follow the guidelines for a vote of the GA.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 11:43:51 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Somone is spreading the Snow White virus again

Concur wholeheartedly.  Everything Microsoft is a virus magnet.

Bill Lovell

Andy Gardner wrote:

> >I don't know whether it is coming from this list or others I belong to,
> >but I've been mailed the snow white virus several times over the
> >past few days.  I would suggest people check their systems.
>
> I suggest people stop using Microsoft Outlook.
>
> --
> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"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: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:36:32 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: (b) Re: [ga] Posting Rules - Call for a VOTE

(b)

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Derek
>
> > If there are going to be rules limiting the number of posts, it should be
> based
> > upon the Central European time zone as established be the GA Archive
> system
> > itself, not one's local time.
> >
> > Are the list monitors trying to confuse people here, or what?
>
> Everybody in the world knows their own local time so it is naturally easier
> for them to abide by it.  As well their posts are invariably time stamped
> and dated with their own local time.  Should there be any complaints later,
> it is a simple matter for that person to sort or extract postings in date
> order.  The person posting can easily see their own emails in their own
> time.
>
> The use of a set time zone, such as you suggest, would be most burdensome.
> Every person posting would then have to manually calculate times in time
> zone other than their own.
>
> However, the list monitors are not particularly fussy what time zone you
> live in.  If you wish you can probably set your own PC to Central European
> time, make that your local time, and use it on your travels wherever you go.
> Australia, Sweden Uruguay, etc.
>
> The fact that your emails will be time stamped in a zone different from
> where you ae located is something that you, personally, will have to deal
> with.
>
> The fact is that it is very easy to resolve such queries by writing to me
> directly.  Or indeed the Chair or any of the List Monitors.  What surprises
> me most is that (a) people so like to argue and (b) when they argue they
> want the greatest audience possible.  At least 300 people.
>
> It should be obvious to any member with the slightest common sense that the
> [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to discuss mailing list rules and
> protocols.  Including time zones.  It was thought this would free up the
> main [ga] list for substantive rather than procedural issues.
>
> However, asking people to use the appropriate list is a no-no.  People post
> whatever they like to whatever list they like without any complaint being
> possible.  I am certainly surprised that intelligent people allow their atte
> ntion to be diverted in this way !!!
>
> MOTION
>
> That the use of the [ga-rules] mailing list be determined by the members as
> follows:
>
> (a)    The [ga-rules] mailing list was set up to provide a forum for the
> discussion of list rules, protocols and procedural issues and should be used
> for that purpose.
> (b)    The [ga-rules] mailing list is not needed.  All issues relating to
> list rules, protocols and procedural issues should be discussed on the main
> [ga] mailing list.
> (c)    Don't know, don't care or don't think it makes any difference.
>
> Note.  People who are fed up with GA discussion about lists should vote (a).
>
> Could I ask members to indicate their preference for (a), (b) or (c)?
>
> 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

- --
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, 17 Jun 2001 14:48:21 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "whois" survey

Marilyn:

The question was badly formatted, IMO.  For instance, I have 
several names.  Some are commercial, some personal, some, non-
com, some non-profit, some "either/or," depending on point of view. 
 I could not in any way accurately respond to the question.  I had 
to use the text areas extensively.  

I honestly do not think the results of the survey can have any use 
for consensus and certainly not for statistics.  It is very biased and 
inaccurate, for one thing and interpretation of text would by 
necessity be subjective.

Leah

On 17 Jun 2001, at 11:36, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Joop, how about including your comments in the comments section?  I took a
> look and I think it is hard to envision that a personal and governmental
> registration would be the same; or that a personal and commercial
> registration. I think that perhaps some might think that a non-commercial
> and personal registration might be the same, but I would really make a
> distinction in my own mind. For instance, I register a name for my
> "personal/individual" use, but I also register a different name for an ad
> hoc non-profit group I chair.... the latter is non-commercial or "other" in
> my mind, not personal.
> 
> Was that example helpful as an illustration of what you were concerned
> about? I wasn't sure and wanted to better understand what your question was
> about the categories.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 9:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] "whois" survey
> 
> 
> An example of the bias from the survey introductory text:
> 
> "Names are also are registered by individuals who are holding names to 
> resell, or possibly use in the future. It is the disclosure of data about 
> individuals' registrations that has raised privacy issues."
> 
> No mention is made of  the common occurrence of registration for actual 
> personal use in the present.
> 
> Example of the restriction in choice:
> 
> What was the general purpose of your registration:
> a.commercial
> b.governmental
> c.personal
> d.noncommercial organization
> e.other
> 
> There is no possibility to tick more than one choice, while DNames could 
> have been registered for any or all of these purposes.
> 
> Perhaps the survey can be adapted to correct these obvious shortcomings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

~ Leah G ~
- --
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 #548
************************