Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #550
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 550

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

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:29:09 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New wine in old bottles

Would someone on this list please translate the message
down below into plain English?  Somebody has slept through
too many philosophy courses.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> The same reason that the author of this post uses a startling incongruity
> in metaphors causes a fallacy of reasoning that is horrific.
>
> Why can't you change the word skin to bottles and maintain the logic of
> the thought?  The answer is the same for why this whole theory is
> fallacious.
>
> Anyone who claims as below that "Mr. Walsh's premise, his citations to
> ICANN documents are totally accurate" is three bobs off plumb.  How can a
> citation be accurate when it is used for complete derogatory and negative
> input.  As a lawyer Mr. attorney sir, you should know that the only
> accuracy of citations is directional and not persuasive. It simply is not
> a value judgment at all. Herein lies your philosophic problem. You
> sophistically take an is and transform it into a should.
> "his conclusions are exactly right." This is the most blatant abuse of
> language that I can fathom.  Right is a value judgment, exactly does not
> fit.
>
> What is my reason for going ballistic on such a poorly fermented
> amalgamate of babble contained within a sour wineskin post?  Because
> words and thought are just as important as connectivity and directional
> sincerity of our servers. (please note the transference of value to
> technical as displayed through the use of the word sincerity)
>
> As Ms. Lane later in this fine day falls prey to this liturgical* angst
> we must stay vigil in our constant avoidance of diametrically opposed
> urgings to do the right thing. Really all that is posed in this post is
> that this is difficult and that fact alone is irrelevant to the task at
> hand. The author here plays the inprudent sucker and becomes an elitist
> in his own right. Us dot commoners are ignoramous, at least by the test
> you set here. Get over it!
>
> I ask all to keep it simple stupid, do not follow the law of rationale
> but follow your conscience and what you know to be right.
>
> Thank you,
> Eric
>
> * I mean this as a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or
> observances.
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > 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

- --
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:20:32 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
18 June) until Monday, 16 July.

We have received several complaints about postings by
Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
and insults in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well
as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html

The GA posting rules are laid down in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:

- - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
- - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
  - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
  - Not using offensive language
- - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
  of posts per person per day, this must be respected
- - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
  a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).

The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.

Best regards,
/// Alexander (for the list monitors)
- --
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 09:35:18 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
18 June) until Monday, 16 July.

We have received several complaints about postings by
Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
and insults in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well
as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html

The GA posting rules are laid down in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:

- - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
- - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
  - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
  - Not using offensive language
- - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
  of posts per person per day, this must be respected
- - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
  a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).

The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.

DNSO Secretariat
(on behalf of the List Monitors)
- --
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 04:25:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

Dear Secretariat and all assembly members,

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
> posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
> 18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
>
> We have received several complaints about postings by
> Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
> and insults in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well

  I read both of these rather closely.  I did not see anything in them
that could be considered "Abusive" in any way...

>
> as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html
>
> The GA posting rules are laid down in
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
>
> - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>   - Not using offensive language
> - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
>   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
> - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
>   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>
> The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
> Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
> This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
> (on behalf of the List Monitors)
> --
> 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, 18 Jun 2001 10:38:57 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "This website is dedicated to helping resolve issues within the DNSO process."

http://www.ar.com/otd/html/index.html
"This website is dedicated to helping resolve issues within the DNSO
process."
- -------

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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, 19 Jun 2001 08:59:47 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

> The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
> posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
> 18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
>
> We have received several complaints about postings by
> Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
> and insults in
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well

In any other list I would have said this was a joke. The 2nd post listed
contains NOTHING like a 'personal attack' or an 'insult'.

The first post was edgy and written with passion but I do not see any
personal attacks or insults.

For those that are curious crony means "A longtime close friend or
companion." according to my dictionary, pray tell, is this an insult?

No wonder most people think that this Assembly is a joke. I went away for 4
days come back to 300+ messages of which about 10 had any value. 

Steven Heath
Councillor, Internet Society of NZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)

PS I do not know Eric, never emailed him direct nor he I.
- --
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 16:55:23 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

> Dear Secretariat and all assembly members,
> 
> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 
> > The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
> > posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
> > 18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
> >
> > We have received several complaints about postings by
> > Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
> > and insults in
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well

I found nothing abusive in these posts.  Passion, irritation, 
frustration, yes.  Lengthy, yes.  If these are reasons for 
suspension, then most of the posters would be suspended.  

None of us enjoys what we feel is noise, but noise to me is not 
noise to others.  I think the list monitors need to be a bit more 
cautious in determinig abuse.  Further, I suspect that if this type of 
suspension continues, it will be due to complaints from those who 
wish to silence opposition to their viewpoints.  

Perhaps it would be better to post the complaints or at least those 
who complained as well as the suspension notice.  It may be a bit 
of a deterrent to frivolous complaints.

Leah
> >
> > as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html
> >
> > The GA posting rules are laid down in
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
> >
> > - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> > - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> >   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> >   - Not using offensive language
> > - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
> >   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
> > - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
> >   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
> >
> > The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
> > Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
> > This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat
> > (on behalf of the List Monitors)
> > --
> > 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-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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:17:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

I concur with this post, as well as with Steven Heath's on the same
subject.

Monday, June 18, 2001, 1:55:23 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

>> Dear Secretariat and all assembly members,
>> 
>> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>> 
>> > The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
>> > posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
>> > 18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
>> >
>> > We have received several complaints about postings by
>> > Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
>> > and insults in
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well

> I found nothing abusive in these posts.  Passion, irritation, 
> frustration, yes.  Lengthy, yes.  If these are reasons for 
> suspension, then most of the posters would be suspended.  

> None of us enjoys what we feel is noise, but noise to me is not 
> noise to others.  I think the list monitors need to be a bit more 
> cautious in determinig abuse.  Further, I suspect that if this type of 
> suspension continues, it will be due to complaints from those who 
> wish to silence opposition to their viewpoints.  

> Perhaps it would be better to post the complaints or at least those 
> who complained as well as the suspension notice.  It may be a bit 
> of a deterrent to frivolous complaints.

> Leah
>> >
>> > as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html
>> >
>> > The GA posting rules are laid down in
>> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
>> >
>> > - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
>> > - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>> >   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>> >   - Not using offensive language
>> > - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
>> >   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
>> > - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
>> >   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>> >
>> > The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
>> > Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
>> > This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.
>> >
>> > DNSO Secretariat
>> > (on behalf of the List Monitors)
>> > --
>> > 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-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

- -- 
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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:33:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin from List Monitors] Eric Dierker's posting rights

I must chime in here and say that I agree with Leah's assessment and
recommendation.

I found the posts referenced to be within the bounds of propriety, albeit
rather histrionic at some points.  I formally request that the committee
reconsider their position vis a vis Mr. Dierker.  Granted, the violation
of the number of posts is a warranted reminder, nonetheless, I cannot
agree with the suspension decision.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

L Gallegos wrote:

> > Dear Secretariat and all assembly members,
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> >
> > > The list monitors have decided to suspend Eric Dierker's
> > > posting rights for four weeks, beginning today (Monday,
> > > 18 June) until Monday, 16 July.
> > >
> > > We have received several complaints about postings by
> > > Eric Dierker; our decision is based on the personal attacks
> > > and insults in
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html and
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02077.html as well
>
> I found nothing abusive in these posts.  Passion, irritation,
> frustration, yes.  Lengthy, yes.  If these are reasons for
> suspension, then most of the posters would be suspended.
>
> None of us enjoys what we feel is noise, but noise to me is not
> noise to others.  I think the list monitors need to be a bit more
> cautious in determinig abuse.  Further, I suspect that if this type of
> suspension continues, it will be due to complaints from those who
> wish to silence opposition to their viewpoints.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to post the complaints or at least those
> who complained as well as the suspension notice.  It may be a bit
> of a deterrent to frivolous complaints.
>
> Leah
> > >
> > > as the breach of the posting limit on two successive days:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02551.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02552.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02556.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02563.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02571.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02574.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02577.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02580.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02588.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02589.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02604.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02605.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02622.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02623.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02625.html
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02626.html
> > >
> > > The GA posting rules are laid down in
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
> > >
> > > - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> > > - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> > >   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> > >   - Not using offensive language
> > > - If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
> > >   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
> > > - The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
> > >   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
> > >
> > > The time of the suspension has been doubled since Eric
> > > Dierker has already received a two week suspension in May.
> > > This decision may be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > >
> > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > (on behalf of the List Monitors)
> > > --
> > > 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-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-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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:59:12 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIPO receives numerous responses on future domain name rules

All assembly members,

  The following is from the NCDNHC list.  I think you will find the URL
interesting and worth your while to review closely:

=======================================================

The World Intellectual Property Organization has collected numerous
comments
from a variety of groups regarding the possible further extension of
trademark protections for domain names--a move that some groups contend
will
hurt free speech. 

See
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights

Sincerely,
Christopher Chiu
Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
American Civil Liberties Union

- ---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
[email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:05:05 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Delay

Dear members,

Please be advised that we have encountered an unexpected delay regarding the
nomination of a GA representative to the NC's Review Task Force.

The explanation for such delay may be found at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00473.html

I would appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions on this topic.

- --
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, 19 Jun 2001 13:31:40 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delay

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:05:05 -0400, you wrote:

>Dear members,
>
>Please be advised that we have encountered an unexpected delay regarding the
>nomination of a GA representative to the NC's Review Task Force.
>
>The explanation for such delay may be found at
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00473.html
>
>I would appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions on this topic.

SIgh - now the DNSO don't have the resources to even allow us to run
an election.  Sometimes I really wonder if it is all worth it.

I suggest to get around this we have a slightly less informal election
than for ga-chair.  This is an appt that Danny could make himself but
instead he has chosen to let the GA vote on.

Firstly the electoral college should just be the current [email-masked]
(and ga-full automatically) subscribers.  That one ballot paper can be
sent to the mailing list and that is it.

A voting address should be provided which goes to a couple of
scrutineers.  I would suggest Michael Froomkin and Kent Crispin if
they are willing.  if those two agree on the vote count we can be sure
it is correct :-)

The ballot paper will have a list of nominees and people vote for the
person they want.  The e-mail must be sent from the an address which
is subscribed to [email-masked].  The person voting will also receive
back a confirmation of how they voted so this stops anyone voting on
behalf of someone else without their knowledge.

We open nominations for a week and have voting for a week so we should
get a result in just over two weeks.

That is my 2c worth.

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: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:54:25 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delay

Hear, Here!  Thank You David.

I fully support David Farrar's proposal.  If Kent, Michael, and one more
scrutineer (perhaps WXW?) could agree to a counting then this should work just
fine.  Let's have done with it then.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:05:05 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Dear members,
> >
> >Please be advised that we have encountered an unexpected delay regarding the
> >nomination of a GA representative to the NC's Review Task Force.
> >
> >The explanation for such delay may be found at
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00473.html
> >
> >I would appreciate any comments, thoughts, suggestions on this topic.
>
> SIgh - now the DNSO don't have the resources to even allow us to run
> an election.  Sometimes I really wonder if it is all worth it.
>
> I suggest to get around this we have a slightly less informal election
> than for ga-chair.  This is an appt that Danny could make himself but
> instead he has chosen to let the GA vote on.
>
> Firstly the electoral college should just be the current [email-masked]
> (and ga-full automatically) subscribers.  That one ballot paper can be
> sent to the mailing list and that is it.
>
> A voting address should be provided which goes to a couple of
> scrutineers.  I would suggest Michael Froomkin and Kent Crispin if
> they are willing.  if those two agree on the vote count we can be sure
> it is correct :-)
>
> The ballot paper will have a list of nominees and people vote for the
> person they want.  The e-mail must be sent from the an address which
> is subscribed to [email-masked].  The person voting will also receive
> back a confirmation of how they voted so this stops anyone voting on
> behalf of someone else without their knowledge.
>
> We open nominations for a week and have voting for a week so we should
> get a result in just over two weeks.
>
> That is my 2c worth.
>
> 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-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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #550
************************