Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #557
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 22 2001            Volume 01 : Number 557

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:38:14 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

William, Earl,

William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
>overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
>today.

I beg to disagree.
I did not overturn decisions, or at least I never meant to do so.
In two cases I used the privilege of the Chair to lift a sanction, an act 
that is more similar to "grace" than to "rule".
IMHO, the Chair does not have the power to overturn List Monitors decisions. 
Otherwise we would have also the possibility of the Chair applying sanctions 
following a complaint that the List Monitors have dismissed.

About the general issue on transparency and public discussions on complaint 
process, raised by Earl and others, I would like to ask a question: "What is 
the core business of the GA?"

IMHO, the GA is not about an experiment of democracy in cyberspace, but 
about a way to provide public input to ICANN on Domain Name issues.

To get some public input in a less than perfect fashion will be to achieve 
some of the purpose. To achieve perfect cyberdemocracy but provide little or 
no input would mean that we have failed miserably.

In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and 
pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names 
issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine, 
let's continue, we are on the right track!

Regards
Roberto

>
> > Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
> > has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
> > the detriment of the list.
>
> > For example
>
> > WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
>
>I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
>be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
>right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
>is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.
>
>Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:40:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Roberto,

You may not agree, but the appeals mechanism clearly gives the chair
the ability to overturn a moderator decision.

Thursday, June 21, 2001, 10:38:14 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William, Earl,

> William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
>>overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
>>today.

> I beg to disagree.
> I did not overturn decisions, or at least I never meant to do so.
> In two cases I used the privilege of the Chair to lift a sanction, an act 
> that is more similar to "grace" than to "rule".
> IMHO, the Chair does not have the power to overturn List Monitors decisions. 
> Otherwise we would have also the possibility of the Chair applying sanctions 
> following a complaint that the List Monitors have dismissed.

> About the general issue on transparency and public discussions on complaint 
> process, raised by Earl and others, I would like to ask a question: "What is 
> the core business of the GA?"

> IMHO, the GA is not about an experiment of democracy in cyberspace, but 
> about a way to provide public input to ICANN on Domain Name issues.

> To get some public input in a less than perfect fashion will be to achieve 
> some of the purpose. To achieve perfect cyberdemocracy but provide little or 
> no input would mean that we have failed miserably.

> In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and 
> pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names 
> issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine, 
> let's continue, we are on the right track!

> Regards
> Roberto

>>
>> > Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
>> > has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
>> > the detriment of the list.
>>
>> > For example
>>
>> > WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
>>
>>I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
>>be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
>>right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
>>is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.
>>
>>Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.
>>
>>--
>>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
>>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:10:38 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

The Chair has only the ability to use clemency in the application of the 
decisions of the list monitors, which is far from "overturning a decision".
Would you say that the President of the US, to make an example, has the 
power of overturning a decision of a judge when he gives grace (or whatever 
the technical legal term is) to somebody sentenced to death?
IMHO you (WXW) miss an important aspect of the power of the Chair: he/she 
can only alleviate the sentence of the List Monitors, not the reverse (as I 
thought I said clearly, he/she does not have the power, for instance, to 
modify a dismissal by the List Monitors).
In other words, the Chair is not a judge of appeals, and hence formally the 
sanctioned person still remains judged "guilty" of the offence, but has the 
"fine" condoned.

But anyway, how does this influence the policy on Domain Names?

Regards
RG

>From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re[6]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker
>Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:40:56 -0700
>
>Hello Roberto,
>
>You may not agree, but the appeals mechanism clearly gives the chair
>the ability to overturn a moderator decision.
>
>Thursday, June 21, 2001, 10:38:14 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > William, Earl,
>
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >>There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
> >>overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
> >>today.
>
> > I beg to disagree.
> > I did not overturn decisions, or at least I never meant to do so.
> > In two cases I used the privilege of the Chair to lift a sanction, an 
>act
> > that is more similar to "grace" than to "rule".
> > IMHO, the Chair does not have the power to overturn List Monitors 
>decisions.
> > Otherwise we would have also the possibility of the Chair applying 
>sanctions
> > following a complaint that the List Monitors have dismissed.
>
>
> > About the general issue on transparency and public discussions on 
>complaint
> > process, raised by Earl and others, I would like to ask a question: 
>"What is
> > the core business of the GA?"
>
> > IMHO, the GA is not about an experiment of democracy in cyberspace, but
> > about a way to provide public input to ICANN on Domain Name issues.
>
> > To get some public input in a less than perfect fashion will be to 
>achieve
> > some of the purpose. To achieve perfect cyberdemocracy but provide 
>little or
> > no input would mean that we have failed miserably.
>
> > In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and
> > pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names
> > issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine,
> > let's continue, we are on the right track!
>
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
>
> >>
> >> > Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
> >> > has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
> >> > the detriment of the list.
> >>
> >> > For example
> >>
> >> > WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
> >>
> >>I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
> >>be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
> >>right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
> >>is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.
> >>
> >>Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.
> >>
> >>--
> >>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
> >>
>
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:19:25 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[7]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Roberto,

Thursday, June 21, 2001, 11:10:38 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> The Chair has only the ability to use clemency in the application of the 
> decisions of the list monitors, which is far from "overturning a decision".

There is no mention of "clemency" in the rules.

There IS mention that the ruling of the moderators can be appealed to
the Chair.

The presence of an appeal mechanism is to OVERTURN a decision by a
lower authority.  An appeal by definition is a process by which a case
is brought before a higher authority for review of the decision of a
lower authority.

You can try and paint it how you want, Roberto, but the facts, and the
wording of the rules, are clear.

There is no mention in the rules of "clemency" by the Chair.

That's a nice concept, but your interpretation is not supported by the
rules.

The Chair's sole responsibility under the rules is to answer an appeal
by overturning the decision of the moderator(s) or not.

If he wants to call it clemency, he can.   But that concept does not
exist in the rules.

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:05:21 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-rules] Proposal for a Buddy Sytem for new members

Jefsey,
on 6/21/01 3:13 PM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:

> On 18:36 21/06/01, Joanna Lane said:
>> There is a difference between what I am proposing and what you like to do.
>> The purpose of the Buddy Program is to foster understanding, not use it as a
>> political platform.
>> 
> I am afraid I made me ill understood. I certainly do not want the sub-lists
> to be political platforms. To the contrary I would like them to be a space
> of peace and education.

That's not what I said. Of course the lists are political platforms. Where
else can positions be advocated? C'mon Jefsey, the GA is not a college!

The Buddy System has nothing to do with the use of sub-lists. It's a system
for new members to have a Buddy, drawn from a pool of volunteers member with
a thorough understanding of the issues and who have knowledge and experience
of the role of the GA within the DNSO. The Buddy would support the new
member, help focus the new talent to where it is most useful and to a
certain extent, deter disruptive members who would crucify a new member on
their first post.

The Buddy Program is NOT an excuse for the Buddy to push their own agenda
privately. However, should a member be tempted to do so Jefsey (;-), that's
between them and their conscience. Those that feel pressured will remove
themselves from the program.

Anyone could ask anything. I just wanted to
> underline there are two types of information people needs:
> - the basics of our world : who is Louis Touton as you quoted
> - and why someone says something : why allegedly I sent you billions of mails.

The Buddy Program should not promote subjective discussion. This is not
recruitment for a Jefsey protege, or a Joanna protege. It is for the basics
of our world. It is for the *who* and the *what*. It is not for the *why*.

If someone walks into a conference full of strangers, they need somebody to
welcome them, explain what is going on and hand them a package of background
information, someone who can answer a few basic questions until they find
their niche. Please don't complicate a very simple idea unecessarily.

> 
> It would be great if a neutral response could come on the duties of Louis
> and an URL to his resume and his job description. Also if Louis could stop
> by and explain his own vision of what he does without fearing to be
> attacked. I would love having Kent producing a position statement (not a
> political declaration) on open roots aside of one of mine. So the new comer
> could understand clearly why we disagree (BTW I could too). I think all of
> us could also better understand each other as many time we just to do use
> the same words.

This is an excellent idea, and forms part of the background information
package that would benefit both new and existing members. Of course the DNSO
website has a lot to answer for.

> 
> If the sub-list were supported with archives etc... it would be a real
> great source of references and understanding (this is what we wanted as
> position links on the sites associated to a center of interest).
> Now Patrick seems starting being a great Chair, may be it is something he
> could attempt organizing.
> 
> Jefsey.

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:09:26 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> The Chair has only the ability to use clemency in the application of the
> decisions of the list monitors, which is far from "overturning a decision".
> Would you say that the President of the US, to make an example, has the
> power of overturning a decision of a judge when he gives grace (or whatever
> the technical legal term is) to somebody sentenced to death?
> IMHO you (WXW) miss an important aspect of the power of the Chair: he/she
> can only alleviate the sentence of the List Monitors, not the reverse (as I
> thought I said clearly, he/she does not have the power, for instance, to
> modify a dismissal by the List Monitors).
> In other words, the Chair is not a judge of appeals, and hence formally the
> sanctioned person still remains judged "guilty" of the offence, but has the
> "fine" condoned.
>
> But anyway, how does this influence the policy on Domain Names?

Exactly.  That's why we have sub-lists, so that people who want to get
on with the work without having to wade through endless hassles over
the rules of combat can do so.

I dropped entirely out of the whole ICANN scene a couple of years ago,
because all I could see was this kind of trivia rather than any real progress
- -- the arguments now bear an eerie resemblance to the arguments seen
then -- and it is starting to look as though things have not changed one
iota.  WXW led the charge then, and he is mostly leading the charge now,
and a more effective way of stifling any kind of productive work here
could scarcely be imagined.

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:25:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Dot-Antitrust anyone? fresh evidence

Jersey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
> I am afraid you are missing the point. When you enter a DN in your browser
> that name is scanned and possibly replaced with a canned address (Real
> Name).

  Possibly yes, but not in this instance or situation.  Earthlink/Mindspring
point their Name Servers in two directions at the same time basically.
Thereby allowing the resolution of New.Nets TLD's and thereby,
domain names associated with those TLD's.

> This process will now be used by IE to support VeriSign
> multinational names (yestderay annoucement).

  This is a totally different technical approach.  I use a custom browser.
I can "Turn On" what ever TLD's I wish to resolve, if they exist.  However
with New.Nets agreement with Earthling/Mindspring I do not need to do this.
Apples and technical oranges that arrive at the same place through a different
technical path or method....  This was the point of my previous post.
There are other methods, such as a server based solution my company,
developed known as SROOTS and BindPlus...

> A multinational name is a
> normal DNS string with a certain semantic. This will certainly be made
> plain by a lot of justice decisions: all the people which rehistered bq_ as
> a string are blocked if I undestand well.

  Yes with a browser based solution, this is basically, very basically, how
it CAN work.  There are other browser based solutions as well...

>
>
> So what is a semantic? is there a big difference between bq_..... and
> .shop? VeriSign and MicroSoft will explain that IE is just offering a
> service to the user: to protect him from collisions by simili TLDs.
>
> Vint started a real war purposedly. Stuart's yesterday position can be a
> basis for talks however it is more probably a political move. Anyway, they
> have now all the elements and possiblities to stop it through a consensus
> on the definition of what at minimum a TLD is.

  I don't think this approach will ever work or even be addressed...

>
>
> Or we have  entered in a huge instability period and possibly an Internet
> split.

  We have entered a split...

> We should have started a discussion on iCANN name space management
> instead of being trapped into arguing on 'roots' on a sub-list. We de facto
> freed their hands and now the problem is with all of us.

  Well some methods are "Roots" based and some are not, as I indicated
above.  So starting this discussion in the 'Roots' sub-list was ok.

>
>
> The solution is in heir hands: up to them to decide.

  I disagree here as well.  The decision is in the stakeholders hands.
Should the ICANN BoD continue to deny reality, that is of their
own making.  They will soon enough be seen as "Out of Touch".

>
> Jefsey
>
> On 14:38 21/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >Len and all,
> >
> >   Thanks for passing this along.
> >
> >   It is obvious that Stuart Lynn is either unaware or just not savvy
> >enough to
> >recognize that some large ISP's such as @home and Earthlink/Mindspring
> >(My account service provider) do not require the New.Net Plugin to
> >access
> >their sites.  That's a huge number of stakeholders.  Recently also
> >New.Net
> >also partnered up with Prodigy which will bring a potential +10m
> >users/stakeholders
> >access to the much needed and increasingly desired TLD's and associated
> >Domain Names.
> >
> >   Maybe someday the ICANN BoD and staff, most especially Stuart Lynn
> >will come to their senses....  Hope springs eternal...
> >
> >Len Lindon wrote:
> >
> > > Getting Out of Dot-Nowhere
> > > By Joanna Glasner
> > > 2:00 a.m. June 20, 2001
> > > http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44625,00.html
> > >
> > > > For folks who actually have Web addresses in alternative domains, a more
> > > > pressing concern is not whether the sites will continue operating so
> > much as
> > > > whether anyone will visit them.
> > > >
> > > > Since sites operated by alternate registries aren't on the Internet's
> > central
> > > > server, they're typically hard to access. More often than not, users
> > trying to
> > > > get to dot-shop or dot-travel end up receiving "server not responding"
> > > > messages.
> > > >
> > > > Given those technical hurdles, low traffic figures weren't much of a
> > surprise
> > > ...
> > > > Largely through these efforts, New.net figures that its sites are
> > accessible
> > > > by about 35 percent of U.S. Internet users through at least one
> > computer they
> > > > operate.
> > > >
> > > > However, that still leaves out about two-thirds of the Web-using
> > public. The
> > > > two largest Internet service providers, AOL and MSN, for example,
> > have yet to
> > > > sign on to New.net's plan. On top of that, there are the countless
> > individuals
> > > > who get Internet access at work or school without a commercial ISP.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________
> > > To unsubscribe please see http://lists.open-rsc.org
> >
> >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-roots" 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

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:32:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Darryl and all assembly members,

 I certainly agree that professionalism should be upheld.  In that vain
I would suggest that to do that it starts with yourself, and/or each
individual.  Some of you attributions below are incorrect and do not
provide the archived links to verify your own attribution of them, very
unprofessional!

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> |> William X. Walsh
> |> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 11:21 PM
> |> To: Ken Stubbs
> |> Cc: [email-masked]; Jefsey Morfin
> |> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker
> |>
> |> Then push for rules to address this, and see if you get enough support
> |> for them.
> |>
> |> Don't use abusive interpretations of the existing rules just to get
> |> rid of things you don't like.
>
> 2/6/2001 2:26pm
> Through an arrangement reached between Registrar.com and the TLDA (somehow
> linked
> through the 2 GA chair types) you have been further asked never to post to
> this
> list again, because you have been permanently banned for mean and vicious
> comments.
> ********
>
> Yes I agree pretty stupid, and pretty outlandish. But are they stupid and
> outlandish because of content or because the speakers would never admit to
> such
> truth.
>
> #####Directed to Mr Williams.
>
> 3/6/2001 1:28pm
> This is so fun, everyone needs to follow it in the sub list roots.  Come
> on get to work on the sequal movie.
>
> #####Directed to all members of the GA.
>
> 3/6/2001 4:36pm
> I was privileged over the last 10 days or so to be listening or actively
> involved with telephone conversations with many of the biggest
> registrar-marketers of domain names in the world.  They are lousy.
>
> #####Directed to Bruce James
> 3/6/2001 6:25pm
> ICANN is the little Dutch boy's finger in the hole in the dike. ICANN
> is not even the little dutch boy. You build it and we will come!!
>
> #####Directed to Mr Morfin.
>
> 6/6/2001 2:10pm
> Yes, gaggle or herd! Flock comes to mind and so does pod!
>
> #####Directed to the members of the GA.
>
> 7/6/2001 1:06pm
> I question authority and yet when it serves the people I give
> accolades.  We all know your style Uncle Younger Please let us prepare
> for when you drop your dramatic bombshell of revelations of what
> occurred in the land of the Great Queen.
>
> #####Directed to the members of the GA.
>
> Whilst I haven't looked at the posts mentioned in the suspension notice,
> looking at a few of the posts by Eric at the beginning of the month shows a
> very clear pattern of posting that does not follow the rules of the list.
>
> The rules state:
> - 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.
>
> Personally I find the majority of Eric's posts do not meet a minimum of
> decorum.  I support the suspension, if not the criteria posted by the
> Monitors in reaching their decision.
>
> Although a lot of Eric's posts are tongue in cheek, they are not of a
> standard acceptable to any list attempting to present a professional and
> capable image.
>
> If the GA is to be taken seriously, a professional image must be maintained
> and any rules enforced.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:59:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Efficacy and Value

The following is for those who are tired words and want to lead by
example;

I have been involved with a Herculean project to launch a
pre-registration site for a ccTLD which heretofore has not been
commercialized. I have been drafting and redrafting and re-redrafting
the core documents.

Privacy is easy, complete and absolute.
UDRP is harder but not by much, there will be no mandatory WIPO type
resolution clauses.
TMs and IP is easy - No interference and no helping for the IP
domination. Unless it is clear gross and requires no logic except
something so simple as "is your name Coca Cola? Coke will be open.  We
will give no advanced notice so that the TM folks can lock up Mr. Howard
Johnson, let the best and first win.
There will be absolutely no warehousing. No way no how. We will reserve
some names but put them out over the next month or so in an expiration
data base so that those best names are shared throughout.
We anticipate a 90 day use it or lose it policy.
We will have cheaper prices so you can do a 90 day registration and then
decide what to do.
All of our policies and directives will be developed on an open and
transparent forum. Any UDRP will be voluntary and held on that forum
with public involvement. Public dot commoner involvement will not be
tolerated, IT WILL BE INCORPORATED.

The basis for our marketing of said ccTLD is to market and help develop
the country not some squarely empty marketing theory. We believe in
marketing is Education and Education is marketing and that emerging
Countries need an inside outside and outside inside approach to IT
development.  We will not compete with ICANN we will lead it.  We will
not compete with inclusive roots and Flemings IPv16s we will embrace and
grow with them.

I write this at this time to raise awareness that the efforts of this
group are not lost but carry into the formulation of great policies for
great nations.

Sincerely,
Eric

ps Please remember Danny and wish him a great recovery.

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:07:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Oh Please.  Learn how to use your filters, Bill, ok?

Thursday, June 21, 2001, 6:09:26 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>> The Chair has only the ability to use clemency in the application of the
>> decisions of the list monitors, which is far from "overturning a decision".
>> Would you say that the President of the US, to make an example, has the
>> power of overturning a decision of a judge when he gives grace (or whatever
>> the technical legal term is) to somebody sentenced to death?
>> IMHO you (WXW) miss an important aspect of the power of the Chair: he/she
>> can only alleviate the sentence of the List Monitors, not the reverse (as I
>> thought I said clearly, he/she does not have the power, for instance, to
>> modify a dismissal by the List Monitors).
>> In other words, the Chair is not a judge of appeals, and hence formally the
>> sanctioned person still remains judged "guilty" of the offence, but has the
>> "fine" condoned.
>>
>> But anyway, how does this influence the policy on Domain Names?

> Exactly.  That's why we have sub-lists, so that people who want to get
> on with the work without having to wade through endless hassles over
> the rules of combat can do so.

> I dropped entirely out of the whole ICANN scene a couple of years ago,
> because all I could see was this kind of trivia rather than any real progress
> -- the arguments now bear an eerie resemblance to the arguments seen
> then -- and it is starting to look as though things have not changed one
> iota.  WXW led the charge then, and he is mostly leading the charge now,
> and a more effective way of stifling any kind of productive work here
> could scarcely be imagined.

> Bill Lovell

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:36:24 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Organizing Committee

I hereby withdraw from participation in the Organizing Committee.

Bill Lovell

- --
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: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:46:29 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Organizing Committee

Bill,

>
>I hereby withdraw from participation in the Organizing Committee.
>

What Organizing Committee?!?

Thanks
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:32:07 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Organizing Committee

Hi Roberto

> What Organizing Committee?!?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

> If it were announced tomorrow that the Names Council had created a number
of
> formal working groups to deal with the topics of:
>
> 1. UDRP (Working Group G)
> 2. Dot ORG (Working Group H)
> 3. Roots (Working Group I)
> 4. DNSO Review (Working Group J)
> 5. Privacy/WHOIS (Working Group K)
> 6. At-Large (Working Group L)
>
> I seriously doubt that I would be hearing the argument that these working
> groups should not have their own lists, nor would I be hearing that it
would
> be preferable if all the work were conducted on the main GA list, nor
would
> I be hearing that there are too many working groups and that it is too
> confusing.
>
> Instead, I would probably note a large number of participants rushing to
> become part of the process.  As long as our "management" (the Names
Council)
> organizes the working groups, appoints the Chairs or Liaisons, establishes
> the Terms-of-Reference, sets the Timeline, and drafts the Conclusions,
then
> we are eagerly willing to participate...
>
> but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
> turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
> groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
> 700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that
has
> emerged?  Do we have any self-organized bottoms-up leadership?  Of course
> not.  Who in their right mind would willingly want to become a target for
> the relentless abuse that has characterized this Assembly?  It is no
wonder
> that calls for volunteers to head up these committees have gone unheeded.
>
> We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
> constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
> leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
> actions.
>
> Perhaps we are not capable of effective bottoms-up self-organization,
> perhaps like other groups of individuals that have struggled for years and
> still have not be able to raise funding for their respective membership
> efforts, we are destined to remain nothing more than another chat-room for
> domain name policy (one of many).  We can certainly continue in this
fashion
> for years to come, knowing that through this process those that monitor
> these lists (Vint Cerf, Stuart Lynn, Karl Auerbach and others) can get a
> sense of the public mood.  Perhaps being a "barometer" is all we are
capable
> of achieving.  But I have higher hopes for this Assembly.
>
> 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.
>
> The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major
issues
> that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN.  Notes
from
> the last Board meeting make it eminently clear that the ALSC will be
> providing recommendations to the ICANN Board for an overall
restructuring -
> their mission has gone far beyond a mere "clean-sheet" study of the
> At-Large:
>
> "Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of ICANN as
a
> whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for legitimacy
> and reasonableness."
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html
>
> We can contribute to this effort, much like the Boston Working Group and
> others contributed to the development of ICANN's formative structure.  Our
> Alternate Chair has argued that the venue for such discussion should be on
> our GA-ICANN list, and I will accept this recommendation.  What is needed
> now, in my opinion, is a small group to organize the effort for the
benefit
> of all current and future participants.
>
> 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
>
> It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish
Terms-of
> Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background documents to
rapidly
> educate those of us new to the process.  After this group finishes its
> preliminary work, the rest of us may then better participate in a formally
> structured environment.   What I hope for ultimately is a consensus-based
> report to emerge at least as thorough as the recent interim NAIS
> presentation, and supported by documented outreach to all of our
> constituencies.  The future of the General Assembly, the At-Large, and
ICANN
> may well be determined by the bottoms-up collective consensus view.  I ask
> you to accept this challenge, to create a new model for participation, and
> to lead us into a new future.

- --
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 #557
************************