Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #599
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, July 8 2001             Volume 01 : Number 599

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:24:26 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Fw: [azipa] some help needed on dotbizlottery.com

Hello Jim,

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 6:22:07 PM, Jim Fleming wrote:

I answered your question, Jim.  I am not employed, now or in the past,
by a .biz registry.

Again, how is this relevant to the business of the DNSO GA, and what
is your point in even asking?

Since you can't seem to answer this question when asked, 3 times now,
I guess I'll have to ask the moderators to decide if these posts by
you are a violation of the rule that :

"The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA"
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

> I was under the impression that you programmed the .BIZ registry.

> Is that not the case ?

> Are you saying you have had nothing to do with the .BIZ registry ?

> Isn't .BIZ one of the TLDs involved in what you recently described
> as a "test-bed" ?

- -- 
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, 08 Jul 2001 14:47:37 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Dear Mr Chair and Mr Alt-chair of the GA,

The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many 
subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
MOTION
I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that , 
instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are 
authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get 
repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put 
up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
END OF MOTION

I strongly recommend that the members of this Assembly read up on 
"Ostracism" in a good encyclopedia.

The Athenian Greeks, in their  quest for insurance against tyranny, found a 
way to deal with destabilizers and obsessives in a fair and effective way.
Where we are dealing here with unfettered chaos, with rules that have 
become worthless with being unenforceable.

We must make the step to functioning majority rule.

A moderator, if the wrong person, can become the tyrant. We now have two 
moderators left. We should relieve them of the burden.

For instance, only a vote by all members can be fair and reasonable in 
deciding whether a topic is "relevant to the GA". Personnally, I would only 
accept a very trusted person to decide that for me.

I have a sample of two such votes currently up in the Polling Booth. 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1
There is a choice on a scale of one to ten, whether certain postings are 
relevant.

Entry is free (without  password) as long as you have not registered with 
the Chair or alt-chair to become a registered Booth voter.
When we have a sufficient number of registered voters there, we could hold 
a secure vote.

I volunteer to become the GA Polling Officer or I am willing to stand in an 
election for such an office.

Now please, let's get organized by ourselves, if it is too hard for the 
Secretariat to help us with this.

The above motion to the Chair is open for seconds.

Joop Teernstra LL.M.,
councillor
InternetNZ

- --
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: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 20:47:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The new UDRP task force

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Discussion on the GA has raised some questions about outreach with
> respect to the implementation of the UDRP section of the NC business
> plan. I have been in discussion with the chair of the UDRP interim
> committee and would like to make the following clarifications. A
> public comment period as required by the bylaws is met by the current
> UDRP Review Terms of Reference.  The questionnaire is the vehicle for
> public comment.
>
> Does this not in fact constrain and stifle comment? In the first
> place, the questions
> will often not encompass the range of issues with which the public is
> concerned,
> and secondly, a good many people have posted observations that the
> questions
> themselves are misleading or loaded -- with a finely tuned
> questionnaire, one
> can come up with whatever "conclusions" one wishes.  I myself question
> quite
> sincerely that this questionnaire comes anywhere near to satisfying
> anything,
> and for that reason I suggest that the emails continue.
>
>
> The Task Force will simply compile the information it receives from
> the results of the questionnaire into its
> report.
>
> I repeat, "with a finely tuned questionnaire, one can
> come up with whatever 'conclusions' one wishes."
>
> (My apologies for the big font: with the software used by the sender,
> it is impossible for any response not to be lost in the original
> unless
> one sets it out boldly.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To the extent that any areas of reform are identified, the actual
> mechanism for implementation will be subject to a second phase of the
> UDRP Review during which time there will be an opportunity for public
> comment (likely in the form of a working group). The questionnaire
> approach is being used as a fact finding mission. Based on past
> experience it is unlikely that a working group is the right venue for
> such a mission. Many issues for discussion on the UDRP are technical
> and must include representatives and experts in the UDRP field.  The
> proposed UDRP task force has identified those individuals and experts
> that the interim committee believe either directly or indirectly have
> a role in the UDRP.  If you feel that any party is omitted please let
> us know.
>
> It is difficult to see what the purpose of a second public comment
> period would be except to say that the Task Force got it wrong. There
> are checks and balances to ensure this does not happen (i.e. if the
> Task Force goes in contradiction to public comment, (1) it will be of
> public record, (2) the NC should not approve the report, and (3)ICANN
> should not approve the
> report.)
>
> With respect to concerns about additional representation on the Task
> Force by the GA, things need to be practicable. The Task Force must be
> manageable so it can get things done.  There is nothing to ban each
> representative from getting the input of the views he or she
> represents, indeed that is their duty.
>  Philip Sheppard
> NC Chair

- --
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: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 20:50:22 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello Joop,

Your motion is out of order.

It is not only not in compliance with our list rules, but further this
type of an "ostracism" is not appropriate for a forum like the DNSO
GA.

We know you support heavy handed dictatorial type actions (based on
your repeated suggestions of these types of actions, both here and in
your IDNO past), but that is not the way the GA is or should be run.
Emotional dislike of persons is not a grounds for removing those
persons.

The GA is not a "social" organization which is made up only of those
whom are approved of by the majority of members.

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 7:47:37 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear Mr Chair and Mr Alt-chair of the GA,

> The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many 
> subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> MOTION
> I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that , 
> instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are 
> authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get 
> repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put 
> up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
> END OF MOTION

> I strongly recommend that the members of this Assembly read up on 
> "Ostracism" in a good encyclopedia.

> The Athenian Greeks, in their  quest for insurance against tyranny, found a 
> way to deal with destabilizers and obsessives in a fair and effective way.
> Where we are dealing here with unfettered chaos, with rules that have 
> become worthless with being unenforceable.

> We must make the step to functioning majority rule.

> A moderator, if the wrong person, can become the tyrant. We now have two 
> moderators left. We should relieve them of the burden.

> For instance, only a vote by all members can be fair and reasonable in 
> deciding whether a topic is "relevant to the GA". Personnally, I would only 
> accept a very trusted person to decide that for me.

> I have a sample of two such votes currently up in the Polling Booth. 
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1
> There is a choice on a scale of one to ten, whether certain postings are 
> relevant.

> Entry is free (without  password) as long as you have not registered with 
> the Chair or alt-chair to become a registered Booth voter.
> When we have a sufficient number of registered voters there, we could hold 
> a secure vote.

> I volunteer to become the GA Polling Officer or I am willing to stand in an 
> election for such an office.

> Now please, let's get organized by ourselves, if it is too hard for the 
> Secretariat to help us with this.

> The above motion to the Chair is open for seconds.

> Joop Teernstra LL.M.,
> councillor
> InternetNZ

> --
> 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: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 00:27:21 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Joop Teernstra wrote:
 
> The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> subscribers have stopped reading most postings.

Yes.

> MOTION
> I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
> instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
> authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
> repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put
> up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
> END OF MOTION

Everyone is authorised to use a killfile. If you think a particular person's
postings are rubbish, or they are posting far too often, just put them in 
your killfile and stop reading them. If enough of us do that, they are
ostracised.

This implies, I think, that monitors need only deal with things that cannot
reasonably be handled by killfile. We probably still need monitors to deal
with extreme personal attacks, but not much else.

I haven't found it necessary to killfile anyone here yet, though I admit
some folks tempt me.

Methinks your motion is absurd. We need less off-topic stuff, less backbiting,
and less of the illusion that votes in a self-selected non-representative
group are meaningful. I think your motion would mean more of all those.
- --
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: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:43:25 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The real reason the rules don't work.....

Joop has suggested that the rules are the fault for the fact that they
are ineffective.

I believe that is far from the case.

The real reason is that the moderators are not free to act on their
own initiative and to act in a precipitous fashion to complaints,
since they have to hash everything out by committee under our current
chair's "rules."

The moderators need to be independent and free to act on complaints
individually.

Then a moderator can simply read the complaint, read the post(s) in
question, and make a judgement, and forward that judgement to the
chair, secretariat and GA,

The Chair is then free to review the decision, on his own, or at the
request of another GA member or the subject of the decision.

This permits the rules to be enforced in an expedient manner.

So, for a more appropriate motion for fixing our current situation, I
ask the Chair to direct that the list moderators to not moderate the
lists by committee, but by individual review and decision making on
complaints.  Further I ask that he explore with the secretariat a
means of developing a system for dealing with complaint tickets that
is efficient and simple.

When I was with ml.org and managed the abuse team, the way it worked
was that the complaints were handed off to a Trouble Ticket system,
then abuse team members would assign themselves tickets to handle as
they were able, and dispose of the complaints appropriately.
Dispositions were forwarded to the abuse team leader for review.

There are some open source ticketing systems that are easy to install
and manage, and would make it easier for moderators to check for
complaints and dispense with them in an expedient manner.

Provide the moderators with the tools to do their jobs more easily and
efficiently.

Some open source and free projects of note in this area:

Request Tracker is open source
http://www.fsck.com/projects/rt/

Rubicon Tracker is free for non-commercial use:
http://www.rubicon.net/tracker/

Websupport is free for non-commercial use.
http://www.sigh.org/websupport.html

WebTTS is open source
http://www.gashalot.com/software/webtts/

- -- 
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, 8 Jul 2001 15:25:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mailing List Management - Two Corrections

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:32:29 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html

> One problem is the number of people who use [ga-abuse] as a sort of
> *drop-in* chat room.  The worst offender, as you might expect, is Eric
> Dierker.  What that does is clutter the decision-making process.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:28:28 -0700, Eric Dierker replied:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03484.html

> I apologize for not noticing earlier but my name was referenced in the
> offending post in a negative manner that I believe may have contributed to
> this decision by Danny.  If that is the case I want to make sure that I in
> no way am insulted or bothered by Mr. Corliss's post.  It seemed fair
> comment to me.

On this I would issue a correction.   I should have said:

The worst offender, Eric Dierker, has now apologised and turned over a
new leaf  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03406.html
However, unnecessary copies do clutter up the list and impede the list
monitors' decision-making processes.  The problem is still very real.

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:19:47 +1000, Patrick Corliss also wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03478.html
> Effectively you are saying that the Alternate Chair cannot report serious
> concerns in a private communication to members of the Names Council.

I would correct that statement also to read:

As Alternate Chair, I was reporting serious concerns in what I thought
was a *private* communication to members of the Names Council.

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, 08 Jul 2001 00:28:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Sandy and all assembly members,

  I must agree with Sandy's method/approach here, and myself have
advocated it.  Anyone can employ their own filters and accomplish
the desired effect.  However I see no reason why this motion could
not be given consideration to give the GA members a chance to
decide where their feelings are on such a motion....  However I
would NOT second such a motion as it is currently drafted...

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> > subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
>
> Yes.
>
> > MOTION
> > I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
> > instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
> > authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
> > repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put
> > up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
> > END OF MOTION
>
> Everyone is authorised to use a killfile. If you think a particular person's
> postings are rubbish, or they are posting far too often, just put them in
> your killfile and stop reading them. If enough of us do that, they are
> ostracised.
>
> This implies, I think, that monitors need only deal with things that cannot
> reasonably be handled by killfile. We probably still need monitors to deal
> with extreme personal attacks, but not much else.
>
> I haven't found it necessary to killfile anyone here yet, though I admit
> some folks tempt me.
>
> Methinks your motion is absurd. We need less off-topic stuff, less backbiting,
> and less of the illusion that votes in a self-selected non-representative
> group are meaningful. I think your motion would mean more of all those.
> --
> 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, 8 Jul 2001 15:35:37 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dependence of the Names Council -- Case Proved

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02599.html

> It seems to me that there are two or three approaches which can be used
> assuming you agree with the hypothesis that the General Assembly is not
> working as intended.  Probable reasons are as follows:
>
> (1)    Lack of Resources, Dependency.  The GA is hamstrung by the NC
> control over GA operations.  They (the NC) control the budget for travel
> to ICANN conferences, secretariat, website, legal advice, translation etc.
> The DNSO Secretariat is answerable to the NC not the GA.  The NC closed
> down all the working groups at whim.    More importantly the NC controls
> the mailing lists and the website.

<snip other reasons>

There's no point in pursuing the issue any further.  I've proved my case.

QED.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:58:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: The real reason the rules don't work.....

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 10:54:10 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:43:25 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> The real reason is that the moderators are not free to act on their
>> own initiative and to act in a precipitous fashion to complaints,
>> since they have to hash everything out by committee under our current
>> chair's "rules."
>>
>> The moderators need to be independent and free to act on complaints
>> individually.

> Hi William

> I must say that I'm surprised that you should be saying that.  The main
> reason the panel system was set up was to avoid allegations of bias that
> might occur with a single decision-maker.

Those allegations would be brought up in the appeal to the chair.

> It was a trade-off of *fairness* as opposed to *expediency*.

Surely you don't see the paralysis that resulted as increasing either
fairness or expediency?

> With only two people adjudicating, I do not see a problem.  One will make
> the determination (Monitor 1) and the other will confirm the decision
> (Monitor 2).

> If both agree, the notice will be sent out.

If the one dealing with the complaint makes a determination, unless
that decision is overridden by the chair, it should stand as is.

Multiple moderators should not be in place to rule by "committee" on
decisions, but instead to alleviate some of the work load and allow
the amount of time involved to be at a minimum for each moderator.

- -- 
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, 8 Jul 2001 16:30:14 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The real reason the rules don't work . . . is ?

From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 23:00:49 -0700
Subject: [ga-rules] Fwd: Re: The real reason the rules don't work.....

> Forwarded for reference, because Patrick insisted on posting his
> response here, but really, this belongs on the main list at
> this time, and I encourage responses to go there.

Hi William

You can post where you like and I can't stop you.  I can also post where I
like and you can't stop me too.

So you post on one list and I post on another as a real test of who has the
biggest cojones.

The real reason the rules don't work . . . is ??

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 23:29:17 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: The real reason the rules don't work . . . is ?

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, July 07, 2001, 11:30:14 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 23:00:49 -0700
> Subject: [ga-rules] Fwd: Re: The real reason the rules don't work.....

>> Forwarded for reference, because Patrick insisted on posting his
>> response here, but really, this belongs on the main list at
>> this time, and I encourage responses to go there.

> Hi William

> You can post where you like and I can't stop you.  I can also post where I
> like and you can't stop me too.

I didn't try and stop you.

Nor did I try to stop others.

I Requested and encouraged people post to a particular place, and
stated why, you on the other hand demanded, and tried to use your
position to enforce those demands.

Your eagerness to be heavy handed about that issue and others was one
reason you were removed from list moderation duties.

Of course, I was content to not draw attention to these distinctions,
but since you decided to make it an issue.....

- -- 
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, 08 Jul 2001 06:34:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hooray for the sublists!  No need for anything but the delete button or don't sign
up and go check archives through a bookmark, and if something seems real important
write to the person posting and responding.

Off the main list I just deleted 12 messages without reading them because they were
all covered in a subsequent post, yes I went back and checked and this post covers
the issue quite well without the back and forth.  Some people are writers and some
are arguers some use a clean and cut method and others leave the entire thread
attached.

For instance- do not follow a thread by following Danny; it is not going to happen.
If you have been away pick up Jeff Williams latest post on a thread and you have the
whole thing.
Want a logical breakdown of the arguments watch for Lovell and Harris. Want to see
what started the interest look for Love or James or the like.  Want to see some work
in progress find miss Lane or Younger.  This ain't rocket scientry and there is
nothing wrong with our lists except we need more clearly defined rules and paid
personnel to employ them. Please review the rules sublist and find some work in
progress and contribute.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Sandy and all assembly members,
>
>   I must agree with Sandy's method/approach here, and myself have
> advocated it.  Anyone can employ their own filters and accomplish
> the desired effect.  However I see no reason why this motion could
> not be given consideration to give the GA members a chance to
> decide where their feelings are on such a motion....  However I
> would NOT second such a motion as it is currently drafted...
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> > > subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > MOTION
> > > I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
> > > instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
> > > authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
> > > repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put
> > > up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
> > > END OF MOTION
> >
> > Everyone is authorised to use a killfile. If you think a particular person's
> > postings are rubbish, or they are posting far too often, just put them in
> > your killfile and stop reading them. If enough of us do that, they are
> > ostracised.
> >
> > This implies, I think, that monitors need only deal with things that cannot
> > reasonably be handled by killfile. We probably still need monitors to deal
> > with extreme personal attacks, but not much else.
> >
> > I haven't found it necessary to killfile anyone here yet, though I admit
> > some folks tempt me.
> >
> > Methinks your motion is absurd. We need less off-topic stuff, less backbiting,
> > and less of the illusion that votes in a self-selected non-representative
> > group are meaningful. I think your motion would mean more of all those.
> > --
> > 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

- --
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, 08 Jul 2001 07:21:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Management/ Clutter

Are simple niceties clutter? are me toos clutter?  Is a public "that a girl"
clutter? I am going to sign up and pay my 15 year old son to monitor this list.
At a 15 year old level of reading and comprehension, I anticipate 1 hour per
day, which will include background research.  I will not poison the well (any
more than I already did;-})
He is not expected to participate but will issue reports to his IT teachers and
me. (or is that I?) But I will leave that to him.  To be fair I will give him a
heads-up on the silly initials we all love. I will be demanding some
bilingualism in his reports, he speaks and writes Spanish. Let us see if there
is anything here that a 15 year old surfer dude cannot deal with.

My hypothesis is that there are not problems with the reality of our list. Yes,
rules need to be more clearly defined and individuals as opposed to *interests*
need a more valued position.  But our only real problem exists from the top
down.  If the BoD and DoC funded and facilitated our work and then incorporated
our work product ICANN would not only succeed but help the world.

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:32:29 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00582.html
>
> > One problem is the number of people who use [ga-abuse] as a sort of
> > *drop-in* chat room.  The worst offender, as you might expect, is Eric
> > Dierker.  What that does is clutter the decision-making process.
>
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:28:28 -0700, Eric Dierker replied:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03484.html
>
> > I apologize for not noticing earlier but my name was referenced in the
> > offending post in a negative manner that I believe may have contributed to
> > this decision by Danny.  If that is the case I want to make sure that I in
> > no way am insulted or bothered by Mr. Corliss's post.  It seemed fair
> > comment to me.
>
> On this I would issue a correction.   I should have said:
>
> The worst offender, Eric Dierker, has now apologised and turned over a
> new leaf  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03406.html
> However, unnecessary copies do clutter up the list and impede the list
> monitors' decision-making processes.  The problem is still very real.
>
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:19:47 +1000, Patrick Corliss also wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03478.html
> > Effectively you are saying that the Alternate Chair cannot report serious
> > concerns in a private communication to members of the Names Council.
>
> I would correct that statement also to read:
>
> As Alternate Chair, I was reporting serious concerns in what I thought
> was a *private* communication to members of the Names Council.
>
> 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, 08 Jul 2001 08:02:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Elections/Why are they ignored

Dear Members,

Why is this being so widely ignored?  First of all it was only
referenced as having to do with Individuals.  I really only see two
nominees referencing anything else. Now it is as though it is not
happening.

6.2 is the most important Job we have.  Why is everyone being so quiet
about this?

I think I have just witnessed a shell game. Or at least the attempt at
one. 100 posts over monitors and not one on this crucial issue. I wonder
who thinks they have the votes lined up secretly so that they do not
want public attention and popular vote on this so important of issues.
Please go to the announcement of this *election* and note the absence on
clarity. Also notice the relative silence of the nominees.

Those who only watch should now speak out!!

Sincerely,

DNSO operation related

     6. NC review.

          Identify key initiatives required to improve the functioning
of the NC. Propose changes for consideration by the ICANN Board where
          Board authority is required.

          Timeframe: March 2001 to identify and implement by end 2001.

          Strategies

          6.1 Establish an interim committee to propose terms of
reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the
following:

          6.2 Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D and the
Review task force and working group report and implement a
          means of outreach and stakeholder consultation with built-in
mechanisms for fulfilling the objectives.

          6.3 GA Chair. Review the current system of election for the
General Assembly chair and propose changes if required.

          6.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness,
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain
          name holder's constituency.

          6.5 Language diversity. Recommend cost effective means to
provide language diversity in the context of DNSO decisions.

          6.6 Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical definition of
consensus for the purposes of NC consultation activities.

- --
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 #599
************************