Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #611
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 13 2001            Volume 01 : Number 611

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:07:09 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP -- View from The Register

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part I
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20304.html
> 
> Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part II
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20305.html

Thanks a lot for posting this. 

I'd say it could serve as an agenda for the UDRP review task
force. I do not mean a list of points for discussion; I see
it as a list of broken things to be fixed.

The only thing I can think of offheand that is missing is the
symmetry problem. UDRP is binding on the domain holder, since
the registrars will enforce it. Methinks it must also be
binding on the complainant.
- --
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, 12 Jul 2001 22:56:45 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Time table for ICANN Board election this year -- (proposed)

Our DNSO Secretariat has posted this reminder to the Council list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00634.html

Council,

The term of Amadeu Abril i Abril, ICANN Board Director
elected by the DNSO Names Council in 1999 expires on 
30 September 2001.
The remaining two DNSO elected Directors are Alejandro Pisanty
(LatinAC) and Jonathan Cohen (NorthAm).

This year election will be open to candidates from
3 geographic regions: Europe, AsiaPac and Africa.

According to the procedures for election, the proposed time
table, validated with Philip Sheppard is: 

Nominations = 3 weeks:
Start: Monday 23 July 2001
End:   Monday 13 August 2001

Endorsements = 3 weeks:
Start: Monday 13 August 2001
End:   Monday 03 September 2001

Break for Montevideo ICANN Meetings

Vote by the NC = 4 days:
Start: Wednesday 12 September 2001
End:   Saturday 15 September 2001 - telecon to confirm results

We MUST provide results to ICANN no later than 16 September
(it was checked with Louis Touton last year for legal reasons).

The ICANN Board election associated web pages are under 
preparation and will be ready next week.

DNSO Secretariat
- --

It wouldn't hurt to begin discussion on whom the GA might favor as a 
candidate...
- --
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, 12 Jul 2001 23:06:13 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1

The ALSC has released its first Discussion Paper:

http://www.atlargestudy.org/DiscussionDraftRev.5.4.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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:06:25 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Election of GA Representative to the Names Counci l UDRP  Task Force

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:20 PM

> >> > Chris McElroy             Jeff Williams
> >> > Jeff Williams                Chris McElroy
> >> 
> >> Can anyone verify that Chris McElroy is a natural person by 
> >> that name, and not a fiction?
> 
> 
> > Yes, I can. I have spoken to him on the phone and will meet 
> him for lunch
> > this weekend. Rather, that's the plan.
> 
> Haven't you said the same about Jeff Williams and some of his other
> aliases, like Brian?

I can tell the difference between Chris and Jeff. For one thing, Jeff
doesn't live in Modesto.
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 05:05:10 +0100
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Hearings in Washington

Thanks for this information Danny..... the WHOIS subject is of interest to many
people around the world ...... and good morning from Brussels....

The survey is available in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Japanese.  To
date we have received 1600+ comments, the majority of which contain substantive
comments which the WHOIS sub-committee (comprising each of the DNSO's
Constituency representative and the GA Chair) will read and write a report
high-lighting the common areas of agreement and where more work is necessary.
It was intended the final report be prepared for the ICANN Montevideo meeting,
but in light of the wealth of material, and the need to digest the various
comments it is most likely the Montevideo report will be a verbal interim report.

This is the first time an ICANN survey has been in a significant number of
languages, our objective is to ensure our consultation process encompasses the
broadest outreach. The comment period is open until the 31st July and I urge all
those who have not done so already to submit their comments as soon as possible.

Best regards

Paul

[email-masked] wrote:

> I was able to attend yesterday's U.S. Senate committee hearing on Privacy &
> the Internet, and I am pleased to report that the privacy concerns of
> individuals seem to be shared by many U.S. legislators.  There seemed to be a
> general agreement that the DOC's Safe Harbor program is meeting with success.
>  For more information on Safe Harbor, you may visit the following URL:
> http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/
>
> While unable to attend today's House Hearings on the WHOIS database, the
> preliminary testimony appears to be quite encouraging:
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm
> Some of the most interesting comments were put forth by the President of
> Junkbusters Corp.:  http://www.house.gov/judiciary/catlett_071201.htm
>
> Also, please note that it appears that our efforts with regard to WHOIS will
> closely be examined:
>
> "Earlier this month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> announced that it has launched a study to gauge the privacy concerns raised
> by the public accessibility of the whois database. This study is directed to
> anyone who has ever used the service, both in the global top level domains
> and in the 244 country-code top level domains. I look forward to seeing the
> results of this study, and comparing them to what we hear today from our
> witnesses."  -- http://www.house.gov/judiciary/berman_071201.htm
>
> As results from the WHOIS survey will soon be released, I encourage you to
> put forward your thoughts on this topic.  Our GA-SYS list has been dealing
> with this topic.  So far, the WHOIS survey, as of the date of the NC
> teleconference, has generated 1300 responses.
>
> Perhaps Paul Kane, the NC Whois Committee Chair can provide us with an update
> and indications of his plans going forward...

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 05:05:10 +0100
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Hearings in Washington

Thanks for this information Danny..... the WHOIS subject is of interest to many
people around the world ...... and good morning from Brussels....

The survey is available in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Japanese.  To
date we have received 1600+ comments, the majority of which contain substantive
comments which the WHOIS sub-committee (comprising each of the DNSO's
Constituency representative and the GA Chair) will read and write a report
high-lighting the common areas of agreement and where more work is necessary.
It was intended the final report be prepared for the ICANN Montevideo meeting,
but in light of the wealth of material, and the need to digest the various
comments it is most likely the Montevideo report will be a verbal interim report.

This is the first time an ICANN survey has been in a significant number of
languages, our objective is to ensure our consultation process encompasses the
broadest outreach. The comment period is open until the 31st July and I urge all
those who have not done so already to submit their comments as soon as possible.

Best regards

Paul

[email-masked] wrote:

> I was able to attend yesterday's U.S. Senate committee hearing on Privacy &
> the Internet, and I am pleased to report that the privacy concerns of
> individuals seem to be shared by many U.S. legislators.  There seemed to be a
> general agreement that the DOC's Safe Harbor program is meeting with success.
>  For more information on Safe Harbor, you may visit the following URL:
> http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/
>
> While unable to attend today's House Hearings on the WHOIS database, the
> preliminary testimony appears to be quite encouraging:
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm
> Some of the most interesting comments were put forth by the President of
> Junkbusters Corp.:  http://www.house.gov/judiciary/catlett_071201.htm
>
> Also, please note that it appears that our efforts with regard to WHOIS will
> closely be examined:
>
> "Earlier this month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> announced that it has launched a study to gauge the privacy concerns raised
> by the public accessibility of the whois database. This study is directed to
> anyone who has ever used the service, both in the global top level domains
> and in the 244 country-code top level domains. I look forward to seeing the
> results of this study, and comparing them to what we hear today from our
> witnesses."  -- http://www.house.gov/judiciary/berman_071201.htm
>
> As results from the WHOIS survey will soon be released, I encourage you to
> put forward your thoughts on this topic.  Our GA-SYS list has been dealing
> with this topic.  So far, the WHOIS survey, as of the date of the NC
> teleconference, has generated 1300 responses.
>
> Perhaps Paul Kane, the NC Whois Committee Chair can provide us with an update
> and indications of his plans going forward...

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 05:24:00 +0100
From: "Paul M. Kane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Hearings in Washington

Thanks for this information Danny..... the WHOIS subject is of interest
to many
people around the world ...... and good morning from Brussels....

The survey is available in English, French, Spanish, Russian and
Japanese.  To
date we have received 1600+ comments, the majority of which contain
substantive
comments which the WHOIS sub-committee (comprising each of the DNSO's
Constituency representative and the GA Chair) will read and write a
report
high-lighting the common areas of agreement and where more work is
necessary.
It was intended the final report be prepared for the ICANN Montevideo
meeting,
but in light of the wealth of material, and the need to digest the
various
comments it is most likely the Montevideo report will be a verbal
interim report.

This is the first time an ICANN survey has been in a significant number
of
languages, our objective is to ensure our consultation process
encompasses the
broadest outreach. The comment period is open until the 31st July and I
urge all
those who have not done so already to submit their comments as soon as
possible.

Best regards

Paul

[email-masked] wrote:

> I was able to attend yesterday's U.S. Senate committee hearing on Privacy &
> the Internet, and I am pleased to report that the privacy concerns of
> individuals seem to be shared by many U.S. legislators.  There seemed to be a
> general agreement that the DOC's Safe Harbor program is meeting with success.
>  For more information on Safe Harbor, you may visit the following URL:
> http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/
>
> While unable to attend today's House Hearings on the WHOIS database, the
> preliminary testimony appears to be quite encouraging:
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm
> Some of the most interesting comments were put forth by the President of
> Junkbusters Corp.:  http://www.house.gov/judiciary/catlett_071201.htm
>
> Also, please note that it appears that our efforts with regard to WHOIS will
> closely be examined:
>
> "Earlier this month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> announced that it has launched a study to gauge the privacy concerns raised
> by the public accessibility of the whois database. This study is directed to
> anyone who has ever used the service, both in the global top level domains
> and in the 244 country-code top level domains. I look forward to seeing the
> results of this study, and comparing them to what we hear today from our
> witnesses."  -- http://www.house.gov/judiciary/berman_071201.htm
>
> As results from the WHOIS survey will soon be released, I encourage you to
> put forward your thoughts on this topic.  Our GA-SYS list has been dealing
> with this topic.  So far, the WHOIS survey, as of the date of the NC
> teleconference, has generated 1300 responses.
>
> Perhaps Paul Kane, the NC Whois Committee Chair can provide us with an update
> and indications of his plans going forward...
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 14:45:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Suspension of Dierker,  Fleming, Walsh, Williams

Hi William

It is appropriate to respond on the [ga] list.  However, I don't believe it
is an issue that warrants continuing discussion.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:10:58 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Doesn't matter.  Not having a reasonable limit on time frames lends
> itself to a situation where someone annoys a monitor, and that person
> goes back and looks for a reason to sanction.

Under the current system, the List Monitors respond to complaints made.
They do not trawl through posts looking for a reason to suspend somebody.

> I was told something off list that suggested that this had occurred
> here, that Danny had in fact told the monitors to justify suspensions.

Danny made a complaint publicly.  However, the list monitors were already
processing a number of complaints.  As you know, many of these were copied
to the persons complained about.

> However, I have a hard time believing that either Kristy or Alexander
> would entertain such a request or direction, so I don't lend it much
> credibility.

Both Kristy and Alexander perform their duties with care and the utmost
professionalism.  As you might be aware, there have been a large niumber of
complaints to deal with.

> The only thing that does lend some credibility to the
> suggestion is the close proximity to the chair's postings regarding
> these same people.

Any complaint made by Danny is treated in exactly the same way as a
complaint made by any other person.  The list monitors adjudicate based on
the merits of the complaint and not the status of the person making it.

> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>

Patrick Corliss
[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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:48:57 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP -- View from The Register

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:32:16 EDT, you wrote:

>Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part I
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20304.html
>
>Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part II
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20305.html

Thanks for these Danny.  One of the better summaries I have seen of
flaws which hopefully can be fixed.

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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:18:24 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.

(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
above.

As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.

Best regards
Alternate Chair

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 02:24:03 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I tend to agree with this motion.  There is a group working very hard 
on procedures and rules and that's where the discussion should 
take place.  

Leah

On 13 Jul 2001, at 16:18, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> 
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating
> to DNS policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols,
> procedures, etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers
> to GA-RULES may refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot
> or follow such other prescribed procedures that have been adopted by
> the General Assembly.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording
> of (1) above.
> 
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that
> it be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> 
> Best regards
> Alternate Chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:41:01 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: petty and ridiculous - Re: [ga] [Admin] Suspension of Dierker,  Fleming, Walsh, Williams

In my opinion, the GA suffers from its lack of direction and its inability to
focus on significant subject matter.  This is in part due to the primary
participants refusal to properly organize coupled with certain of their
immaterial email postings and distractions.

The paradox is that the current problems within the GA cannot be cured by
suspending the primary participants.  The primary participants need to get
their acts together and properly organize.  I have explained this in previous
posts and suggested fundamentals toward a cure.  The alternative is that we
all sit here and wait until more people get involved that can understand this
and vote this 'mess' out.  There are not enough participants in the GA to
demand suspension of the primary participants.  The suspensions are
effectively silencing and killing the GA.

The GA appears most productive at being a comedy show.  Show me where those
who have been suspended were harming or inhibiting any GA agenda.  I suggest
removing the suspensions immediately and let the show go on.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Mr. Conant characterizes his own email by his subject line. A very,
> VERY long history of ICANN in general and the GA in particular
> -- a history in which one one may leave one hand in one's pocket
> to count all the things that the GA has accomplished -- has shown
> irrefutably that what has prevented the GA from doing anything has
> been its anarchic, chaotic manner of operation.  Throwing stones
> (or little pebbles in this case) at one of a very few mechanisms for
> putting an end to that chaos merely adds to it. The monitors are
> to be commended for their action, in face of the almost inevitable
> event that such action would bring out all the pebble throwers.
>
> As should be those who were suspended.  So far, I've seen these
> suspensions accepted with refreshing good grace --  more grace,
> I might add, than is shown by Mr. Conant with his flights of highly
> insulting fancy.  (Mr. Walsh objects to the rather late imposition,
> and he may very well have a valid point, although I suspect that
> the answer might be that the monitors have "day jobs" too.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > GA No Tolerance Policy - petty and ridiculous.
> >
> > Dierker, Fleming, Walsh, Williams, cool it now, the way the GA list
> > monitors are running things here you'll probably get jail-time the next
> > time they decide to punish you.  Who decides the punishment in this case
> > and what are the statue of limitations for alleged violations anyway?
> > This is laughable.  It looks like you better be careful with what you
> > say next time.  I don't believe the allegations warranted suspension.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> > > The list monitors note that there have been four
> > > suspensions, effective immediately.
> > >
> > >   Jeff Williams, [email-masked]
> > >   eight weeks suspension
> > >
> > >   Eric Dierker, [email-masked]
> > >   four weeks suspension
> > >
> > >   William X. Walsh, [email-masked]
> > >   four weeks suspension
> > >
> > >   Jim Fleming, [email-masked]
> > >   two weeks suspension
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > /// Alexander (for the list monitors)
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > The list monitors find that Jeff Williams has broken
> > > the posting limit by sending eight and six mails to the
> > > GA within two consecutive 24 hour periods:
> > >
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:56:05
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03374.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 01:34:27
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03375.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 05:16:11
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03379.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:11:00
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03430.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:21:18
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03436.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:24:14
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03437.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:39:58
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03438.html
> > > Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:53:37
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03440.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 00:18:41 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03441.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:07:08 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03444.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:15:23 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03445.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 05:14:01 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03449.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:07:30 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03459.html
> > > Fri, 06 Jul 2001 21:33:33 -0700
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03466.html
> > >
> > > The list monitors note that Jeff Williams has already
> > > been barred five times.
> > >
> > > The list monitors have decided to suspend the posting
> > > rights of Jeff Williams for eight weeks. This decision
> > > can be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > The list monitors find that Eric Dierker has broken
> > > the posting limit, despite warnings and his promise
> > > "I will not over post" (referenced in a mail at
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02922.html).
> > >
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 8:48:12
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02979.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:40:34
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03004.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:04:55
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03005.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:43:52
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03009.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:00:43
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03011.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:09:38
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03013.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:07:15
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03015.html
> > >
> > > The list monitors note that Eric Dierker has been
> > > previously warned and suspended; the suspension has
> > > been overturned.
> > >
> > > The list monitors have decided to suspend the posting
> > > rights of Eric Dierker for four weeks. This decision
> > > can be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > The list monitors find that William X. Walsh has made
> > > personal attacks against members of the General Assembly.
> > > (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-icann/Arc00/msg00111.html;
> > > "If you can't see that, then your prejudice and arrogance
> > > is blinding you, as usual.") The list monitors note that
> > > there have also been attacks regarding the history of the
> > > IDNO (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03116.html,
> > > "Including your own little temper tantrum when you pulled the
> > > IDNO website and had the mailing list turned off because
> > > people were asking you to step down (which when you were made
> > > aware of how those actions were proving your critics right,
> > > you claimed were an "error" and had them turned back on).").
> > > Even though discussion of an Individual Domain Name Holders
> > > Organization or Constituency is on-topic, postings threatening
> > > other members of the General Assembly (the posting starts
> > > with the lines "I might suggest that you watch your moves.")
> > > and repeating unsubstantiated allegations are against the
> > > list rules which call for "a minimum of decorum".
> > >
> > > The list monitors also find that William X. Walsh has broken
> > > the posting limit, even though he is well aware of it and even
> > > the way it is calculated (as can be seen from
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02813.html).
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:33:32
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02971.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:10:12
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02983.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:55:52
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02988.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:20:49
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02990.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:36:23
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02995.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:16:39
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03001.html
> > > Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:18:54
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03002.html
> > >
> > > The list monitors note that William X. Walsh has been
> > > previously warned and suspended twice; one of the
> > > suspensions has been overturned.
> > >
> > > The list monitors have decided to suspend the posting
> > > rights of William X. Walsh for four weeks. This decision
> > > can be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > The list monitors find that Jim Fleming has violated
> > > the list rules by sending messages without any relevance
> > > to the business of the GA to the list.
> > > Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:46:18
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03321.html
> > >
> > > The list monitors note that Jim Fleming has just recently
> > > received a warning for breaking the list rules (posting
> > > limit violation).
> > >
> > > The list monitors have decided to suspend the posting
> > > rights of Jim Fleming for two weeks. This decision
> > > can be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ~k
> > >
> > > Kristy McKee (for the List Monitors)
> > >   Kristy McKee 612.823.2418
> > >   .W I D G I T A L.Espware.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 02:58:01 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

How will it be determined when a matter at the GA-RULES level is acceptable
criteria for review by the full GA?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
>
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> above.
>
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
>
> Best regards
> Alternate Chair
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:14:53 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:58:01 -0700, Derel Conant wrote:
> How will it be determined when a matter at the GA-RULES level is
> acceptable criteria for review by the full GA?

Consensus.

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 03:56:52 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: To whose Master? - Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Check out.  I'm doing things my way.  It's my way or the high way....
Consensus?  To whose Master?  This motion may be a big mistake.  Watch.

When the GA takes action to silence someone, that is a significant
adverse action and it should not be taken lightly.  The problem with the
other GA sub-lists is that there are too many sub-list and little
consensus on those other lists.  It is difficult for most to keep track
of so many lists in the first place.

If the GA-RULES sub-list is going to work here, there should be clear
notice on the full GA list whenever a suspension may be warranted.  This
may lead to a consensus process that could be the body that determines
if a suspension is warranted, or not (GA-SUSPENSION sub-list).  What a
headache to accomplish with this group.

I believe that 5 posts per day, per person, are too few if the material
in the posts are substantive and constructive.  If there is clear abuse,
then okay.  Apply voltage and fry the violator.  However, if there is
not clear abuse, then lighten up.  Or else, the GA will not accomplish
anything here related to any valid consensus process.

For example, there was not clear abuse to warrant suspension of Dierker,
Fleming, Walsh, Williams.  The suspension action in my opinion appears
to be someone's power trip and/or the action is to inhibit and control
free speech and process.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:58:01 -0700, Derel Conant wrote:
> > How will it be determined when a matter at the GA-RULES level is
> > acceptable criteria for review by the full GA?
>
> Consensus.

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 02:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

As an extremely long time member of this list in good standing I am taking
this opportunity to second this motion.

Kindest regards,

Bradley.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> 
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
> policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
> should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may
> refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> above.
> 
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> 
> Best regards
> Alternate Chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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, 13 Jul 2001 13:07:48 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: To whose Master? - Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Dear Derek,
IMHO there is not even machivelic intent. Just the fear - after Danny's mail -
that if no action was taken a laxist jurisprudence was created. So something
had to done.

On 12:56 13/07/01, Derek Conant said:
>For example, there was not clear abuse to warrant suspension of Dierker,
>Fleming, Walsh, Williams.  The suspension action in my opinion appears
>to be someone's power trip and/or the action is to inhibit and control
>free speech and process.

If you think the swhow must go on, just subscribe yourself to ga-full,
have Patrick enforcing his agreement to copy all the sub-lists to ga-full,
and help the ga-full users not to mess too much their sub-lists in setting
the ReplyTo to the appropriate sub-list.

There are people loving sub-lists and punishments: this is their
priviledge, one cannot impeach them from being mazochists. What I
dislike is when they want to impose their ideas on me while refusing
a vote about it and there is a simple way to cohexist.

BTW, I second that motion. Since the GA has to move there will
be twice the same debate at ga-rules and at ga. Aficionados will
love it, common users will have only one and ga-full will scrapp the
entire thing as not geing concerned. So everyone happy.

May we know resume discussion on UDRP, WhoIs, DomainName,
BoD election?
Jefsey

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #611
************************