Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #811
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 24 2001         Volume 01 : Number 811

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:45:55 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Tainted BC elections

Please help me understand something here.

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:17 AM

|> IIC3e. If, at any stage of the election process described 
|> above, an individual working for or representing an 
|> identifiable business sector is elected, all other 
|> representatives or individuals working for or representing 
|> that same business sector will be eliminated from the 
|> election process.

This wording is really strange. How can someone become elected before the
election process is completed? Am I missing context here?

|> Grant and Marilyn both work for the same identifiable 
|> business sector.   
|> Grant draws his paycheck from Clear Communications (a telco) 
|> and Marilyn 
|> draws her paycheck from AT&T.  

Clear COmmunications is a CLEC and ATT is an IXC.
CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
IXC = InterLATA Exchange Carrier

Yes, neither are generic telco. I believe that the ILEC is Bell Atlantic and
ATT isn't allowed to be an ILEC anywhere, according to the 1987 MFJ and the
1997 Telcomm Act.

|> If the BC had any respect for their own 
|> Charter, they would accordingly eliminate Marilyn from the 
|> election process 
|> as Grant is already (by default) a regional winner, and the 
|> other remaining 
|> contender from the North American zone would be advanced as 
|> the candidate for the contested NC seat.

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:56:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BB Straton, Bill and als.

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  This is a interesting suggestion or proposal from Straton that has some
obvious problems.  One of which you pointed out, Jefsey.  I also see
a couple of others.

- - Such a system would be circumvented almost immediately by
   selecting a Phone Number that is simply and answering service.

- - Web addresses would end up in many cases to be of a bogus
   nature or Advertising banner pages for porn sites and the like.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> The ``holy grail,'' said Straton Sclavos (Verisign Top), is to create a
> global voice and Internet directory to allow users to designate how and
> where they can be reached at anytime. The system would link phone and
> Internet capabilities so users need only a single identifier, either a
> number or Web address.
>
> Let imagine having your telephone spammed all the day and night long. What
> an exciting prospect!
>
> I feel the "holy crusade" is to fight that! He says this is no "big
> brother".  It is far worse: it is "big brotherhood".
>
> This crusade should start in lobbying for Whois to be abolished - everyone
> knows that data are outdated - and replaced by whois protocol. This would
> make whois://domain.name the opt-in universal address for user information.
> Either on site or delegated to whois private services.
>
> One of the most interesting feature would be te be able to send a mail to
> the webmester from an online form - possibly with paging/sms associated to
> it - without disclosing his mail.
>
> Harald, may be could you help in telling the way his could be studied?
>
> I know there is an RFC indicating the fax://domain.name and
> tel://domain.name are supported. Anyone knows the RFC reference?
>
> 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

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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:17:09 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: [ga] Tainted BC elections

> Our collegues in the Business Constituency are at it again, 

Your collegues or "our" collegues ?

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:15:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ICANN community (Re: [ga] Ballot question)

Marc and all assembly members,

  As you likely know or can easily figure out the ICANN BoD and
most specifically it's staff, is attempting to limit the participation
of stakeholders.  Ergo the term "ICANN Community".  This
would seem a politically motivated attempt to circumvent the
MoU and White Paper, yet again but the ICANN BoD,
and most specifically the ICANN Staff.

  I wonder if New.net  for instance, is considered by the
ICANN BoD and staff a member of their view of the
"ICANN Community"?

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, at 15:19 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > On 10:00 23/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > >Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > > > I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> > > > probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> > > > currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> > > > rather "some major stakeholders consensus".
> > >
> > >   Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.
> >
> > You may have noted that slight another wording change
> > by Stuart Lynn and others: "the ICANN community".
> >
> > An ICANN community consensus is when Stuart,
> > Louis and Joe make taken a "BoD" decision. You may
> > recall that there is "ICANN community consensus"
> > even on non existing documents (Stockholm).
>
> Since the term "the ICANN community" figures a lot in recent texts
> issued by ICANN, it may be usefull if some definition of it was
> launched 'officially'. Does the ICANN community include, e.g., the At
> Large members? Has it any democratic connotation? What is the
> difference with 'Net users'?
>
> The burden of the definition is on those who introduce and use the
> term, naturally. I could try some sarcasm, but will resist the
> temptation. So far I thought it was clever rhetorics. I hope I am
> wrong.
>
> Looking forward to an official reply.
>
> --
> [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

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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:24:21 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

Danny and all assembly members,

  How come I am not surprised!  :(

  As you know Danny, and I am sure many others of the DNSO GA
also know Marilyn and AT&T have been vying for a position of some
importance or consideration within the ICANn structure.  And as much
as AT&T have likely supplied the $$ for the BC needs and requirements,
such a situation is bound to occur.

  But I am also just a sure that Marilyn will deny such as well the
Secretariat of the BC.  I am also sure that the ICANN BoD and
particularly the ICANN CEO is quietly very much in approval
of this as well...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Our collegues in the Business Constituency are at it again, this time
> breaking their own Charter rules in the middle of an election for NC
> representatives.   As was to be expected, Grant, Philip, and Marilyn have
> been nominated for office... but this time it appears that Marilyn has a
> challenger in her own geographical area.
>
> As Grant and Philip are running unopposed, they will, of course, be declared
> winners.  Here's where it gets interesting...  The BC Charter states:
>
> IIC3e. If, at any stage of the election process described above, an
> individual working for or representing an identifiable business sector is
> elected, all other representatives or individuals working for or representing
> that same business sector will be eliminated from the election process.
>
> Grant and Marilyn both work for the same identifiable business sector.
> Grant draws his paycheck from Clear Communications (a telco) and Marilyn
> draws her paycheck from AT&T.   If the BC had any respect for their own
> Charter, they would accordingly eliminate Marilyn from the election process
> as Grant is already (by default) a regional winner, and the other remaining
> contender from the North American zone would be advanced as the candidate for
> the contested NC seat.
>
> Unfortunately, the BC seems to believe that they have a mandate to break the
> rules whenever required to preserve the sanctity of their private little
> club.  One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their
> Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:04:06 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN is Just Doing Proof-of-Concept Testing

ICANN is Just Doing Proof-of-Concept Testing.
So are many other companies.
People may want to focus more on the Full-Deployment-Phase.
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

- --
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:58:18 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

On 20:17 23/10/01, [email-masked] said:
>One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their
>Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?

Oh! sorry, I though ICANN's reign what just that. You are going to upset Mike.

BTW Danny, this shows the way the business world works: it was able to 
nominate only 4 persons for 3 seats. As you know not a single businessman 
is interested in the Internet.

I must say that nominations at BC are ... secret. So you don't know who is 
nominated and nominated people don't know if they are not going to compete 
with a friend as there is no discussion list. Actually there is no friend 
since no one knows the other. Very interesting experience.

- --
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 02:09:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Tainted BC elections

On 20:45 23/10/01, Roeland Meyer said:

>Clear COmmunications is a CLEC and ATT is an IXC.
>CLEC = Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
>IXC = InterLATA Exchange Carrier
>
>Yes, neither are generic telco. I believe that the ILEC is Bell Atlantic and
>ATT isn't allowed to be an ILEC anywhere, according to the 1987 MFJ and the
>1997 Telcomm Act.

This NeoPapousian 1997 Telecom Act then conflicts with the NorthSiberian 
Communication Bill of 1992.

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:14:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN will only be doing "Proof-of-Concept" testing...

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 23, 2001, 9:18:01 AM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html
> "In order to calm people's fears and to encourage experimentation and
> expansion, the U.S. Department of Commerce helped to create ICANN under the
> assumption that ICANN will only be doing "Proof-of-Concept" testing, of a
> limited number of new TLDs. The Early Experimentation with .BIZ helped to
> show that the Internet would not crash. Some people incorrectly think that
> ICANN is some sort of new world government and they will be the leaders of
> that government. They do not accept that ICANN will not be needed once
> Full-Scale Deployment takes place. The new TLD Communities will be quite
> capable of governing themselves. The Internet Architecture is counter to the
> notion of a single point of failure, like ICANN."

Resorting to quoting yourself now, Jim?

- -- 
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:22:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dichotomy/choices

To be or not to be.  This is the GAs question.  I believe another twist
is Platos/Socrates Apology.

1. Do we remain here and cause the problem of adding authenticity and
veracity to ICANNs claim of bottoms up open and transparent consensus,
even though it is sorely abused and misused.

2. Or do we leave this "test of concept" as a failure. And begin to
build anew.

3. Or should we remain here and recognize that we need another body
entirely to deal with anything in a public policy arena.

Roelands motion sets the scene for our choices.  Certainly without it's
implementation in short order Number one choice is out, and I mean way
out, and I mean no way will I stay.

I find it hard to rationalize number 3 if this is strictly a technical
policy setting group without social responsibility.

I judge this list as talking strict technical issues about 6 per cent of
the time and policy in the public sense the rest.

This really matters between here and MDR for security and AL and ccTLD
and IDNO issues.

However I see one major problem in staying here; Extremely bright
technological people tend to act like snobbish elitists toward users -
hence the technical divide in its' real sense.  So perhaps getting a
grass roots user group going elsewhere would be better for both
classes.  I am by trade a Marketer and Trader and so I will go with the
masses any day, besides they like me better.

It is a process not an achievement.  So those of us who really care will
keep on going no matter what.

If the sun sets and you are not pleased, start tomorrow differently. (ed
2001)

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:40:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

I do not think that we should judge the business folks so hard.  A scorpion stings
because that is what it does.  A thief steals because that is what he does.  A
business person takes advantage of position because that is what they do.

I think that they break the rules and allow money to rule because that is what
they do.  That is their business but what is ours?

Diversity is the beginning of good (ed 2001)

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 20:17 23/10/01, [email-masked] said:
> >One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their
> >Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?
>
> Oh! sorry, I though ICANN's reign what just that. You are going to upset Mike.
>
> BTW Danny, this shows the way the business world works: it was able to
> nominate only 4 persons for 3 seats. As you know not a single businessman
> is interested in the Internet.
>
> I must say that nominations at BC are ... secret. So you don't know who is
> nominated and nominated people don't know if they are not going to compete
> with a friend as there is no discussion list. Actually there is no friend
> since no one knows the other. Very interesting experience.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:54:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

- --------------3BD089FA84100701E3AC2E5B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am really very sorry to report that there is no justification for this
post.  The membership of the Business Constituency already worked upon
these ideas and took a horrible stand.  So what is with this regret over
taking the time of the Council?  You folks can maintain this crap for
only so long and then the allied troops will conquer your ---- butts.
But do not think for a moment that you shall remain in power with this
- ---- arrogance.  I am saddened to have worked with many of you behind
the scenes and then watch your spinelessness.

Best to all may you retain some manner of saving face.

Eric

BC secretariat wrote:

> Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council Further to the
> communication from J. Morfin addressed to the Names Council, the
> Business Constituency and copied widely, we would like to let the
> Council and others know that the issue will be referred to the
> membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of
> the Council over this. BC Secretariat

- --------------3BD089FA84100701E3AC2E5B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I am really very sorry to report that there is no justification for this
post.&nbsp; The membership of the Business Constituency already worked
upon these ideas and took a horrible stand.&nbsp; So what is with this
regret over taking the time of the Council?&nbsp; You folks can maintain
this crap for only so long and then the allied troops will conquer your
- ---- butts.&nbsp; But do not think for a moment that you shall remain in
power with this ---- arrogance.&nbsp; I am saddened to have worked with
many of you behind the scenes and then watch your spinelessness.
<p>Best to all may you retain some manner of saving face.
<p>Eric
<p>BC secretariat wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<b>Complaint by J. Morfin to the
Names Council</b>&nbsp;Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed
to the Names Council, the Business Constituency and copied widely, we would
like to let the Council and others know that the issue will be referred
to the membership of the Business Constituency. We regret taking the time
of the Council over this.&nbsp;BC Secretariat&nbsp;</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------3BD089FA84100701E3AC2E5B--

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:05:37 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Manifesto/ PLEASE VOTE

There is an Elm tree outside my window and somewhere in its' growth it
split into three branches and now; not the original stands still against
the wind and the original bends to the will of the wind. But the main
branch 
does now stand tall.
Thus shall be the GA. It shall be right which stands tall and not those
in power.

If we stand tall against the whim of the wind we shall last longer than
and stand taller than the trunk of the ICANN.  Mr. Williams and Mr.
Walsh are both right in their insistence upon standing on right.

Please vote on Roelands motion and please vote to agree and show
consensus.  If we do not stand for something we will fall for anything.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:33:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  One also might want to take a look at this given Marilyn Cades
purported nomination:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/23/companies/wires/att_jobs_re/
Given that AT&T has problems even maintaining their employees
and can't make their own quarterly projections, makes one wonder
how good a candidate Marilyn would be....  ?????  Or does it?
Possibly nobody looks at business performance in the BC!?

  BTW Jefsey, to contact the ML for the (Bizconst.org?)
see:http://www.bizconst.org/mailinglist.htm .  Members are
at: http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm .  However there
are no archives for the ML, such as it is...  And of course
in that the BC members vote on their ML, there is no
record or history of their issue votes or position election
votes either.  Indeed, VERY interesting!!  :(

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 20:17 23/10/01, [email-masked] said:
> >One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their
> >Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?
>
> Oh! sorry, I though ICANN's reign what just that. You are going to upset Mike.
>
> BTW Danny, this shows the way the business world works: it was able to
> nominate only 4 persons for 3 seats. As you know not a single businessman
> is interested in the Internet.
>
> I must say that nominations at BC are ... secret. So you don't know who is
> nominated and nominated people don't know if they are not going to compete
> with a friend as there is no discussion list. Actually there is no friend
> since no one knows the other. Very interesting experience.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:44:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tainted BC elections

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I do not think that we should judge the business folks so hard.  A scorpion stings
> because that is what it does.  A thief steals because that is what he does.  A
> business person takes advantage of position because that is what they do.

  I am afraid I must disagree with this skewed argument.  Business people,
especially honest ones are not like scorpions or thieves.  Ergo Eric,
your premise does not support you conclusion.  Therefore in this instance
your argument is not valid.

>
>
> I think that they break the rules and allow money to rule because that is what
> they do.

  Honest business does not take advantage of others on a profit motive.
Dishonest ones do.  To clump all business's in the same category is
felonious at best.  Nice try here again Eric, no cigar.

>  That is their business but what is ours?
>
> Diversity is the beginning of good (ed 2001)

  Who is "ed"?  Is that Mr. ed the talking horse?  >;)

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 20:17 23/10/01, [email-masked] said:
> > >One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their
> > >Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?
> >
> > Oh! sorry, I though ICANN's reign what just that. You are going to upset Mike.
> >
> > BTW Danny, this shows the way the business world works: it was able to
> > nominate only 4 persons for 3 seats. As you know not a single businessman
> > is interested in the Internet.
> >
> > I must say that nominations at BC are ... secret. So you don't know who is
> > nominated and nominated people don't know if they are not going to compete
> > with a friend as there is no discussion list. Actually there is no friend
> > since no one knows the other. Very interesting experience.
> >
> > --
> > 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

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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:43:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Enjoy a free .movie

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,7407,5098688,00.html?chkpt=p1bn

excerpt:

"New.net said it has entered more than 1,000 of the most popular official 
film sites into a catalog so people can access the sites by typing in the 
name of the movie followed by .movie. Film fans, for instance, can find the 
"Spiderman" movie site by typing in www.spiderman.movie instead of 
www.sony.com/spiderman.   The company said that unlike other New.net domain 
names, which are available for registration by businesses and individuals at 
$35 per year, .movie Web addresses will not be for sale but can be accessed 
for free." 

I am reminded that ICANN was organized under the California Nonprofit Public 
Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes.   What New.net 
has done is charitable.   Perhaps ICANN can take heed of this example.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:59:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fw: Majordomo results: us

Many of you probably do not care but let me list a few names;

Hans, Rony, Michael, Brett, Joe, Sondow, Judith, Bruce, Greg and Patrick
that do not participate actively here any more even though they may
monitor on the GA full.  And now we have lost Jim.

I am tired of losing good folks and am starting to welcome a place where
they would rejoin us because we are uncensored and make a difference for
my people,  All of my above friends care, oh I do not insinuate I am
their friend but they are mine, and I sure want their input and we would
do well with it.

A river float creates a journey and those not worthy of the eddies will
never suffer the rapids.

May all wars have eddies and all peace have rapids and may all life find
such places.

I will miss you Jim, my man from NaperVille, Ill.

Sincerely,
Eric

Damn this is a shame!

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:27 PM
> Subject: Majordomo results: us
>
> > --
> >
> > >>>> unsubscribe ga
> > Succeeded.
> > >>>>

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:36:51 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Fw: Majordomo results: us

Tuesday, Tuesday, October 23, 2001, 10:59:36 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Damn this is a shame!

No it really is not a shame. It is how Jim operators.

It's the net version of the hit and run.

Trust me, we are better off now that he has made his hit and ran away.

But unfortunately, the many years I have watch this gentlemen (and I
use the term loosely) pull this tactic means I also know he will be
back when it suits him.

He does this to avoid the consequences and or criticisms that his off
topic emails, which often are also intentionally misleading and even
containing fraudulently misrepresented information, will bring down on
him.

> Jim Fleming wrote:

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <[email-masked]>
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:27 PM
>> Subject: Majordomo results: us
>>
>> > --
>> >
>> > >>>> unsubscribe ga
>> > Succeeded.
>> > >>>>

- -- 
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:25:15 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:05:46 +0200, "BC secretariat"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council
> 
>Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to 
>the Names Council, the Business Constituency and copied 
>widely, we would like to let the Council and others know 
>that the issue will be referred to the membership of the 
>Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of the 
>Council over this.

For the first time ever I am cc'ing a GA post to the NC Chair and the
ICANN President because I believe there is a vital issue of public
policy involved here and I think it would be worthwhile to receive a
considered opinion on this.

First can I make clear I do not wish to address the specific complaint
raised regarding the Business Constituency.  

The question of importance though is what role does ICANN and/or the
Names Council have with regard to complaints about operation of
constituencies.

I can not accept that all issues about an operation of a constituency
are internal to that constituency.  If that is the case does that mean
when we finally get an individuals registrants constituency that if
say I was to be elected President, and Jon Weinberg as Secretary and
Kent Crispin as the Treasurer we could do absolutely whatever we
wanted with the constituency?  

Could we decline membership applications of people we don't like?
Could we ignore election rules?  Could we change the charter without a
vote merely by amending the website?  Can a constituency change its
basic charter without recourse to anyone external to the constituency?

I think most people would agree that there does have to be some
recourse against a constituency which goes "rogue" (not implying any
have to date necessarily).  

So there seem to be three issues which should be clarified.  The first
is to whom should complaints be legitimately directed?  Is it the
Names Council?  Is it the ICANN General Counsel?  Is it the ICANN
Board which recognises constituencies in the first place so hence has
implicit power to un-recognise them.  

The second is whether we specify what sort of issues are appropriate
to take to this higher authority.  One doesn't want every minor
dispute over how a vote was conducted relitigated like it is the US
Supreme Court.  But serious accusations of charter breaches are a
different matter.  Where do we draw the line?

The third issue is what remedies if any exist?  Is the only remedy the
nuclear option of threatened non recognition of a constituency?  Can a
constituency be instructed to do a particular action?

I would welcome consideration and thoughts on the matters raised here.

Ta

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #811
************************