Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #836
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 7 2001         Volume 01 : Number 836

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:00:23 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

> Besides, don't you think its time we learn how to develop a "consensus
> policy?"

Absolutely. Here's my view of how it should be done.

While the DNSO generally operates by consensus (Bylaws, Article VI-B(2)(b)),
new policies that purport to place binding obligations on registries and
registrars, like the transfer policy now under consideration, have to meet a
more specific definition of a "consensus policy" as set out in the various
accreditation contracts:

  "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus
  among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process,
  as demonstrated by (1) the adoption of the policy by the
  ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation that the policy
  should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds vote of the council
  of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
  delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials
  (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting
  Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
  extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups,
  (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
  adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely
  to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of
  reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy.

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-10nov99.htm (Section I.B.1)
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm (Section 4.3.1)

As I see it, you read that definition backwards to find the chronological
order in which a consensus policy is created. In other words, you first need
to create a report that meets the definition in subsection (3). That report
is then adopted by the Names Council as specified in subsection (2). And, in
turn, the report and the NC recommendation to adopt it are passed to the
Board for a final vote, as set out in subsection (1). Only then are
registries and registrars bound to follow it.

The job of a Working Group is to start the process by creating the report
described in Section 3.

The first requirement for the report is that it document "the extent of
agreement and disagreement among impacted groups." In the present case, the
"impacted groups" are pretty clearly the registrars and the registrants. If
the latter voice is not represented, or even inadequately represented, then
it's simply not possible to adequately complete this section of the report.

The next requirement of the report is that it document the "outreach process
used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that
are likely to be impacted." This obviously assumes that there is an outreach
process and that it is adequate for the task. In an open working group, the
process is part of the outreach, as impacted parties given adequate notice
of the opportunity to join can readily participate themselves. In a closed
task force, affirmative outreach to impacted parties must be undertaken,
both through the constituencies and to any unrepresented impacted groups.

I'm also skeptical that a TF that began work on 29 October can create a
"consensus policy" -- with all the outreach and documentation that such a
policy requires -- in time for a vote by the NC and ICANN Board next week.
While it seems that the registrars have done an excellent job preparing
something that has broad support from their constituency, the process is
only half complete as long as the much larger and very diverse community of
registrants has not also expressed its opinion.

Commercial and non-commercial organizational registrants *might* be
adequately represented through the existing constituencies (B&C, NCDNHC),
but individual domain name owners are not. Is the GA an adequate forum for
representing them? I don't know. This is an instance though in which our
collective failure to create a constituency for individual domain name
holders may have an impact, as it's not clear how to solicit the views of
this impacted group.

Given the fact that Verisign voted against the transfer policy and,
according to Danny's message this morning, has now expressed doubt about the
adequacy of the representation of registrants in this process, the TF and NC
would be well advised to invest the time and effort in outreach and
consultation necessary to ensure that Verisign is bound by the outcome,
whatever it may be. Better to do it right the first time than find the
policy suspended by an indepedent review or AAA arbitration.

          -- Bret

- --
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, 06 Nov 2001 17:19:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

Rick and all assembly members,

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Bret,
>
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > In a cover letter to the Working Group D report and in follow-up questions
> > to the NC, the importance of creating a process that will produce binding
> > "consensus policies" was explained. So don't blame Verisign when it refuses
> > to abide by the "new policy" that results from this closed Task Force. It
> > will be well within its rights, and the NC will have ignored advice about
> > how to produce a successful consensus policy.
>
> from what I've seen the Task Force is not closed. I hope Danny will make
> it clear that the NC TF on Transfers whishes to hear the GA voice.
>
> Besides, don't you think its time we learn how to develop a "consensus
> policy?"

  I think most of us here DO know how to formulate a consensus policy.
The problem has been and still remains that the NC and the ICANN
BoD are not listening, and there are a few here that don't seem
to understand that consensus must be measured via a vote.

>
>
> -rick
>
> --
> 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, 6 Nov 2001 19:42:47 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Roland:

How COULD you knowingly circulate a VIRUS on the GA list?  Even if it is
an "example"?

I wish to register a serious complaint with the list monitors on this.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roeland
Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:32 PM
To: GA DNSO (E-mail)
Subject: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

This is an example of something that didn't survive my filters. I looked
at the attachement, it wasn't spam. Rather, it was an attached virus.

I have included the traceroute for validation. It purportedly came from
china. The point is that, file attachments are becoming a less reliable
means to distribute documents.

- --- techies-only below here ---

pheonix:/root
Tue Nov  6 13:07:51 [bash:root:59]#> traceroute 211.101.48.83 traceroute
to 211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets  1
spkez.gw.mhsc.net (216.27.184.225)  5 ms  3 ms  2 ms  2
gw-081-176.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (216.27.176.1)  27 ms  21 ms  33 ms  3
border3.fe5-3.speakeasy-9.sff.pnap.net (216.52.86.28)  19 ms  21 ms  19
ms  4  core1.fe0-1-bbnet2.sff.pnap.net (216.52.80.65)  20 ms  21 ms  20
ms  5  sl-gw12-sj-1-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.217.17)  22 ms  20 ms  21
ms  6  sl-gw12-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.145)  25 ms  22 ms  32
ms  7  sl-bb20-tac-11-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.214)  56 ms  39 ms  41
ms  8  sl-gw4-tac-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.17.6)  38 ms  41 ms  40 ms
9  * sle-chinatelecom-3-0.sprintlink.net (160.81.25.6)  443 ms * 10
p-13-0-r1-c-bjbj-1.cn.net (202.97.33.9)  502 ms  303 ms  200 ms 11
p-2-0-r1-a-bjbj-2.cn.net (202.97.38.50)  188 ms  201 ms  219 ms 12
202.96.12.50 (202.96.12.50)  287 ms  324 ms  271 ms 13  202.106.193.206
(202.106.193.206)  199 ms  195 ms  196 ms 14  202.108.254.75
(202.108.254.75)  199 ms  197 ms  196 ms 15  211.101.63.2 (211.101.63.2)
500 ms  505 ms  514 ms 16  211.101.63.9 (211.101.63.9)  229 ms  230 ms
231 ms 17  211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83)  530 ms  553 ms  565 ms

|> -----Original Message-----
Received: from junhoo.com (211.101.48.83 [211.101.48.83]) by
condor.mhsc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id TTWMVQKL; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:04:47 -0800
Received: from CR380220-A.etob1.on.wave.home.com [24.101.18.46] by
junhoo.com
  (SMTPD32-7.04 EVAL) id AF54350042; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:00:04 +0800
From: "0"<0
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:12:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X MIME OLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Co ntent Type: multi part/m ixed; boun
dary="----41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary"
Con tent Disposition: Multipart message
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

- ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
Content Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content Disposition: message text

- ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
Content Type: application/mixed; na me="Flight crews rely on passengers
to stop trouble.doc.com" Content Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content
Disposition: attachment;  file name="Flight crews rely on passengers to
stop trouble.doc.com"

- ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
|> From: 0 [mailto:0]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:13 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
|> 
|> 
|> Hi! How are you?
|>  
|> This is the file with the information that you ask for
|>  
|> See you later. Thanks
|> 

- --
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, 6 Nov 2001 15:53:11 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Tuesday, Tuesday, November 06, 2001, 3:42:47 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I wish to register a serious complaint with the list monitors on this.

That's a joke, right?

Of course, we might have effective list monitors if we had an
effective Chair.  But you and the other NC members elected not to
accept responsibility for that.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 06 Nov 2001 17:11:01 -0800
From: Steve Chadima <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Virus caught in mail from Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]> (/mnt/mail/sophos/script/mailsophosscan)

Not sure anyone else is having this problem, but just in case . . .

>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>Date: 7 Nov 2001 00:04:27 -0000
>From: Postmaster <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Virus caught in mail from Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]> 
>(/mnt/mail/sophos/script/mailsophosscan)
>
>A message:
>
>   From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
>   Subject: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2
>
>was just sent to you.  It appears that this message contained a
>virus or an attachment with a virus (see below for details).
>
>You may wish to contact the sender and recommend that
>they run a virus scanner on their computer.
>
>                             -- idealab! Postmaster
>
> >>> Virus 'W32/Sircam-A' found in file 
> ./FlightXcrewsXrelyXonXpassengersXtoXstopXtrouble.doc.com
>
>/var/qmail/alias/viruses/virusmail.1005091464.24960 returned error 3

- --
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, 6 Nov 2001 19:26:55 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Lists/Viruses

excerpt:  

L-Soft International, maker of the popular Listserv e-mail list software, and 
antivirus company F-Secure announced a deal on Monday by which F-Secure's 
antivirus will check every attachment sent using the Listserv software in an 
attempt to stop the spread of viruses over e-mail lists...
The new antivirus feature will be made available to L-Soft's Windows 2000 and 
Linux Listserv customers for free, the company says.
Over 190,000 lists, with 60 million subscribers, are run using Listserv, 
according to L-Soft.

http://europe.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/10/30/fsecure.email.idg/index.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, 06 Nov 2001 18:45:16 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Roland:
>
> How COULD you knowingly circulate a VIRUS on the GA list?  Even if it is
> an "example"?

  What in the HELL are you talking about?!  Roeland did and I seriously
doubt would ever do such a thing purposefully.  Kens Stubbs is another
matter
entirely however...

>
>
> I wish to register a serious complaint with the list monitors on this.

  Ridiculous!

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roeland
> Meyer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:32 PM
> To: GA DNSO (E-mail)
> Subject: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2
>
> This is an example of something that didn't survive my filters. I looked
> at the attachement, it wasn't spam. Rather, it was an attached virus.
>
> I have included the traceroute for validation. It purportedly came from
> china. The point is that, file attachments are becoming a less reliable
> means to distribute documents.
>
> --- techies-only below here ---
>
> pheonix:/root
> Tue Nov  6 13:07:51 [bash:root:59]#> traceroute 211.101.48.83 traceroute
> to 211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets  1
> spkez.gw.mhsc.net (216.27.184.225)  5 ms  3 ms  2 ms  2
> gw-081-176.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (216.27.176.1)  27 ms  21 ms  33 ms  3
> border3.fe5-3.speakeasy-9.sff.pnap.net (216.52.86.28)  19 ms  21 ms  19
> ms  4  core1.fe0-1-bbnet2.sff.pnap.net (216.52.80.65)  20 ms  21 ms  20
> ms  5  sl-gw12-sj-1-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.217.17)  22 ms  20 ms  21
> ms  6  sl-gw12-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.145)  25 ms  22 ms  32
> ms  7  sl-bb20-tac-11-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.214)  56 ms  39 ms  41
> ms  8  sl-gw4-tac-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.17.6)  38 ms  41 ms  40 ms
> 9  * sle-chinatelecom-3-0.sprintlink.net (160.81.25.6)  443 ms * 10
> p-13-0-r1-c-bjbj-1.cn.net (202.97.33.9)  502 ms  303 ms  200 ms 11
> p-2-0-r1-a-bjbj-2.cn.net (202.97.38.50)  188 ms  201 ms  219 ms 12
> 202.96.12.50 (202.96.12.50)  287 ms  324 ms  271 ms 13  202.106.193.206
> (202.106.193.206)  199 ms  195 ms  196 ms 14  202.108.254.75
> (202.108.254.75)  199 ms  197 ms  196 ms 15  211.101.63.2 (211.101.63.2)
> 500 ms  505 ms  514 ms 16  211.101.63.9 (211.101.63.9)  229 ms  230 ms
> 231 ms 17  211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83)  530 ms  553 ms  565 ms
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> Received: from junhoo.com (211.101.48.83 [211.101.48.83]) by
> condor.mhsc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2650.21)
>         id TTWMVQKL; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:04:47 -0800
> Received: from CR380220-A.etob1.on.wave.home.com [24.101.18.46] by
> junhoo.com
>   (SMTPD32-7.04 EVAL) id AF54350042; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:00:04 +0800
> From: "0"<0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
> date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:12:47 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X MIME OLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> Co ntent Type: multi part/m ixed; boun
> dary="----41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary"
> Con tent Disposition: Multipart message
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>
> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
> Content Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content Disposition: message text
>
> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
> Content Type: application/mixed; na me="Flight crews rely on passengers
> to stop trouble.doc.com" Content Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content
> Disposition: attachment;  file name="Flight crews rely on passengers to
> stop trouble.doc.com"
>
> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
> |> From: 0 [mailto:0]
> |> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:13 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
> |>
> |>
> |> Hi! How are you?
> |>
> |> This is the file with the information that you ask for
> |>
> |> See you later. Thanks
> |>
>
> --
> 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, 6 Nov 2001 18:26:48 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Hold on guys! The shell was there but the virus wasn't. It was a message
that showed an attachment, without the attachment.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:32 PM
|> To: GA DNSO (E-mail)
|> Subject: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent 
|> battle - part 2
|> 
|> 
|> This is an example of something that didn't survive my 
|> filters. I looked at
|> the attachement, it wasn't spam. Rather, it was an attached virus.
|> 
|> I have included the traceroute for validation. It 
|> purportedly came from
|> china. The point is that, file attachments are becoming a 
|> less reliable
|> means to distribute documents.
|> 
|> --- techies-only below here ---
|> 
|> pheonix:/root
|> Tue Nov  6 13:07:51 [bash:root:59]#> traceroute 211.101.48.83
|> traceroute to 211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83), 30 hops max, 40 
|> byte packets
|>  1  spkez.gw.mhsc.net (216.27.184.225)  5 ms  3 ms  2 ms
|>  2  gw-081-176.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (216.27.176.1)  27 ms  
|> 21 ms  33 ms
|>  3  border3.fe5-3.speakeasy-9.sff.pnap.net (216.52.86.28)  
|> 19 ms  21 ms  19
|> ms
|>  4  core1.fe0-1-bbnet2.sff.pnap.net (216.52.80.65)  20 ms  
|> 21 ms  20 ms
|>  5  sl-gw12-sj-1-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.217.17)  22 ms  
|> 20 ms  21 ms
|>  6  sl-gw12-sj-9-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.3.145)  25 ms  22 
|> ms  32 ms
|>  7  sl-bb20-tac-11-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.214)  56 ms  
|> 39 ms  41 ms
|>  8  sl-gw4-tac-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.17.6)  38 ms  41 ms  40 ms
|>  9  * sle-chinatelecom-3-0.sprintlink.net (160.81.25.6)  443 ms *
|> 10  p-13-0-r1-c-bjbj-1.cn.net (202.97.33.9)  502 ms  303 ms  200 ms
|> 11  p-2-0-r1-a-bjbj-2.cn.net (202.97.38.50)  188 ms  201 ms  219 ms
|> 12  202.96.12.50 (202.96.12.50)  287 ms  324 ms  271 ms
|> 13  202.106.193.206 (202.106.193.206)  199 ms  195 ms  196 ms
|> 14  202.108.254.75 (202.108.254.75)  199 ms  197 ms  196 ms
|> 15  211.101.63.2 (211.101.63.2)  500 ms  505 ms  514 ms
|> 16  211.101.63.9 (211.101.63.9)  229 ms  230 ms  231 ms
|> 17  211.101.48.83 (211.101.48.83)  530 ms  553 ms  565 ms
|> 
|> |> -----Original Message-----
|> Received: from junhoo.com (211.101.48.83 [211.101.48.83]) by 
|> condor.mhsc.com
|> with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 
|> 5.5.2650.21)
|> 	id TTWMVQKL; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:04:47 -0800
|> Received: from CR380220-A.etob1.on.wave.home.com [24.101.18.46] by
|> junhoo.com
|>   (SMTPD32-7.04 EVAL) id AF54350042; Wed, 07 Nov 2001 05:00:04 +0800
|> From: "0"<0
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
|> date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:12:47 -0500
|> MIME-Version: 1.0
|> X MIME OLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
|> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
|> Co ntent Type: multi part/m ixed; boun
|> dary="----41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary"
|> Con tent Disposition: Multipart message
|> Message-Id: 
|> <[email-masked]>
|> 
|> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
|> Content Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
|> Content Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
|> Content Disposition: message text
|> 
|> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
|> Content Type: application/mixed; na me="Flight crews rely on 
|> passengers to
|> stop trouble.doc.com"
|> Content Transfer-Encoding: base64
|> Content Disposition: attachment;  file name="Flight crews 
|> rely on passengers
|> to stop trouble.doc.com"
|> 
|> ------41C1485D_Outlook_Express_message_boundary
|> |> From: 0 [mailto:0]
|> |> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 1:13 PM
|> |> To: [email-masked]
|> |> Subject: Flight crews rely on passengers to stop trouble
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> Hi! How are you?
|> |>  
|> |> This is the file with the information that you ask for
|> |>  
|> |> See you later. Thanks
|> |> 
|> 
|> 
- --
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, 06 Nov 2001 22:01:08 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NEGATIVE; NO I AM POSITIVE, READ THE WHOLE THING; PARTY?

all right here goes and I expect to be publicly brutalized by these
comments but I still expect you to attend our party;

I bite my tongue as I say this but it needs to be said.  You techno
dudes
and dudettes are so egotistical that you fight over the most stupid
points
and can never act civilized to each other.  You kill consensus
constantly
over points that are a mere fart in an open air picnic.  You are so
rapped
up in "i am right protocol" that you fail to see that you fail because
our
BoD and NC are paying attention to policy while you pay attention to
which
one of you is smarter.  It is repulsive.  Get a grip you know there are
some
of us that do not measure up to your "knowledge" that know how to act
socially responsibly and you could learn a little in that field.
********

With all that said I plan a party a mere walking distance up the coast
on
the bike trail to the BaysideHotel.com.

I think after our scheduled meeting on Monday it is kind of late but
what
the heck.

Free Beer man but otherwise BYOB (bring your own boy or babe).  I think
I
can convince Danny boy to be guest of honor.  Ah do not worry all lingua
will be spoken, and best of all you can not speak, just look good.

I truly believe that if many of us get together and talk real talk and
make
happy and look into each others eyes we can make the GA movement happen.
Hey
I will make the party connected so that we can talk with Sotiris and
Jeff
who can not be there.  Let us all connect for a virtual party too.  We
have
got to make this more positive or it just sucks.

Thank all of you for you fine vote.  we really said something there and
it
made me proud to be a member of this fine group.

Hostmaster
- --
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, 7 Nov 2001 17:43:51 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Final ICANN Governance Decision Not Expected Until 2002

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 03:11:50 +1100 (EST), David Goldstein reported:

> ICANN will not decide the issue at next week's meeting in
> California, deferring the matter until its spring meeting in Ghana.

Beware that ICANN doesn't sneak this, or other contentious issues, as a late
addition to its agenda.  You have been warned !!

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: David Goldstein <[email-masked]>
To: auDA DNS List <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:11 AM
Subject: [DNS] Final ICANN Governance Decision Not Expected Until 2002

ICANN AT-LARGE COMMITTEE ISSUES FINAL REPORT; DECISION DELAYED TO
2002
The ICANN At-Large Membership committee issued its final
report yesterday.  To no one's surprise, the report
recommends that the general public's influence on ICANN be
reduced to six board seats from the original plan of nine
along with fees levied for the right to help choose its
members.  Carl Bildt, the chair of the committee, said that
now was not the time for experimentation on this issue,
though seemingly the recommendations experiment with new
conditions on the original plan.  Regardless, ICANN will not
decide the issue at next week's meeting in California,
deferring the matter until its spring meeting in Ghana.
Final report at
http://atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml
Coverage at
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/171866.html
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,48150,00.html
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/tech/043415.htm
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7788130.html
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/reuters_wire/1627520l.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: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:08:27 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reliability of the General Assembly

Hi Roeland

Nice one, Ro !!

As far a Peter de Blanc's "serious complaint" can I remind people that
complaints are sent to the ga abuse mailing list for attention by the list
monitors.  There's no direct rule, as far as I am aware, prohibiting the
distribution of viruses.

However, I continue to maintain the view that as much as possible should be
done to administer the rules through the mailing list software rather than
by list monitors.

William X. Walsh can snipe all he likes but the GA, and IDNO, have both been
destroyed by that negative approach.    Thus people of good will (and I
include both Roeland and Peter) are diverted into highways and byways.
William then stirs the pot.

It's all a big waste of time !!

PS Can I ask the Chair what happened to my motion ??

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: GA DNSO (E-mail) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

> Hold on guys! The shell was there but the virus wasn't. It was a message
> that showed an attachment, without the attachment.

<SNIP>

- --
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, 7 Nov 2001 18:52:42 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

Hi Danny

Perhaps I should have read your wishy washy, doublespeak wording more
carefully.  You wrote:

> > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
> > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
> > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
> > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
> > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.

The fact is that the DNSO Secretariat never had any intention of putting my
motion to a vote.  I doubt if you did either despite your misleading heading
"Motion Accepted".

If we can't even get an internal motion to a vote of the GA, what chance do
we have with something that has external implicatations.

So can we cut the crap and just write off the GA as a farce?

Best regards
Patrick

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.
> > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
> > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
> > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
> > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
> > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.
>
> Thank you for your support and your comments.  By my count, there are
> 18 declared supporters for the present proposal:
>
> *    Peter de Blanc
> *    Roeland Meyer
> *    Leah Gallegos
> *    Jefsey Morfin
> *    Ken Stubbs
> *    William S. Lovell
> *    Marilyn Cade
> *    Ross Wm. Rader (for Tucows)
> *    Bradley Thornton
> *    Alexander Svensson
> *    Michael McNulty
> *    Joop Teernstra
> *    Erica Roberts
> *    Marc Schneiders
> *    Vany Martinez
> *    John C. Lewis
> *    Derek Conant (with reservations)
> *    Patrick Corliss (myself)
>
> I believe that we have sufficient mandate to request members to use the
> [ga-rules] mailing list to debate procedural or other administrative
issues
> like websites, mailing lists, etc.
>
> > To facilitate that effort, and in response to the recommendation put
forth
> > by Bill Lovell to create our own website, I have begun building such a
> > site (with an area devoted to current motions).  You may visit
> > http://www.icannworld.org to see the results of my efforts over the
> > course of this weekend.
>
> I would, of course, thank both Bill Lovell and yourself, as well as Joanna
> Lane, for your kind efforts.
>
> One wonders why we cannot incorporate these initiatives into the current
> DNSO website.  I see this as an issue that needs to be discussed on the
> [ga-rules] mailing list.
>
> > Clicking on the General Assembly Link will take you to the page that
> > leads you to the Straw Poll.
>
> Thank you.  At least we start with the 18 names above (19 if we include
> yourself) in favour of discussing non-substantive issues on the [ga-rules]
> mailing list.
>
> I see that as sufficient mandate to encourage compliance with this motion.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
>
> Best wishes
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 01:56:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: NEGATIVE; NO I AM POSITIVE, READ THE WHOLE THING; PARTY?

Eric and all assembly members,

  There would have to be gratuitous very scantily clad dancing
girls before I would be interested in attending such a party.  >;)

  No Eric in all seriousness what is needed is some serious
agenda that you little party/meeting would provide.  Just a
grab bag, back slapping, binge drinking, cigar smoking
frolic is not all that appealing with respect to working out
concerns and issues of the seriousness involved.  In addition
until or unless you learn how to format you E-Mail postings
adequately, it is not likely anyone is going to take your invite
seriously anyway...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> all right here goes and I expect to be publicly brutalized by these
> comments but I still expect you to attend our party;
>
> I bite my tongue as I say this but it needs to be said.  You techno
> dudes
> and dudettes are so egotistical that you fight over the most stupid
> points
> and can never act civilized to each other.  You kill consensus
> constantly
> over points that are a mere fart in an open air picnic.  You are so
> rapped
> up in "i am right protocol" that you fail to see that you fail because
> our
> BoD and NC are paying attention to policy while you pay attention to
> which
> one of you is smarter.  It is repulsive.  Get a grip you know there are
> some
> of us that do not measure up to your "knowledge" that know how to act
> socially responsibly and you could learn a little in that field.
> ********
>
> With all that said I plan a party a mere walking distance up the coast
> on
> the bike trail to the BaysideHotel.com.
>
> I think after our scheduled meeting on Monday it is kind of late but
> what
> the heck.
>
> Free Beer man but otherwise BYOB (bring your own boy or babe).  I think
> I
> can convince Danny boy to be guest of honor.  Ah do not worry all lingua
> will be spoken, and best of all you can not speak, just look good.
>
> I truly believe that if many of us get together and talk real talk and
> make
> happy and look into each others eyes we can make the GA movement happen.
> Hey
> I will make the party connected so that we can talk with Sotiris and
> Jeff
> who can not be there.  Let us all connect for a virtual party too.  We
> have
> got to make this more positive or it just sucks.
>
> Thank all of you for you fine vote.  we really said something there and
> it
> made me proud to be a member of this fine group.
>
> Hostmaster
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #836
************************