Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #856
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, November 17 2001         Volume 01 : Number 856

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

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:57:25 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The BoD

Rather than just lofting hateful overall nasty criticism at our board
lets rate them.  Someone better at this than I am may want to build a
template.  We can establish about five categories and rate them from one
to ten (or negative included although that is largely not constructive)
We seem to create a "Boogie man" most the time when dealing with the
board.  One thing I noticed Danny does (did?) quite well was see them as
individuals and approach them as such.  Also maybe if we do this right
we can get position statements from each of them.

I think this is fair and honest work for the GA.  Perhaps the categories
should be like our five sublists.
Accountability is a problem and I suggest this as a manner to create
some.  I think we will all be amazed at how little we know about them
and their positions.

         Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman
                Position on Transfer?
         Alejandro Pisanty, Vice-Chairman
                Position on UDRP?
         Amadeu Abril i Abril
                Position on ccTLDs
         Karl Auerbach
                Position on the NC?
         Robert Blokzijl
                Position on the restructuring?
         Ivan Moura Campos
                Position on the New gTLDs
         Lyman Chapin (beginning 1 October 2001)
                Position on Security
         Jonathan Cohen

And so on and so forth.

         Philip Davidson
         Frank Fitzsimmons
         Ken Fockler (until 30 September 2001)
         Masanobu Katoh
         Hans Kraaijenbrink
         Sang-Hyon Kyong
         M. Stuart Lynn
         Andy Mueller-Maguhn
         Jun Murai
         Nii Quaynor
         Helmut Schink
         Linda S. Wilson

Thank you in advance for any consideration.

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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:22:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Full suppot for Sotiris

No, Mr. Sotiris,

It is I who apologize.  I have caused another man to do that which he
feels a need to apologize for.  This is unacceptable to a morality which I
have spent the last decade trying to achieve.

I also apologize for not being more frank in response to your opaque
references to my past, in the past.  I believe that I may have lead
credence to the allegations you made against me by not being more
forthright.
My fault entirely for being coy.

As to individuals.  Of course you are correct.  My references should
always be understood to mean dotcommoners (an individual who is not an IT
professional and also does not own a domain name)

As to individuals who own domain names, I monitor your work with that
group and as a dotcommoner wholly support you as their leader.  I place
passion and conviction far above political correctness.

As always let us grow and learn in the full light of a bright sun, as a
rose grows stronger in fresh air and light so you have shed light on my
past and helped me grow.  May both of our roots be stronger and support
even better flowers.

Sincerely,
Eric

Joseph wrote:

> Hi Sotiris,
>         This is a respectable and honorable action. cheers.
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> ===============
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
> Sotiropoulos
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 5:04 PM
> To: ga
> Subject: [ga] my apology
>
> There is no easy way to offer my apology by consensus to
> Eric Dierker.  When so many raise the cry against one, they
> must be right... right?  Vox populi vox dei for all those
> who subscribe (including the ICANN BoD, I guess).  So, with
> that in mind,  will the GA Chairman Danny Younger be pleased
> to request that my words against Eric Dierker on this List's
> archive be stricken from the public record by the DNSO
> Secretariat.  Eric, though you have obtained this apology
> there's something I want you to know:  I am an Individual.
> You, as an individual volitional entity, can propose
> whatever you like to whomever you please.  But, don't for
> one moment believe or express the idea that you can speak
> for me as an Individual.  As you can see, I'm pretty capable
> of doing that for myself.  Your references to the
> Individuals of developing countries and their plight is
> important to you as an individual - but you don't speak for
> them either - most certainly NOT as Individuals.  You do not
> have that right.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>                    Individual
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 21:00:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The BoD - Ratings and/or evaluations by stakeholders

Eric and all assembly members,

  Not a bad idea here Eric.  But how or against what do you wish or
believe they should be rated?  Are offers of categories what you had
in mind?  Please advise.

  What about the ICANN Staff members?  Do or don't you believe
they should also be rated?  Are there different criterion by which they
should be rated?  Please advise.

  I know that each biannually I am rated in a fitness evaluation.  So
are our board members.  I believe this is pretty much a standard
practice in most industries and businesses.  I know that my continued
employment as CEO is directly dependent on these evaluations/ratings.
I also am quite sure that this is true in most industries as well...

  As you may recall, my personal position is that all but two of the
BoD members should be fired immediately.  But I am willing
to garner a list of areas that the BOD members can/should or could
be rated on or against from our members.  We should have something
in about three days.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Rather than just lofting hateful overall nasty criticism at our board
> lets rate them.  Someone better at this than I am may want to build a
> template.  We can establish about five categories and rate them from one
> to ten (or negative included although that is largely not constructive)
> We seem to create a "Boogie man" most the time when dealing with the
> board.  One thing I noticed Danny does (did?) quite well was see them as
> individuals and approach them as such.  Also maybe if we do this right
> we can get position statements from each of them.
>
> I think this is fair and honest work for the GA.  Perhaps the categories
> should be like our five sublists.
> Accountability is a problem and I suggest this as a manner to create
> some.  I think we will all be amazed at how little we know about them
> and their positions.
>
>          Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman
>                 Position on Transfer?
>          Alejandro Pisanty, Vice-Chairman
>                 Position on UDRP?
>          Amadeu Abril i Abril
>                 Position on ccTLDs
>          Karl Auerbach
>                 Position on the NC?
>          Robert Blokzijl
>                 Position on the restructuring?
>          Ivan Moura Campos
>                 Position on the New gTLDs
>          Lyman Chapin (beginning 1 October 2001)
>                 Position on Security
>          Jonathan Cohen
>
> And so on and so forth.
>
>          Philip Davidson
>          Frank Fitzsimmons
>          Ken Fockler (until 30 September 2001)
>          Masanobu Katoh
>          Hans Kraaijenbrink
>          Sang-Hyon Kyong
>          M. Stuart Lynn
>          Andy Mueller-Maguhn
>          Jun Murai
>          Nii Quaynor
>          Helmut Schink
>          Linda S. Wilson
>
> Thank you in advance for any consideration.
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:23:27 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The BoD - Ratings and/or evaluations by stakeholders

Jeff,

I want this a rating and not a berating.  Criteria or Criterion should be
developed I think the first one should be open.  From a statistical background
I think we should do this before every meeting and then just afterward.
What I really want is open and transparent and just here on the GA.  I want it
easy and non secure because I don't want to run up a tab on this and I want it
ongoing.  I was thinking a sublist that any of us could visit and/or compile,
may be helpful.

Actually what I kind of want it as a war chest.  Accountability being
paramount.  We are ready for the at large and I truly believe that a voting
track record will be helpful.

any input is appreciated, this is a child and not a set in stone idea, please
help develop.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Not a bad idea here Eric.  But how or against what do you wish or
> believe they should be rated?  Are offers of categories what you had
> in mind?  Please advise.
>
>   What about the ICANN Staff members?  Do or don't you believe
> they should also be rated?  Are there different criterion by which they
> should be rated?  Please advise.
>
>   I know that each biannually I am rated in a fitness evaluation.  So
> are our board members.  I believe this is pretty much a standard
> practice in most industries and businesses.  I know that my continued
> employment as CEO is directly dependent on these evaluations/ratings.
> I also am quite sure that this is true in most industries as well...
>
>   As you may recall, my personal position is that all but two of the
> BoD members should be fired immediately.  But I am willing
> to garner a list of areas that the BOD members can/should or could
> be rated on or against from our members.  We should have something
> in about three days.
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Rather than just lofting hateful overall nasty criticism at our board
> > lets rate them.  Someone better at this than I am may want to build a
> > template.  We can establish about five categories and rate them from one
> > to ten (or negative included although that is largely not constructive)
> > We seem to create a "Boogie man" most the time when dealing with the
> > board.  One thing I noticed Danny does (did?) quite well was see them as
> > individuals and approach them as such.  Also maybe if we do this right
> > we can get position statements from each of them.
> >
> > I think this is fair and honest work for the GA.  Perhaps the categories
> > should be like our five sublists.
> > Accountability is a problem and I suggest this as a manner to create
> > some.  I think we will all be amazed at how little we know about them
> > and their positions.
> >
> >          Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman
> >                 Position on Transfer?
> >          Alejandro Pisanty, Vice-Chairman
> >                 Position on UDRP?
> >          Amadeu Abril i Abril
> >                 Position on ccTLDs
> >          Karl Auerbach
> >                 Position on the NC?
> >          Robert Blokzijl
> >                 Position on the restructuring?
> >          Ivan Moura Campos
> >                 Position on the New gTLDs
> >          Lyman Chapin (beginning 1 October 2001)
> >                 Position on Security
> >          Jonathan Cohen
> >
> > And so on and so forth.
> >
> >          Philip Davidson
> >          Frank Fitzsimmons
> >          Ken Fockler (until 30 September 2001)
> >          Masanobu Katoh
> >          Hans Kraaijenbrink
> >          Sang-Hyon Kyong
> >          M. Stuart Lynn
> >          Andy Mueller-Maguhn
> >          Jun Murai
> >          Nii Quaynor
> >          Helmut Schink
> >          Linda S. Wilson
> >
> > Thank you in advance for any consideration.
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:36:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Use of sublists

Is there a way to make comments on a sublist resolve to the GA list and
not vice versa.  Believe it or not I even see a place there for personal
attacks that do not resolve but a place where if we chose we could go
see horrible personal attacks and learn more about the attacker and the
attacked.

I think that rather than fight human nature we should channel the
negative energy into places where it may do some good.

Also I think our representatives on our TFs should have a forum of their
own.

I am sorry but I met with a wonderful woman whom basically replaces
Elizabeth.  I ask that she introduce herself here on the list, as I
believe that we will find her an invaluable resource.

If one person asks why I took a moderate position on the ALSC report, I
will do so publicly.

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: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:40:19 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Hi Dr. John Berryhill,

I'm afraid I do not know enough nor have enough history of subject to answer
these questions.
From a layman position, I think ICANN should be more international than what
it is currently legally binded to.

>>> Then would you agree to reversing the result of every UDRP decision
where a non-US registrant was found to have engaged in cybersquatting on the
basis of a US trademark?
*** My personal position is the rights of individuals. But that is a
different story. Suffice to say that I feel that there are room for
improvements in the current UDRP.

>>> It would seem to be a relative no-brainer that if ICANN is going to
engage itself in establishing a policy relating to aspects of national civil
law, then ICANN should CERTAINLY have a higher priority for establishing a
policy relating to the CRIMINAL law of the United States.
*** From a legal aspect this is true.

regards,
- - Joseph
==============

- --
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, 16 Nov 2001 22:45:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The BoD - Ratings and/or evaluations by stakeholders

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I want this a rating and not a berating.

  As do I.  So is such a comment of yours here a suggestion or in a
suggesting nature?  Seems so.  Is so, why and what is the purpose?
Also this is not an answer to my question(s).  Perhaps others can be
more direct instead of coy or obtuse.  I hope so.

>  Criteria or Criterion should be
> developed I think the first one should be open.

  Open?  Ok.  Open in what way?  Do you mean open as in a free form?
If so that is not a problem. But could create or develop into a problem.
I was trying to avoid that from happening.  I guess from your response
here, you are not?  Please advise.

>  From a statistical background
> I think we should do this before every meeting and then just afterward.

  Agreed.  However it should be based upon some basic principals that
are in line with the MoU and the White paper.  Or did you have something
else specifically in mind?  Please advise here also.

>
> What I really want is open and transparent and just here on the GA.

  The GA does not represent the entire stakeholder community.  Of course
neither does the DNSO or ICANN as a whole.

>  I want it
> easy and non secure because I don't want to run up a tab on this and I want it
> ongoing.

  That's fine.

>  I was thinking a sublist that any of us could visit and/or compile,
> may be helpful.

  Great!  We [INEGroup] will get busy on this right away.  But I
do not think we shall restrict it to the GA, for reasons I stated
above.

>
>
> Actually what I kind of want it as a war chest.

  War Chest?  For what?  I don't think this Rating/evaluation of BoD
members or staff members of ICANN should be a witch hunt.

>  Accountability being
> paramount.  We are ready for the at large and I truly believe that a voting
> track record will be helpful.

  Yes accountability has always been  or should have been paramount.
To date as far as the ICANN BOD and staff have been concerned
accountability has been nearly nonexistent.

  We are still far from ready for the At-Large.  The ALSC final report
had few substantive comments on 11/12/01.  What comments were
available were mostly grandstanding and milk toast except Karl A's.
Have you seen the recent news posting that comment on this?
Perception is 90% of reality, Eric.  Any good marketing person
know this as you should know....

>
>
> any input is appreciated, this is a child and not a set in stone idea, please
> help develop.

  Oh ok etched in Jello.  Understood.  Well than it would seem that if
this idea is only a "Play Thing", what is the projected value?

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Not a bad idea here Eric.  But how or against what do you wish or
> > believe they should be rated?  Are offers of categories what you had
> > in mind?  Please advise.
> >
> >   What about the ICANN Staff members?  Do or don't you believe
> > they should also be rated?  Are there different criterion by which they
> > should be rated?  Please advise.
> >
> >   I know that each biannually I am rated in a fitness evaluation.  So
> > are our board members.  I believe this is pretty much a standard
> > practice in most industries and businesses.  I know that my continued
> > employment as CEO is directly dependent on these evaluations/ratings.
> > I also am quite sure that this is true in most industries as well...
> >
> >   As you may recall, my personal position is that all but two of the
> > BoD members should be fired immediately.  But I am willing
> > to garner a list of areas that the BOD members can/should or could
> > be rated on or against from our members.  We should have something
> > in about three days.
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Rather than just lofting hateful overall nasty criticism at our board
> > > lets rate them.  Someone better at this than I am may want to build a
> > > template.  We can establish about five categories and rate them from one
> > > to ten (or negative included although that is largely not constructive)
> > > We seem to create a "Boogie man" most the time when dealing with the
> > > board.  One thing I noticed Danny does (did?) quite well was see them as
> > > individuals and approach them as such.  Also maybe if we do this right
> > > we can get position statements from each of them.
> > >
> > > I think this is fair and honest work for the GA.  Perhaps the categories
> > > should be like our five sublists.
> > > Accountability is a problem and I suggest this as a manner to create
> > > some.  I think we will all be amazed at how little we know about them
> > > and their positions.
> > >
> > >          Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman
> > >                 Position on Transfer?
> > >          Alejandro Pisanty, Vice-Chairman
> > >                 Position on UDRP?
> > >          Amadeu Abril i Abril
> > >                 Position on ccTLDs
> > >          Karl Auerbach
> > >                 Position on the NC?
> > >          Robert Blokzijl
> > >                 Position on the restructuring?
> > >          Ivan Moura Campos
> > >                 Position on the New gTLDs
> > >          Lyman Chapin (beginning 1 October 2001)
> > >                 Position on Security
> > >          Jonathan Cohen
> > >
> > > And so on and so forth.
> > >
> > >          Philip Davidson
> > >          Frank Fitzsimmons
> > >          Ken Fockler (until 30 September 2001)
> > >          Masanobu Katoh
> > >          Hans Kraaijenbrink
> > >          Sang-Hyon Kyong
> > >          M. Stuart Lynn
> > >          Andy Mueller-Maguhn
> > >          Jun Murai
> > >          Nii Quaynor
> > >          Helmut Schink
> > >          Linda S. Wilson
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for any consideration.
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:39:42 -0500
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

Hi Marc, Dan and all:

I want to clarify what's going on right now with
the domain ncdnhc.org

We are changing our primary and secondary DNS.  Since ICANN is the
Registrant in this issue they took care of sending the changes we
requested to NSI.  Probably this will take some time to NSI to update
their records with the data we sent.

Thanks to all for your concerns, thoughs and offers in this issue.

Best Regards
Vany

Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> Host                     IP             OS             Bind-version
> 
> pan.bijt.net            213.196.2.97    FreeBSD        8.2.4-REL
> 
> ZS01.root-service.net   216.27.184.243  SUsE Linux     8.2.3-REL
> 
> ZS02.root-service.net   216.27.184.234  SUsE Linux     8.2.3-REL
> 
> osiris.speedkom.net     213.182.0.1     ?              9.9-REL :-)
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  [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: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:44:20 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

Friday, Friday, November 16, 2001, 9:39:42 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Hi Marc, Dan and all:

> I want to clarify what's going on right now with
> the domain ncdnhc.org

> We are changing our primary and secondary DNS.  Since ICANN is the
> Registrant in this issue they took care of sending the changes we
> requested to NSI.  Probably this will take some time to NSI to update
> their records with the data we sent.

If the domain was with one of the better registrars, the change would
have been completed quite some time ago  :)

- -- 
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: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:02:05 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

On 00:20 17/11/01, Joanna Lane said:
>a) Accredited US corporations which, to all intents and purposes, would
>appear to be supporting the Jihad

I am afraid you confuse things: Jihad is not a synonym for terrorism. It is 
also a personal fight  against his own sins.

1) such a wording may only increase confusion and misunderstandings. Let us 
use "terrorism" to talk about terrorists. This is not partisan nor 
emotional. This is technical. Al Q, IRA, Red Khmers, Thugs, Nazi, etc... 
are as much dangerous.

2) the only clear solution about the DNS management and US laws is for the 
USA to give up pretence and state clearly: they claim property on the 
Internet through the AmerICANN; that US laws apply to the US gTLD domain 
names and ".us"; that ALSC recommendations must be read in that perspective 
and the @large Members are and will be US gTLD customers only. This way 
things will be clear and discontent people and nations will organize by 
themselves.

Please understand my position. Any witch hunt using inappropriate methods 
and based upon emotion rather than on professional cool and responsible 
decisions by legitimate authority is creating more harm to its cause than 
you can imagine. All the more than it is done by popular or drum justice at 
the wrong place. Your call is like calling on bar tenders to poison 
possible terrorist's coffees.

What the Bin Ladens of the world want is exactly that type of reaction to 
be able to harp on it. Before acting you have to put your acts together 
otherwise you look a warmonger rather than a peacemaker. Look at the 
reaction to Mike Roberts' mails. It is law and order: if you want order you 
must first get a law, and the law in France, UK or Afghanistan is not the 
US law. But as I said there are two laws that everyone understand and that 
people may accept as international: honor and money. I am afraid you have 
first to chose which is yours if you want success: inconsistency never led 
to victory.

Now as far as the DNS is concerned, the real point is all this leads to a 
complete review of the purpose of the DNS and Mokapertis" 1982 rationale. 
This is good news as this is going to technically settle the whole issue, 
finish with the "authoritative root server system" fancy, make the ICANN 
obsolete and open the Internet Community to the real Internet. We will have 
to manage that transition towards a stable, secure and common *usage* of 
the DNS and to take care of the real issues : the TLD squatting, the 
Registrants rights, the real nature of the name of Internet domain, the 
writing of the Human Rights article on the human e-environment including 
among others the TM, IP etc... protection on e-electronic medium and media. 
The Internet is a social system, we have to make the society resilient in 
its Internet aspects. This will match your call on 
people's  responsibility, but in a legal way, based upon treaties carved in 
the stone and the minds.

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:27:13 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections

I wholeheartedly concur with DPF.  I do hope this is not related to your 
personal situation.
Jefsey

On 01:19 17/11/01, DPF said:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:45:57 EST, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Please be advised that I have instructed the DNSO Secretariat to 
> commence the
> >election process to select a new Chair and Alternate Chair for the General
> >Assembly of the DNSO.
>
>On the assumption you are resigning (which opening nominations for
>your job implies) I would like to thank you for all the effort you
>have put into the job.
>
>I've not always agreed with your rather blunt methods but I have
>appreciated the passion and dedication you brought to the job and your
>willingness to confront those who you believe are acting wrongly.
>
>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

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:31:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Volunteers to do DNS for NCDNHC.ORG (update 1)

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, at 22:44 [=GMT-0800], William X Walsh wrote:
> Friday, Friday, November 16, 2001, 9:39:42 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> > Hi Marc, Dan and all:
>
> > I want to clarify what's going on right now with
> > the domain ncdnhc.org
>
> > We are changing our primary and secondary DNS.  Since ICANN is the
> > Registrant in this issue they took care of sending the changes we
> > requested to NSI.  Probably this will take some time to NSI to update
> > their records with the data we sent.
>
> If the domain was with one of the better registrars, the change would
> have been completed quite some time ago  :)

Even as it is, doing decent DNS does not mean deleting the domain from the
old nameservers _before_ it has been changed in the ORG zone file...

Marc

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:37:35 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The BoD - Ratings and/or evaluations by stakeholders

Jeff,

In answer to all of your questions and suggestions;

Thank you for your input and work.

Open - Meaning setting the method for rating as a 1 -10 and setting the basis as
something as simple as "based upon your perception of how they do their jobs, with 1
being the worst they could do and 10 being the best"

I really wanted to keep it more public perception oriented and not related to
historical precedence.

It would be great if other groups also ran the ratings but I can only participate as
a GA member.

The term "War Chest" as I meant it, is a political term.  The thought being that
after a few ratings people can go to it and use it as a pro and con for why they
should be on the board.

I like that "etched in Jell-O".  No I did not mean the rating mechanism should not
be solid and stable I simply mean at this time my position is very flexible
regarding this endeavor.  Keep in mind I generally have to always do that because I
require input from technical support to get it done.

Jeff please keep in mind.  If I were sitting on the board and there were prospects
of elections in which I could be dethroned and I really did not want the general
public to see I just rubber stamped things I would take a dim view of this rating
and probably try to politically crucify those responsible.  So let's go slow with
this and see if we can keep my head a little ways away from the guillotine, I would
appreciate it.

OTOH we should get the BoD input because I think they could find out some useful
things that would help them in their jobs.  Unlike you, I find they are a responsive
pleasant group that as a group has a diametrically opposed position from mine.  But
that's ok I have friends that are atheists. We should work together on this because
it can be a win win if done properly.

Again thanks for your efforts.
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: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:45:27 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MISSION CREEP

What a crock.  This term should be banned as politically toooo correct.

If you try to expand membership the denial is couched in MC.

If you try to establish rules that define areas of involvement the
denial is couched in MC.

If you suggest the reining in of Verisign the denial is couched in MC.

When asked about an illegal lottery the denial is based in MC.

Transfer issues - MC.

AL membership - MC

NC and the IDNO - MC.

And yet we have two days of security MC and with .aero it looks like
another MC deniability.

I tell you what; there appear to be some Creeps on a Mission.  I have a
sneaking suspicion this term came from a pollywog with the initials AM.
And he is the biggest MCer of them all.

Sincerely,
the MC hammer

- --
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 #856
************************