Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #900
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, December 3 2001           Volume 01 : Number 900

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 05:05:18 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Inflammatory Language

Hi Joanna

On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:40:41 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

> We are in the middle of a War affecting world stability, the ramifications
> of which are catastrophic loss of life and business. The new Global
> Coalitions and Treaties on Terrorism and Cybercrime are impacting every
> nation's ability to do business internationally. ICANN's own Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement, clause 3.7.2, requires compliance with all
> applicable laws, not only those in the US.

Agreed.  In fact you can point to nobody on the GA list who disagrees.  Hence
my comment that the GA list agrees that ICANN should comply with the law.

Please prove otherwise.  We don't even need to a motion to that effect.

> Against this background we have named terrorist groups openly using the DNS,
> putting up websites in the legacy root and using them to promote their
> illegal activities. These are not "freedom fighters", these are people
> engaged in genocide, in Israel, in America and who knows where next.

Let me make my position absolutely clear.

There are, or may be, members of this list who belong to the Christian, Jewish
and Islamic faiths.  There are, or may be, members of this list who support
Israeli or Palestinian viewpoints.   There are, or may be, ccTLD managers
on the GA list representing all of the current participants including
countries such as Israel, Palestine, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, France,
the United Kingdom and the United States.  Even Australia's involved.

I consider it unwise and harmful in the extreme for GA members to use
emotive language when discussing DNS issues.  In particular, I refer to the
use of words like "slaughtered", "revenge", "Nazi", "martyrs", "jihad",
"genocide" and so on.

It really makes little difference whether you are using the words yourself or
quoting websites.  If you do that, others can do likewise and "terrorism" has
effectively scored the points that it seeks.  Fear and anger is generated and
the economy continues to suffer.  I'm sure George W. Bush said that too.

Or better yet, see this URL from the Terrorism Research Centre.  It says:
http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/bpart1.html

> Second, attacks that may appear to be senseless and random are not. To
> the perpetrators, their attacks make perfect sense.  Acts such as bombing
> public places of assembly and shooting into crowded restaurants heighten
> public anxiety.  This is the terrorists' immediate objective.

> Third, the terrorist needs to publicize his attack. If no one knows about
> it, it will not produce fear.  The need for publicity often drives target
> selection; the greater the symbolic value of the target, the more publicity
> the attack brings to the terrorists and the more fear it generates.

I would put it to you that there are more appropriate forums for discussing
such issues.  In fact, I am sure it is not beyond your wit to discuss the DNS
issues, referencing Hamas or similar organisations if you will, without
probing the wounds underlying the conflict.  Or without giving in to their
objectives of creating anxiety and generating fear.

I wrote:

> If I am not mistaken Joanna Lane has already brought this to our attention.

To which you replied:

> Not me. John Berryhill is the expert. I questioned Stuart Lynn, who
> responded that ICANN doesn't care who its Registrars sells Domain Names to.

John Berryhill may have brought the issue to our attention but you have lifted
the discussion to another level entirely.  Not once but several times.

<snip>

> I don't know about you, but I think they could at least be expressing deep
> concern and telling the rest of the world that they will look into the
> situation, and get back to us.

Fine.  Make any proposal you like without the inflammatory language.

> Is that off topic enough for you?

It's attitudes like that, Joanna, that cause these wars in the first place.
Try this instead:

A Jewish lament:

The Babylonians have swept into Jerusalem from the north, slaughtering
the inhabitants and hauling others away to captivity.  And so we hear this
morning's painful cries to God for his people "The hearts of the people cry
out to the Lord.  Let your tears flow like a river day and night; give
yourself no relief, your eyes no rest."  Lamentations 2:18.

Or again:

"Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might
weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!" Jeremiah 9:1

And an Islamic Hadidth:

"O people weep, for if you cannot weep then make yourself weep.  Indeed
the inhabitants of the hellfire will weep until their tears pour down their
cheeks, as if they were streams until the tears are used up and then blood
will pour down, and the eyes will be covered with ulcers."

> Regards,
> Joanna

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:28:14 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

On 3 Dec 2001, at 11:35, [email-masked] wrote:

> The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted with new
> amendments by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council Task
> Forces at the expense of Working Groups: 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html
> 
> This is an ongoing attack against this Assembly's full participation in the
> DNSO process.  As usual, the positions of both the GA and the NCDNHC were
> cited and then disregarded.
> 
> At this time, I would advocate having the GA withdraw from all Council
> activities until the working group process is respected.  I request the
> views of the membership.
> 
> 

Withdrawal is a mistake, Danny.  Organization is key.  Drafting a 
resolution with this complaint and sending it Congress - even though 
they are preoccupied with the shooting war - is important.  The 
Commerce Committe (House especially) have not totally lost sight of 
the Internet and ICANN.  Also, drafting a report to DoC with copies to 
Congress, Secretary of Commerce, etc. would be useful.  It must be 
accurate and state clearly the dangers of the GA being totally ignored, 
the imbalance of power, the lack of input from the greater community 
being denied, etc.  It would not hurt for Kristy and any others privvy to 
the type of information she imparted to the group to include that 
information in correspondence from the GA to the relevant parties I 
mentioned above.

Simply spouting on the list will get us nowhere.   However, a concerted 
effort to produce a paper that completely and consisely states our 
position and the detrimental results of ICANN actively suppressing or 
ignoring public input may have some effect - on the record and publicly.

Leah

> 

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:48:25 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 2:12:53 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 12/2/01 10:23 PM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:06:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>>>> But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
>>>> remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
>>>> it provides a service to Hamas

> Yes.

Again, you jump to an assumption, and place a label on Network
Solutions for which you have nothing but the most flimsy proof.

Some would call that libelous.

>> <snip>
>> 
>>> In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
>>> law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
>>> the case.

> There's nothing obvious about this?

> <quote>

No, there isn't.

>>> I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.

> Then VRSN/ NetSol must have donated www.palestine-info.com to Hamas.

No, and again, you are jumping to conclusions based on the most flimsy
of evidence.

>>> We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
>>> putting up sites like that one.

> Yes, they're called Internet Service Providers.

Your contributions have really gone down hill lately, Joanna.  This is
just further evidence of it.

Perhaps it is time for you to take a break.

> <snip>
>> I have never agreed with you more, William, than I do now.
>> 
>> If I am not mistaken Joanna Lane has already brought this to our attention.

> Not me. John Berryhill is the expert. I questioned Stuart Lynn, who
> responded that ICANN doesn't care who its Registrars sells Domain Names to.
> See www.IcannWatch.org "Stuart Lynn tackles Home Defense".

ICANN shouldn't care.  It is not their role or position.

It is up to the REGISTRARS to comply with the law.

> Question: If it is illegal for ATT & BT to provide Al Barakat with internet
> connectivity, why is it legal for Network Solutions to sell them Domain
> names?

No one is saying it is legal.  But also, no one has proof that they
have.

- -- 
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 10:49:22 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international  terror

Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 4:17:23 AM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, at 21:57 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> 
>> >If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
>> 
>> Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a major 
>> noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.

> I have to disagree. The fact that people still find it a good idea (or
> do not even notice the problem) that the US controls worldwide DNS and
> imposes its political ideas and national law on the world, by
> determining who can register a domain and who not (even if terrorists)
> is very much on topic here. It is not only about liberty/freespeech,
> but also about US control of the DNS. 

Oh grow up.  No matter WHERE ICANN was located, they would have to
comply with the LOCAL and national laws where they are located.

- -- 
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, 4 Dec 2001 06:20:13 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Task Forces Proposal -- Boycott, DoC, Congress or Other ??

Hi Roeland

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:21:15 -0800 , Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
> prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
> here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
> blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.

Agreed.  Thank you, Roeland.  Whilst I certainly don't always support Danny's
approach I am 100% supportive of his concerns about the shabby processes.

Danny could, for example, have called for members input rather than proposing
a boycott and then backing down when given another possible course to follow.

Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with him in this case and support the
idea of a boycott.  Of course, there may be a better way and I'm open to your
views or that of other GA members.

> Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
> DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
> even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
> with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
> Congress-critter involved.

What exactly did you have in mind ?

I'd like to see a fairly unanimous vote of no confidence in ICANN?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:29:13 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international  terror

The solution to US control of the DNS is to make the USG root network
irrelevant by
supporting the inclusive namespace roots, such as PacficRoot, ORSC and
Jefsey's
business-oriented root in Europe.

The best way to remove US control of the DNS is to take it away from them by
not using *.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. Thats what we have been telling people for
years.

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
terror

> Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 4:17:23 AM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, at 21:57 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >> At 21:53 2/12/01 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >>
> >> >If we're taking votes the subject is really way off topic.
> >>
> >> Agree. Not only off topic, but also as a US law enforcement issue a
major
> >> noise generating subject in a global forum such as the GA list.
>
> > I have to disagree. The fact that people still find it a good idea (or
> > do not even notice the problem) that the US controls worldwide DNS and
> > imposes its political ideas and national law on the world, by
> > determining who can register a domain and who not (even if terrorists)
> > is very much on topic here. It is not only about liberty/freespeech,
> > but also about US control of the DNS.
>
> Oh grow up.  No matter WHERE ICANN was located, they would have to
> comply with the LOCAL and national laws where they are located.
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:34:05 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Task Forces Proposal -- Boycott, DoC, Congress or Other ??

Patrick and Roeland:

I disagree with a boycott, but strongly agree with a vote of "no 
confidence" in ICANN along with an appropriate position paper to go to 
all parties - ICANN, Congress, DoC, NTIA....

On that note, however, support would have to be overwhelming in order 
to have any effect.  I suspect it would not be difficult to garner support 
for such a vote, however, since the GA is where those who are 
disenfranchised by the system seem to gather.  In addition, outreach for 
such a resolution or position paper, perhaps using Danny's site, would 
help in gathering that support.

If we do nothing, or withdraw from the process, ICANN has just what it 
wants, as has been stated before.  It's time to stand up and make it 
known that lip service is not what is meant by a bottom-up, transparent 
organization.

I could get behind such an effort.

Leah

On 4 Dec 2001, at 6:20, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Roeland
> 
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:21:15 -0800 , Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
> > prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are
> > doing here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone
> > knows that blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving
> > yourself a headache.
> 
> Agreed.  Thank you, Roeland.  Whilst I certainly don't always support
> Danny's approach I am 100% supportive of his concerns about the shabby
> processes.
> 
> Danny could, for example, have called for members input rather than
> proposing a boycott and then backing down when given another possible
> course to follow.
> 
> Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree with him in this case and support the
> idea of a boycott.  Of course, there may be a better way and I'm open to
> your views or that of other GA members.
> 
> > Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both
> > the DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response
> > and even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare
> > arguments with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time,
> > trying to get a Congress-critter involved.
> 
> What exactly did you have in mind ?
> 
> I'd like to see a fairly unanimous vote of no confidence in ICANN?
> 
> Best regards
> 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international	terror

on 12/3/01 11:31 AM, Marc Schneiders at [email-masked] wrote:

<snip>
> Everyone has a right to freedom of speech.

An act of murder is not freedom of speech. These websites are not just
putting out political viewpoints, they are inciting terrorist acts of
violence, which is not a legal form of expression in any civilized society.
It seems that ICANN is not only perceived as a corrupt organization run for
the benefit of special interest groups, now it's degenerating into a lawless
one as well.

Am I wrong? 

>>Joanna lane wrote:-
>> There is a thunderous silence from all the leading Registry and Registrar
Compliance Executives, and many are reading this list. Why? Are they
cowards, or in denial?
> 
> They will not burn their hands on this topic, certainly not
> ICANN. Whoever promotes censorship on the internet, will lose. It is
> the beginning of the end.

What makes you think that defending a terrorist website is going to uphold
freedom of speech for internet users? Freedom of speech on the internet is
being murdered on a daily basis by ICANN's "friendly fire". The GA is the
"collateral damage" at the alter of a false god called "Stability".

You don't think that artificially restricting new TLDs is censorship? Where
is IOD's freedom of speech? IP3 isn't censorship? Where is Leah's freedom of
speech? UDRP isn't censorship? Where is Ms. Shell's freedom of speech? NC
Task Forces arent censorship? Where is the vote for Individual Registrants
within the DNSO process? If ignoring GA Resolutions, withdrawing Secretariat
Services, and refusing to assist the GA Chair with travel expenses is not a
form of censorship, then I fail to understand what is.

<snip>

> The Germans tried to shut some down recently by using DNS and
> diverting traffic. In France we had some case against Yahoo, which
> demanded that Yahoo blocked traffic to certain webpages for French
> citizins. We live in interesting times...

Yes, auctions of Nazi memorabilia, and Yahoo lost that battle because the
courts viewed it as glorification of the holocaust (if memory serves me
correctly) and as a consequence, it is now against the law worldwide,
virtually. What makes you think the courts are going to treat those who
glorify any other atrocity any different?
 
> I am not saying that nothing can and nothing ever should be done
> against particular websites, e.g. those inciting violence. Telling the
> Palestine side of the story, or the IRA side, etc. should be free
> though. 

On this we agree, if only for the same reason the holocaust should never be
forgotten (ref ED: Always make new mistakes). Have you actually looked at
the Palestine-info.com website recently Marc? Celebrating the mass murder of
innocent Israeli children is not my idea of "telling the Palestinian side of
the story". And advocating to shut down a website that is doing just that,
is reason enough. 

The Somaliarefreshment.com site is a totally different story, being a
website whose content is not inciting anarchy per se, but whose registrant
is, and has been specifically named as providing financial support to those
who would obliterate every American and Israeli from the face of the planet.
For me, this is not a question of withdrawing political freedoms of speech,
but of denying a privilege, the privilege to profiteer in the societies it
seeks to destroy. It is no different from stopping Bin Laden purchasing
satellite phones on Long Island, or freezing a bank account in Switzerland.

>And decisions should be made on individual websites by the
> courts, not ICANN, NSI in some general rules.

I agree here also. So far as I know, nobody is asking ICANN to make any
decisions. Clause 3.7.2 simply requires the Registrars to comply with the
law, without stipulating what those laws are, which is as it should be, but
I really don't think it is unreasonable to recommend an ICANN policy that
allows for sanctions against any Registrar that deliberately and knowingly
breaches clause 3.7.2 of the Accreditation Agreement, including financial
penalties and/or in the most sever cases, removing their Accreditation
status (obviously with prior warning).

If you're saying that the Registrars need to go to Court to determine *how*
they must uphold the law, I disagree with respect to the very obvious
examples that have been cited. In the unlikely event that a genuine
Registrant is mistakenly shut down, they would have legal recourse, so I'm
only suggesting Registrants take immediate action in the most obvious cases,
of which ut cannot be denied there are quite a few. Why prevaricate? NetSol
can shut down palestine-info.com and somaliarefreshment.com tomorrow if it
wants, one phone call from Stuart Lynn would do it, one two sentence
statement on the ICANN website referring to the relevant laws would do it,
whereas to do otherwise is to support Hamas and Al Barakat, which so far as
I understand things, *is* breaking the law (IANAL*).

Now who is picking fluff out of their navel?

I am also taking this opportunity to respond briefly to Patrick's post,
which attaempts to debate semantics with a person in a war zone using the
tone of a person sitting on a beach drinking shirley temples. It is not fair
to shoot the messenger on the basis of using scary language that is outside
the normal comfort zone, when all that is happening is that the story is
being told as it really is. No apologies for lack of "Politically correct"
speech. I am not going to apologize to any members of Hamas that may be
members of this group and there are plenty of Palestinians who would agree
with me.

Regards,

Joanna

IANAL - I am not a lawyer. Anything I say is my personal opinion and not in
any sense legal advice.

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents")

Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: Flow Chart
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III - Time Line Guide
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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, 4 Dec 2001 08:18:10 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

==== > NC Teleconf Agenda 13 December 2001 <=====

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:50:36 +0100, DNSO Secretariat wrote:

>        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 13 December 2001 - agenda

<snip>

2. Adoption of amended final report on review (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins
     - agreement to dissolve the Review task force
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html

$$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency

  3. Adoption of final report on dot Org (provisional) (Milton Mueller) -15
     mins.
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html

~$ Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency

  4. Discussion on IDNs with IETF representative (provisional) Elisabeth
     Porteneuve - 30 mins.
     - next steps, IDN task force

$$ Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries

  5. Task force transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.
     - comments from the GA (Danny Younger) 10 mins.

$$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency

  6. Task Force update since November 14 - 30 mins.
     - UDRP Caroline Chicoine

$$ Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency

     - Structure Philip Sheppard

$$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency

     - WhoIs Paul Kane/Marilyn Cade

$$ Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
$$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency

Of the constituency members mentioned, we have:

$$    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
$$    Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
$$    Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
~$    Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
$$    Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries (Herald for Philip Sheppard)
$$    Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency (also associated with IP)

By my count, that's:

    5 of 6 supporting business interests.
    1 of 6 supporting nonprofits.
    0 of 6 supporting individual registrants.

Capture, anyone ??

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:01:28 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Dear Danny

On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03352.html

I understand that you continue in your position as Chair of the General
Assembly.  In that role you have spent significant time and energy promoting
Joanna Lane for every possible position you could think of.  In fact, you
invented a few to promote her political ascent.

During this time, a number of people, including myself, have questioned her
unpleasant attitude.  In fact, Joanna has, to my knowledge, gratuitously
offended several people.  Nor has she ever shown any accountability in
promoting her own agenda.  She does not, for example, respond to any questions
or even heed any attempts at moderation.

It is my view that Joanna Lane is quite unsuited to represent the GA in any
forum whatsoever.  I would suggest that you discontinue your support of
Joanna's power grab unless and until you have been given a specific mandate by
the Assembly membership.

May I also suggest that you do something to resolve the running sore of list
moderation.  You started with five people, as I remember, and you have none
left.  That is a sorry reflection of your leadership style.  Otherwise the
list will continue to degenerate.

And it will become impossible for you to claim credibility with the power
cliques.

I ask that, in particular, because I wish you consider this email as a
complaint against Joanna Lane's continuing insistence at off topic posting.
You must be aware that a number of list participants have disagreed with
Joanna's approach here.  In fact, it has divided the GA.

So you must mediate Joanna's intransigence or see the proposed vote of no
confidence in ICANN turn into a vote of no confidence in Danny Younger.

You have deeply saddened me.  Please stop this.  Do it now.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
cc [ga abuse]

- --
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:23:26 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Please tell me how this is off topic as it relates to domain names being 
sold to US embargoed countries by US registrars?  ICANN is still a US 
corporation and many of the registrars are also US based.  It is not 
outside the scope of this list to discuss those issues.

Also, how is Joanna's "unpleasant" attitutude different from those set 
forth by many others?  Where is the emotional underlay different from 
many, many others' posts to this list?

Where does it seem to indicate that Joanna's "agenda" is different from 
the majority of the GA when it comes to individuals rights?

Please show me where there is an attempt by Joanna at a political 
power grab?  What I have seen is a somewhat passionate attempt to 
participate in a forum by an individual who does happen to represent the 
views of individuals, whether that attempt is a personal one or one 
endorsed by the GA.  I truly fail to see what one individual out of the 
total number of TF members can to to grab power.

I just don't see it.

It seems to me that every time an individual is willing to give the 
passion, time and effort to areas where individuals need a voice, that 
willingness is shunned or totally discouraged to the point where he or 
she gives up.

Leah

On 4 Dec 2001, at 9:01, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Danny
> 
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03352.html
> 
> I understand that you continue in your position as Chair of the General
> Assembly.  In that role you have spent significant time and energy
> promoting Joanna Lane for every possible position you could think of.  In
> fact, you invented a few to promote her political ascent.
> 
> During this time, a number of people, including myself, have questioned her
> unpleasant attitude.  In fact, Joanna has, to my knowledge, gratuitously
> offended several people.  Nor has she ever shown any accountability in
> promoting her own agenda.  She does not, for example, respond to any
> questions or even heed any attempts at moderation.
> 
> It is my view that Joanna Lane is quite unsuited to represent the GA in any
> forum whatsoever.  I would suggest that you discontinue your support of
> Joanna's power grab unless and until you have been given a specific mandate
> by the Assembly membership.
> 
> May I also suggest that you do something to resolve the running sore of
> list moderation.  You started with five people, as I remember, and you have
> none left.  That is a sorry reflection of your leadership style.  Otherwise
> the list will continue to degenerate.
> 
> And it will become impossible for you to claim credibility with the power
> cliques.
> 
> I ask that, in particular, because I wish you consider this email as a
> complaint against Joanna Lane's continuing insistence at off topic posting.
> You must be aware that a number of list participants have disagreed with
> Joanna's approach here.  In fact, it has divided the GA.
> 
> So you must mediate Joanna's intransigence or see the proposed vote of no
> confidence in ICANN turn into a vote of no confidence in Danny Younger.
> 
> You have deeply saddened me.  Please stop this.  Do it now.
> 
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> cc [ga abuse]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:38:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Joseph and all assembly members,

Joseph wrote:

> Roeland,
>         Sorry, I accidentally did not send my previous post to the GA.  I'm doing
> so now.
>
> Roeland Meyer:
> >>> If MY registered for embargo'd registrants then NSI might have to block
> MY from the root-zone. NSI is a US registry under contract to US DOC.
> AFAICT, there are contingent liability problems otherwise, for NSI. This is
> what I was saying four years ago, policies at the root registry push down to
> the sub-registries and registrars. Especially, those that are based in real
> laws. It all depends on the jurisdiction of the registry and its upstream.
> *** As I am not a lawyer, I can only state my opinion.  And my opinion is
> that the above is false/cannot be done.  If NSI have to block MY from the
> root-zone, US must have a clear sanction against MY.

  But the US does not have to block all of the .MY name space, only those
2nd level domain names that may be harboring terrorists or in some way
supporting them.  This is what Roeland was getting at.  Hence you contention
here Joseph is overkill and does not address the concern in a manner
that is necessary.

>  This is like saying
> that US will stop economic ties to countries that sells food to Afghanistan.

  Well the US  won't, but we could.  However this analogy is also not
appropriate to what Roeland was saying either. (See above my comments)

>
> It is a whole chain reaction ending up that US having to sanction all
> countries in the world.  A sanction is a direct ban.  Not indirectly.

  There are many levels of sanctions that the US could impose and does
presently.

>
>
> regards,
> - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
> =========================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:14 PM
> To: 'Joseph'
> Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
> terr or
>
> If MY registered for embargo'd registrants then NSI might have to block MY
> from the root-zone. NSI is a US registry under contract to US DOC. AFAICT,
> there are contingent liability problems otherwise, for NSI. This is what I
> was saying four years ago, policies at the root registry push down to the
> sub-registries and registrars. Especially, those that are based in real
> laws. It all depends on the jurisdiction of the registry and its upstream.
>
> --
> IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
> say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.
>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Joseph [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:13 AM
> |> To: Roeland Meyer
> |> Subject: RE: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international
> |> terror
> |>
> |>
> |> Hi Roeland,
> |>
> |>      <snip> ... Registrars are simply resellers for Registry
> |> services. If they
> |> are registered with NSI then NSI has an obligation to comply
> |> with US law.
> |> Downstream, this means that non-REGISTRARs cannot register embargoed
> |> entities with a US-based REGISTRY. [BTW, I don't see any
> |> legal exceptions
> |> for ccTLD managers, under US embargo rulings, either.]
> |> *** Can you please elaborate on the [text] please?  ccTLDs
> |> may/may not be
> |> managed by a US company/incorporation. If I run a .my ccTLD
> |> registry, and my
> |> country does not have a sanction/embargo against the
> |> registrant's country, I
> |> [should] be able to accept the registration.
> |>
> |>
> |> regards,
> |> - Joseph Lee (Fook Heng)
> |> ========================
> |>
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #900
************************