Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #907
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 5 2001         Volume 01 : Number 907

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:12:21 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

> "It is but an open secret that lawyers advising their clients in domain
name
> cases have no scruples about quoting the figures and saying that the odds
> are better with a given provider."

I don't understand that quote at all.  Why is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to
provide statistical information to her client?

What is the "scrupulous" lawyer to do when choosing a dispute resolution
provider for a client desiring to file a UDRP complaint?  Roll dice?  Pick
eRes because they are "better"?

And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than eRes,
that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her client?

It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.

You know what eRes' BIGGEST problem was?  They were so freaking proud of
their online system that they had zero appreciation for the fact that most
lawyers practice on paper, and don't feel like getting a username and
password for the privilege of submitting their work to a web form which is
going to screw up all of their text formatting.  Complainants were thus
forced to use an interface that they didn't like, and were uncomfortable
with.   The first time I submitted a response in an eRes dispute, I had
carefully converted the response and all exhibits into a single .pdf file for
convenient electronic submission only to find out that I could not submit
anything until the clerk felt like getting around to giving me a password -
maybe even before the deadline.  Only then did I find out that the clerk was
confused, and that they couldn't deal with a .pdf file.  If eRes had ANY
interest in a marketable service, they might have invested some effort into
finding out how lawyers would WANT to submit papers, rather than forcing
people with little time or interest into monkeying around with a bunch of web
forms - lawyers just don't practice that way.

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 08:09:37 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 6:54:03 AM, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> actually....that's the price of democracy.   If people don't like the options
> they either stand for election or decide it doesn't matter enough.

The DNSO GA isn't a democracy.

- -- 
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:36:57 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Are people able to register in the .BIZ registry run by ARNI ?

http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001785.html
William X Walsh idno-discuss at idno.org 
Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:15:36 -0800 

"I am actively working on the now infamous POSSR2 system which has been
the subject of so much unwarranted attention on this list, and is
taking so much of my time."
- ------

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

> William,
> 
> Can you offer something more constructive?
> 
> William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> > Tuesday, Tuesday, December 04, 2001, 9:51:33 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear members,
> >
> > > Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council transfers task
> > > force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA member that has expressed an
> > > interest in representing the GA in that capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one
> > > else volunteers for that position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA
> > > representative in one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest,
> > > an election will be held.
> >
> > Which, of course, would serve your purpose of making a mockery out of
> > things, so you can have your self fulfilling prophecy.
> >
> > How convenient.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> --
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 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
> 
> 

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 10:40:46 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/discussion-111201.html
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:37) Leah, what is the state of
your .BIZ in the wake of NeuLevel's rollout?
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:39) heh, keep your eyes on areas
outside of the US :)
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:39) we're expanding
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:39) ?
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:39) good
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:40) How much longer for today's
meeting?
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:40) And where are the usual
participants in this room
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:40) PacificRoot is the provider for
our registry services. They are bringing on registrars...
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:40) watch for notices
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:40) but what about collisions?
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) there is now a plug-in that
allows you to choose which of the versions you wish to address. IT's
downloadable at pacificroot.com
<RachelLuxemburg> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) hehe
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) works on wen32 platforms
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) Interesting.
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) glad to see they didnt
destroy you
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) it will get more interesting
<JudithOppenheimer> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) brb
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:41) we're not about to be destroyed
that easily
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:42) Has Frangie or Ambler been
around?
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:42) have an obligation to our
registrants
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:42) frangie was here earlier
<SpectralWeb> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:42) good to hear your devotion.
<Leah_G> (Mon, November 12, 2001 at 20:42) registrants are really the main
reason for having a registry
- --------------------------
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:41 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 6:26:27 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> > Dear WXW,
> > I am ready to nominate you if you accept it to the NC TF. Would that TF be 
> > of any use you would be a good rep for the concerns of both individual and 
> > bulk registrants. As indicated earlier to Philip I would be ready to assist 
> > with some bulk registrants problem.
> 
> I've already turned down that nomination, with great regret, and my
> reasoning for doing so before would still prevent me from accepting it
> now.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:52:03 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: L Gallegos....I think it is time for me to provide a little input here

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: L Gallegos....I think it is time for me to provide a little input here

> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/001602.
> html
> Re[2]: [Idno-discuss] POSSR - The PacificRoot Open Source Shared Registry
> system
> L Gallegos idno-discuss at idno.org
> Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:17:59 -0500
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> I think it is time for me to provide a little input here.
> 
> FYI, AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. was formed shortly after I became the
> .BIZ tld Holder.  The only reason the corporation was formed at that time
> was to provide an incorporated entity so that I could more easily
> contract out registration services to The PacificRoot.  However, the
> plans for ARNI are much wider than just TLD management, not that it is
> of any interest to IDNO, or that it should be of any interest to IDNO.
> Karl Peters is the other owner of ARNI.  To date, Karl has had very little
> to do with the corporation other than have his name on the paperwork
> and to impart advice when I have asked for it.  I am the active participant
> in that entity.
> 
> Neither Karl nor I *work for* ARNI and neither one of us nor the
> corporation itself works for The PacificRoot in any capacity.  ARNI has a
> contract with The PacificRoot for the provision of certain specific
> services, period.  In addition, it has been very widely publicized that The
> PacificRoot is contracted to provide registration services for ARNI TLDs.
> 
> As for WXW providing contracted programming services to The
> PacificRoot, it is my understanding that he was contracted to do so and
> has done a credible job at it.  POSSR seems to function very well, to
> WXW's credit.
> 
> To be honest, I did not know until a vew months ago that WXW was the
> main developer of POSSR and was quite surprisd myself, considering
> his rather vocal political denouncement of the alt.roots.  However, it is to
> his credit that he separates his work from his politics.  It is a difficult
> thing to do and I must admire him for being able to do so and provide an
> excellent service for a project that he obviously has issues with in
> principle.
> 
> How many people work for companies whose principles they abhor?  I
> know many who collect paychecks from companies whose politics are
> totally against their own personal ethics or preferences.  I have worked
> for people who hate my religion, but have not persecuted me for it.  I
> have done contract work for companies I truly dislike, but my services
> have nothing to do with their policies.  Work and politics don't mix.
> 
> I would not hesitate to hire an excellent programmer who would provide
> the programming I desire, regardless of his politics.  Unless those
> attitutdes (political) permeated the work, I would not even think to
> question personal personal political leanings.  WXW happens to be an
> excellent programmer with innovative ideas.  His politics (with which I
> most often vehimently disagree) are his own business.
> 
> I am truly disappointed that Karl's being an owner of the corporation that
> I conceived and asked him to participate in is the basis for criticism by
> Joop and others.  What is even worse, is that no one has bothered to
> ask me, the majority owner of ARNI, what the circumstances are or
> were.  No one has bothered to read what is widely known on the net -
> that ARNI has contracted with The PacificRoot to provide registration
> services for our TLDs - a not uncommon practice.
> 
> Just to make things crystal clear to those who wish to slam either Karl
> or Bradley Thornton, neither one *works* for ARNI and neither Karl nor
> myself have any relationship with The PacificRoot other than the
> contract for services.  AND neither company has anything to do with
> IDNO or its aspirations for either becoming an ICANN constituency or
> the promotion of a voice for independent domain name holders.
> 
> Further, any independent contractor utilized by either company has
> nothing to do with personal ideologies, nor would I be inclined to inquire
> of a contractor what those might be.  My only requirement is fulfillment
> of the contract to my satisfaction in return for proper consideration.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> On 12 Nov 2001, at 9:20, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > On 01:51 11/11/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:
> >
> > >I was contracted to do a contract programming job by the company that
> > >employs Bradley Thornton, and I've never let my personal views interfere
> > >with what programming jobs I will take on.
> >
> > That does not sound credible or principled.
> >
> > I think that for the sake of transparency, the IDNO members may like to
> > know who owns this company, that also appears to employ Karl E.Peters.
> (Mr.
> > Atlantic Root)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idno-discuss mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 09:13:13 -0800
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

[email-masked] writes:
 > Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council
 > transfers task force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA member
 > that has expressed an interest in representing the GA in that
 > capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that
 > position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
 > one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, an election
 > will be held.

Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail entity known
as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  Have you also
verified all of the claims of the so-called INEGroup, that mythical
organization with no supporting documentation other than hearsay
perpetrated by said e-mail entity?

Anxiously awaiting proof.

/Joe
- --
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, 05 Dec 2001 09:22:32 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

- --------------85B72FA17B2E0BB971247FBB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John is perfectly correct in what he says below.

Of course, some lawyers like myself take those scruples even
further: I would never accept a case requiring filing of a UDRP
complaint, because of my belief that there is none that adequately
provides due process of law, and is indeed a legalized theft. The
first duty of an attorney is to protect the integrity of the law, and
it is my opinion that the UDRP concept sullies the law from front
to back. (Quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for UDRP
store fronts.)

If asked, I would defend Osama bin Laden, since there would be
all the protections of the Federal Court system that I could use,
and everyone has the right to those protections and an attorney
who can use them. But no UDRP; it is perverted from the outset,
methinks.

Bill Lovell

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> > "It is but an open secret that lawyers advising their clients in domain
> name
> > cases have no scruples about quoting the figures and saying that the odds
> > are better with a given provider."
>
> I don't understand that quote at all.  Why is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to
> provide statistical information to her client?
>
> What is the "scrupulous" lawyer to do when choosing a dispute resolution
> provider for a client desiring to file a UDRP complaint?  Roll dice?  Pick
> eRes because they are "better"?
>
> And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than eRes,
> that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her client?
>
> It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
> one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
>
> You know what eRes' BIGGEST problem was?  They were so freaking proud of
> their online system that they had zero appreciation for the fact that most
> lawyers practice on paper, and don't feel like getting a username and
> password for the privilege of submitting their work to a web form which is
> going to screw up all of their text formatting.  Complainants were thus
> forced to use an interface that they didn't like, and were uncomfortable
> with.   The first time I submitted a response in an eRes dispute, I had
> carefully converted the response and all exhibits into a single .pdf file for
> convenient electronic submission only to find out that I could not submit
> anything until the clerk felt like getting around to giving me a password -
> maybe even before the deadline.  Only then did I find out that the clerk was
> confused, and that they couldn't deal with a .pdf file.  If eRes had ANY
> interest in a marketable service, they might have invested some effort into
> finding out how lawyers would WANT to submit papers, rather than forcing
> people with little time or interest into monkeying around with a bunch of web
> forms - lawyers just don't practice that way.
>
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

- --------------85B72FA17B2E0BB971247FBB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
John is perfectly correct in what he says below.
<p>Of course, some lawyers like myself take those scruples even
<br>further: I would never accept a case requiring filing of a UDRP
<br>complaint, because of my belief that there is none that adequately
<br>provides due process of law, and is indeed a legalized theft. The
<br>first duty of an attorney is to protect the integrity of the law, and
<br>it is my opinion that the UDRP concept sullies the law from front
<br>to back. (Quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for UDRP
<br>store fronts.)
<p>If asked, I would defend Osama bin Laden, since there would be
<br>all the protections of the Federal Court system that I could use,
<br>and <i>everyone</i> has the right to those protections and an attorney
<br>who can use them. But no UDRP; it is perverted from the outset,
<br>methinks.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> "It is but an open secret that lawyers advising
their clients in domain
<br>name
<br>> cases have no scruples about quoting the figures and saying that
the odds
<br>> are better with a given provider."
<p>I don't understand that quote at all.&nbsp; Why is it unscrupulous for
a lawyer to
<br>provide statistical information to her client?
<p>What is the "scrupulous" lawyer to do when choosing a dispute resolution
<br>provider for a client desiring to file a UDRP complaint?&nbsp; Roll
dice?&nbsp; Pick
<br>eRes because they are "better"?
<p>And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than
eRes,
<br>that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her
client?
<p>It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome
for
<br>one's client.&nbsp; Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples
when it comes
<br>to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.
<p>You know what eRes' BIGGEST problem was?&nbsp; They were so freaking
proud of
<br>their online system that they had zero appreciation for the fact that
most
<br>lawyers practice on paper, and don't feel like getting a username and
<br>password for the privilege of submitting their work to a web form which
is
<br>going to screw up all of their text formatting.&nbsp; Complainants
were thus
<br>forced to use an interface that they didn't like, and were uncomfortable
<br>with.&nbsp;&nbsp; The first time I submitted a response in an eRes
dispute, I had
<br>carefully converted the response and all exhibits into a single .pdf
file for
<br>convenient electronic submission only to find out that I could not
submit
<br>anything until the clerk felt like getting around to giving me a password
- -
<br>maybe even before the deadline.&nbsp; Only then did I find out that
the clerk was
<br>confused, and that they couldn't deal with a .pdf file.&nbsp; If eRes
had ANY
<br>interest in a marketable service, they might have invested some effort
into
<br>finding out how lawyers would WANT to submit papers, rather than forcing
<br>people with little time or interest into monkeying around with a bunch
of web
<br>forms - lawyers just don't practice that way.
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;
<p>The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
<br>page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
<br>available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>Part III:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------85B72FA17B2E0BB971247FBB--

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 09:41:02 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 9:22:32 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> If asked, I would defend Osama bin Laden, since there would be
> all the protections of the Federal Court system that I could use,
> and everyone has the right to those protections and an attorney
> who can use them.

He won't have need of those services.  There won't be a trial in his
case.

- -- 
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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:04:46 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

before we open this thread up again and I have to adjust my filters...
does it really matter?
If someone or something or some-bot....is offering to represent the GA on a
particular committee....
As I said before....if people are not happy with the choice, they are free
to stand for election.

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> [email-masked] writes:
>  > Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council
>  > transfers task force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA member
>  > that has expressed an interest in representing the GA in that
>  > capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that
>  > position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
>  > one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, an election
>  > will be held.
>
> Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail entity known
> as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  Have you also
> verified all of the claims of the so-called INEGroup, that mythical
> organization with no supporting documentation other than hearsay
> perpetrated by said e-mail entity?
>
> Anxiously awaiting proof.
>
> /Joe
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 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: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 03:00:50 +0800
From: Joseph <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

WXW:
>>> He won't have need of those services.  There won't be a trial in his
case.
*** (Seriously Off Topic) Which to me, is an infrigement of Human Rights.
Something which US has hold very strongly for.

Even the Yugoslavian guy (accused of genocide) has (is having) a trial ...
Why not Osama?  One should practise what one preaches.  To sentence someone
without a proper trial is pure infringement of human rights.  Irregardless
of one's action.

regards,
- - Joseph LEE (Fook Heng)
========================

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
Walsh
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:41 AM
To: William S. Lovell
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under
udrp

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 9:22:32 AM, William S. Lovell
wrote:

> If asked, I would defend Osama bin Laden, since there would be
> all the protections of the Federal Court system that I could use,
> and everyone has the right to those protections and an attorney
> who can use them.

He won't have need of those services.  There won't be a trial in his
case.

- --
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:59:37 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

|> From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:13 AM
|> 
|> [email-masked] writes:

|>  > capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that
|>  > position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
|>  > one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, 
|> an election
|>  > will be held.
|> 
|> Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail 
|> entity known as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  

I am getting sooo tired of this. You dial the number and he answers the
phone. He even passes the turing test. Beyond that, I will not certify. But,
if we pretend at all to be inclusive then you cannot ignore Jeff's
existance. He, at least, is a living breathing soul. Input from ICANN,
claiming world-wide respresentation, is every bit as credible as input from
INEG, claiming a much smaller number. It is every bit as verifiable.
- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 11:04:58 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 10:59:37 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail 
|>> entity known as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  

> I am getting sooo tired of this. You dial the number and he answers the
> phone. He even passes the turing test. Beyond that, I will not certify. But,
> if we pretend at all to be inclusive then you cannot ignore Jeff's
> existance. He, at least, is a living breathing soul.

Who also plays under many different aliases, who have been banned from
this list under the rules.

He's a charlatan and only plays games with these forums, taking the
position most likely to help him play his games with his multiple
personalities, and like Fleming, tell as many lies as possible while
doing it.

- -- 
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: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:06:43 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

So we make appropriate allowances. What's the prob?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:05 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force
|> 
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 10:59:37 AM, 
|> Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> |>> Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail 
|> |>> entity known as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  
|> 
|> > I am getting sooo tired of this. You dial the number and 
|> he answers the
|> > phone. He even passes the turing test. Beyond that, I will 
|> not certify. But,
|> > if we pretend at all to be inclusive then you cannot ignore Jeff's
|> > existance. He, at least, is a living breathing soul.
|> 
|> Who also plays under many different aliases, who have been 
|> banned from
|> this list under the rules.
|> 
|> He's a charlatan and only plays games with these forums, taking the
|> position most likely to help him play his games with his multiple
|> personalities, and like Fleming, tell as many lies as possible while
|> doing it.
|> 
|> -- 
|> 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:09:24 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

At 09:13 AM 12/5/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>[email-masked] writes:
>  > Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council
>  > transfers task force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA member
>  > that has expressed an interest in representing the GA in that
>  > capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that
>  > position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
>  > one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, an election
>  > will be held.
>
>Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail entity known
>as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  Have you also
>verified all of the claims of the so-called INEGroup, that mythical
>organization with no supporting documentation other than hearsay
>perpetrated by said e-mail entity?
>
>Anxiously awaiting proof.
>
>/Joe
>--
>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

As we are all awaiting proof that you, Joe, are not Kent Crispin.

~k

- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 11:13:08 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:05 AM
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 10:59:37 AM, 
|> Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> |>> Does this imply that you have direct proof that the e-mail 
|> |>> entity known as [email-masked] has an actual existence?  
|> 
|> > I am getting sooo tired of this. You dial the number and 
|> he answers the
|> > phone. He even passes the turing test. Beyond that, I will 
|> not certify. But,
|> > if we pretend at all to be inclusive then you cannot ignore Jeff's
|> > existance. He, at least, is a living breathing soul.
|> 
|> Who also plays under many different aliases, who have been 
|> banned from
|> this list under the rules.
|> 
|> He's a charlatan and only plays games with these forums, taking the
|> position most likely to help him play his games with his multiple
|> personalities, and like Fleming, tell as many lies as possible while
|> doing it.

... and this is different from ICANN staff? How?
- --
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, 5 Dec 2001 11:43:20 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] resignation from NC transfers task force

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 11:09:24 AM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> As we are all awaiting proof that you, Joe, are not Kent Crispin.

Don't think so, Kristy.  There is actual proof that the person calling
themselves JW makes and continues to make false claims about who he is
and what he does.  There is a reason to question him.  There is no
such reason or reasonable belief about Joe.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #907
************************