Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #933
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 19 2001         Volume 01 : Number 933

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:44:01 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Particular People

On 2001-12-14 11:26:48 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>I extend to the Assembly the opportunity to discuss and debate 
>this matter further.  I will notify the Secretariat of a final 
>decision on Monday.

Would you please have the courtesy to also inform this assembly of 
your "final decision"?

Thanks,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 00:54:20 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

Dear DPF,
I have been nominated ... So, however I don't think I will accept it I 
suppose I have to respond this interesting question. My feeling is that a 
limitation of the number of posts is a Chair's failure.

Let me explain. The Chair's job is to catalyze interesting debates towards 
useful positions to the advantage of the constituencies 
(crossfertilization, compromises, consensus). I believe that if he manages 
that either the noise will fall or the quality of the posts will rise.

I think that useful desired sub-lists are also a very appropriate solution. 
The problem we met with the sub-lists were their artificial nature, making 
them Indian reserves rather than specialized fora.

The real problem is noise on purpose: this is an abuse to be handled by the 
sergeant at arms.

I accept that this makes Chairing a real task, calling for time to spend. 
It also calls for numerous votes and polls, therefore  tools the GA has not 
yet. The thinking should be carried within the constituencies, the debates 
within the GA dedicated sub-lists (inter-topics), the consensus on the GA 
general (cross topics) and the follow-up by the NC.

Jefsey

On 09:04 18/12/01, DPF said:
>We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts per person
>that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
>the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.
>
>My question to any Chair candidates are if they will reinstitute such
>a limit and if so what limit do they have in mind.
>
>I note some days people have made as many as 14 posts.
>
>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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:28:49 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF election

An election is being held to determine the GA's representative to the 
Transfers Task Force.  One issue under discussion has been whether the GA 
chair has the right to exercise his discretion and to appoint additional 
individuals to that task force as non-voting "observers" (in effect, 
selecting election runner-ups as such appointees).  As Chair I reserve the 
right to make such appointments, but will not exercise that right during the 
remainder of my tenure.

This Task Force will have one GA representative only.  I have chosen to 
respect the counsel of our former Chair Roberto Gaetano who wrote:  "A second 
one will not be according to the rules, and until the new rules are not voted 
in, should not be done."  

My best wishes to the candidates.  

- --
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, 18 Dec 2001 22:03:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Lobbying efforts against funding for at-large outreach

Danny and all assembly members,

  We [INEGroup] have spoken out before and still maintain the same
position regarding funding for ICANN, irregardless of whom or what
constituency is responsible for what percentage of that funding.

  Currently as has also been one of several problem plagueging
the ICANN BoD and staff is their own lack of flexibility in
funding methods for the different constituencies as well
as proper and reasonable budget constraining by, and for
the ICANN BoD and staff itself.  Presently the travel
expenses for ICANN BoD and staff members is far more
than is needed and is usual in other industries of comparable
size in the commercial world.  Another part of the funding
method and model is that the ICANN BOD and staff restrict
the DNSO GA from funding itself, not to mention potentially acquiring
funding for other broader efforts by and through the restriction and
delay of the resurgence of the At-Large which would likely be a
very good source of gaining ICANN funding thereby balancing
the funding load on the Register, as well as the ccTLD Constituency's.

  But again of course these concerns and solutions have fallen on
deaf ears amongst a broad majority of the ICANN BoD, or they
are unable to grasp a broad range of funding methods and models.
In addition due the the very tarnished yet deserved poor reputation
of the ICANN BOD and staff, donations are not forthcoming.

  SO in conclusion to my response here as spokesman for INEGroup,
I must in part agree with Ken's complaint and concern.  It would
however be wise for the Registers to be more receptive of the
broad stakeholder's and participants rather than just the Register
constituency's special interest....

[email-masked] wrote:

> In a comment to the registrars list, Mr. Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> Today's actions only reinforces my concerns that there may be attempts this
> year to impose additional financial burdens for ICANN operations & outreach
> (i.e. at large outreach) on us and we Registrars need to be even more
> pro-active.  The impact on the registrars could be very significant if we do
> not  work hard and organize for increased participation by ALL of our members
> in lobbying & advocating within ICANN to prevent this from happening.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01649.html
>
> What position does the gTLD constituency intend to take on this matter?
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are requested to not cross-post messages.

- --
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:30:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] New TLD Evaluation TF Interim Report

YJ and all,

  We [INEGroup] will be responding to the questions posed in this
report in short order I would imagine.

  My personal comments thus far are mainly of a process nature.
It seems that no one form the DNSO GA or the At-Large
were invited or even allowed to have a representative on this
Task Force.  Hence it seems that without that input some of this
report is of questionable value.

YJ Park wrote:

> Dear Members,
>
> http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/interim-report-03dec01.htm
>
> This report post update was notified by Alejandro on Dec. 4
> (thank him) and it has been noted that there have been few response
> to this report so far.
>
> As NCDNHC representatives together with Vany on this Task Force,
> I want to raise some issues which were a bit contentious among this
> group since this process is to get your comments or inputs before this
> TF reaches its final report.
>
> 1st issue. Should the following question be deleted from "process"
> area as decided by TF? It was almost difficult to measure its clear
> consensus among the group on this, though.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> [Deleted Question]
> 6. Has the Board or ICANN staff been made aware of any particular
> group that was allegedly excluded from submitting a proposal or
> whose proposal was principally rejected because of the group's
> particular socio, geo, or political affiliations?"
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
>
> 2nd issue. Who should be or could be a "Real" evaluator for this?
> Please, take into account that this TF is to provide some criteria to
> evaluate the introduced new TLDs.
>
> Looking forward to your comments on those issues....
>
> YJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:41:29 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some one finally gets it!

The news is at:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011217/wr/tech_domains_biz_dc_2.html

Basically Neulevel is admiting its "lottery" plan was not very well
thought out and is going to change its policy on those names, and run
a new selection mechanism for the names in question in February.

What I am most pleased to see is Neulevel's Jeffrey Neuman say the
following:

NeuLevel's Neuman said if he could do it all over again, he would set
up a much simpler registration scheme, even if it resulted in a flood
of applications

``Because there's so many creative solutions, those solutions become
part of the problem. And the best way, the tested way, would be
first-come, first-serve, that's what people are used to,'' Neuman
said.

Finally someone realizes that first come first served IS the most fair
manner for domain registrants.  End of story.  Maybe we can eliminate
any "sunrise" or "landrush" registration schemes in future tld roll
outs 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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:05:41 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: "working with other registrars and the registry "

> > 
> > Working where ?....in private ?

Where appropriate.

- -rwr

- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 01:46:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some one finally gets it!

All assembly members, (You to WXW) >;)

  I am glad to see that Jeff Nueman of "Nuelevel" has finally come to
the conclusion of First come First Serve is the best overall policy for
domain name registration.  As most of you know, INEGroup
has advocated that policy for quite a number of years now.  It is good
to see that others, such as Jeff Nueman of "Nuelevel" have seen
the light.

  One [INEGroups] only remaining questions is, how will Nuelevel
make whole the perspective registrants that were not treated fairly
with Nuelevels much maligned "Lottery" system of registration?
And..
What punitive actions will the ICANN BoD and staff take in regards
to Nuelevels, now admitted bad lottery registration fiasco or will each
of those beleaguered lottery victims have to seek their own legal remedy?

William X Walsh wrote:

> The news is at:
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011217/wr/tech_domains_biz_dc_2.html
>
> Basically Neulevel is admiting its "lottery" plan was not very well
> thought out and is going to change its policy on those names, and run
> a new selection mechanism for the names in question in February.
>
> What I am most pleased to see is Neulevel's Jeffrey Neuman say the
> following:
>
> NeuLevel's Neuman said if he could do it all over again, he would set
> up a much simpler registration scheme, even if it resulted in a flood
> of applications
>
> ``Because there's so many creative solutions, those solutions become
> part of the problem. And the best way, the tested way, would be
> first-come, first-serve, that's what people are used to,'' Neuman
> said.
>
> Finally someone realizes that first come first served IS the most fair
> manner for domain registrants.  End of story.  Maybe we can eliminate
> any "sunrise" or "landrush" registration schemes in future tld roll
> outs 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

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: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:53:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Buys .CC Internet Domain Registry 

All assembly members,

  As we [INEGroup] predicted Verisign is on the move to buy up
TLD registries.  See:
http://www.newsbytes.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=newsbytes&story.id=173085

  I think you are going to see allot more of this from Verisign in the
mid term...

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: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:08:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The 411 on Dot-Info Disputes - Will WIPO raise it's ugly head again?

All assembly members,

  Looks like again the .INFO war is heating up and now WIPO and the
UDRP may again raise it's ugly head.
See:http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,49074,00.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: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:19:12 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

David wrote:
>
>We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts per person
>that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
>the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.

I know I have been distracted by other business lately, and I apologize for 
it, but can somebody refresh my memory and point out when the posting limit 
of 5 post per day per person has been lifted?

>
>My question to any Chair candidates are if they will reinstitute such
>a limit and if so what limit do they have in mind.
>
>I note some days people have made as many as 14 posts.

I do agree that the limit has not been enforced lately (neither did the 
civil discourse rules, BTW), but that does not mean that it does not exist.

Maybe the question could be rephrased to whether the candidates will 
"enforce the approved rules" or continue like this.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 00:35:51 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 19, 2001, 12:19:12 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Maybe the question could be rephrased to whether the candidates will 
> "enforce the approved rules" or continue like this.

Or more directly, will the Names Council permit the rules to be
enforced uniformly, rather than selectively?

- -- 
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:02:12 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:19:12 +0100, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>David wrote:
>>
>>We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts per person
>>that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
>>the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.
>
>I know I have been distracted by other business lately, and I apologize for 
>it, but can somebody refresh my memory and point out when the posting limit 
>of 5 post per day per person has been lifted?

It hasn't been formally.  But the limit is imposed basically at the
discretion of the Chair and when the Chair is not enforcing the limit
one can conclude that it has been de facto lifted, even without an
explicit statement to that effect.

It would be nice if people regarded it as still in force but a fair
number of people are exceeding it.

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 04:21:15 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dotAERO

http://www.washtech.com/news/netarch/14247-1.html

Well at least we move, whether forward of backward I am not certain.

When (or has it happened?) is an industry group just going to hire a
purveyor and make their own TLD.  Say the AMA or the ABA.

My recommendation to any ccTLD contemplating a dotAERO is
to make sure you are far more inclusive, also that you run a strictly
first come first served registration.

I think users are ready to type in "dotAEROdotMX" to find special
deals to fly to Mexico.  I also think that with a little advertising
bump
they are ready to do what need be done to get dotAMA (an alternative)
if they want the best health advice.

No I do not think this will happen yesterday, but my 19 year old and 16
year old get it, and by June my 13 year old will get it. All on their
own because
they want the best they can get on the net.

As a marketing company we are dropping domain names and only retaining
really good ones like generics.  Oh we still suggest packaging of a
group of
names that may be satellites to the planet name, but putting money into
traditional
marketing and production is far more productive than chasing dots.

ICANN's new TLDs are becoming superfluous before they leave the starting
line.

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: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:50:49 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some one finally gets it!

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: [ga] Some one finally gets it!

> 
> The news is at:
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011217/wr/tech_domains_biz_dc_2.html
> 
> Basically Neulevel is admiting its "lottery" plan was not very well
> thought out and is going to change its policy on those names, and run
> a new selection mechanism for the names in question in February.
> 
> What I am most pleased to see is Neulevel's Jeffrey Neuman say the
> following:
> 
> NeuLevel's Neuman said if he could do it all over again, he would set
> up a much simpler registration scheme, even if it resulted in a flood
> of applications
> 
> ``Because there's so many creative solutions, those solutions become
> part of the problem. And the best way, the tested way, would be
> first-come, first-serve, that's what people are used to,'' Neuman
> said.
> 
> 
> Finally someone realizes that first come first served IS the most fair
> manner for domain registrants.  End of story.  Maybe we can eliminate
> any "sunrise" or "landrush" registration schemes in future tld roll
> outs now.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --

Both of the IPv4 .BIZ Proof-of-Concept Registries have long histories.
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Registry1
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Registry2
The 2002 IPv8 .BIZ Registries will likely emerge from these experiments.

Jim Fleming
Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 07:44:27 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] dotAERO

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> 
> When (or has it happened?) is an industry group just going to hire a
> purveyor and make their own TLD.  Say the AMA or the ABA.
> 

The "toy" legacy, IPv4 Internet is the place where you can do the
Proof-of-Concept testing, experimenting, etc. with new TLDs. When
you build up a base of users, then you may get people's attention who
run serious, production, networks. In the end, you will have a list of
SLD (Second Level Domain) Names, and hopefully the owners of
those names will have non-lame nameservers deployed. That list and
the nameservers are all serious networking people really care about.
They have to work to keep the network operational, stable, etc. by
efficiently moving packets from sources to destinations. Packets do
not have names in them, they have numbers.

This may help...
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
http://www.RepliGate.net

The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
http://netfilter.samba.org

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 08:17:30 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: .TRAVEL.....Re: [ga] dotAERO

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: [ga] dotAERO

> http://www.washtech.com/news/netarch/14247-1.html
>

"Indeed, Hasbrouck contends, another airline-backed domain proposal - for a ".travel" domain - was not approved by ICANN, largely on
the grounds that the .travel proposal was too industry focused."

- ------

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=travel&submit=Submit
Analysis : Top Level Domain TRAVEL exists.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
??? TRAVEL

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

- --
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, 19 Dec 2001 09:10:47 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

Well I alway considered it a personal limit, not something imposed like a
traffic sign and sanctionable.

And:

* since this is a mailing list and
* since automatically imosing such a posting limit per e-mail address would be
childs play and
* since anyone getting around it by posting via multiple e-mail address would be
either readily
           identifiable and easily sanctioned or
           posting so differently that if we cant tell its someone different we
dont care

I came to the personal conclusion that the 'intent' of this particular rule was
self-control.  So I followed it. And did not bother raising the issue when I
suspected it wasnt being followed.  I figured either the extra post were
extremely relevant and worthy of existence, or people would complain about it.
I think implementing fixed rules as a clerical or admin function, and exercising
judgement and deciding when to enforce a rule and when to make an exception...to
be a management decision.    What was happening here? I did not know. And since
my personal filters work quite well it failed to be an issue with me.

DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:19:12 +0100, "Roberto Gaetano"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >David wrote:
> >>
> >>We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts per person
> >>that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
> >>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
> >>the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.
> >
> >I know I have been distracted by other business lately, and I apologize for
> >it, but can somebody refresh my memory and point out when the posting limit
> >of 5 post per day per person has been lifted?
>
> It hasn't been formally.  But the limit is imposed basically at the
> discretion of the Chair and when the Chair is not enforcing the limit
> one can conclude that it has been de facto lifted, even without an
> explicit statement to that effect.
>
> It would be nice if people regarded it as still in force but a fair
> number of people are exceeding it.
>
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 07:30:40 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

All list rules were suspended when the list monitors refused to apply them
in a discriminatory manner. It seems that some members cannot be suspended,
regardless of degree of offence. This makes some more equal than others.
Since the list rules cannot be applied fairly, then they should not be
applied at all. This is a decision that I, for one, agree with. Kristy has
more details.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:19 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates
|> 
|> 
|> David wrote:
|> >
|> >We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts 
|> per person
|> >that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
|> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
|> >the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.
|> 
|> I know I have been distracted by other business lately, and 
|> I apologize for 
|> it, but can somebody refresh my memory and point out when 
|> the posting limit 
|> of 5 post per day per person has been lifted?
|> 
|> >
|> >My question to any Chair candidates are if they will 
|> reinstitute such
|> >a limit and if so what limit do they have in mind.
|> >
|> >I note some days people have made as many as 14 posts.
|> 
|> I do agree that the limit has not been enforced lately 
|> (neither did the 
|> civil discourse rules, BTW), but that does not mean that it 
|> does not exist.
|> 
|> Maybe the question could be rephrased to whether the candidates will 
|> "enforce the approved rules" or continue like this.
|> 
|> Best regards
|> Roberto
|> 
|> 
|> _________________________________________________________________
|> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
|> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
|> 
|> --
|> 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, 19 Dec 2001 11:19:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

Roeland and all assembly members,

  You pretty much summed it up here Roeland.  As we all know anyway
the current List rules are illegitimate anyway.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> All list rules were suspended when the list monitors refused to apply them
> in a discriminatory manner. It seems that some members cannot be suspended,
> regardless of degree of offence. This makes some more equal than others.
> Since the list rules cannot be applied fairly, then they should not be
> applied at all. This is a decision that I, for one, agree with. Kristy has
> more details.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:19 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates
> |>
> |>
> |> David wrote:
> |> >
> |> >We currently have no limit in force on the number of posts
> |> per person
> |> >that can be made a day.The list rules (online at
> |> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html) allow for
> |> >the Chair or monitors to place a limit on.
> |>
> |> I know I have been distracted by other business lately, and
> |> I apologize for
> |> it, but can somebody refresh my memory and point out when
> |> the posting limit
> |> of 5 post per day per person has been lifted?
> |>
> |> >
> |> >My question to any Chair candidates are if they will
> |> reinstitute such
> |> >a limit and if so what limit do they have in mind.
> |> >
> |> >I note some days people have made as many as 14 posts.
> |>
> |> I do agree that the limit has not been enforced lately
> |> (neither did the
> |> civil discourse rules, BTW), but that does not mean that it
> |> does not exist.
> |>
> |> Maybe the question could be rephrased to whether the candidates will
> |> "enforce the approved rules" or continue like this.
> |>
> |> Best regards
> |> Roberto
> |>
> |>
> |> _________________________________________________________________
> |> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> |> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> |>
> |> --
> |> 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

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 #933
************************