Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

That's easy.  Jeff didn't send the message you quoted to the list, 
but addressed it directly to you.  It's called Bcc. ;-)

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/



On 2001-07-19 08:13:09 -0400, tc lewis wrote:
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
>From: tc lewis <tcl@bunzy.net>
>To: <ga@dnso.org>
>Cc: <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: [ga] jeff williams / this list.
>
>
>is there any reason why jeff williams' emails never have a "Sender:
>owner-ga@dnso.org" line in the header like all the other ga@dnso.org
>mails?  or any other distinguishing characteristics?  most everyone else's
>mails have header lines like:
>
>Return-Path: <owner-ga@dnso.org>
>
>and:
>
>Received: from dnso.dnso.org (192.134.4.239)
>  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0000
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>        by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA22728;
>        Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:58:50 +0200 (MET DST)
>
>and:
>
>Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>
>the lack of relevant mailing-list headers makes these mails difficult to
>properly sort.
>
>-tcl.
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Return-Path: <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
>Delivered-To: tcl@magician.bunzy.net
>Received: (qmail 9935 invoked by uid 531); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Delivered-To: pmail-m/bunzy+net/m-tcl@bunzy.net
>Received: (qmail 9930 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.177)
>  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Received: from ix.netcom.com ([207.93.225.128])
>	by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17702;
>	Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:57:53 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <3B56BF1B.88F73EAA@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:04 -0700
>From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
>Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: ga ml <ga@dnso.org>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire
>References: <B77C0A0A.18C3%jo-uk@rcn.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Joanna and all assembly members,
>
>  Although a poll on certain issues might be helpful, I believe that such a poll
>
>would require or should require the approval of the Assembly members
>by vote before moving forward.  It would also likely better serve if such
>a poll would be conducted by professional pollsters, such a vote.com
>for instance.  As far as I know there are no professional pollsters
>in our membership.  If there are please speak up!
>
>  In that professional pollsters cost money it would seem that the first
>order of business would be for the DNSO GA membership start
>getting it's financial house in order.
>
>  On the other hand, simple polls on specific questions could be conducted
>without the need of professional pollsters assistance.  However I don't
>believe that is what you are considering in this instance.
>
>
>
>Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at patrick@quad.net.au wrote:
>>
>> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
>>
>> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
>> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
>> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
>> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.
>>
>> It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
>> (which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we now seem
>> to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain statements of
>> fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
>> others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon wording of
>> a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What (if any)
>> specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).
>>
>> I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we should be
>> tackling this. Suggestions?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>>
>> ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and activity
>> in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what
>> are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
>> demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
>>
>> GA POLL:
>>
>> 1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
>> 1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
>> 1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
>> 1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? Options:
>> more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
>> week, infrequently, never.
>>
>> ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
>> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
>>
>> GA POLL:
>>
>> 2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
>> 2.2. If so, which? Comment box
>> 2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
>> 2.4 If so, which? Comment box
>>
>> Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for discussion
>> than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?
>>
>> 3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
>> face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for consideration
>> by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?
>>
>> 4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the existing
>> Supporting Organizations?
>>
>> 5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to input
>> provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
>> Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus is/is not
>> possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
>> summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
>> reached?
>>
>> *    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
>> participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
>> staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating participation
>> and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
>> *    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable to)?
>> What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
>> Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
>> priorities?
>> *    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what other
>> resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
>> more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
>> *    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
>> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
>> political parties, etc.
>> *    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
>> direct involvement?
>> *    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
>> *    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
>> recommended?
>> *    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a majority or
>> minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? Should
>> the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
>> from At-Large) be kept?
>> *    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a combination)?
>> How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be used?
>> Who should have the ability to vote?
>> *    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
>> particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
>> issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
>> *    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for participation
>> in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
>> money)?
>> *    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can candidates
>> for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
>> "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net access
>> (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html