Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Jefsey,

Censorship may be allowed on this list but it really has no place.  If someone uses
techniques to exercise free speech because another uses tricks to prevent it then I
for one am all for the techniques. This thread is paramount to discussions of right
and wrong in the GA.  If technology can be used to defeat tyranny that is good.  If
inclusive roots can be used to defeat the ICANN-Verisign duopoly that is good and
it is the same.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Seems rather obvious to me: his mails are not in the daily count.
> This is a trick Patrick and als. did not think of. I hope none would
> think of it: now we are going to get hundreds mails a day from
> ga-rulers...
> Jefsey
>
> PS. There are obvsiouly other tricks around...
> Please do not ask too much about who does what. Or do you
> have a good firewll and an anti trojan-horse.
>
> At 15:23 19/07/01, tc lewis wrote:
>
> >well, i'm aware of the options of how it's technically possible.  my
> >question is more of: why is he doing it that way, instead of sending it to
> >the list like everyone else does?  like i said, sorting is much easier
> >with the proper headers (not that this list has "mailing-list:" anyway,
> >but hey, at least "sender:" is something).
> >
> >it's definitely not just this message, but rather almost all (if not all)
> >that i see from him.  and it surely wasn't sent to me in particular -- i
> >would assume he sent it to everyone on the list, just not through the
> >actual list.  i'm curious as to the motivation behind such an activity.
> >
> >-tcl.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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@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

--
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