Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all assembly members,

  Thank you Eric for this word of concern, support and proper ethics.
Indeed there are a number of methods in which to route around damage.
I deploy those when and only when necessary.  Others such as New.Net
are doing the same and deploying different methods.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>

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-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