Re: [ga] Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Jefsey, as you may have forgotten, I have again been banned from
posting/openly participating on the DNSO GA list.  That ban should be
just about expired.

  BTW, I have been routing around the damage, as is unfortunately required...

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
> It seems that the way you set-up my mailing list to get access to your
> sub-list has removed my from the ga-full. I observe that the last mail I
> received from Jeff Williams is of August 28th.
> Could you please help that corrected.
>
> Dear Leah,
> I don't really understand why you dispute the peole supporting you. That
> ICANN does not respect the RFC is not a point agsint the RFC but against
> the ICANN. The policy of the ICANN is established in the ICP-1 document.
> This document is fully based upon the RFCs and does not bring anything new.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 05:16 09/09/01, L Gallegos said:
>
> >On 8 Sep 2001, at 21:43, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Leah and all assembly members,
> > >
> > > L Gallegos wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 9 Sep 2001, at 1:37, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 23:45 08/09/01, William X Walsh said:
> > > > > >In my opinion, no registry should ever cease to exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > ICANN decided otherwise. .biz registry from ARNI should have been
> > > > > included in the NeuLevel registry. The current practice of the
> > > > > ICANN is in violation of RFC 920/1591. Jefsey
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The original .BIZ has not ceased to exist, Jefsey.  It has simply
> > > > been duplicated with a collider that will result in dupliate domain
> > > > names.  But you are correct, it is in violation of the RFC's if you
> > > > wish to use informiational RFC's as law.
> > >
> > >   RFC's are not law, nor are they standards.  One would be pressed to
> > > say that RFC's represent a "Beat Practices" documents either. Yet the
> > > ICANN BoD and staff have publicly stated that the IETF and the RFC's
> > > of which they are in part responsible for, are to be followed.  It
> > > seems obvious than that the ICANN BoD and staff seem ot only wish to
> > > follow those RFC's in a very selective manner.  We find that practice
> > > to be both inconsistent, as well as disingenuous.
> > >
> > > >
> >
> >I guess my point is, Jeff, that if an organization adopts an RFC or
> >set of them as policy, then they should follow them. ICANN doesn't
> >even follow its own bylaws or MOU.  Even at that, practices over
> >the last several years have pretty much made many areas of those
> >RFCs obsolete.  They simply change them to suit their desires.
> >How many bylaws changes have occurred since July?  Nine?
> >
> >Leah
> >
> >--
> >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

--
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