ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Response to Bret


Gary and all assembly members,

  I did not E-Mail you Gary, but the DNSO GA list of which you are
a subscriber/members.  So if you wish to unsubscribe, than of course
you may do so at your leisure.

  So If you don't mind Gary, and I am sure you do, please
stop lying and pointing to other lies for you own self aggrandizement
and others harassment.  Darryl Greenwood is a well know
harassment poster of some renown.

  My credentials as are INEGroup's are well known and documented.
See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
I don't see any such from yourself or Direct.ca..  ????

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> Please do not write me again Jeff. You are a seriously
> deluded individual, and I don't want any email from
> seriously deluded individuals. -g
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html
>
> -----------
> At 10:33 PM 29/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> Return-path: <owner-ga@dnso.org>
> Envelope-to: gro@direct.ca
> Delivery-date: Thu, 30 May 2002 04:32:21 +0000
> Received: from dnso.dnso.org ([192.134.4.239])
> by parsec.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #10)
> id 17DHbo-0007nA-00
> for gro@direct.ca; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:32:20 +0000
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id FAA22724;
> Thu, 30 May 2002 05:33:06 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net
> [207.69.200.246])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA22719
> for <ga@dnso.org>; Thu, 30 May 2002 05:33:04 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from dialup-65.56.125.3.dial1.dallas1.level3.net ([65.56.125.3]
> helo=ix.netcom.com)
> by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
> id 17DGim-0001LD-00; Wed, 29 May 2002 23:35:29 -0400
> Message-ID: <3CF5B9BD.11CBC63C@ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:33:52 -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: Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>
> CC: Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>, ga@dnso.org,
> icann board address <icann-board@icann.org>,
> Don Evans <DEvans@doc.gov>, Karen Rose <krose@ntia.doc.gov>,
> Robin Layton <RLayton@ntia.doc.gov>, kathy smith <ksmith@ntia.doc.gov>,
> "Nancy J. Victory" <nvictory@ntia.doc.gov>,
> Clyde Ensslin <censslin@ntia.doc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret
> References: <4.3.1.20020528205546.00d24100@mail.direct.ca>
> <4.3.1.20020529194246.00d308c0@mail.direct.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
> Precedence: bulk
>
> Gary and all assembly members,
> Gary Osbourne wrote:
>  > At 07:13 PM 29/05/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>  >
>  > >Gary and all assembly members,
>  > >
>  > > Gary, thank you for you support on this in your comments below.
>  >
>  > For the record (and I apologise to those who may have filters
>  > not fine enough to catch Jeff Williams by name in the body of
>  > the post though they may otherwise intend to, he is certainly
>  > normally snagged in mine) I wasn't supporting you Jeff.
> Yeah you were and still are. So I again thank you for that,
> Gary despite you unfortunate missives regarding myself and
> our [INEGroup] members. Of course we understand that
> some folks, like yourself are sometimes terribly disturbed
> by many things that perhaps you take too personally
> and therefore seem to find a need, like Joe, to use
> a personal attack to vent those frustrations.
>  > You
>  > are the netkook poster boy for Joe Sims and others to point to,
>  > to show why public participation in ICANN can never work.
> Well Joe has clearly showed, not just to me but to many
> others that he does not have a clue as to what he sometimes
> is really talking about. Of course congress and other governments
> have taken note of that but are not quite direct about stating it
> as I am. Hence I can understand your missive here, and
> take that into account when reading this response.
>  >
>  >
>  > Thankfully, you are almost alone in that regard, with
>  > allowances for your imaginary friends.
> Hardly. Outside of our members, as has been documented
> on this very forum on a number of occasions amongst a host
> of other forums discussing ICANN related issues, your
> unfortunate inaccurate contention here is less convincing..
>  > I will happily send
>  > along a few dollars to support you though, if you promise to
>  > immediately leave your keyboard and seek, and try to make
>  > good use of, professional medical treatment. -g
> No need. But I do appreciate the interest and concern.
> I will be just as happy to provide you with the same
> financial support in seeking some mental rehab and you
> can take along you keyboard to boot! >;)
>  >
>  >
>  > >Transparency is very important if ICANN is to remain viable
>  > >and representative of the stakeholder/user Internet community
>  > >as well as business and other interest areas. Right now it seems
>  > >that Joe does not know how to accomplish providing transparency
>  > >or just doesn't agree that transparency is necessary.
>  > >
>  > > I personally believe that is it clear that Joe and Vint are from the
>  > >Old School of "Old Boy" network method of accomplishing and
>  > >addressing the Transparency requirement. Problem with this
>  > >sort of approach is the in the Internet world this just doesn't
>  > >work and can backfire on you accordingly, leaving ICANN
>  > >in a position of growing distrust and dismay by the vast
>  > >majority of stakeholders/users...
>  > >
>  > >Gary Osbourne wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > At 07:44 PM 28/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > >This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their
>  > > > >peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care
>  > > > >about this effect. They would rather have the "benefits" of a
>  > > > >homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost
>  > > > >surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.
>  > > >
>  > > > I don't know if I'm one of those who want some
>  > > > peculiar brand of transparency. I do know that
>  > > > "to the maximum extent feasible" is at odds with
>  > > > Vint Cerf repeatedly telling Karl Auerbach to
>  > > > "take it offline" at Stockholm. It wasn't Karl
>  > > > doing the homogenizing. I also don't think your
>  > > > trip to Europe to discuss ICANN reform without
>  > > > the knowledge, let alone the vote, of at least
>  > > > some of the BoD members was particularily
>  > > > transparent. Was there some valid, logical reason
>  > > > for keeping it from them? If so, surely it can be
>  > > > made public now.
>  > > >
>  > > > I've served on numerous not-for-profit Boards
>  > > > going back over 30 years, some of them dealing
>  > > > with quite contentious matters. Only rarely would
>  > > > one go in camera to deal with sensitive items
>  > > > such as personnel, litigation, or something
>  > > > contained in an NDA, for example. There were also
>  > > > committees of the whole where directors could
>  > > > express themselves without fear of being quoted
>  > > > later. That is all understandable and reasonable
>  > > > to me, though I will add that the inclusion of
>  > > > staff or lawyers in camera was only if absolutely
>  > > > necessary to a specific topic, and neither were
>  > > > ever included in committee of the whole (a mini-
>  > > > retreat as it were) so that discussion needn't
>  > > > be homogenized on their account, as they aren't,
>  > > > by definition, part of the 'whole'.
>  > > >
>  > > > I didn't have a problem with that as ultimately
>  > > > people were held responsible, proper minutes were
>  > > > kept, including who voted for or against or
>  > > > abstained, and these minutes were ratified and
>  > > > published in a timely fashion. I've never seen
>  > > > (whether from orgs that dwarf ICANN by any metric
>  > > > but global impact, or from village PTA meetings)
>  > > > such sparce and tardy minutes as eventually come
>  > > > out of ICANN Excom and Special meetings.
>  > > >
>  > > > Combined with sudden surprises out of nowhere
>  > > > like the Verisign renegotiation, ICP-3, and the
>  > > > Roadmap to Reform, none of which the community
>  > > > were expecting, let alone requesting, how can
>  > > > such secrecy be seen as "consistent with
>  > > > procedures designed to ensure fairness"? What
>  > > > we have with the ICANN not-for-profit is an org
>  > > > that uses secrecy as its default mode, and only
>  > > > opens up if, when, where, and to the extent
>  > > > that it absolutely has to.
>  > > >
>  > > > That does not instill or sustain trust that all
>  > > > parties' interests are being dealt with fairly,
>  > > > so any additional non-open, non-transparent
>  > > > meetings are bound to be suspect as just leading
>  > > > to more, perhaps unfair, surprises. What I find
>  > > > peculiar is that you find such suspicion peculiar.
>  > > >
>  > > > There's something I learned in school, and I know
>  > > > I'm not the only one. If you hand in what you hope
>  > > > is the right answer but you can't show your work,
>  > > > the default is to assume that you're cheating. If
>  > > > you're lucky, you can convince them you're guessing.
>  > > >
>  > > > There are a number of valid, logical reasons why a
>  > > > number of diverse affected parties, including those
>  > > > who (s)elect BoD members, would like to know if the
>  > > > BoD answers are just being cribbed from its staff
>  > > > and lawyer. In absence of evidence to the contrary,
>  > > > that seems to be the default, and safest, assumption.
>  > > >
>  > > > That it is a lawyer and staff here now showing their
>  > > > work, rather than Board members (other than Karl,
>  > > > does this count as offline?), leaves only one
>  > > > question, is the Board cheating or just guessing
>  > > > when it comes to reform? It's all academic anyway.
>  > > > both rate an F. -g
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > 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 124k members/stakeholders 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: 972-244-3801 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 124k members/stakeholders 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: 972-244-3801 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 124k members/stakeholders 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:  972-244-3801 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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>