[ga-watchdog] Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time... Walsh FUDWarning...

[Dnsipv6@aol.com]

Jeff and everybody else,

  Yes Jeff he did.  And thank you for pointing out the URL in the 
archives as well.  So much for auto updating that Mark had mentioned
in an earlier post, eh?  It seems that MonArch does automatically
archive unless there is some human intervention after all.  So I would
say this shows just how badly some would like to SELECTIVELY
CENSOR for their own political purposes.

David "Dude" Jenson
INEGRoup-East Director

In a message dated 12/3/99 12:13:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com writes:

<< William and all,
 
   I believe that Bob sent in his "Introduction" post to the DNSO GA
 list. See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00371.html
 It seems to be pretty self explanatory....  And yes, many of our
 members use a free internet service of one brand or another, such
 as Hotmail for instance.  In fact isn't there several "Hotmail" members
 on the DNSO GA list???  I believe so...
 
 William X. Walsh wrote:
 
 > Oh sheesh, another JW clone identity (notice the writing style, free
 > internet service AND it used a dallas dialup just like...JW)
 >
 > On 03-Dec-99 Bob Davis wrote:
 > > David and all DNSO'ers,
 > >
 > >   Very good ideas here I think as well.  I believe as Jeff has stated,
 > > and you too David, that Marks suggestion is one that should be looked
 > > at seriously.  I would ask directly and politely, has the NC considered
 > > this?
 > >
 > > Dnsipv6@aol.com wrote:
 > >
 > >> Mark and everybody else,
 > >>
 > >>   I agree with you criterion that you listed (Outlined below).  But it
 > >> is terribly obvious that Jonathan and I am sure some of the other
 > >> "Watchdogs" along with likely, the DNSO NC either did not consider
 > >> such crtirion.  I would also venture a guess, that most of the
 > >> Participants would prefer and demand most likely, setting those
 > >> criterion themselves in some form.
 > >>
 > >> David "Dude" Jenson
 > >> INEGRoup-East Director
 > >>
 > >> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:37:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
 > >> skritch@home.com writes:
 > >>
 > >> << On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
 > >> wrote:
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>  >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
 > >>  >>[snip]
 > >>  >> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks
 > >>  >> that are
 > >>  >> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got
 > >>  >> nominated
 > >>  >> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to
 > >>  >> this?
 > >>  >
 > >>  >  The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks
 > >>  >at AFNIC who are receiving them.  My understanding is that somebody
 > >>  >at
 > >>  >AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm
 > >>  >(France
 > >>  >time).
 > >>
 > >>  Thank you, Jon.  You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that
 > >>  should
 > >>  be documented.  This coupled with your statement below indicates that
 > >>  we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least,
 > >>  we
 > >>  can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until
 > >>  after
 > >>  the beginning of the French business day on Monday.
 > >>
 > >>  Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing
 > >>  find its way into the documented procedures.  What seems trivial at
 > >>  one
 > >>  time may become crucial at another;  why not err on the side of
 > >>  caution
 > >>  and document it anyway?
 > >>
 > >>  It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please
 > >>  understand
 > >>  my position:  Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent,
 > >>  self-consistent
 > >>  procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this.  Fail
 > >>  to
 > >>  provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn.  I strongly
 > >>  believe
 > >>  this, and I've seen it proved true many times.  Look at the WTO as
 > >>  just
 > >>  one example.  One of the main concerns the protesters have with the
 > >>  WTO
 > >>  is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and
 > >>  doesn't
 > >>  document their procedures.  Sound familiar?
 > >>
 > >>  I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets
 > >>  the
 > >>  following criteria:
 > >>
 > >>  1)  It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it;
 > >>  nothing
 > >>        about it is hidden from me.
 > >>
 > >>  2)  It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a
 > >>  course of
 > >>        action; the rules to not confuse;  the rules eliminate
 > >>        confusion.
 > >>
 > >>  3)  It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another;
 > >>  one
 > >>        rule does not bring into question another rule's
 > >>        appropriateness.
 > >>
 > >>  4)  It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound
 > >>  by
 > >>        the ruleset, is.  Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at
 > >>        by
 > >>        the participants and agreed to.  (I personally feel #1,2, and 3
 > >>        are not achievable without this, as they require oversight.
 > >>        This
 > >>        criterion provides it.)
 > >>
 > >>  So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any
 > >>  of these four criteria, together or in isolation.
 > >>
 > >>  And I'll re-assert my position:  I don't think this is an unreasonable
 > >>  expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as
 > >>  ICANN.
 > >>
 > >>  Don't get me wrong;  It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a
 > >>  ruleset
 > >>  that meets those 4 criteria.  But that's a different matter altogether
 > >>  from
 > >>  expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria.  And, even if I didn't
 > >>  particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be
 > >>  able to work within that ruleset with confidence.
 > >>
 > >>  I'd love it if we could get to that point.
 > >>
 > >>  >
 > >>  >  [Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination*
 > >>  >period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC.  Nominated candidates
 > >>  >have
 > >>  >until 9 pm CET to accept.]
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>  --
 > >>  Mark C. Langston
 > >>  mark@bitshift.org
 > >>  Systems Admin
 > >>  San Jose, CA >>
 > >
 > > Bob Davis... >>