[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: BOUNCE ga@dnso.org: Message too long (>40000 chars)
The size of postings to the majordomo lists is limited by default
to 40000 chars.
Anything above needs a manual approval of the DNSO Listadmin.
Some persons do not know there is a limit, and send several tries in
a short laps of time.
Therefore a trublesome situation for the listadmin, who sees what
happen, at least he thinks so.
Let pass all *huge* copies ? Are all Fwds copies ? Let pass the first one,
and expect the sender will understand ?
Below is the current (third ?) copy bounced.
Yesterday two posts were awaiting bounced:
>O 1 DNSO.Listadmin@dns Tue Jan 25 23:53 1482/59451 BOUNCE ga@dnso.org: M
>O 2 DNSO.Listadmin@dns Wed Jan 26 00:13 1589/61733 BOUNCE ga@dnso.org: M
DNSO Listadmin
--
> From DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.dnso.org Wed Jan 26 13:19 MET 2000
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:14:21 +0100 (MET)
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org
> To: owner-ga@dnso.org
> Subject: BOUNCE ga@dnso.org: Message too long (>40000 chars)
>
> >From ga-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org Wed Jan 26 13:14:19 2000
> Received: from clever.visp-europe.psi.com (clever.visp-europe.psi.com [212.222.105.4])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA16347
> for <ga@dnso.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:14:01 +0100 (MET)
> Received: from ip205.gex.pub-ip.fr.psi.net ([154.15.22.205] helo=ibm.net)
> by clever.visp-europe.psi.com with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
> id 12DRL6-0005zN-00; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:14:25 +0100
> Message-ID: <388EE33D.6E731C42@ibm.net>
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:06:24 +0100
> From: Mark Measday <measday@ibm.net>
> Reply-To: measday@ibm.net
> Organization: Josmarian SA
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
> X-Accept-Language: en,fr,fr-CH,de-DE,zh-CN,zh-TW,zh,ja,ko,uk,tr,sv,es-ES
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>, ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [ga] Re: bounced messages]]
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="------------12AB784C3D43F7FB6B204CAD"
>
>
> --------------12AB784C3D43F7FB6B204CAD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Ah, well, that one came through. In which case you might want to ask
> them why none of these were posted
>
> Mark Measday wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mark Measday wrote:
> >
> >> Actually Harald, I have posted in the past to this list as
> >> josmarian.ch as well as ibm.net (3.12.99).
> >>
> >> Perhaps the divine Marquise or yourself was kind enough to forward
> >> them to the list in the past, and now do(es) not have enough time.
> >> Anyway thanks. Indeed I went back and found a message from the DNSO
> >> secretariat telling me to post from ibm.net, so my apologies. The
> >> messages which did not get posted are below. :-)
> >>
> >> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >>
> >> > At 22:45 25.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
> >> > >Grateful if you could confirm on what grounds posting privileges
> >> > to this
> >> > >list have been revoked, and for who else.
> >> >
> >> > Mark,
> >> > to repeat what Elisabeth has told you several times:
> >> > ONLY MEMBERS of the GA list have posting privilleges.
> >> > The membership is counted BY EMAIL ADDRESS, and NOT by identity as
> >> > person.
> >> >
> >> > measday@ibm.net IS a member, and has posting privilleges.
> >> > measday@josmarian.ch IS NOT a member, and therefore has no
> >> > posting
> >> > privilleges.
> >> >
> >> > Either post as measday@ibm.net, or subscribe as
> >> > measday@josmarian.ch.
> >> > Got that?
> >> >
> >> > Harald A
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> >> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
> >>
> >>
> >> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark and all,
> >> >
> >> > Well I have to agree strongly with Mark here. But Makr you need
> >> to
> >> > appologize to everyone here for you posting as me fradulently
> >> before
> >> > it is too late....
> >>
> >> Jeff,
> >>
> >> (i) reflection
> >>
> >> > Whilst I would like to clarify the situation with the apology you
> >> request, I am informed
> >> > that I cannot in your terms, as it was not sent in your name. (do
> >> have Louis check it).
> >>
> >> > Whilst the discrimination between Jeff Williams and Jeff Willliams
> >> (with the extra 'l' for
> >> > Louis) is a fine one, it is a discrimination in matters of
> >> identity. And we are talking
> >> > about identity, Jeff Williams and Jeff Willliams are different.
> >> Not very different but
> >> > more different that the phonetic or iconic differentiation between
> >> the several thousand
> >> > Jeff Williams around the globe with email addresses who may or may
> >> not dial in. Or on a
> >> > par with JeffreyWilliams@ix.netcom.com or JR
> >> Williams@ix.netcom.com. Other than the fact
> >> > that three consecutive 'l's in English is an unlikely cluster and
> >> most probably not
> >> > admitted, a little Xhosa pun from Phoebe.
> >>
> >> > In respect of my own defining nomenclature, which I had always
> >> assumed a Saxon joke or a
> >> > weak attempt to redefine the calendar, I made the surprising
> >> discovery recently that not
> >> > only did a lot of Measdays get thrown out of Europe (deported to
> >> Australia for free-market
> >> > activities, emigration to the free world for the usual political
> >> offences) , but that they
> >> > prospered, abolishing slavery with Mr Lincoln, setting up the
> >> League of Nations with
> >> > Woodrow Wilson etc, apparently with a standing .invitation to play
> >> poker with Vint. (Check
> >> > with Alex Measday at NASA and Roy Measday the Measday genealogist,
> >> both online). However,
> >> > I take this on advisement from them. And the problem remains,
> >> there is no way you can tell
> >> > whether this is being typed by me or someone else.
> >>
> >> In the UN there used to be a number of techniques for adjusting
> >> reality. The US technique
> >> for this is called marketing, where a group of like minded-people
> >> group together about an
> >> idea or concept and enthuse about it. This pushes stuff and people
> >> they don't enthuse about
> >> out. For example, if JRWilliams becomes the iconic and historic
> >> integrator for ICANN, then
> >> Benzo Schmidt of Lucerne or Ulkie MMungambo of Gisenyi get
> >> depressed, not necessarily
> >> because s/he has even heard of you, but because s/he has been
> >> assigned a position in the
> >> market without any action or volition on his/er part. Laa Illah waa
> >> Allah.....
> >>
> >> The UN technique, based on French bureaucracy and KGB (? not an
> >> expert on this, I may be
> >> doing a disservice to my country of birth) techniques is to erase
> >> people. Very simply the
> >> opposite of pointing, underlining or marketing. Take an event,
> >> person or action that was
> >> unwanted and get rid of it. You trace that event, its connections,
> >> anyone who had talked
> >> about it etc, and let it be known that it didn't happen. That
> >> JeffWilliams was unreal. That
> >> an impostor like Milton Mueller was the fountain of truth, but that
> >> anything from the
> >> Williams camp was lies. And so on. The most famous instance was
> >> Lysenko, I believe, I can't
> >> trace the originators of the technique before the Sabine women, who
> >> may well have invented
> >> it.
> >>
> >> As a beneficiary of this technique (they stole my wife and kids, and
> >> still ask occasionally
> >> what brain operation or my relatives would like when things aren't
> >> going in the right
> >> direction), I can document its powerful effect. And, like all
> >> holistic, philosophical
> >> techniques it is purely ideational, has plausible levels of
> >> deniability, etc. Consequently,
> >> any email you receive in the name of Jeff Willliams should be
> >> treated with these concerns in
> >> mind.
> >>
> >> (ii) action
> >>
> >> Jeff, you are quite correct. However, as you know, I am a
> >> philosopher by training, and this
> >> post was designed to carry out a number of tasks.
> >>
> >> > (i) question matters of authentication in everyday email
> >> discourse.
> >> > (ii) crystallise debate on the questions of actual, legal, moral
> >> and institutional
> >> > personality relevant to the dnso
> >> > (iii) enable us to turn away (one hopes) from the dry dust of
> >> internecine warfare to
> >> > somewhat more productive concerns.
> >> >
> >> > It has cerrtainly done that, and I have yet another request to
> >> sign a letter before me
> >> > somewhat curtailing my ability to discuss in public.
> >>
> >> However, in this respect I would make the following proposal: that
> >> INEGroup incorporate as
> >> the basis of the new IDNO within the next few days, with officers
> >> drawn from IDNO, DNSO and
> >> other qualified quarters. I can have this done in London if you
> >> prefer, absent any actions
> >> from Mssrs Walsh and Mueller. Drawing on INEGroup legal and
> >> financial resources (and I thank
> >> you for the very generous cheque) we should just make the deadline
> >> for submission to ICANN.
> >> I will email you privately on my proposals for any remunerated
> >> positions, however I believe
> >> it would be important for you and I to take a back seat and let the
> >> functional specialists
> >> get on with. We owe it to the lawyers to put them out of their
> >> misery by decisive action
> >> now.
> >>
> >> Yours sincerely,
> >>
> >> Mark Measday
> >>
> >> be constructive]
> >> Date:
> >> Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:28:23 +0100
> >> From:
> >> Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>
> >> Organization:
> >> Josmarian SA
> >> To:
> >> idno-discuss@idno.org
> >> CC:
> >> ga@dnso.org
> >> BCC:
> >> measday@josmarian.ch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (reposted by request of JT, originally bounced from idno list for
> >> 'technical' reasons)
> >>
> >> Mark Measday wrote:
> >>
> >> > Joop, SC, others,
> >> >
> >> > FWIW, if one can put forward the experience of one who largely sat
> >> on the sidelines
> >> > and watched, I have seen Joop doing things, in Santiago and
> >> online, which
> >> > forcefully furthered the possibility of an IDNO constituency in
> >> ICANN.
> >> >
> >> > He fought hard against a perception, put in place by Esther and
> >> other Board members
> >> > that enough was enough and that the generically-IAHC-formed
> >> constituency structure
> >> > would be sufficient. He was much more effective (in my perception
> >> - not necessarily
> >> > a true picture, but the only one I have) than Karl at getting the
> >> IDNO on the
> >> > agenda (no offence to Mr. Auerbach, I hope, his concerns are too
> >> refined and
> >> > sophisticated for many, Joop's a lawyer.) and nothing much
> >> happened in Los Angeles
> >> > as a result for IDNO. I haven't seen Mr. Thornton doing anything,
> >> from which I
> >> > neither deduce that he does nothing or is a fixer of the mystic
> >> muddle, but I have
> >> > seen Joop acting. Many of the original members of the IDNO, whose
> >> structure as far
> >> > as I could see incorporated much of the BWG thinking, and thus had
> >> a geography
> >> > problem that most of its influential members weren't in NZ
> >> (correct?), would rejoin
> >> > if there were to be
> >> >
> >> > Unilateral, decisive, effective action is not democratic unless it
> >> works. It looks
> >> > to me that Joop couldn't carry the unbalanced weight of a
> >> partially US membership
> >> > and that it fell apart in petty infighting and recrimination.
> >> Correct me if I am
> >> > wrong. Which is a pity because the concerns represented by the
> >> disenfranchisement
> >> > of the BWG (with which I had no involvement and have very little
> >> knowledge of) are
> >> > those of any honest individuals (Poujadist in French) faced with
> >> the slippery power
> >> > of the state and large corporations.
> >> >
> >> > As a result nobody got anything, and the original brief that there
> >> is a justifiable
> >> > requirement for an IDNO (small individual proprietors, holders and
> >> users, -
> >> > entirely different from the NCDNH, now full of West African
> >> Universities due to the
> >> > efforts of Dr Nii Quaynor- particularly outside US jurisdiction
> >> where that US tax
> >> > distinction is irrelevant ) remains.
> >> >
> >> > Were the members of the IDNO group as smart as say, NSI, (yup,
> >> they're very smart,
> >> > which is why ICANN wanted to be them, no?), they would quietly and
> >> without undue
> >> > publicity incorporate the IDNO with, say, the assistance of a
> >> friendly
> >> > jurisdiction and build some clear proposals for a de facto
> >> declaration of existence
> >> > and strong negotiating position in Cairo. If you could get Jeff
> >> Williams elected as
> >> > Vice-President to deal with anything that Joop and his powerful
> >> backers cannot
> >> > handle, you might just find that the terrifying thought of dealing
> >> with Jeff
> >> > face-to-face would concentrate people's minds enough to get the
> >> business done. (not
> >> > a joke or English irony, deadly serious). It may be that things
> >> have moved on too
> >> > far, but nothing is ever irreversible in marketing and consumer
> >> education,
> >> > particularly at Board level.
> >> >
> >> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > > Hash: SHA1
> >> > >
> >> > > Last month, I noticed that Joop had placed a link attached to my
> >> name on the
> >> > > founding members page that linked to an email I had sent to the
> >> list. I
> >> > > objected to that for a couple reasons. One small one was that
> >> the email was
> >> > > not in context, which it would be in the archives around the
> >> messages it was in
> >> > > response to. The other, and more important, reason was that it
> >> was not
> >> > > appropriate for Joop to make such a unilateral change of the
> >> website,
> >> > > especially one that had such implications for the presentation
> >> of a member of
> >> > > this organization. I demanded that he remove it. I threatened
> >> to make quite a
> >> > > stink if he didn't. He refused and hemmed and hawwed about how
> >> he could do
> >> > > whatever was necessary to defend the IDNO, etc. What he was
> >> saying was that he
> >> > > felt he had the right to do whatever he wanted if in his own
> >> personal view the
> >> > > IDNO was at risk, regardless of it being just HIS opinion, and
> >> that the IDNO
> >> > > was not HIS to do with what he pleases. But in his mind, the
> >> IDNO IS his, and
> >> > > he decides what to do with it. This has been the illusion Joop
> >> has been trying
> >> > > to hide for sometime.
> >> > >
> >> > > In any event, Arnold got drawn into the dispute over this link,
> >> and Arnold
> >> > > himself told Joop to remove it, completely. What did Joop do?
> >> He removed the
> >> > > word resigned, but left the link in place. He was looking for
> >> anything he
> >> > > could do to get what he wanted without having to outright make
> >> it obvious that
> >> > > he didn't care about real process and organization mandates. He
> >> doesn't want
> >> > > to acknowledge that he is just the caretaker of the organization
> >> website, and
> >> > > not its director. The organization directs the content of the
> >> website, not the
> >> > > caretaker. This is not the role Joop wanted to play. He hemmed
> >> and hawed
> >> > > somemore, but when he became clear the he did not have the
> >> support he thought
> >> > > he would have in Arnold, and that he would be portrayed badly as
> >> a result, he
> >> > > removed the link.
> >> > >
> >> > > I didn't make good on my threat, despite the fact that he was
> >> days behind in
> >> > > the deadline I set. I was trying to be reasonable. With Joop,
> >> it is very hard
> >> > > to do that.
> >> > >
> >> > > I just wanted to point out that he has done that again, now. He
> >> has prepared a
> >> > > page called "Coup" and in it he has placed an email sent by a
> >> member of this
> >> > > organization to the Steering Committee members who were
> >> discussing the future
> >> > > of the organization. His title for the page, and his
> >> characterization of it on
> >> > > the General Assembly forum of the DNSO has made it appear that
> >> this conclusion
> >> > > is the official position of the IDNO, and that this supposed
> >> "coup" page was
> >> > > endorsed by the IDNO.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is not the case.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/coup.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > Joop has time and time again acted in a fashion that shows he
> >> was more
> >> > > interested in an IDNO that gave the illusion of democracy, but
> >> in reality gave
> >> > > him the backing and pulpit to lobby for what he thinks should be
> >> happening in
> >> > > the IDNO process.
> >> > >
> >> > > The IDNO was supposed to be an organization for domain name
> >> > > owners, where the domain owners could get together, elect people
> >> to represent
> >> > > their views in the process, and keep informed and help each
> >> other in the
> >> > > process.
> >> > >
> >> > > It was not a rally behind one person or personality. It is
> >> > > unfortunate that because of the way Joop insisted on running it
> >> that a one
> >> > > personality rally is all that is left of the IDNO membership.
> >> Nearly EVERY
> >> > > active member who supported views contrary to Joop's agenda has
> >> left the IDNO.
> >> > > I would say EVERY one, but there are 1 or 2 I am not certain of.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > With those people leaving, the wind has been let out of the
> >> sails of the IDNO.
> >> > > What was an ambitious endeavour, has been squandered by one
> >> persons selfish
> >> > > ambitions and refusal to let the organization go its own way,
> >> even if it wasn't
> >> > > his own. He couldn't accept an organization where half the
> >> members didn't
> >> > > agree with his view of the structure, so he alienated them. He
> >> did not
> >> > > participate in the charter committee with good faith, instead
> >> being a clear
> >> > > obstacle to anything nearing compromise or consensus.
> >> > >
> >> > > You know are left with nothing but the Fan Club, Joop. That is
> >> what you
> >> > > wanted, and that is now what you have. But you are much weaker
> >> for it, my
> >> > > former friend. And you don't even realize it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark Measday wrote:
> >>
> >> > Harald,
> >> >
> >> > Duh,
> >> >
> >> > The point of the request for strong authentication is that there
> >> is currently no
> >> > way that identity can be proven on the internet on a personal
> >> basis, other than
> >> > statistically by the cryptanalytic techniques of semantic and
> >> textual analysis.
> >> > (these for example, show roughly that Brian Hollingsworth, Jeff
> >> Williams, DNSIPV6
> >> > and Louis Touton, all from the same Dallas dial-up as you know,
> >> are all probably
> >> > the same person, but also indicate conversely (not necessarily
> >> conclusively) that
> >> > different people write Jeff Williams at different times and, for
> >> example, different
> >> > people appear to write Ken Stubbs, Roberto Gaetano and Kent
> >> Crispin at different
> >> > times) There are other surprise results.
> >> >
> >> > This is a one to many and many to one philosophical problem.which
> >> recurs in many
> >> > cases. Now assume that you have supplied to PSI an indication that
> >> their IP was
> >> > used to transmit the offending message. As it happens I have no
> >> account with
> >> > PSI-NET, but let's assume that I have.
> >> >
> >> > You ask PSI to block this account and they agree, but find, it's a
> >> computer in a
> >> > bar in Gex, used by many people. You inform the French police,
> >> they lay in wait and
> >> > catch someone, a red-headed, poorly-dressed American citizen
> >> called Jeffrey
> >> > Williams, born in Kansas City in 1949 or thereabouts.
> >> >
> >> > Jeff captured for impersonating himself?
> >> >
> >> > MM
> >> >
> >> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > At 21:00 20.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
> >> > > >Harald,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Thanks, but a reservation.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >There cannot be two sets of rules, one for those of us in
> >> Dallas and another
> >> > > >for the rest of the world.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >1. You say there are no rules in force yet. Therefore, you
> >> cannot submit this
> >> > > >instance until those rules have come into force. Yet, you
> >> forward something to
> >> > > >PSI, as IP address operator. A clear procedural anomaly, no?
> >> > >
> >> > > If (as is common) sending forged email is against the AUP of
> >> PSI, this is
> >> > > notifying them of an user violating their AUP.
> >> > >
> >> > > >2. what is the nature of the alleged abuse? It could not have
> >> been
> >> > > >spoofing, as the email does not match the name of any list
> >> subscriber. It
> >> > > >cannot have been spam, as there is no solicitation. It cannot
> >> be an
> >> > > >offence to write to the list under an assumed name, as many of
> >> the list do
> >> > > >that. It cannot be fraud, as Mr Mueller has yet to represent
> >> himself to my
> >> > > >lawyers. Unless an offence can be found, there is no offence.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sending forged email.
> >> > > BTW, Jeff Williams is a subscriber to the GA list, which got a
> >> copy of the
> >> > > message.
> >> > >
> >> > > >I repeat my question:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to provide the appropriate
> >> jurisprudence?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >Best regards,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Mark Measday
> >> > >
> >> > > There is no sergeant-at-arms (yet). Just us.
> >> > >
> >> > > Harald A
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> >> > > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Idle suggestion
> >> Date:
> >> Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:50:19 +0100
> >> From:
> >> Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>
> >> Reply-To:
> >> measday@ibm.net
> >> Organization:
> >> Josmarian SA
> >> To:
> >> ga@dnso.org
> >> CC:
> >> froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> >> BCC:
> >> measday@josmarian.ch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know whether Prof. Froomkin's intriguing suggestion that the
> >> ga
> >> should become the basis for the at-large membership of ICANN bears
> >> any
> >> weight. One fears not. However, let's see:
> >>
> >> Vote at http://www.josmarian.ch 'Enlargement of DNSO General
> >> Assembly to
> >> make basis of ICANN membership' or
> >> http://vote.Pollit.com/webpoll/172545
> >>
> >> This is an idle query, and is in no way designed to draw away from
> >> Joop's able efforts with IDNO, where he has obviously been paid the
> >> compliment of people pretending to be him, it might be worth asking
> >> the
> >> question. And who knows, if some can vote with different IPs on
> >> different computers with different identities frequently enough, you
> >>
> >> might make a quorum to take the mighty vox populi of the DNSO
> >> forward to
> >> merger with the other SO's and something useful, now that there is
> >> able
> >> leadership in the form of Roberto and Harald, buttressed by the
> >> ex-officio moderation of Ms Rony, Mr Baptista and Mr Williams, plus
> >> a
> >> set of rules.
> >>
> >> 1. Paradise Regained Let's say we get 2500 votes, with 1800 in
> >> favour.
> >> Jeff gets Vint Cerf to send a message to all the civil servants in
> >> the
> >> US government and they take the hint. Take it forward to the next
> >> ICANN
> >> meeting. Put it to the Board as a fait accompli.
> >>
> >> 2. Paradise Lost Let's say we don't. In an informal straw poll, of
> >> 61
> >> people checking a similar votebot over a period of 60 days from
> >> abour
> >> 300, 7 thought a question concerning the type of people who should
> >> be
> >> concerned in an at-large membership important enought to vote, with
> >> negligible results. Maslow was right.
> >>
> >> Perhaps if there is interest, .Roberto could be mandated to mandate
> >> Joop
> >> to set up the proper procedures, etc. as chair.
> >>
> >>
> >> MM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Request for suspension of Milton Mueller from ga list[ga]
> >> Re: Formal Attribution of
> >> Identity for everyday email sources? Yes please
> >> Date:
> >> Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:49:11 +0100
> >> From:
> >> Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>
> >> Organization:
> >> Josmarian SA
> >> To:
> >> ga@dnso.org
> >> BCC:
> >> measday@josmarian.ch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I believe that Ellen Rony is wrong in not requesting hard
> >> verification of identity. The following details why.
> >>
> >> As Mssrs Baptista and Williams have pointed out this is very
> >> necessary. They, highly-skilled internet users, are
> >> unable to prove to their own satisfaction (i) where an email
> >> originates from (ii) whether Mark R Measday (one of
> >> the 17 in the United States I believe, something you could check
> >> through the National Office) is identical or not
> >> with the Mark Measday you presume lives in France and runs Josmarian
> >> and (iii) anything about operator identity
> >> at all.. And yes, PGP or its like is so heavy, and still proves
> >> little..
> >>
> >> You have made assumptions to that effect on an intuitive,
> >> commonplace basis. In the unabridged version of the
> >> text previously distributed below, please find some prima facie
> >> reasons why these assumptions could be attacked
> >> in a court of law, or even appropriate philosophical grounds.
> >>
> >> I would request the suspension of Mr Mueller (should it be he, that
> >> would need to be verified) from this list for
> >> not only infringement of the civilised discourse rules he is
> >> supposed to support, but libellous slander, which
> >> may go under another name in your jurisdiction. His accusations of
> >> fraud are injudicious, untenable and absurd.
> >>
> >> He may contact either my lawyers in London (Nick Hutton
> >> 0171.488.2300 or Geneva (Bertrand Reich at
> >> Reich&Zen-Ruffinen) if he wishes to support his claim, otherwise I
> >> accept his apology that, as a man of no
> >> understanding he has wandered into waters for which he has no chart
> >> and his request that he be suspended from
> >> this and all other ICANN lists sine die.
> >>
> >> I do not copy the US Government on this little tiff. However, I
> >> would point out to Jeff that Vladimir Putin's
> >> email is president@gov.ru if he wants to get interesting replies to
> >> his email, which presumably he doesn't often,
> >> as he completely missed the point..
> >>
> >>
> >> Gentlemen, Kathy, Milt,
> >>
> >> Please give some details of what you have been up to, while I was
> >> out working.
> >> I understand you are searching a positive attribution of identity
> >> for an email
> >> that was sent, but repudiated by, Jeff Williams. There has been a
> >> private
> >> correspondence with Mr Baptista and Mr Williams on the subject.
> >>
> >> What reasons are there for believing the parties concerned are
> >> telling the
> >> truth or lying? I offer the following hypothetical notes which might
> >> be
> >> useful::
> >>
> >> (i) Place: Wrong location
> >>
> >> Josmarian is a Swiss consultancy company. Mr Baptista would appear
> >> to be
> >> alleging that someone at PSI-NET forged something in France. I
> >> personally fail
> >> to see the connection. One is Switzerland, the other is France. is
> >> there some
> >> kind of tunnel? Why would French traffic transit Switzerland or
> >> vice-versa,
> >> given Switzerland's non-membership of European Union institutions
> >> and separate
> >> legal institutions?. If you wish to check this with PSI.-NET you
> >> will find
> >> their European legal unit at vycichlc@psi.com (sic). Perhaps you can
> >> enlighten
> >> me thereafter.
> >>
> >> (ii) Identity: Multiple accusations , no basis of attribution
> >>
> >> Elisabeth, Marquise de Porteneuve, of AFNIC and personally known to
> >> you I
> >> believe, was accused of offending Baptista and Williams in the first
> >> instance.
> >> Mr Baptista has already pleaded guilty to insulting this fine lady
> >> and highly
> >> competent administrator, although in other areas he shows admirable
> >> respect
> >> for truth, including undertaking the necessary potty-training for
> >> 'Silly me'
> >> Milt. Therefore I understand you have no test (or we have no-one
> >> technically
> >> competent in the ga to decide on the attribution of identity other
> >> than by
> >> inspection of headers that we have seen successfully falsified by
> >> Joe
> >> elsewhere) which can (i) prove machine identity and provenance and
> >> (ii) prove
> >> operator identity. As such the necessary consensus to create the
> >> necessary
> >> level of trust is unobtainable due to (i) political differences
> >> (e.g. Crispin
> >> vs others, Baptista vs non-anarchists,) (ii) misunderstanding (US vs
> >> non-US
> >> stylistics, basic lingusitic and cultural differences) and (iii)
> >> lack of a
> >> scientifically unfalsifiable verifiability test, this all despite
> >> the
> >> professional intervention of Mr Alvestrand, whose experience is
> >> based on the
> >> highly successful IETF model and whose assistance should be accorded
> >> greater
> >> respect.
> >>
> >> (iii) Motive: Not in my interest:
> >>
> >> It would therefore seem most unlikely, prima facie that I, or my
> >> agents,
> >> would have so patently falsified this email with so many obvious
> >> pointers in
> >> my direction (Mr Baptista's theory). However, you might wish to
> >> consider the
> >> opposite thesis: that those who wish me no good have 'set me up'. In
> >> most
> >> civilised countries one is innocent until proven guilty. I note
> >> other pointers
> >> that substantiate Jeff's thesis that it was not him, you may well,
> >> should you
> >> be fair, note pointers that indicate it was not me. Why on earth
> >> would I
> >> impersonate Jeff?
> >>
> >> (iv) Time: Unsubstantiated allegation:
> >>
> >> I am accused libellously of some heinous mail fraud by Milt.. At
> >> about 4am
> >> CET, I understand. Whilst I admire Jeff for his persistence and
> >> honesty, those
> >> who imagine that I sit up all night attempting to copy his
> >> inimitable
> >> communications style and wit would misunderstand what I use nights
> >> for. I
> >> would theoretically ask Milt to put up or shut up, along the lines
> >> of
> >> 'However, should he wish not to withdraw his allegations
> >> unreservedly, he
> >> should expect sanction for the illicit, libellous and untrue
> >> allegations he
> >> has made', but I was told not to bother. No-one believes him
> >> anyway..In fact,
> >> noone has heard of him. Fraud, Milt? And, pray, what was the fraud?
> >> Pick any
> >> jurisdiction in the world and I'll be a happy defendant against
> >> you. It was
> >> not I who called you Garrin's cret(a/i)n poodle. Let's be friends..
> >>
> >> (iv) Motive: Group psychological motivation
> >>
> >> Presumably you will find someone else to blame after you find I am
> >> innocent.
> >> Did none of you read the Crucible at school, where the free-floating
> >> fear
> >> generated by change and its need for symbolic expiation are
> >> dramatised? Can
> >> you not see the relevance that any group of people inevitably throw
> >> up the
> >> same archetypes? Pedants, ingenues, machiavels, and the most
> >> twisted, those
> >> who believe they are right, and the others wrong? Do you recognise
> >> yourself,
> >> Milt?
> >>
> >>
> >> v) Result: Potentially Productive Outcome
> >>
> >> It looks like someone has set up something to test Harald's new
> >> rules, using
> >> my, Jeff's and other identities. This is not necessarily a bad
> >> thing. I think
> >> we should have been asked perhaps. Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to
> >> provide
> >> the appropriate jurisprudence? Mr Baptista and Mr Williams have
> >> already made
> >> intelligent private comments concerning this. I suggest that Harald
> >> be allowed
> >> to get on with it.
> >>
> >> Conclusion
> >>
> >> I would humbly suggest to the ga membership that if the ga were to
> >> give a gift
> >> to the world that would stand it in good stead it would be something
> >> to
> >> satisfy the gradations of verbal and written contract at present
> >> repudiable in
> >> normal email. Mssrs Baptista and Williams, amongst others, are
> >> contributing to
> >> this development.
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> MM
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> > The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
> > the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
> > privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
> > copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
> > form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please
> > e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
> the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
> privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
> copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
> form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please
> e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --------------12AB784C3D43F7FB6B204CAD
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> Ah, well, that one came through. In which case you might want to ask them
> why none of these were posted
> <p>Mark Measday wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
> <p>Mark Measday wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Actually Harald, I have posted in the past to this
> list as josmarian.ch as well as ibm.net (3.12.99).
> <p>Perhaps the divine Marquise or yourself was kind enough to forward them
> to the list in the past, and now do(es) not have enough time. Anyway thanks.
> Indeed I went back and found a message from the DNSO secretariat telling
> me to post from ibm.net, so my apologies. The messages which did not get
> posted are below. :-)
> <p><font size=-2>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:</font>
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=-2>At 22:45 25.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday
> wrote:</font>
> <br><font size=-2>>Grateful if you could confirm on what grounds posting
> privileges to this</font>
> <br><font size=-2>>list have been revoked, and for who else.</font>
> <p><font size=-2>Mark,</font>
> <br><font size=-2>to repeat what Elisabeth has told you several times:</font>
> <br><font size=-2>ONLY MEMBERS of the GA list have posting privilleges.</font>
> <br><font size=-2>The membership is counted BY EMAIL ADDRESS, and NOT by
> identity as person.</font>
> <p><font size=-2> measday@ibm.net IS a member, and has posting privilleges.</font>
> <br><font size=-2> measday@josmarian.ch IS NOT a member, and therefore
> has no posting</font>
> <br><font size=-2> privilleges.</font>
> <p><font size=-2>Either post as measday@ibm.net, or subscribe as measday@josmarian.ch.</font>
> <br><font size=-2>Got that?</font>
> <p><font size=-2>
> Harald A</font>
> <p>--
> <br>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> <br>Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no</blockquote>
>
> <p><br>Jeff Williams wrote:
> <p>> Mark and all,
> <br>>
> <br>> Well I have to agree strongly with Mark here. But
> Makr you need to
> <br>> appologize to everyone here for you posting as me fradulently before
> <br>> it is too late....
> <p>Jeff,
> <p>(i) reflection
> <p>> Whilst I would like to clarify the situation with the apology you
> request, I am informed
> <br>> that I cannot in your terms, as it was not sent in your name. (do
> have Louis check it).
> <p>> Whilst the discrimination between Jeff Williams and Jeff Willliams
> (with the extra 'l' for
> <br>> Louis) is a fine one, it is a discrimination in matters of identity.
> And we are talking
> <br>> about identity, Jeff Williams and Jeff Willliams are different. Not
> very different but
> <br>> more different that the phonetic or iconic differentiation between
> the several thousand
> <br>> Jeff Williams around the globe with email addresses who may or may
> not dial in. Or on a
> <br>> par with JeffreyWilliams@ix.netcom.com or JR Williams@ix.netcom.com.
> Other than the fact
> <br>> that three consecutive 'l's in English is an unlikely cluster and
> most probably not
> <br>> admitted, a little Xhosa pun from Phoebe.
> <p>> In respect of my own defining nomenclature, which I had always assumed
> a Saxon joke or a
> <br>> weak attempt to redefine the calendar, I made the surprising discovery
> recently that not
> <br>> only did a lot of Measdays get thrown out of Europe (deported to
> Australia for free-market
> <br>> activities, emigration to the free world for the usual political
> offences) , but that they
> <br>> prospered, abolishing slavery with Mr Lincoln, setting up the League
> of Nations with
> <br>> Woodrow Wilson etc, apparently with a standing .invitation to play
> poker with Vint. (Check
> <br>> with Alex Measday at NASA and Roy Measday the Measday genealogist,
> both online). However,
> <br>> I take this on advisement from them. And the problem remains, there
> is no way you can tell
> <br>> whether this is being typed by me or someone else.
> <p>In the UN there used to be a number of techniques for adjusting reality.
> The US technique
> <br>for this is called marketing, where a group of like minded-people group
> together about an
> <br>idea or concept and enthuse about it. This pushes stuff and people
> they don't enthuse about
> <br>out. For example, if JRWilliams becomes the iconic and historic integrator
> for ICANN, then
> <br>Benzo Schmidt of Lucerne or Ulkie MMungambo of Gisenyi get depressed,
> not necessarily
> <br>because s/he has even heard of you, but because s/he has been assigned
> a position in the
> <br>market without any action or volition on his/er part. Laa Illah waa
> Allah.....
> <p>The UN technique, based on French bureaucracy and KGB (? not an expert
> on this, I may be
> <br>doing a disservice to my country of birth) techniques is to erase people.
> Very simply the
> <br>opposite of pointing, underlining or marketing. Take an event, person
> or action that was
> <br>unwanted and get rid of it. You trace that event, its connections,
> anyone who had talked
> <br>about it etc, and let it be known that it didn't happen. That JeffWilliams
> was unreal. That
> <br>an impostor like Milton Mueller was the fountain of truth, but that
> anything from the
> <br>Williams camp was lies. And so on. The most famous instance was Lysenko,
> I believe, I can't
> <br>trace the originators of the technique before the Sabine women, who
> may well have invented
> <br>it.
> <p>As a beneficiary of this technique (they stole my wife and kids, and
> still ask occasionally
> <br>what brain operation or my relatives would like when things aren't
> going in the right
> <br>direction), I can document its powerful effect. And, like all holistic,
> philosophical
> <br>techniques it is purely ideational, has plausible levels of deniability,
> etc. Consequently,
> <br>any email you receive in the name of Jeff Willliams should be treated
> with these concerns in
> <br>mind.
> <p>(ii) action
> <p>Jeff, you are quite correct. However, as you know, I am a philosopher
> by training, and this
> <br>post was designed to carry out a number of tasks.
> <p>> (i) question matters of authentication in everyday email discourse.
> <br>> (ii) crystallise debate on the questions of actual, legal, moral
> and institutional
> <br>> personality relevant to the dnso
> <br>> (iii) enable us to turn away (one hopes) from the dry dust of internecine
> warfare to
> <br>> somewhat more productive concerns.
> <br>>
> <br>> It has cerrtainly done that, and I have yet another request to sign
> a letter before me
> <br>> somewhat curtailing my ability to discuss in public.
> <p>However, in this respect I would make the following proposal: that INEGroup
> incorporate as
> <br>the basis of the new IDNO within the next few days, with officers drawn
> from IDNO, DNSO and
> <br>other qualified quarters. I can have this done in London if you prefer,
> absent any actions
> <br>from Mssrs Walsh and Mueller. Drawing on INEGroup legal and financial
> resources (and I thank
> <br>you for the very generous cheque) we should just make the deadline
> for submission to ICANN.
> <br>I will email you privately on my proposals for any remunerated positions,
> however I believe
> <br>it would be important for you and I to take a back seat and let the
> functional specialists
> <br>get on with. We owe it to the lawyers to put them out of their misery
> by decisive action
> <br>now.
> <p>Yours sincerely,
> <p>Mark Measday
> <p>be constructive]
> <br> Date:
> <br> Sun, 23
> Jan 2000 11:28:23 +0100
> <br> From:
> <br> Mark Measday
> <measday@josmarian.ch>
> <br> Organization:
> <br> Josmarian
> SA
> <br> To:
> <br> idno-discuss@idno.org
> <br> CC:
> <br> ga@dnso.org
> <br> BCC:
> <br> measday@josmarian.ch
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>(reposted by request of JT, originally bounced from idno list for 'technical'
> reasons)
> <p>Mark Measday wrote:
> <p>> Joop, SC, others,
> <br>>
> <br>> FWIW, if one can put forward the experience of one who largely sat
> on the sidelines
> <br>> and watched, I have seen Joop doing things, in Santiago and online,
> which
> <br>> forcefully furthered the possibility of an IDNO constituency in ICANN.
> <br>>
> <br>> He fought hard against a perception, put in place by Esther and other
> Board members
> <br>> that enough was enough and that the generically-IAHC-formed constituency
> structure
> <br>> would be sufficient. He was much more effective (in my perception
> - not necessarily
> <br>> a true picture, but the only one I have) than Karl at getting the
> IDNO on the
> <br>> agenda (no offence to Mr. Auerbach, I hope, his concerns are too
> refined and
> <br>> sophisticated for many, Joop's a lawyer.) and nothing much happened
> in Los Angeles
> <br>> as a result for IDNO. I haven't seen Mr. Thornton doing anything,
> from which I
> <br>> neither deduce that he does nothing or is a fixer of the mystic muddle,
> but I have
> <br>> seen Joop acting. Many of the original members of the IDNO, whose
> structure as far
> <br>> as I could see incorporated much of the BWG thinking, and thus had
> a geography
> <br>> problem that most of its influential members weren't in NZ (correct?),
> would rejoin
> <br>> if there were to be
> <br>>
> <br>> Unilateral, decisive, effective action is not democratic unless it
> works. It looks
> <br>> to me that Joop couldn't carry the unbalanced weight of a partially
> US membership
> <br>> and that it fell apart in petty infighting and recrimination. Correct
> me if I am
> <br>> wrong. Which is a pity because the concerns represented by the disenfranchisement
> <br>> of the BWG (with which I had no involvement and have very little
> knowledge of) are
> <br>> those of any honest individuals (Poujadist in French) faced with
> the slippery power
> <br>> of the state and large corporations.
> <br>>
> <br>> As a result nobody got anything, and the original brief that there
> is a justifiable
> <br>> requirement for an IDNO (small individual proprietors, holders and
> users, -
> <br>> entirely different from the NCDNH, now full of West African Universities
> due to the
> <br>> efforts of Dr Nii Quaynor- particularly outside US jurisdiction where
> that US tax
> <br>> distinction is irrelevant ) remains.
> <br>>
> <br>> Were the members of the IDNO group as smart as say, NSI, (yup, they're
> very smart,
> <br>> which is why ICANN wanted to be them, no?), they would quietly and
> without undue
> <br>> publicity incorporate the IDNO with, say, the assistance of
> a friendly
> <br>> jurisdiction and build some clear proposals for a de facto declaration
> of existence
> <br>> and strong negotiating position in Cairo. If you could get Jeff Williams
> elected as
> <br>> Vice-President to deal with anything that Joop and his powerful backers
> cannot
> <br>> handle, you might just find that the terrifying thought of dealing
> with Jeff
> <br>> face-to-face would concentrate people's minds enough to get the business
> done. (not
> <br>> a joke or English irony, deadly serious). It may be that things have
> moved on too
> <br>> far, but nothing is ever irreversible in marketing and consumer education,
> <br>> particularly at Board level.
> <br>>
> <br>> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> <br>>
> <br>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> <br>> > Hash: SHA1
> <br>> >
> <br>> > Last month, I noticed that Joop had placed a link attached to my
> name on the
> <br>> > founding members page that linked to an email I had sent to the
> list. I
> <br>> > objected to that for a couple reasons. One small one
> was that the email was
> <br>> > not in context, which it would be in the archives around the messages
> it was in
> <br>> > response to. The other, and more important, reason was that
> it was not
> <br>> > appropriate for Joop to make such a unilateral change of the website,
> <br>> > especially one that had such implications for the presentation
> of a member of
> <br>> > this organization. I demanded that he remove it. I
> threatened to make quite a
> <br>> > stink if he didn't. He refused and hemmed and hawwed about
> how he could do
> <br>> > whatever was necessary to defend the IDNO, etc. What he was
> saying was that he
> <br>> > felt he had the right to do whatever he wanted if in his own personal
> view the
> <br>> > IDNO was at risk, regardless of it being just HIS opinion, and
> that the IDNO
> <br>> > was not HIS to do with what he pleases. But in his mind,
> the IDNO IS his, and
> <br>> > he decides what to do with it. This has been the illusion
> Joop has been trying
> <br>> > to hide for sometime.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > In any event, Arnold got drawn into the dispute over this link,
> and Arnold
> <br>> > himself told Joop to remove it, completely. What did Joop
> do? He removed the
> <br>> > word resigned, but left the link in place. He was looking
> for anything he
> <br>> > could do to get what he wanted without having to outright make
> it obvious that
> <br>> > he didn't care about real process and organization mandates.
> He doesn't want
> <br>> > to acknowledge that he is just the caretaker of the organization
> website, and
> <br>> > not its director. The organization directs the content of
> the website, not the
> <br>> > caretaker. This is not the role Joop wanted to play.
> He hemmed and hawed
> <br>> > somemore, but when he became clear the he did not have the support
> he thought
> <br>> > he would have in Arnold, and that he would be portrayed badly as
> a result, he
> <br>> > removed the link.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > I didn't make good on my threat, despite the fact that he was days
> behind in
> <br>> > the deadline I set. I was trying to be reasonable.
> With Joop, it is very hard
> <br>> > to do that.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > I just wanted to point out that he has done that again, now.
> He has prepared a
> <br>> > page called "Coup" and in it he has placed an email sent by a member
> of this
> <br>> > organization to the Steering Committee members who were discussing
> the future
> <br>> > of the organization. His title for the page, and his characterization
> of it on
> <br>> > the General Assembly forum of the DNSO has made it appear that
> this conclusion
> <br>> > is the official position of the IDNO, and that this supposed "coup"
> page was
> <br>> > endorsed by the IDNO.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > This is not the case.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > <a href="http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/coup.htm">http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/coup.htm</a>
> <br>> >
> <br>> > Joop has time and time again acted in a fashion that shows he was
> more
> <br>> > interested in an IDNO that gave the illusion of democracy, but
> in reality gave
> <br>> > him the backing and pulpit to lobby for what he thinks should be
> happening in
> <br>> > the IDNO process.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > The IDNO was supposed to be an organization for domain name
> <br>> > owners, where the domain owners could get together, elect people
> to represent
> <br>> > their views in the process, and keep informed and help each other
> in the
> <br>> > process.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > It was not a rally behind one person or personality. It is
> <br>> > unfortunate that because of the way Joop insisted on running it
> that a one
> <br>> > personality rally is all that is left of the IDNO membership.
> Nearly EVERY
> <br>> > active member who supported views contrary to Joop's agenda has
> left the IDNO.
> <br>> > I would say EVERY one, but there are 1 or 2 I am not certain of.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > With those people leaving, the wind has been let out of the sails
> of the IDNO.
> <br>> > What was an ambitious endeavour, has been squandered by one persons
> selfish
> <br>> > ambitions and refusal to let the organization go its own way, even
> if it wasn't
> <br>> > his own. He couldn't accept an organization where half the
> members didn't
> <br>> > agree with his view of the structure, so he alienated them.
> He did not
> <br>> > participate in the charter committee with good faith, instead being
> a clear
> <br>> > obstacle to anything nearing compromise or consensus.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > You know are left with nothing but the Fan Club, Joop. That
> is what you
> <br>> > wanted, and that is now what you have. But you are much weaker
> for it, my
> <br>> > former friend. And you don't even realize it.
> <br>
> <p>Mark Measday wrote:
> <p>> Harald,
> <br>>
> <br>> Duh,
> <br>>
> <br>> The point of the request for strong authentication is that there
> is currently no
> <br>> way that identity can be proven on the internet on a personal basis,
> other than
> <br>> statistically by the cryptanalytic techniques of semantic and textual
> analysis.
> <br>> (these for example, show roughly that Brian Hollingsworth, Jeff Williams,
> DNSIPV6
> <br>> and Louis Touton, all from the same Dallas dial-up as you know, are
> all probably
> <br>> the same person, but also indicate conversely (not necessarily conclusively)
> that
> <br>> different people write Jeff Williams at different times and, for
> example, different
> <br>> people appear to write Ken Stubbs, Roberto Gaetano and Kent Crispin
> at different
> <br>> times) There are other surprise results.
> <br>>
> <br>> This is a one to many and many to one philosophical problem.which
> recurs in many
> <br>> cases. Now assume that you have supplied to PSI an indication that
> their IP was
> <br>> used to transmit the offending message. As it happens I have no account
> with
> <br>> PSI-NET, but let's assume that I have.
> <br>>
> <br>> You ask PSI to block this account and they agree, but find, it's
> a computer in a
> <br>> bar in Gex, used by many people. You inform the French police, they
> lay in wait and
> <br>> catch someone, a red-headed, poorly-dressed American citizen called
> Jeffrey
> <br>> Williams, born in Kansas City in 1949 or thereabouts.
> <br>>
> <br>> Jeff captured for impersonating himself?
> <br>>
> <br>> MM
> <br>>
> <br>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> <br>>
> <br>> > At 21:00 20.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
> <br>> > >Harald,
> <br>> > >
> <br>> > >Thanks, but a reservation.
> <br>> > >
> <br>> > >There cannot be two sets of rules, one for those of us in Dallas
> and another
> <br>> > >for the rest of the world.
> <br>> > >
> <br>> > >1. You say there are no rules in force yet. Therefore, you cannot
> submit this
> <br>> > >instance until those rules have come into force. Yet, you forward
> something to
> <br>> > >PSI, as IP address operator. A clear procedural anomaly, no?
> <br>> >
> <br>> > If (as is common) sending forged email is against the AUP of PSI,
> this is
> <br>> > notifying them of an user violating their AUP.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > >2. what is the nature of the alleged abuse? It could not have
> been
> <br>> > >spoofing, as the email does not match the name of any list subscriber.
> It
> <br>> > >cannot have been spam, as there is no solicitation. It cannot
> be an
> <br>> > >offence to write to the list under an assumed name, as many of
> the list do
> <br>> > >that. It cannot be fraud, as Mr Mueller has yet to represent himself
> to my
> <br>> > >lawyers. Unless an offence can be found, there is no offence.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > Sending forged email.
> <br>> > BTW, Jeff Williams is a subscriber to the GA list, which got a
> copy of the
> <br>> > message.
> <br>> >
> <br>> > >I repeat my question:
> <br>> > >
> <br>> > > > Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to provide the appropriate jurisprudence?
> <br>> > > >
> <br>> > >Best regards,
> <br>> > >
> <br>> > >Mark Measday
> <br>> >
> <br>> > There is no sergeant-at-arms (yet). Just us.
> <br>> >
> <br>> >
> Harald A
> <br>> >
> <br>> > --
> <br>> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> <br>> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
> <p>Subject:
> <br> Idle suggestion
> <br> Date:
> <br> Thu, 20
> Jan 2000 00:50:19 +0100
> <br> From:
> <br> Mark Measday
> <measday@josmarian.ch>
> <br> Reply-To:
> <br> measday@ibm.net
> <br> Organization:
> <br> Josmarian
> SA
> <br> To:
> <br> ga@dnso.org
> <br> CC:
> <br> froomkin
> <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> <br> BCC:
> <br> measday@josmarian.ch
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>I don't know whether Prof. Froomkin's intriguing suggestion that the
> ga
> <br>should become the basis for the at-large membership of ICANN bears
> any
> <br>weight. One fears not. However, let's see:
> <p>Vote at <a href="http://www.josmarian.ch">http://www.josmarian.ch</a>
> 'Enlargement of DNSO General Assembly to
> <br>make basis of ICANN membership' or <a href="http://vote.Pollit.com/webpoll/172545">http://vote.Pollit.com/webpoll/172545</a>
> <p>This is an idle query, and is in no way designed to draw away from
> <br>Joop's able efforts with IDNO, where he has obviously been paid the
> <br>compliment of people pretending to be him, it might be worth asking
> the
> <br>question. And who knows, if some can vote with different IPs on
> <br>different computers with different identities frequently enough, you
> <br>might make a quorum to take the mighty vox populi of the DNSO forward
> to
> <br>merger with the other SO's and something useful, now that there is
> able
> <br>leadership in the form of Roberto and Harald, buttressed by the
> <br>ex-officio moderation of Ms Rony, Mr Baptista and Mr Williams, plus
> a
> <br>set of rules.
> <p>1. Paradise Regained Let's say we get 2500 votes, with 1800 in favour.
> <br>Jeff gets Vint Cerf to send a message to all the civil servants in
> the
> <br>US government and they take the hint. Take it forward to the next ICANN
> <br>meeting. Put it to the Board as a fait accompli.
> <p>2. Paradise Lost Let's say we don't. In an informal straw poll, of 61
> <br>people checking a similar votebot over a period of 60 days from abour
> <br>300, 7 thought a question concerning the type of people who should
> be
> <br>concerned in an at-large membership important enought to vote, with
> <br>negligible results. Maslow was right.
> <p>Perhaps if there is interest, .Roberto could be mandated to mandate
> Joop
> <br>to set up the proper procedures, etc. as chair.
> <br>
> <p>MM
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>Subject:
> <br> Request
> for suspension of Milton Mueller from ga list[ga] Re: Formal Attribution
> of
> <br> Identity
> for everyday email sources? Yes please
> <br> Date:
> <br> Tue, 18
> Jan 2000 14:49:11 +0100
> <br> From:
> <br> Mark Measday
> <measday@josmarian.ch>
> <br> Organization:
> <br> Josmarian
> SA
> <br> To:
> <br> ga@dnso.org
> <br> BCC:
> <br> measday@josmarian.ch
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <p>I believe that Ellen Rony is wrong in not requesting hard verification
> of identity. The following details why.
> <p>As Mssrs Baptista and Williams have pointed out this is very necessary.
> They, highly-skilled internet users, are
> <br>unable to prove to their own satisfaction (i) where an email originates
> from (ii) whether Mark R Measday (one of
> <br>the 17 in the United States I believe, something you could check through
> the National Office) is identical or not
> <br>with the Mark Measday you presume lives in France and runs Josmarian
> and (iii) anything about operator identity
> <br>at all.. And yes, PGP or its like is so heavy, and still proves little..
> <p>You have made assumptions to that effect on an intuitive, commonplace
> basis. In the unabridged version of the
> <br>text previously distributed below, please find some prima facie reasons
> why these assumptions could be attacked
> <br>in a court of law, or even appropriate philosophical grounds.
> <p>I would request the suspension of Mr Mueller (should it be he, that
> would need to be verified) from this list for
> <br>not only infringement of the civilised discourse rules he is supposed
> to support, but libellous slander, which
> <br>may go under another name in your jurisdiction. His accusations of
> fraud are injudicious, untenable and absurd.
> <p>He may contact either my lawyers in London (Nick Hutton 0171.488.2300
> or Geneva (Bertrand Reich at
> <br>Reich&Zen-Ruffinen) if he wishes to support his claim, otherwise
> I accept his apology that, as a man of no
> <br>understanding he has wandered into waters for which he has no chart
> and his request that he be suspended from
> <br>this and all other ICANN lists sine die.
> <p>I do not copy the US Government on this little tiff. However, I would
> point out to Jeff that Vladimir Putin's
> <br> email is president@gov.ru if he wants to get interesting replies
> to his email, which presumably he doesn't often,
> <br>as he completely missed the point..
> <br>
> <p>Gentlemen, Kathy, Milt,
> <p>Please give some details of what you have been up to, while I was out
> working.
> <br>I understand you are searching a positive attribution of identity for
> an email
> <br>that was sent, but repudiated by, Jeff Williams. There has been a private
> <br>correspondence with Mr Baptista and Mr Williams on the subject.
> <p>What reasons are there for believing the parties concerned are telling
> the
> <br>truth or lying? I offer the following hypothetical notes which might
> be
> <br>useful::
> <p>(i) Place: Wrong location
> <p>Josmarian is a Swiss consultancy company. Mr Baptista would appear to
> be
> <br>alleging that someone at PSI-NET forged something in France. I personally
> fail
> <br>to see the connection. One is Switzerland, the other is France. is
> there some
> <br>kind of tunnel? Why would French traffic transit Switzerland or vice-versa,
> <br>given Switzerland's non-membership of European Union institutions and
> separate
> <br>legal institutions?. If you wish to check this with PSI.-NET
> you will find
> <br>their European legal unit at vycichlc@psi.com (sic). Perhaps you can
> enlighten
> <br>me thereafter.
> <p>(ii) Identity: Multiple accusations , no basis of attribution
> <p>Elisabeth, Marquise de Porteneuve, of AFNIC and personally known to
> you I
> <br>believe, was accused of offending Baptista and Williams in the first
> instance.
> <br>Mr Baptista has already pleaded guilty to insulting this fine lady
> and highly
> <br>competent administrator, although in other areas he shows admirable
> respect
> <br>for truth, including undertaking the necessary potty-training for 'Silly
> me'
> <br>Milt. Therefore I understand you have no test (or we have no-one technically
> <br>competent in the ga to decide on the attribution of identity other
> than by
> <br>inspection of headers that we have seen successfully falsified by Joe
> <br>elsewhere) which can (i) prove machine identity and provenance and
> (ii) prove
> <br>operator identity. As such the necessary consensus to create the necessary
> <br>level of trust is unobtainable due to (i) political differences (e.g.
> Crispin
> <br>vs others, Baptista vs non-anarchists,) (ii) misunderstanding (US vs
> non-US
> <br>stylistics, basic lingusitic and cultural differences) and (iii) lack
> of a
> <br>scientifically unfalsifiable verifiability test, this all despite the
> <br>professional intervention of Mr Alvestrand, whose experience is based
> on the
> <br>highly successful IETF model and whose assistance should be accorded
> greater
> <br>respect.
> <p>(iii) Motive: Not in my interest:
> <p>It would therefore seem most unlikely, prima facie that I, or my agents,
> <br>would have so patently falsified this email with so many obvious pointers
> in
> <br>my direction (Mr Baptista's theory). However, you might wish to consider
> the
> <br>opposite thesis: that those who wish me no good have 'set me up'. In
> most
> <br>civilised countries one is innocent until proven guilty. I note other
> pointers
> <br>that substantiate Jeff's thesis that it was not him, you may well,
> should you
> <br>be fair, note pointers that indicate it was not me. Why on earth
> would I
> <br>impersonate Jeff?
> <p>(iv) Time: Unsubstantiated allegation:
> <p>I am accused libellously of some heinous mail fraud by Milt.. At about
> 4am
> <br>CET, I understand. Whilst I admire Jeff for his persistence and honesty,
> those
> <br>who imagine that I sit up all night attempting to copy his inimitable
> <br>communications style and wit would misunderstand what I use nights
> for. I
> <br>would theoretically ask Milt to put up or shut up, along the lines
> of
> <br>'However, should he wish not to withdraw his allegations unreservedly,
> he
> <br>should expect sanction for the illicit, libellous and untrue allegations
> he
> <br>has made', but I was told not to bother. No-one believes him anyway..In
> fact,
> <br>noone has heard of him. Fraud, Milt? And, pray, what was the fraud?
> Pick any
> <br>jurisdiction in the world and I'll be a happy defendant against you.
> It was
> <br>not I who called you Garrin's cret(a/i)n poodle. Let's be friends..
> <p>(iv) Motive: Group psychological motivation
> <p>Presumably you will find someone else to blame after you find I am innocent.
> <br>Did none of you read the Crucible at school, where the free-floating
> fear
> <br>generated by change and its need for symbolic expiation are dramatised?
> Can
> <br>you not see the relevance that any group of people inevitably throw
> up the
> <br>same archetypes? Pedants, ingenues, machiavels, and the most twisted,
> those
> <br>who believe they are right, and the others wrong? Do you recognise
> yourself,
> <br>Milt?
> <br>
> <p>v) Result: Potentially Productive Outcome
> <p>It looks like someone has set up something to test Harald's new rules,
> using
> <br>my, Jeff's and other identities. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
> I think
> <br>we should have been asked perhaps. Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to
> provide
> <br>the appropriate jurisprudence? Mr Baptista and Mr Williams have already
> made
> <br>intelligent private comments concerning this. I suggest that Harald
> be allowed
> <br>to get on with it.
> <p>Conclusion
> <p>I would humbly suggest to the ga membership that if the ga were to give
> a gift
> <br>to the world that would stand it in good stead it would be something
> to
> <br>satisfy the gradations of verbal and written contract at present repudiable
> in
> <br>normal email. Mssrs Baptista and Williams, amongst others, are contributing
> to
> <br>this development.
> <p>Kind regards,
> <br>
> <p>MM</blockquote>
> --
> <br>_____________________________________________________________________
> <br>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> <br>The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
> <br>the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
> <br>privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may
> not
> <br>copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
> <br>form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please
> <br>e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
> <br>______________________________________________________________________
> <br> </blockquote>
>
> <p>--
> <br>_____________________________________________________________________
> <br>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> <br>The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
> <br>the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
> <br>privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may
> not
> <br>copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
> <br>form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please
> <br>e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
> <br>______________________________________________________________________
> <br> </html>
>
> --------------12AB784C3D43F7FB6B204CAD--
>
>