Re: [ga] I understand Sotiris - Thank you WXW

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear William S. Lovell,
> Since you seem to have some expertise in reading
> the mater, may I ask you in what you think tjis to be
> of any interest in managing the Internet?

I'm not quite clear on what you're suggesting in asking what
my post quoted below has to do with "managing the Internet."
If that's the question, the answer is, "very little."  However, to
quote from a message I sent to someone else today, "It seems
to be an embarrassing disclosure to spend list time teaching
decorum, but on the other hand, if all the garbage is not cleared
out, the list will never be able to function as it should."  In the
present context, that should be reworded to say that bandwidth
spent in discussing sanctioning of members, actual sanctions,
discussions of sanctions, etc., ought better to be spent on
substantive issues -- the kinds of issues you refer to below --
but one must first blow out the chaff to get to the wheat.

As for an alternative DNSO/GA ML, one can have as
many as one wants, but if the same bunch merely moves
the same kind of operation elsewhere, nothing would be
gained.

I don't follow the references to Sotiris; I've not got into any
specifics of what he's been posting.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> I have on my desk two proposals to develop projects
> concerning DNS services form more than 3 and 6
> millions of internet addresses. They are certainly
> affected by the matters we should discuss here in
> order to uncover consensuses ruling them.
>
> May be shoud we convey the interested Members
> to switch to an altenative DNSO/GA ML?
>
> I do understand Sotiris. But I think that it is great
> time to see that Sotiris, Jeff, WXW and me at least
> do agree on something. Dear Sotiris: hope in view!
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 00:09 06/05/01, William S. Lovell said:
>
> >"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Patrick,
> > >
> > > Saturday, May 05, 2001, 12:33:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >
> > > > The list monitors have unanimously agreed that persons who have had their
> > > > posting rights withdrawn should continue their suspension for the
> > remainder
> > > > of the term imposed by the former list monitor.  This continuing
> > suspension
> > > > will apply to all of the GA lists.
> > >
> > > Please justify this chance in policy. The initial policy, and only one
> > > posted prior to today, indicated that suspensions were list specific,
> > > and did not apply universally to all lists.
> > >
> > > Why the change in policy without public input?
> > >
> > > Or is this the type of "business as usual" "change things as we go"
> > > behavior we should expect from this activist GA administration?
> >
> >That's not what it says.  It says if a person was suspended on list a,
> >and another person on list b and so on, those suspensions (with
> >regard to ALL lists in which the event occurs), will continue through
> >a change in list monitor as to the particular list.  Nowhere does it say
> >that a given suspension is anything other than list specific, although
> >the wording could certainly have been made less ambiguous.
> >
> >Bill Lovell
> >
> >--
> >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

--
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