<<<
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
>>>
|