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list have been revoked, and for who else.
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org IS a member, and has posting privilleges.
email@example.com IS NOT a member, and therefore has no posting
Either post as firstname.lastname@example.org, or subscribe as email@example.com.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
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....
> 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
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
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
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
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:28:23 +0100
Mark Measday <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(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:
> 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?
> 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
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:50:19 +0100
Mark Measday <email@example.com>
I don't know whether Prof. Froomkin's intriguing suggestion that the
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
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
to set up the proper procedures, etc. as chair.
Request for suspension of Milton Mueller from ga list[ga] Re: Formal Attribution of
Identity for everyday email sources? Yes please
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:49:11 +0100
Mark Measday <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 email@example.com 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
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
truth or lying? I offer the following hypothetical notes which might be
(i) Place: Wrong location
Josmarian is a Swiss consultancy company. Mr Baptista would appear to
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 firstname.lastname@example.org (sic). Perhaps you can enlighten
(ii) Identity: Multiple accusations , no basis of attribution
Elisabeth, Marquise de Porteneuve, of AFNIC and personally known to
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
(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
(iv) Time: Unsubstantiated allegation:
I am accused libellously of some heinous mail fraud by Milt.. At about
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,
v) Result: Potentially Productive Outcome
It looks like someone has set up something to test Harald's new rules,
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.
I would humbly suggest to the ga membership that if the ga were to give
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