[ga] Re: [ga-rules] Re: Observations

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Patrick,
I obliged myself to believe farther that I should we could help Danny 
correcting his attitude. Advises are now numerous and different enough to 
show they are not concerted, diagnosis is consistent enough to show where 
the problem lies. This is unheard and will probably now stay this way.

I am no more interested in that issue.

There are three internets: the e-legal with the iCANN and the Staff, the 
commercial with VeriSign and the Registrars, the real stuff with all the 
others depending on the source code and the real world. Innovation, future, 
real life are here.

I have been reluctantly trapped and we have been used into an action of a 
commercial lobby against e-legal. My priority was to keep the GA-FULL 
channel open so RSCs may talk together, Individual Users may be heard and 
innovation was not banned;

This has now been achieved or has been lost depending on who has understood 
what. We will see.

I will wait for you to follow your comment that I might be right about the 
GA-FULL having to be copied everything under GA (so I may unsubscribe the 
sub-list you gently registered for me) and avoid their cross-posting. I 
will wait for people listening to Brian's advise: unsubscribe GA and get 
GA-FULL. If I am right Karl Auerbach left this list because Roberto made GA 
the default. I also remember that he mailed him last year to come back and 
there was no problem changing this. Had I supported Roberto, and Karl been 
back, we would have no problem today.

So, I will from now on use that list for work, in the way I think is its 
best interest. I will only care about courtesy, fun and efficiency for this 
ML and the Internet Communities, not paying a any attention to any 
disruption from who ever for whatever reason, published or not published, 
sitting in a committee or in an off line lobby. And I advise each of you to 
do the same.

We wasted enough time to the advantage of an undisclosed lobby. At least 
VeriSign signs "Chuck Gomez" or "Roger Cochetti" and I may disagree with 
Vint, Alejandro, Mike, Louis, Joe, Andrew and certainly with Stuart's 
insular DNS draft but I understand their agenda and they sign by their 
name. I respect Jeff, WXW, Leah, Sotiris, Lari, Joana, Brian, Roeland (a 
lot), Dassa, Harald, gone Christopher, nice Chris Critic, Andrew McK, Bruce 
and Marilyn, Roberto and Elizabeth and Peter, Bradley, Michael, Marc, Dave 
and Kristy, Thomas, Bill and missing Jonathan, and all those I cannot name, 
including Kent, Dave and Joop, Philip, Erica and Theresa and dear Eric, and 
incredibly dedicated Patrick ... because all of them do not want to be 
anonymous, because all of them want to achieve something, because all of 
them spend a lot of time trying ... and because each of them has something 
to bring to me.

This is why I suggest we pay attention no more to these stupid 
administrative issues and organize without caring about disrespected 
bylaws, Californian oddities, personal ambitions, ... we have a mission 
ahead, we have diversified competences and real experience among us all and 
- I feel - a certain friendship. Let not permit petty money interests of 
some commercial off line advises interfere with all of this and with us.

Please never rise again DNSO/GA, sub list, etc... organization issues with me.

Jefsey


On 18:23 29/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>FYI - Jefsey
>
>From: William S. Lovell <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
>To: Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com>; ga-rules <ga-rules@dnso.org>;
>Patrick Corliss <patrick@corliss.net>
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:59:28 -0700
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams writes that as a result of "a vote on some "List Rules" that
> > was of questionable legitimacy... the active participants has dropped off
> > significantly as a result."
> >
> > I would disagree with this assessment.  In my conversations with others
>that
> > do not participate on our list, the general sentiment seems to be, "Why
> > should I expose myself to the vitriolic attacks that run rampant on the GA
> > list?"
>
>Enforcement of the rules would resolve that.  Wild attacks puts one on
>GA-FULL.
>
> > Part of the problem is that in knowing who is the author of any particular
> > message, we have those among us who revel in the prospect of attacking the
> > messenger.   Eliminating the list rules (as some would advocate), will not
> > solve this problem; neither will more rigid rules or more rigorous
> > enforcement (as those who have a predilection for such behavior will
> > continue to find ways to defeat the system).
>
>You can't defeat a system to which you have no access. The "right of free
>speech," which in any event is inapplicable here, never has included the
>requirement that anyone is obliged to read or listen, and even if it were,
>that's what GA-FULL is for.  See my post of yesterday on the issue of
>shutting down GA-FULL.
>
>The term "sub-list" needs to be eliminated; I think it was Patrick who
>recently laid out the distinction. Also, it's sometimes amazing how
>people will let a little squibble on a screen do their thinking for them:
>there's a ga with no dash and then a bunch that have ga-whatever,
>so somehow that's a main list and then sublists.  I suggest that what
>we now call ga be renamed ga-gen (i.e., "general") or some such
>thing where it will at least fall alphabetically into a pile and not stand
>out so much.
>
> > Perhaps the solution lies in stripping the message header so that author's
> > identity is not revealed.  In this manner, ideas can only be attacked on
>the
> > basis of "content" or "merit".    Of course, any author may choose to add
> > his/her name to a message posted in the body of the text.
>
>Anonymous attacks are the very worst kind, and present another real
>problem: how would you know who to kick off?
>
> > Some will argue that as we are the representatives of the Internet
> > Community, our names should be on record whenever we post a message.  If
> > this were true, then equally I would expect to know how our
>representatives
> > voted on any particular issue.   As the latter is not currently true, why
> > should the former be required?
>
>It's called "openness." Anyone not willing to stand behind a statement has
>no right to be heard.
>
> > There is a value in having a mechanism that allows for anonymous postings.
>
>Could not disagree more. Secret ballots, yes -- that's the tradition (at
>least
>here in the U.S. and lots of other places).
>
>I close with a passing thought on "openness." I don't need to remind you
>that
>the internal workings of ICANN are about as open as is my access to my
>wife's check book. The "openness" of all these lists, on the other hand,
>gives the upper ICANN hierarchy all it needs to know about what all of us
>are up to.  Ironic, eh?
>
>          Bill Lovell
>
>http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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