Eric and all, Although I agree that what Joe did was wrong, it was to illustrate a point. That point being that SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP is being practiced on the DNSO lists. This we all know. Hence sometimes it is necessary for someone after exhausting all other available avenues to take a action that may be less than correct to in turn correct another pre-existing improper act. This I believe was Joe's intent, and in so many words he stated this. Therefore I am finding it difficult to chide Joe for his actions, as his obvious intent and also stated intent was to bring attention to a previous improper concerted act, that of, SELECTED CENSORSHIP on the part of the DNSO List admin. and possibly the ICANN BOD itself. Hence the remedy is to correct this problem to prevent the latter problem from continuing to occur in the future. The other alternatives either legal or otherwise, don't look very attractive to the DNSO or ICANN, I don't believe. As all of us know and Joe illustrated, the Net will route around damage. This is true on a multi-level scale, such as E-Mail lists for instance. Let us also not forget that CENSORSHIP is a violation of the first amendment, which last time I checked is against that law as well. I would happily come to Joe's aid with our legal staff should ICANN wish to file any legal action towards Joe, in this regard. I doubt that the ICANN Legal staff would want that. However should they choose to pursue such action we have quite a number of litigants that have already signed the necessary legal documents along with plenty of already documented evidence and sworn affidavits to this effect I hope however for ICANN's sake and the sake of some of the folks on the ICANN BoD that such action is not necessary, as I believe that an solution (Such as the one I mentioned above), is available... Eric, let us also not forget the ICANN and therefore the DNSO are subject to US law as well as the law of the state of California, and as such could, and I believe are very vulnerable to the statutes there unto pertaining. In that Becky Burr and the DOJ have been notified of the SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP and definitely fraudulent DNSO/ICANN BoD Elections ending on Oct. 8th, it appears to my legal staff that they are very likely to be in abeyance of the First Amendment here, and Joe's actions, however grievace they may be, may be viewed as both noteworthy and necessary under the circumstances and timing of which they occurred. FYI, I will be forwarding a separate copy of this particular post to the California District Attorney for their files along with additional documentation to which I have mentioned in brief in this post. Weisberg wrote: > Kent Crispin wrote: > > > ...Who wants to spend > > > their(our) time discussing whether particular > > > comments are out of order? Isn't that where we are going? > > > > No... We are discussing mailbomb attacks, > > This is the "apple." I absolutely agree--nay, insist--that ICANN take > swift and effective action against such conduct, both to punish the > immediate offender as well as deter others. > > > deliberate and repeated attempts to "disturb the peace", and long > > established patterns of behavior. > > Now, we are discussing "oranges." > > > We are discussing behaviors that, > > in physical analogy, no physical forum on earth would -- or could -- > > tolerate on a continuing basis. > > The analogy is strained. Discussion on this list is significantly > different from that at an ICANN board meeting. We have a limited agenda > and function. We have multiple and simultaneous speakers and threads. > The discussion has little boundary as regards duration. People can come > and go as they wish, reading the items of interest to them at their own > convenience. And, we can individually filter according to speaker, > subject, or words. > > > ...there was in fact a deliberate attack, criminal in > > some jurisdictions, on the list...We are not just talking about "civil > > discourse", or what is or is not > > out of order. > > As to this apple, we agree. > > > > > > Only the minimum regulation > > > necessary to accomplish a clearly identified and proper objective is > > > allowed, especially in political contexts. > > > > You are confusing "Congress shall make no law" with "there shall be > > no regulation of any kind in any context whatsoever by anybody". > > > > Actually, no confusion is demonstrated by my comment. I described the > policy to which any regulation must conform under U.S. law. And, I have > suggested that the development and enforcement of a regulatory scheme will > have its own costs (or effects on our discussion). > > > ...There are generic and informal "rules of order" for mailing > > lists; it would be nice if they were formalized, but in the meantime > > we can go with the informal ones. > > I think you are now discussing "pears." Again, the propriety of "informal > rules" is something upon which we agree. "Netiquett" is important. > Frankly, I filter some people on this basis, alone. But, these are > matters of personal discretion, both for the speakers and the audience. > > > Morever, this list is not in the US. It is run in France. > > The list is not geographically limited. Many of us are in the U.S. > Others are in Myanmar (sp?). But, wherever we are, physically, we are > participating in a process intended to affect the management of our common > public network. The location of the server or the administrator should > not result in a diminution of our rights to participate in this process to > the maximum feasible extent. Rather, we must fashion our governance to > comply with the highest, not the lowest standards in that regard. > > And, (my original point) we should not get into a situation where rabbits > divert our attention from the issues which brought us here in the first > place. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
