John and all,
John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, November 17, 1999, 13:41 -0800 Jeff Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the interests of fairness, the secretariat
> >> should add everyone who has been excluded from the list within
> >> the next month for antisocial behavior back into the pool.
> >
> > Again such decisions as to the antisocial concerns you are
> > expressing here
> > should be left up the the DNSO GA as a whole, not any subset of
> > individuals.
>
> I am informed by the secretariat that this list of excluded
> people is an empty set, which does not surprise me at all.
That may be what you were informed of, but is not the case.
some 400 of our members were not even allowed to subscribe.
Why is that I wonder? Why would the secretariat make such a false
statement? Why is it that sense Aug. 8th I along with some 14 others
whom have resubscribed at least once not been able to post sense
september? Why is it that when I privately inquired of the secretariat
and the DNSO List admin, which I am copying on this post never
received an answer to the many queries as to why this exclusionary
SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP has occurred and continues to occur
without any explanation or reason given by either the secretariat or the
DNSO List admin, pray tell? Why is it that on Oct. 8th Becky Burr
posted privately to me that this problem would be corrected and has not
been?
>
> Apparently some people have been removed and told, more or less,
> to resubscribe when they decide to behave themselves, which
> strikes me as quite reasonable.
This is not so. (See above comments and questions)
>
>
> I apologize to Elizabeth for anything that might have been read
> as implying otherwise.
>
> Beyond that, Jeff, try reading my note, rather than reading into
> it whatever amuses you. The basic premiss behind it (and
> several other things I've written recently) is that it is
> impossible to conduct meaningful vote-counting when we can't
> figure out who is a member or not, and who is real or not.
Certainly you can. That was done when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list was
changed to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list in June I believe. Others that have
subscribed should identify themselves in either their SIG file or in
some
other way. Most have I believe. In addition I also agreed with Roeland
Mayer that the use of Openssl or digital signatures could also be
employed. But in that the DNSO GA list is hosted in France, and France
has some problems that are well known with Digital Signatures and other
security related components that are available this is of course not
possible. Very convenient I would say.
> To
> the extent that one doesn't see that as a problem, then you and
> your 95K constituents probably each deserve a vote and my
> suggestions are just irrelevant.
Your suggestion is not irrelevant, but is not satisfactory for the
many
stakeholders. Hence my previous comments. This is irrespective of the
number of members that INEGroup has, which is an irrelevant premise
for your argument in this context.
>
>
> john
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
