William and all, I believe that Bob sent in his "Introduction" post to the DNSO GA list. See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc02/msg00371.html It seems to be pretty self explanatory.... And yes, many of our members use a free internet service of one brand or another, such as Hotmail for instance. In fact isn't there several "Hotmail" members on the DNSO GA list??? I believe so... William X. Walsh wrote: > Oh sheesh, another JW clone identity (notice the writing style, free > internet service AND it used a dallas dialup just like...JW) > > On 03-Dec-99 Bob Davis wrote: > > David and all DNSO'ers, > > > > Very good ideas here I think as well. I believe as Jeff has stated, > > and you too David, that Marks suggestion is one that should be looked > > at seriously. I would ask directly and politely, has the NC considered > > this? > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Mark and everybody else, > >> > >> I agree with you criterion that you listed (Outlined below). But it > >> is terribly obvious that Jonathan and I am sure some of the other > >> "Watchdogs" along with likely, the DNSO NC either did not consider > >> such crtirion. I would also venture a guess, that most of the > >> Participants would prefer and demand most likely, setting those > >> criterion themselves in some form. > >> > >> David "Dude" Jenson > >> INEGRoup-East Director > >> > >> In a message dated 12/2/99 10:37:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > >> << On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >> >>[snip] > >> >> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks > >> >> that are > >> >> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got > >> >> nominated > >> >> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to > >> >> this? > >> > > >> > The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks > >> >at AFNIC who are receiving them. My understanding is that somebody > >> >at > >> >AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm > >> >(France > >> >time). > >> > >> Thank you, Jon. You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that > >> should > >> be documented. This coupled with your statement below indicates that > >> we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least, > >> we > >> can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until > >> after > >> the beginning of the French business day on Monday. > >> > >> Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing > >> find its way into the documented procedures. What seems trivial at > >> one > >> time may become crucial at another; why not err on the side of > >> caution > >> and document it anyway? > >> > >> It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please > >> understand > >> my position: Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent, > >> self-consistent > >> procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this. Fail > >> to > >> provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn. I strongly > >> believe > >> this, and I've seen it proved true many times. Look at the WTO as > >> just > >> one example. One of the main concerns the protesters have with the > >> WTO > >> is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and > >> doesn't > >> document their procedures. Sound familiar? > >> > >> I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets > >> the > >> following criteria: > >> > >> 1) It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it; > >> nothing > >> about it is hidden from me. > >> > >> 2) It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a > >> course of > >> action; the rules to not confuse; the rules eliminate > >> confusion. > >> > >> 3) It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another; > >> one > >> rule does not bring into question another rule's > >> appropriateness. > >> > >> 4) It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound > >> by > >> the ruleset, is. Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at > >> by > >> the participants and agreed to. (I personally feel #1,2, and 3 > >> are not achievable without this, as they require oversight. > >> This > >> criterion provides it.) > >> > >> So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any > >> of these four criteria, together or in isolation. > >> > >> And I'll re-assert my position: I don't think this is an unreasonable > >> expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as > >> ICANN. > >> > >> Don't get me wrong; It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a > >> ruleset > >> that meets those 4 criteria. But that's a different matter altogether > >> from > >> expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria. And, even if I didn't > >> particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be > >> able to work within that ruleset with confidence. > >> > >> I'd love it if we could get to that point. > >> > >> > > >> > [Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination* > >> >period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC. Nominated candidates > >> >have > >> >until 9 pm CET to accept.] > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark C. Langston > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Systems Admin > >> San Jose, CA >> > > > > Bob Davis... > > > > __________________________________________ > > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World > > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at > > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html > > -- > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 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
