Richard and all,
I believe the same should apply to Roberto as well...
Is Roberto a "Newbie"? I don't believe he is...
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Dave, if you actually read this list why don't you
> spend a moment and go to http://lists.ifwp.org and
> subscribe to it. You were unsubscribed when
> mail to you bounced ad while I don't mind
> hand-holding newbies I figure you should
> be able to do this yourself.
>
> >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> >Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 8 14:08:59 1999
> >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Received: from mail1.via.net (mail1.via.net [209.81.9.12])
> > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5693F01B
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
> >Received: from joe@localhost
> > by mail1.via.net (8.9.3/8.9.3)
> > id <LAA12175-joe>;
> > Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >X-UIDL: 602e7f75a274593fef8f0f5fe739fabb
> >Received: from lists.psi.com [38.9.21.2] (HELO lists.psi.com)
> > by mail1.via.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) via ESMTP
> > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
> >Received: from psi.com (relay1.mail.herndon.psi.com [38.146.107.12])
> > by lists.psi.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
> > ID# 0-58542U20L100S0V35) with ESMTP id com
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:44 -0400
> >Received: from gw1.mail.herndon.psi.com by psi.com (8.8.5/SMI-5.4-PSI-R1H)
> > id CAA10489; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
> >Received: from postman.bayarea.net by gw1.mail.herndon.psi.com (8.8.5/SMI-5.4-PSI)
> > id CAA13955; Sat, 3 Jul 1999 02:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
> >Received: from dave-vaio (free.88.106.bayarea.net [205.219.88.106])
> > by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02581;
> > Fri, 2 Jul 1999 23:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.56 (Beta)
> >Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:08:59 -0700
> >To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >In-Reply-To: <v04020a15b3a3253af8a9@[192.168.0.1]>
> >References: <1135288085CAD111AADE00A0C9A93E500FFAEC@SU-SERVER>
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by psi.com id CAA10489
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail1.via.net id XAA28032
> >Status: U
> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >At 10:59 PM 7/2/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >>uh mr. farmer before you make a fool of yourself with your inane
> >>pontifications you ought to spend a few minutes following what you claim
> >
> >It might be worth being very judicious where you direct the label
> >'pontification', Gordon...
> >
> >>GAC's Considerings:
> >>
> >>1. The Internet naming and addressing system is a public resource that must
> >>be managed in the interests of the global Internet community;
> >>
> >>The "naming and addressing system" is NOT a "public resource. The
> >> language is straight out of the gTLD-MoU. It is a clear unconstitutional
> >> taking of private property.
> >
> >After all this time, it is surprising and encouraging to discover that you
> >know more about international law -- never mind more about Internet
> >technology and operations principals -- than the other experts working on
> >this task.
> >
> >(And by the way, a guilt-by-association reference to the gtld-mou hardly
> >counts as substantive criticism of the current work. Surely you can do
> >better than that!)
> >
> >>2. The management of Internet names and addresses must be facilitated by
> >>organizations that are global in character.
> >>
> >>It's not clear why all Internet names and addresses "must be"
> >> so facilitated.
> >
> >Again, your advanced expertise in basic Internet technical principals is
> >showing.
> >
> >In any event, to those who DO have training in Internet technical
> >principals, they know that barbarization of naming and/or addressing will
> >quite simply eliminate the communications utility of the net, as well as
> >violating some end-to-end technical architecture requirements -- but that's
> >already a problem due to NATs.
> >
> >>... 4. Country code top level domains are operated in trust by the Registry
> >>for the public interest, including the interest of the Internet community,
> >>on behalf of the relevant public authorities including governments, who
> >>ultimately have public policy authority over their ccTLDs, consistent with
> >>universal connectivity of the Internet.
> >>
> >>By what authority do they acquire such "public policy authority?"
> >
> >Somewhere in the vicinity of 10 years of established practise.
> >
> >But what the heck, law doesn't care about established practise, does it?
> >
> >>Principle 2 The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views
> >>to the ICANN Board.
> >>
> >>Intergovernmental bodies don't just provide advice. Their
> >> findings and agreements have substantial force and effect -
> >
> >You are, of course, free to re-interpret plain language in any manner you
> >want, but you really do yourself a disservice by not taking proper credit
> >for the semantic (never mind political) creativity you contribute to the
> >interpretation of that plain language.
> >
> >> of Incorporation that it "...shall carry out its activities in
> >> conformity with relevant principles of international law and
> >> applicable international conventions," effectively gives the GAC
> >
> >Oh my god. I entirely missed that one, Gordon. Thank you SO much.
> >
> >Why, it is simply unconscionable that ICANN should actually have to operate
> >within the confines of applicable law. We better fix this, FAST!
> >
> >>Principle 11 In addition to face-to-face meetings, discussions may be
> >>conducted online via secure communications.
> >>
> >>So why do they need "secure online communications" for discussions?
> >
> >Well, for one possible reason, to avoid giving you more informal, second
> >hand material to distort.
> >
> >>Principle 14 Members of the GAC shall be national governments,
> >>multinational governmental organizations and treaty organizations, and
> >>public authorities, each of which may appoint one representative to the GAC
> >>
> >>
> >>Notice the wording. Members of the GAC are not individuals, but
> >> the governments and intergovernmental organizations themselves.
> >> By what lawful mechanism are governments constituting the GAC?
> >
> >Wow. Now that really IS serious. A "governmental" advisory body actually
> >is restricted to having participation only by representatives of
> >governments! How could anyone allow this to happen???
> >
> >>Principle 16 Governments or organizations not having a representative to
> >>the GAC may nominate an accredited government/organizational representative
> >>to represent its Membership on the GAC.
> >>
> >>This will allow some governments to acquire potentially enormous
> >> power. You could have the ITU representative potentially having
> >> proxies from a hundred countries. It opens all kind of mischief.
> >
> >Sure does. I mean, after all, all that ADVICE might actually be coherent!
> >
> >>Principle 19 If a Members accredited representative is not present at a
> >>meeting, then it shall be taken that the Member government or organisation
> >>is not represented at that meeting. Any decision made by the GAC without
> >>the participation of a Memberís accredited representative shall stand and
> >>nonetheless be valid.
> >>
> >>Is this typical of a body merely providing "advice?"
> >
> >Indeed you have found another subversive opportunity. The idea that a
> >group would be permitted to operate with the work of those who show up,
> >rather than always having to wait for perfect attendance is indeed an
> >insidious violation (of some sort.)
> >
> >>Principle 20 In consideration of the GACís commitment to efficiency, there
> >>shall be no attendance or voting by proxy. Members may only be represented
> >>at meetings, both face-to-face and electronic, by their accredited
> >>representative.
> >>
> >>This will further encourage proxy gathering.
> >
> >How does an explicit rule against proxies encourage proxies?
> >
> >
> >
> >The rest of your note was equally enlightening, Gordon. As always, your
> >impressively creative interpretations are most appreciated.
> >
> >d/
> >
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> >Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> >675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
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
