[ifwp] Re: Reflections on an attack

I think it's a paradox test. Agree or disagree and you're in trouble. :-) At 11:22 PM 1/15/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >I am appalled that this Crispin guy thinks he can call Kent Crispin an idiot >and get away with it. Shall we invoke our civil discourse rules and banish >him forever? >--MM

[ifwp] Reflections on an attack

I am appalled that this Crispin guy thinks he can call Kent Crispin an idiot and get away with it. Shall we invoke our civil discourse rules and banish him forever? --MM Kent Crispin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 01:57:22PM -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > ccTLDs have a more interesting conun

[ifwp] RE: Commentary on ICC submission

Anthony, the "natural constituency" argument is an excellent point. But it applies equally well to proprietary registries, whether commercial or chartered, that want to adopt their own policies and practices. The argument that ccTLDs function "locally and not globally" is plainly wrong. There are

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

Jim Dixon wrote: > IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA > assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy > regarding gTLDs. Not true. IANA assumed that it had the power to create >NEW< gTLDs.This assumption was dashed twice, by the way. Dr

[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)

Patrick Greenwell a écrit: > > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: > > > Which is where the January 21 & 22 meetings in Washington come in. That's > > where support for WIPO's new rules will be fixed, probably on the 21st, with > > the re-written DNSO proposal, including WIPO's draconian

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 01:57:22PM -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > ccTLDs have a more interesting conundrum. They don't want to submit > to ICANN regulation. But on the other hand, they want ICANN to > endorse rfc1981 to give ccTLDs some protection against their ^^^ Jeez, what an

[ifwp] Re: [Membership] Fear and trembling at the ICC: the best defense is an offense.

Michael and all, Michael Sondow wrote: Preliminary ICC comments on the     Barcelona/Monterrey Application to ICANN. 7. Manageable number of members.  We are concerned that the concept of individual memberships could overwhelm the effectivess of the DNS.  Lists and postings must clearly be op

[ifwp] Re: A Slow Day at Microsoft? (was Re: Multi-level list filtering)

Chris wrote: >I work in an office, not a cubicle :-) > >The "Huh" was in response to your posting. I have absolutely no clue >at all what idea(s) you were trying to convey here. > >Can you explain it in English, and remove the (tm) and (r) and all that >so that it's readable? The ideas s

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

At 06:13 PM 1/15/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >At 05:07 PM 1/15/99 +, you wrote: >>Dr Lisse and all, >> >>Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> >>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jeff Williams writes: >>> >>> > We (INEGroup) already has a voting application that we use on a >>> > regular basis.

[ifwp] Re: Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?

Greg and all, Greg Skinner wrote: > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Finally, if ICANN adopts inclusive membership criteria and a web-based > >> registration, could a minimal fee -- say $5 or $10 -- be useful to > >> discourage multiple registrations? > > > Bad idea altogether. Best way

[ifwp] Re: destabilinging the net - redux

Patrick and all, Patrick Greenwell wrote: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >On 15-Jan-99 Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >> Patricks premise is if people primary the root zone, the robustness of the > >> net > >> is compromised. > > > >That is not what he is saying, Richard, and you kno

[ifwp] Re: Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?

jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Finally, if ICANN adopts inclusive membership criteria and a web-based >> registration, could a minimal fee -- say $5 or $10 -- be useful to >> discourage multiple registrations? > Bad idea altogether. Best way to discourage is a well designed > secure regis

[ifwp] Re: Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?

Wendy and all, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > We're experimenting with posting working questions directly to the lists > and following and joining the discussion threads there. > > ICANN needs a viable long-term funding structure. Charges to registries or > a tax on registrants offer one option; member

[ifwp] Re: A Slow Day at Microsoft? (was Re: Multi-level list filtering)

Chris Ambler wrote: >Can you explain it in English, and remove the (tm) and (r) and all that >so that it's readable? I would also like to get a better explanation, perhaps using some practical examples. For example, look at Craig Simon's gTLD-MoU overview page (http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/over

[ifwp] Exclusion of the users: the ICC document

Comment on the ICC general principles document. The battle lines are drawn. The manifest single intention of this document, as of the INTA's bylaws, is to deprive individual domain name holders and Internet users of membership in the DNSO, an intention contrary to the spirit of the White Paper, I

[ifwp] Re: A Slow Day at Microsoft? (was Re: Multi-level list filtering)

I work in an office, not a cubicle :-) The "Huh" was in response to your posting. I have absolutely no clue at all what idea(s) you were trying to convey here. Can you explain it in English, and remove the (tm) and (r) and all that so that it's readable? -- Christopher Ambler This email address

[ifwp] A Slow Day at Microsoft? (was Re: Multi-level list filtering)

Chris, Sorry to ask the obvious, but is "Huh?" a question, or a sound coming from a bored worker in cubicle at Microsoft? For a sharp guy, that's kind of an interesting response. If it's a question, is it a question about David's post, about Jay's post, or about the decentralized

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 02:16:12PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA > > assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy > > regarding gTLDs. It was very clear at all times that IANA understood > > that

[ifwp] Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?

We're experimenting with posting working questions directly to the lists and following and joining the discussion threads there. ICANN needs a viable long-term funding structure. Charges to registries or a tax on registrants offer one option; membership fees have been suggested as another possib

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

At 05:07 PM 1/15/99 +, you wrote: >Dr Lisse and all, > >Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jeff Williams writes: >> >> > We (INEGroup) already has a voting application that we use on a >> > regular basis. It uses current authentication methods and is very >> > sec

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: The Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

At 02:36 PM 1/15/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >Richard J. Sexton a écrit: >> >> At 11:11 AM 1/15/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >> >> >1) The A.A.A. has already assisted online voting successfully for a number >> >of organizations, including a large, dispersed trade union. >> >> "We reject

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

>> Fine. I'd like to make policy for .US. I live in the US. Now what? > >I never said any individual could change policy Chris. Who then? If not an individual, then how did many individuals, in many countries, simply contact IANA and get the entries for the ccTLD in question to point to them and/

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On 15-Jan-99 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Fine. I'd like to make policy for .US. I live in the US. Now what? I never said any individual could change policy Chris. You're being disingenuous. -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 15-Jan-99 Time: 14

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

Fine. I'd like to make policy for .US. I live in the US. Now what? -- Christopher Ambler This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington - Original Message - From: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote: > And what of the ccTLDs that are not run by the governments? What of those > who are operated out-of-country? What of those who are operated without > the oversight (and perhaps even the knowledge) of the government in > question? This is only mat

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On 15-Jan-99 Christopher Ambler wrote: > And what of the ccTLDs that are not run by the governments? What of those > who are operated out-of-country? What of those who are operated without > the oversight (and perhaps even the knowledge) of the government in > question? > > Just asking... RFC15

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On 15-Jan-99 Kent Crispin wrote: > ccTLDs have a more interesting conundrum. They don't want to submit > to ICANN regulation. But on the other hand, they want ICANN to > endorse rfc1981 to give ccTLDs some protection against their > associated sovereignties. Of course, if I were ICANN I kno

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

> IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA > assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy > regarding gTLDs. It was very clear at all times that IANA understood > that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt > a pol

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

And what of the ccTLDs that are not run by the governments? What of those who are operated out-of-country? What of those who are operated without the oversight (and perhaps even the knowledge) of the government in question? Just asking... -- Christopher Ambler This email address belongs to a Res

[ifwp] RE: Commentary on ICC submission

I say this as a matter of practicality. Are you seriously going to tell the Chinese how run .CN? If you attempt it, you will see the Chinese interfere at governmental levels, making the meddling of the U.S. and European governments seem trivial by comparison. Each ccTLD has a natural constituen

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 01:44:13PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote: > > > > Where can we pull the source code for review? > > > > Source code is not readily available as it is in a paten process. > > However we could make some arrangements. I would s

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 09:38:22PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: [...] > > > > This will be a show-stopper for most gTLDs. > > Come on, Chris, the only significant existing gTLDs are those controlled by > NSI. The would-be gTLD registries have been protesting with all their > might for the last few

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

>Come on, Chris, the only significant existing gTLDs are those controlled by >NSI. The would-be gTLD registries have been protesting with all their >might for the last few years; no one would much notice any new protests. Care to wager on that? Christopher ___

[ifwp] Re: Multi-level list filtering

Huh? -- Christopher Ambler This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington - Original Message - From: steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 1:35 PM Subject: [i

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, jeff Williams wrote: > > Where can we pull the source code for review? > > Source code is not readily available as it is in a paten process. > However we could make some arrangements. I would suggest > offhand, that you use srinkwraped stuff. Failing that and source > co

[ifwp] Registries to the Rescue

Content-T text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-URL: X-List-Host: Assn. for Interact

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

Dr Lisse and all, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jeff Williams writes: > > > We (INEGroup) already has a voting application that we use on a > > regular basis. It uses current authentication methods and is very > > secure. We would be happy to implement this for a

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >Negative. The ICANN's role, and the DNSO's role, with regard to ccTLDs > must > >be minimal. Their object should not be to remove ccTLDs, especially on the > >basis of as-yet undefined criteria, nor should it have any say in how they > >are mana

[ifwp] An Person-Centered Trust-based Communications Channel

Gordon, Thanks for the great and highly educational post about "Trust", what it is, and how it applies to our quagmire. You sent: Quote from - Chap. 7, Definition of Trust in security and discussion, copied under authorization, in Peter Williams, et.al., "Digital Certificates: Applied In

[ifwp] Multi-level list filtering

David, You wrote: Perhaps a something like that idea with a more formal structure could work to let more people feel comfortable participating. As an example - 1) Fully open list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) Lightly filtered version of same list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] a) No crossposts accept

[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission

>Negative. The ICANN's role, and the DNSO's role, with regard to ccTLDs must >be minimal. Their object should not be to remove ccTLDs, especially on the >basis of as-yet undefined criteria, nor should it have any say in how they >are managed or developed or assigned, except within the limits of

[ifwp] Commentary on ICC submission

> ICC DNSO Principles > > These Principles are submitted by ICC as a potential input > to the drafting process for a unified submission of the > Domain Name Supporting Organization. The Principles can be > used for introductory or contextual purposes or as a > “chapeau” text.

[ifwp] Cooperating with Communications (was Re: Voting mech: The Amer. Arbit. Assoc.)

Michael, Taking Richard Sexton's quote of the IETF mantra, "Rough consensus and running code" to heart, one then is faced with the choice of influencing things by 2 avenues, 1) rough consensus, 2) running code. This breaks leadership in the new paradigm of Internet order into categories:

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: The Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

Richard J. Sexton a écrit: > > At 11:11 AM 1/15/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: > > >1) The A.A.A. has already assisted online voting successfully for a number > >of organizations, including a large, dispersed trade union. > > "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consens

[ifwp] [Fwd: (no subject)]

Dear Mr. Sondow: Due to various issues and concerns, I was unable to obtain permission for purchase or review of the on-line voting procedures software. In addition, I was advised that the software is industry specific and would not be of any assistance. Thanks. Ken Eg

[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)

Jay Fenello a écrit: > > At 1/14/99, 10:04 PM, Michael Sondow wrote: > >Patrick Greenwell a écrit: > >> > >> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html > >> > >> Interesting, WIPO seems to think that this is a done deal from the way > >> they are talking... > > > >ICANN has to approve it. Th

[ifwp] Re: staus check on internic

Many have argued that new gTLDs will *de*stabalize the Internet and the entire DNS system. This email should dispell that myth. If anything, an artificially constrained name space is creating a huge speculative bubble, on the order of the great Tulip Mania in Holland in the 1600s. It's tim

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

If tyranny is the arbitrary exercise of power, then it is irrelevant in the context of the DNSO because the DNSO has no power. David Schutt > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bret A. > Fausett > Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 11:31 AM

[ifwp] Domain Names Meeting

To register for the domain names meeting on Friday, January 22nd, please go to https://www.itaa.org/ecomm/calpro/idnc.htm The meeting will be held at The George Washington University -- see invitation letter at http://www.itaa.org/ecomm/calpro/idncinv.htm We hope to see many of you there! Jon E

[ifwp] Re: A New Paradigm (and a New Person-centered Multi-level Communic. Framework)

Jay, The new paradigm that you describe is one which seems to be logical, useful, helpful, because it decentralizes communications, knowledge, and involvement of anyone, anywhere. With Richard Sexton's technical knowhow and network systems expertise, ORSC could become a sponsor of somethi

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

At 01:36 PM 1/14/99 -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >At 10:10 AM 1/14/99 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Basically, getting a DNSO recognized is just getting us a slightly >>better equipped sandbox to play in. > >What, we can't build our own sandbox ? Why not? Actually, it may be past time to consider th

[ifwp] Re: WIPO's done deal?

Michael and all, Michael Sondow wrote: > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html > > ICANN has to approve it. They can't until the DNSO is constituted, > because they would then be acting against their own bylaws, which require > that rules restricting domain name registrations (among ot

[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: > Which is where the January 21 & 22 meetings in Washington come in. That's > where support for WIPO's new rules will be fixed, probably on the 21st, with > the re-written DNSO proposal, including WIPO's draconian DN constraints > (two-month wait between

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: the Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

Michael and all, We (INEGroup) already has a voting application that we use on a regular basis. It uses current authentication methods and is very secure. We would be happy to implement this for any DNSO. Michael Sondow wrote: > I spoke today with Kenneth Egger, the VP in charge of Internet

[ifwp] Re: Voting mechanisms: The Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

At 11:11 AM 1/15/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >1) The A.A.A. has already assisted online voting successfully for a number >of organizations, including a large, dispersed trade union. "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code. - "IETF Cred

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

Christopher Ambler wrote: >The DNSO will come up with recommendations based on the majority, >and often not even on that. The ICANN will then receive this >recommendation, along with separate recommendations from each >and every person or group who feels that the DNSO recommendation >does not refl

[ifwp] Re: DNSO.ORG Meeting proposal on Jan.23(for the last time)

Roberto and all,   Roberto, you assert that the results are the primary determinant as to whether the is a good DNSO draft or final set of bylaws . Respectfully, we disagree.  PROCESS is as important or possibly even more so than results.  Why, you might ask?  The answer is simple and self eviden

[ifwp] Voting mechanisms: The Amer. Arbit. Assoc.

I spoke today with Kenneth Egger, the VP in charge of Internet methodology at the American Arbitration Association. Here is the gist of what he told me: 1) The A.A.A. has already assisted online voting successfully for a number of organizations, including a large, dispersed trade union. 2) The A

[ifwp] WIPO's done deal?

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html ICANN has to approve it. They can't until the DNSO is constituted, because they would then be acting against their own bylaws, which require that rules restricting domain name registrations (among other things) to originate with the DNSO. Which i

[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)

At 1/14/99, 10:04 PM, Michael Sondow wrote: >Patrick Greenwell a écrit: >> >> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html >> >> Interesting, WIPO seems to think that this is a done deal from the way >> they are talking... > >ICANN has to approve it. They can't, really, until the DNSO is cons

[ifwp] Re: It is likely to be illegal Re: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?

Patrick and all The counter argument to you very good example of a potential destabilization situation in DNS is thus: With our Sroots software for registration and management of TLD's if you make such a request, regardless of how many registries there may bee, given of course that this soft

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

No, it's more like a waste of time. The DNSO will come up with recommendations based on the majority, and often not even on that. The ICANN will then receive this recommendation, along with separate recommendations from each and every person or group who feels that the DNSO recommendation does no

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:51:17 +, jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>[...] But in no way can the Minority override the will and VOTE of the >>>Majority. >> Sorry, but the US courts do it all the time. That is the function of the >> judicial branch! > In special cases this is indeed t

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

Ron and all, Ron Kimball wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:51:17 +, jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>>[...] But in no way can the Minority override the will and VOTE of the > >>>Majority. > >> Sorry, but the US courts do it all the time. That is the function of the > >> judici

[ifwp] Re: Objections to a flat structure

At 12:30 15/01/99 -0500, Brett Faucett wrote: >Let me pose a question that has not been considered in this thread and >which I think is important. > >Isn't there some protection of the rights of minorities built into the >fact that the DNSO only recommends DN policy to ICANN? > Brett and all,

[ifwp] Re: Modification of DNSO bylaws: Membership

Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 01:39:31PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > >Any legally defined entity or individual person is eligible to be a > > >member of the DNSO." > > > > I hate to ask this, but... define "legally defined" > > Any entity for which a govern

[ifwp] Re: NSI's DNSO Position

Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 01:13:22PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > Overall, it is very common practice to have contracts that allow one party > > to impose new conditions and obligations without the need of a bi-lateral > > agreed-upon amendment. If one d

[ifwp] Re: staus check on internic

Jay and all,   Maybe I am missing something here Jay?  I fail to see how your post (See below) dispels the myth that adding new gTLD's to the DNS in and of itself.  I will grant you it is ONE argument in that direction, but only ONE argument. Jay Fenello wrote: Many have argued that new gTLDs wil

[ifwp] APRICOT'99

FYI -James Seng APRICOT Registrations open from 4 January 1999 for APRICOT 1-5 March 1999 http://www.apng.org/apricot99/

[ifwp] RE: A New Paradigm (was: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?)

maybe the best way to deal with this is to send detailed instructions to those on the list who do not know how to set their e-mail clients to filter and delete directly off the server messages from individuals they do not wish to receive e-mail from. i will be happ to walk anyone thru outlook expr

[ifwp] open meetings

I have been keeping up the pressure and as I said it is NOT because I think a mistake was made months ago but that a mistake is being made now Dave t 06:14 PM 1/14/99 +, jeff Williams wrote: >Gordon, > > Great post here Gordon. Very good information. There is one small >problem here thou

[ifwp] Re: WIPO to the Rescue(NOT!)

Patrick Greenwell a écrit: > > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,30939,00.html > > Interesting, WIPO seems to think that this is a done deal from the way > they are talking... ICANN has to approve it. They can't, really, until the DNSO is constituted, because they would then be acting against t

[ifwp] Back to the local root.zone discussions.

It's happening again. >Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:01:13 -0800 (PST) >From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: h.root-servers.net returning false negatives (fwd) >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >FYI, below is a copy of a message I sent to the appropriate people. > >I gu

[ifwp] WIPO confident of their plan

http://www.msnbc.com/news/231747.asp -- Christopher Ambler This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message t

[ifwp] Re: Constituencies

>The registries, as might be expected, think that 6 is too few... Image Online Design is a registry, and thinks that 6 is too many, as is 3. 1 is the right number for anyone who runs a registry, just as 1 is the right number for anyone. I am a member of a rather large number of groups, none of w

[ifwp] Re: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?

Hi Becky -- Sorry to be slow in forwarding this per your request! I was at a Research Symposium at UCI all day on 13 Jan, and just now found your message as I am forcible plowing through my backlog. Thank you for your efforts to explain the situation adn for making it available to the whole comm

[ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal

Greg Skinner wrote: > My fault. I went back in the archives and checked. Joe Sims and > Larry Landweber were also mentioned. See the "trust building > exercise" thread and some other threads it spun off. > Are the archives for this list now open again, or are you referring to you own archive