ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Posting Rules

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Posting Rules
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:17:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp; I would agree that we need a set of rules that have the majority 
<P>the GA members support.&nbsp; We don't have that now.&nbsp; I would agree 
<P>we need those whom preach one theing and practice another, such</P>
<P>as yourself, Mr. Dierker to restrain yourself from doing so and/or seek</P>
<P>professional help.&nbsp; I would also agree that moving forward with 
<P>which have been put forward by several GA subscribers be voted upon</P>
<P>by a ligitimate voting process, immediately.&nbsp; These amendments were</P>
<P>put forth <STRONG>BEFOR </STRONG>the original helter-skelter voting on list 
porcess commenced</P>
<P>and were called for by yourself, Mr. Dierker as such.</P>
<P>&nbsp; I and other GA members have noted that we need no censorship of 
<P>sort which you seem to oppose.&nbsp; As such, presently it may be that 
<P>you Mr. Dierker desire censorship of content of individuals posts for 
<P>own purposes that there is not now, and will unlikely be as long as 
<P>is considered as rule, for discourse on any forum, a reluctance for 
<P>to express their opinions, positions, ideas, ect., accordingly.&nbsp; </P>
<P>&nbsp; You Mr. Dierker do not speak for all the members which has been quite 
<P>evident of late yet again.&nbsp; Nor do I or any other member speak for 
<P>of the GA members.&nbsp; Yet you seem to believe that you do.&nbsp; Such a 
<P>is utter nonsense if you or anyone&nbsp;believes you/they do.<BR><BR><BR></P>
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker 
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Sep 1, 2007 5:02 PM <BR>To: GA 
<GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga] Posting Rules <BR><BR>
<DIV>After the past month I believe it has become very apparent that in order 
to have a good working list we need strong rules with real teeth both in 
writing and in action. </DIV>
<DIV>We have witnessed that being under constant attack the participation level 
will decrease.</DIV>
<DIV>Which only makes sense. Who wants to have negative things said about them 
day in and day out. Who wants to have to ferret out truths and untruths before 
they even get to substantive issues.</DIV>
<DIV>We have watched self policing with the rules adopted but without 
enforcement abilities. And just as we would suspect they work for the 99.5%. 
But that .5% can really have a dilitory impact. I assure you that we will move 
forward with these rules.</DIV>
<DIV>as Chair</DIV>
<P></P>======= <BR><BR>'Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for 
INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the 
law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit 
should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the 
accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; 
the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less 
than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States 
v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 
 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. 
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good 
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>