Re: [ga] RE: [Released] [Contains offensive language] Transparency

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, Vint and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  I would think that regardless of where or whom such input was sent
initially
that every "Good" staff member would see to it that that input was
routed
and/or forwarded to wherever or whomever should be receiving same.
Such would seem to follow Vint's adage, and mine of  "do good works".

Danny Younger wrote:

>    Dear Vint,
>
> I do recall a similar prior situation -- the Public Comment Forum on
> VeriSign's Deployment of DNS Wildcard Service had taken note of a
> letter writing campaign (petition).  The Forum's Chronological Index
> page cited at the very top the source of the petition
> (http://whois.sc/verisign-dns) and indicated the page to which the
> petitioning comments were posted:
> http://forum.icann.org/wildcard-comments/petition/
>
> As ICANN Staff has previously utilized this procedure, I was taken by
> surprise when this most recent letter writing campaign somehow fell
> through the cracks.  You may wish to ask the Staff how it happened
> that the earlier petition regarding the Wildcard Service was noticed
> while this other campaign somehow escaped their attention.  It may
> turn out to be a simple matter to ensure that such lapses don't occur
> in the future.
>
> With regard to the issue of spam management, I'm given to understand
> that the ALAC's John Levine is considered to be somewhat of an expert
> in the field.  As the role of the At-Large Advisory Committee is to
> consider and provide advice insofar as it relates to the interests of
> individual Internet users, John and others on the Committee should
> doubtless be eager to assist ICANN in achieving a more efficient
> processing and disclosure of whatever public input is received.
>
> Why not put the ball in their court and see what they can come up
> with?
>
> Best wishes,
> Danny Younger
>
>
>
> "Vinton G. Cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Danny,
>
> I understand your point. There is a huge amount of spam that comes
> into the email at ICANN and I am not sure whether it is mechanically
> possible to distinguish "letter writing campaigns" from spam. I don't
> say this to dismiss your point at all, just thinking out loud about
> how to go about implementing it. Perhaps this is a judgment call and
> if campaigns like this are mounted, we should consider posting a
> sample?
>
> The ICANN Ombudsman also received a large number of emails (not as
> many as the Department of Commerce, however). He considers these
> contacts to be private since the business of ombudsmanship requires a
> considerable degree of sensitivity.
>
> Of course, every mailing list is now a potential spam target, so
> keeping a list like that actually useful is a challenge.
>
> What's your thought about practical implementation?
>
> By the way, all of the email sent to me that contained the string
> ".<triple X>" was filtered out by my company's spam filter and I had
> to retrieve these manually from the spam files!!
>
> vint
>
>
>
> Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
> vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Released] [Contains offensive language] Transparency
>
>
>
> Dear Vint,
>
> It is now known that on 17 June a group known as the Family Research
> Council posted an ALERT on the topic of the Establishment of the .XXX
> Domain.  This organization requested that interested parties send the
> following message to publicaffairs(at)ntia.doc.gov and to
> icann(at)icann.org:
>
> "I oppose the establishment of the .XXX domain.  I do not want to give
> pornographers more opportunities to distribute smut on the Internet.
> By establishing this new .XXX domain, you would be giving false hope
> to parents who want to protect their families from pornography.  You
> would also be lending legitimacy to the hardcore pornography
> industry.  Please stop this effort now."
>
> It should have come as no surprise to the Board that opposition to the
> .xxx domain approval was emerging as the Board is privy to the email
> sent to the icann(at)icann.org address.  On the other hand, we, the
> rest of the community, were kept in the dark about such correspondence
> until the posting of Michael Gallagher's request which cited over 6000
> letters and e-mails on the issue.
>
> I respectfully submit that greater transparency is required.
>
> There was a time when ICANN had an Open Public Forum into which anyone
> could submit a comment at any time on any topic, and whereby we could
> all assess the intensity of any emerging concerns -- but that Forum
> has been eliminated.
>
> I ask you to consider having all such letters sent by the public to
> ICANN posted somewhere on the ICANN website so that the remainder of
> the ICANN community can react to such input.  Allowing us to know who
> is reacting to DNS issues will afford us the opportunity to attempt to
> integrate some of these organizations into the ICANN process.  In the
> long run, that could be quite beneficial.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> dannyyounger(at)yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> __________________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827