Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  Again Veni, as there is no evidence substantiating your claim a la
"netiquette" or RFC 1855, it would seem your need for study of
same remains necessary or at least advisable.  I also believe it
was disingenuous of you as a ICANN BoD member to respond
to Danny's inquiry with such a claim as such did not in any
way address Danny's inquiry regardless of whether or not
Danny or any other interested stakeholders/user had violated
"netiquette" or RFC 1855.  Such disengenousness is on my companies
Bod grounds for immediate dismissal depending on the perceived
or actual severity of same.  So I will ask for you to voluntarily offer
yourself for disinplintary action publicly and refrain from any further
ICANN BoD function until such disinplintary action has been
assessed and carried out.


Veni Markovski wrote:

>    Dear all,
>
> let's try to stay focus on the problem with Danny using private
> e-mails in public communications.
>
> veni
>
> p.s. I hope this to be my last comment on the netiquette issues,
> which I've observed in the list.
>
> RFC 1855, which was written in 1995, but you may see that I said
> something differently:
>
>  > The problem is, and it's not overlooking a detail, that there's a
>  > continuous trend in your e-mails which is not in accordance with
> the
>  > normal netiquette. If not the one from RFC 1855, then the one I've
>  > been learning since September 1990.
>
> ... and of course, since RFC 1855 was created in 1995, there are 5
> years of experience before that. And let's just randomly choose some
> portions from the RFC.
>
>
>
> - If the message was a personal message to you and you are re-posting
> to a group, you should ask permission first.
>
>
> I'd agree that Danny is right, and I am wrong, if he has asked Jeff
> recently, and others earlier, on re-posting their opinions to a
> group, to which they do not belong. Since we have not seen such a
> permission stated in the e-mail (which would have been a proper way
> to treat that), it's normal to asume such a persmission has not been
> granted.
>
> So, one may be very familiar with the RFC 1855, but he or she can
> still make the mistake of thinking that I am discussing Danny's
> language:
>
>
> At 03:53 AM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Veni and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> >stakeholders/users,
> >
> >   I do not see any language in Danny's previous post on this thread,
>
> >as a violation of RFC 1855 or any reasonable view of "normal
> >netiquette."
> >As I am very familiar with RFC 1855, it would seem self evident and
> >plainly obvious your "Learning" of same is likely/perhaps still in
> great
> >need.
>
>

Regards,

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

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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