April 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Danny and all, Execellent overview here Danny! No offense to you or the ICANN staff, but the Summit Questionnaire also leaves allot to be desired and/or leaves out allot of known and documented existing problems such as DNS configuration errors. I am not supprised as ICANN.ORG itself is misconfigured DNS wise. Other than my above, I fully agree with your remarks and observations below Danny. DNS for dummys will do absolutely nothing to solve DNS related problems. A "Readers Digest Condensed Version" of existing issues for users review, will do nothing to solve problems and get users involved, in fact it would have a negitive impact of users active involvment as to finding solutions to existing issues and problems such as the IPC's errant behavior. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 8:29 AM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Darlene, > >The Summit Questionnaire was just finalized and the 15 >areas of interest cited all relate to information that >can readily be found through ICANN's homepage. > >Sufficient information is out there already for those >that care about DNS issues. > >The answer is not to be found in creating a DNS for >Dummies series in which 2 brief pages cover each issue >-- if that approach is taken then all you will wind up >with is something as useless as the "Guide to the DNS >for End Users" that was prepared by an ICANN >consultant. > >Show me one relevant area that an ALS cares about for >which sufficient information is lacking. > >Information is out there for those that wish to seek >it out. You seek to explain ALS non-performance, >non-involvement, and non-engagement on the basis of a >lack of educational materials. I don't buy the >argument. > >The truth of the matter is that most ALSs have only a >passing interest on an occasional topic; they have no >deep commitment to defend those that they purportedly >represent. > >Consider the IPC that aggressively acts to protect the >interests of the intellectual property crowd. By >contrast, the bulk of the ALSs have no interest in >protecting us -- and that is not something that a >Reader's Digest condensed version of an issue will >cure. > > > > >--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> wrote: > >> Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, >> anyways) responded >> to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests >> personally. If >> something affects me personally, I read up on it and >> respond, as well. >> If it doesn't I might not. >> >> ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by >> people putting in >> hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their >> work. They don't sit >> behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go >> finding stuff and >> working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their >> jobs) directly. You >> must have tons more time at work to read this stuff >> than the entire ALS >> community put together. We all have jobs that >> actually take up huge >> portions of our time/life. >> >> When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that >> easier to digest >> information would be soon coming out. As Nick has >> reported there have >> been various impediments to this but that it should >> "soon" be coming. >> Once this is available, then I would suggest that >> the NARALO do, maybe, >> a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to >> all ALSs - both for >> their info and for their web sites. >> >> In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't >> being properly educated; >> the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The >> real At-Large cares, >> reacts and responds; they don't." That is really >> wrong. The At-Large >> does care - about those issues that affect them. >> Comparing them to a >> registrant that has just had the plug pulled on >> their web site is >> completely misleading. >> >> So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's >> the information we >> need to get out to them. What is happening that >> they should care about? >> What response is needed? Put out information such >> as that, and we will >> get more input. >> >> Constant negativity sure won't help, though. >> >> D >> >> Darlene A. Thompson >> Community Access Program Administrator >> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >> To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan >> Leibovitch; Nick >> Ashton-Hart >> Cc: NA Discuss >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft >> Accountability Framework >> andConflicts of Interest Policy >> >> Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at >> all >> out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" >> >> When these organizations signed up they agreed to >> (1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >> issues, >> (2) enable discussions among their members on the >> issues; and >> (3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >> development, discussions and decisions. >> >> The ICANN website currently contains information on: >> a. accountability and transparency >> b. idn fast-track discussions >> c. mid-term review considerations >> d. the 2007 Annual report >> e. root-server agreements >> f. new gtlds >> g. independent reviews >> h. compliance initiatives >> i. whois issues >> j. the registrar accreditation agreement >> k. nominating committee activities >> l. iPV6 >> >> There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >> discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >> the translation program, and to a host of other >> subjects. >> >> So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >> teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >> capable of reading an ALS application form, but >> nothing else. >> >> Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem >> manage >> to read everything under the sun about an issue and >> know where to send their complaints and concerns, >> yet >> ALSs remain clueless. >> >> Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >> way to the ICANN blog and to the public >> participation >> sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >> were absolutely silent. >> >> The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >> educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >> at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >> responds; they don't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________ >> Be a better friend, newshound, and >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Danny and all, Danny, I think you are a little bit to critical of the ALS's here in your remarks below. The ALS's did respond to ICANN's addressing of the domain name tasting issue, all be the ALS's response was "Milktoast" or overly conciliatory in nature. However it does seem to me, and from what I am reading, to others as well, that the ALS's don't seem to be all that interested in the current issues already defined that do effect users, nor do the ALS's staff seem to be willing to have other user recognized and reported issues heard, let alone discussed and perhaps addressed. Rather there seems to be a undercurrent of nuaunced directive to the ALS staff as to what the should concentrate on coming from perhaps the GNSO council and the ICANN staff and Bod. I hope however I am mistaken here. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 7:31 AM >To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at all >out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" > >When these organizations signed up they agreed to >(1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >issues, >(2) enable discussions among their members on the >issues; and >(3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >development, discussions and decisions. > >The ICANN website currently contains information on: >a. accountability and transparency >b. idn fast-track discussions >c. mid-term review considerations >d. the 2007 Annual report >e. root-server agreements >f. new gtlds >g. independent reviews >h. compliance initiatives >i. whois issues >j. the registrar accreditation agreement >k. nominating committee activities >l. iPV6 > >There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >the translation program, and to a host of other >subjects. > >So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >capable of reading an ALS application form, but >nothing else. > >Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem manage >to read everything under the sun about an issue and >know where to send their complaints and concerns, yet >ALSs remain clueless. > >Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >way to the ICANN blog and to the public participation >sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >were absolutely silent. > >The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >responds; they don't. > > > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Darlene and all, My response is interspersed below Darlene's... -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 7:58 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Well, OF COURSE the registrant community (in the US, anyways) responded >to the RegisterFly debacle - it hurt their interests personally. If >something affects me personally, I read up on it and respond, as well. >If it doesn't I might not. It saddens me and is seemingly disrespectful as well as shows a lack of proper concern for users that if as "Volenteer" for any ALS that such a "Volenteer" would put their own personal interests before those that they are purporting to be wolenteering their time to serve. I never have taken this attitude, and I hope I never shall. > >ALSs are generally non-profit organizations run by people putting in >hugely long numbers of hours dealing with their work. They don't sit >behind a desk and have huge amounts of time to go finding stuff and >working on stuff that doesn't affect them (or their jobs) directly. You >must have tons more time at work to read this stuff than the entire ALS >community put together. We all have jobs that actually take up huge >portions of our time/life. Understood fully by me here! But than again, if your day job is so demanding, than perhaps volenteering isn't something you or anyone in a similar position should be doing? Further we all should be very glad has the time or manages his time so that he can provide the information that he has and take advantage of that. > >When the Canadian ALSs signed up, we were told that easier to digest >information would be soon coming out. As Nick has reported there have >been various impediments to this but that it should "soon" be coming. >Once this is available, then I would suggest that the NARALO do, maybe, >a weekly informational e-mailing on one subject to all ALSs - both for >their info and for their web sites. This is not a bad idea as long as it is accurate, reflects different and diverse viewpoints and is very detailed as well as allows for multipul input from many different sources unrestricted. > >In stating, "The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly educated; >the problem is that ALSs are not the at-large. The real At-Large cares, >reacts and responds; they don't." That is really wrong. The At-Large >does care - about those issues that affect them. Comparing them to a >registrant that has just had the plug pulled on their web site is >completely misleading. Perhaps you are correct here from your own prespective. But that is as you stated above, what effects you. This however is not going to be and is not now, the same perspective of all users. > >So, what issues do ALSs care about? WELL - that's the information we >need to get out to them. What is happening that they should care about? >What response is needed? Put out information such as that, and we will >get more input. ALS's should be listening to the users whom they are supposed to represent and be made up of. I am sure the users, such as myself as one, will inform the ALS's what is on their minds, effects them broadly and individually, and when that is known, than a plan of action to address those issues and/or concerns if possible, should commence. > >Constant negativity sure won't help, though. I fully agree. So please discontinue propagating such negativity! > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:32 AM >To: Thompson, Darlene; Jacqueline A. Morris; Evan Leibovitch; Nick >Ashton-Hart >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >Re: "How can we punish or even expect anything at all >out of ALSs that haven't been educated?" > >When these organizations signed up they agreed to >(1) distribute information on ICANN activities and >issues, >(2) enable discussions among their members on the >issues; and >(3) involve their members in relevant ICANN policy >development, discussions and decisions. > >The ICANN website currently contains information on: >a. accountability and transparency >b. idn fast-track discussions >c. mid-term review considerations >d. the 2007 Annual report >e. root-server agreements >f. new gtlds >g. independent reviews >h. compliance initiatives >i. whois issues >j. the registrar accreditation agreement >k. nominating committee activities >l. iPV6 > >There are also links to the GNSO Improvements >discussion, the ICANN travel policy considerations, >the translation program, and to a host of other >subjects. > >So I guess what you're saying is we first need to >teach ALSs how to read. Apparently, they are only >capable of reading an ALS application form, but >nothing else. > >Funny, how registrants that encounter a problem manage >to read everything under the sun about an issue and >know where to send their complaints and concerns, yet >ALSs remain clueless. > >Odd that registrants in droves managed to find their >way to the ICANN blog and to the public participation >sites when the Registerfly mess unfolded, yet ALSs >were absolutely silent. > >The problem isn't that ALSs aren't being properly >educated; the problem is that ALSs are not the >at-large. The real At-Large cares, reacts and >responds; they don't. > > > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Darlene and all, Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

ALAC Review - Request for Input
by At-Large Staff April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Dear All: We have been asked to forward you the below from the team performing the ALAC Review. We hope that you will take this opportunity to provide your views to the review if you have not already done so. --- This email follows our earlier request for feedback to the Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee, being conducted by Westlake Consulting Limited. The closing date for submissions is Friday 18th April. Therefore, if you wish to provide any input or feedback on any of the individual questions in the Terms of Reference <http://www.icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-review-final-tor-20jun07.pdf> , or ³to contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, structure or operation of the ALAC,² please email alacreview(a)westlakenz.com by Friday 18th April. The main issues the Review Team has to address are: - [To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and, - If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. If you would prefer a telephone or Skype call, rather than responding by email, please send your contact details to the same email address, alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, and a member of the Westlake Team will contact you shortly. Among other matters the Terms of Reference note, ³It will be important to consider different perspectives relevant to the ALAC, including the views of individual Internet users, the ALSs, the RALOs, past and current Members of the ALAC, and many others within (and perhaps outside) the ICANN community.² As a result, the Review Team is seeking as wide a range of relevant views as possible. Confidentiality: the Westlake Review Team¹s policy on confidentiality is as follows: ³Your feedback will be treated in confidence. It will not be shared outside the four consultants who comprise the review team (and our office support staff). We might quote from your feedback in our report to ICANN, but we will not identify you as the author. So please feel free to be frank with us.² Westlake Consulting NZ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Today's call
by Evan Leibovitch April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Hello everyone. This is just a reminder about today's NARALO conference call. Time: 1900 UTC which is 3pm Eastern, 2pm Central, noon Pacific and 9am Hawaii Dialin info and agenda are at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_april_2008 Note: For the beginning of this call, we hope to have the participation of Stacy Burnett to help us understand ICANN enforcement issues. Some notes on the proposed enforcement discussion (I believe these came from Danny): 1. Direct Transfer Clauses Circumvention of the Expired Domain Deletions Policy by way of Direct Transfer Clauses in registrar terms of service agreements; will this consensus policy ever be enforced? 2. Compliance Budget $902,000 increase in budget for compliance -- how will these monies be spent? 3. Compliance Assessment Why (per the Operating Plan) will site visits to assess compliance with agreements be limited to 100 per year? 4. Regional Presence with regards to Compliance Assessment What exactly does the phrase "establish Presence in selected regions to assess Compliance" mean? 5. Negligence of Compliance Actions Why haven't compliance actions been initiated subsequent to the 19 September 2007 "Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy"? See you on the call! - Evan

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

John and all, An old saying goes, "if the dog hadden't stopped to do his business, maybe he would have caught the rebbit". Point being that, although I agree with your sentament, I am not sure that a lurker user would. Users should beaking these decisions for themselves, not staff making such decisions for them! The ALAC should service the user. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 7:22 PM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of >> time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Maybe if we've heard nothing from an ALS for a year, we should take them >off the list. But I entirely agree that this is among the least urgent >actions for the ALAC. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

Evan and all, After most of our members have reviewed this document, we, including my self do concur with Evan and Wendy. Many or our members found this document particularly insulting in many aspects, which I shall not elaborate upon, as did I. I found this document to be quite self serving to only the ALAC and ICANN staff, particularly nonsensical, overly restrictive, the code of conduct is excessive and is unrealistic. Frankly, this document IMO seems to have come from the mind or minds of someone whom is on the fringe or seriously deranged. It should be rejected our of hand, and our INEGroup members do so reject it as such... This said, shall we start again? -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 12:34 PM >To: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > > >I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. > >Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it exists. > >ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >public to them. > >The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >"non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large serves. > >To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! > >I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >(open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >"encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >significant background information supplied in the local street language. > >It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >will be to have turned nothing into nothing. > >I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >image appears to indicate that: >1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >serve its mandate >3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it serves >4) all of the above > >Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. > >Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >handled with common sense and discretion. > >I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. > >Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. > >Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >NARALO chair. > >- Evan > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Jacque and all, Again sorry but I am quite sure your are the one whom is mistaken/wrong. I have literally millions of Emails that strongly disagree with your position. and many of these documents and Email go back to 1996. which is prior to Icon's existence. Many have been filed with these individuals government representatives including the DOC/NTIA. Further what your suggesting is contrary to the 1996 telecommunications Act, which I helped draft, and the MOU. For a small sampling one has only to review the old DNSO archives as well as the GNSO archives. See:http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaarchives.html and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/ as well as http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 2:29 PM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy > >You are wrong. I have loads of emails and other requests for exactly what I >suggested. It is needed. > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:07 PM >To: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" ><evan(a)telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >andConflicts of Interest Policy > >> Jacque and all, >> >> I and our members totally disagree. The users KNOW what >> the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how >> those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed >> of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those >> issues. Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to >> do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not >> the other way around. >> >> Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or >> three page document generated by those that seemingly are not >> willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of >> the Internet, is sufficient. The old addage "The devil is the >> details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make >> truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly. >> >> You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders >> and staff, work FOR it's members! >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >>>Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM >>>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart >>><Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>and Conflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>Evan >>>IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, >>>brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I >>>haven't >>>read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >>>I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the >>>document. >>> >>> I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we >>>haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >>>manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we >>>ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out >>>to >>>their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >>>So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >>>would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >>>discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that >>>includes >>>a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >>>background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they >>>can try to comment. >>>And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period >>>of >>>time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. >>> >>>Jacqueline >>>-------------------------------------------------- >>>From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >>>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >>>To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" >>><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework >>>and >>>Conflicts of Interest Policy >>> >>>> >>>> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >>>> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >>>> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >>>> >>>> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >>>> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >>>> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >>>> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >>>> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >>>> exists. >>>> >>>> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >>>> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >>>> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >>>> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >>>> public to them. >>>> >>>> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >>>> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >>>> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >>>> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >>>> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >>>> serves. >>>> >>>> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >>>> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >>>> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >>>> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >>>> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >>>> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >>>> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >>>> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >>>> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >>>> >>>> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >>>> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >>>> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >>>> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >>>> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >>>> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >>>> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >>>> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >>>> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >>>> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >>>> significant background information supplied in the local street >>>> language. >>>> >>>> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >>>> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >>>> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >>>> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >>>> >>>> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >>>> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >>>> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >>>> image appears to indicate that: >>>> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >>>> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >>>> serve its mandate >>>> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >>>> serves >>>> 4) all of the above >>>> >>>> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >>>> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >>>> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >>>> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >>>> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >>>> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >>>> >>>> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >>>> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >>>> handled with common sense and discretion. >>>> >>>> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >>>> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >>>> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >>>> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >>>> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >>>> >>>> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >>>> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >>>> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >>>> >>>> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >>>> NARALO chair. >>>> >>>> - Evan >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >>>> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >>>> ------ >>>> >> Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com >> My Phone: 214-244-4827Regards, >> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com >> My Phone: 214-244-4827 >> > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Evan and all, So far regarding this subject, I thought your comments and remarks were well made and properly stated. I detected no personal animosity of other nuance indicating such. On a personal note, and for anyone's edification, I as an American and firm believer in freedom of expression, firmly believe in expressing oneself in the way that best suites them, and let the others interpret or misinterpret such as they may or sometimes will. And if someone doesn't like your "Tone", that just too bad for them! In America, we refer this as our 1st Amendment Right. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 3:05 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> I greatly dislike cross-posting, but since the last two posters did >> cross-post, I feel that this statement needs to go to the same audience. >Sorry. It was just that the original doc went to the ALAC list as well >as _all_ the RALO lists. The only ones I'm able to post to are ALAC and NA. > >> As anyone who read my comments knows, I'd onto support the document as >> drafted. >??? > >> However, in fairness to those that did draft it, I do not believe that >> it says ANYTHING about taking action against ALSs (for whatever reason). >> >> It was Danny Younger who suggested this, saying that in his opinion, >> it was something that/ should/ have been included. > >My rant was multi-faceted, though, and clearly directed against the >original document as well as the subsequent discussions. I deliberately >kept individuals out of my comment because it was directed at the >groupthink indicated by the document and discussion more than any >specific contribution. > >Perhaps some elements of my commentary -- such as that ALAC has no >business at this time reworking (and bloating) conflict of interest >guidelines -- were more subtly stated than others. :-) > >- Evan > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 13, 2008

April 13, 2008

Jacque and all, I and our members totally disagree. The users KNOW what the issues that impact them are, and many know where and how those issues are either created, were created, can be addressed of fixed, and significant detail regarding many if not most of those issues. Ergo, it is the ALAC leadership that need desprately to do the listening, and reacting to the issues the user/public has, not the other way around. Secondly I, and all of our members disagree that a simple two or three page document generated by those that seemingly are not willing to listen to users/public issues regarding the managment of the Internet, is sufficient. The old addage "The devil is the details" is why the users/public needs details in order to make truly informed decisions as to how and what THEY wish done accordingly. You have to remember, that a ligitimate organization's leaders and staff, work FOR it's members! -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 13, 2008 1:03 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >Evan >IMO top priority should be the production of the long delayed documents, >brochures etc to explain issues to the public. I have to say that I haven't >read this document yet - haven't prioritised the time to do that. >I'm responding to your email and other opinions I have read on the document. > > I do not think that we can say that an ALS is derelict in its duty if we >haven't got the policy documents or statements translated in a timely >manner, if we haven't got a primer written to explain the issue BEFORE we >ask for comments on the policy statement. If they can't get this info out to >their members, they cannot do what we ask of them. >So I think that if Staff has any time at all, one excellent thing to do >would be to prepare a "backgrounder" for EVERY policy item up for >discussion - a simple 2 pager that indicates the basic issue, that includes >a glossary, and is in the major languages. So that ppl know what the >background is to the document that is sent out for comment. And then they >can try to comment. >And if after giving everyone the tools and supporting them over a period of >time, there's no activity, then yeah we can do something about it. > >Jacqueline >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:34 PM >To: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and >Conflicts of Interest Policy > >> >> I wish to go on record that, in my view, the request, production and >> debate of this document constitutes dereliction by ALAC and ICANN staff >> of their duties to the ICANN and to the public ALAC pretends to serve. >> >> Mostly the document is bureaucratic gobbledygook, the complexity of >> which encourages its ignorance rather than its heeding. However, my >> biggest problem with it -- and the ensuing discussion -- is not so much >> the details of the wording so much as the disturbing and (to me) >> destructive philosophy that underlies the whole document and why it >> exists. >> >> ALAC and ICANN have barely begun to commence -- let alone fulfill -- >> their obligations to the public, yet they have sought to waste extremely >> scarce resources (both staff and volunteers) obsessing with yet more >> internal construction and hand-wringing over the obligations of the >> public to them. >> >> The ink is barely dry on the last RALO memo of understanding, and we are >> already wasting precious time how to lay blame and punish >> "non-performers". Not only does this indicate a distasteful inclination >> towards negative re-enforcement, but it reflects a continued >> ignorance/denial -- within our own community -- of the role At-Large >> serves. >> >> To be blunt, ICANN needs me more than I need ICANN. I do not say that >> out of pure ego, since I believe that phrase applies to every ALS and to >> every individual on this mailing list. We all serve here in a very >> difficult role, making topics that are generally boring and >> uninteresting to the public not only relevant but interesting enough to >> learn about (AND respond to!). ICANN and ALAC should be falling over >> themselves in figuring out how to support its public members and attract >> high quality thinking; instead they obsess with rules, limits and >> censure protocols. How utterly counter-productive! >> >> I have an extremely difficult time getting my own ALS members to >> substantively understand policy in its _primary_ fields of interest >> (open source, software patents, DRM etc). ICANN issues are peripheral to >> our mission, as they are to the vast majority of the public -- and this >> was the intention for ALSs by design. Unlike NCUC and other ICANN >> constituencies, At-Large is not (intended to be) populated with policy >> wonks who thrive on (and often make a career out of) advising others. >> It's meant to represent the public, which by and large has to be >> "encouraged" to even care about ICANN issues. In my ALS and I suspect >> many others, policy opinions must be nurtured and encouraged and require >> significant background information supplied in the local street language. >> >> It's not an easy or quick process, and it's barely begun. Yet here we >> are -- having supplied the public little or none of this critical >> background -- already working on how to punish those whose greatest sin >> will be to have turned nothing into nothing. >> >> I would assume that a bureaucratic organization such as ICANN already >> has policies in place for issues such as conflict of interest. That ALAC >> still feels the need to re-examine and re-work these issues in its own >> image appears to indicate that: >> 1) it has an inflated opinion of its own level of maturity >> 2) it wants to look busy, regardless of whether its actions actually >> serve its mandate >> 3) it still hasn't really come to terms with why it exists and who it >> serves >> 4) all of the above >> >> Given that ALAC and ICANN have given so little to support its ALSs and >> their members, it's not hard to find ALSs that have given little back. >> Given that ALAC needs all the help it can get, it should be spending >> ZERO time on how to decrease its ranks. Even one person-hour spent by a >> committee member or someone from an "underperforming" ALS is one >> person-hour that ICANN would not have had otherwise. >> >> Of course, leadership positions bring with them additional obligations. >> On these and related matters, it's amazing how much internal muck can be >> handled with common sense and discretion. >> >> I urge ALAC members to consider the folly of continued obsession with >> procedure, or any activities not geared directly to educating the public >> and extracting public-centric policy from the result of that education. >> Everything that does not serve this mission is a distraction from it, >> and obviously ALAC is far too easily distracted. >> >> Personally I would like to suggest a six-month moratorium on _any_ ALAC >> activity regarding internal procedures, simply to see if it could >> survive such a drought without entropy or implosion. >> >> Note: This is my personal view. It is not stated in my capacity as >> NARALO chair. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ >> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1