- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Dominik and all, Very good overview observations and remarks here. Our members including myself have expressed similar and are very supportive of Dominiks here. What is now, and has been for sense the inception of ICANN is that is is under the thumb predominantly of the hand that feed's it $$, namely registries, registrars, and IP interests. As such it is essentially still a club, not an international organization and lacks ethical and reasonable standards of any sort. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 26, 2008 1:05 PM >To: gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements > >I have gone over many posts on several publicly accessible ICANN mailing >lists and other documents and have found several or more contributions >illuminating and explanatory in giving an insight of what is going on at >ICANN behind the scenes, provided we are able to read between the lines. >Nothing, what we have not known before but perhaps some details about >the technology of how craftily the public effort can be conducted and >manipulated. > >In fact, the common argument being always presented is how staffers are >all keen on supporting all types of public interests. But only up to a >moment when the public interests start colliding with leading interests >of the financial and other sharks. When realizing what is at stake the >stuffers immediately back off. Then the second sort of arguments comes >into play, such as a given proposal is too strong, fundamental and which >'will not fly' as registrars and registries will not support it anyway, >and the like. As of this moment an ordinary user (naive user, volunteer) >is being persuaded that a weaker solution is also acceptable, not >perhaps that effective but still better than nothing. Along with ongoing >verbal assurance that the staffers also share sympathy for public >interests trying doing their best to achieve the most feasible solution, >the user might easily get into a false but optimistic assumption as to >have achieved something, not achieving anything real though. > >What is worse is that the staffers are not even willing to present >prevailing views of the communities they represent once the views start >clashing with the leading interests. This is indeed an interesting >moment. >For example, the ALAC's updated domain tasting statement swiftly adopted >the draft motion logic without first discussing it properly with its >public audience. The question is why it acted this way, especially when >it had preferred and presented a stronger position in the first place >before. After all, it could have insisted on the stronger position. >Nothing dramatic would have happened. The ALAC has no voting power and >even if it had it is the BoD who makes final decisions. >The similar approach has also been adopted by several other >constituencies. Instead of clear presentation of prevailing views and >concerns of the constituency members and the underlying public audience, >the updated views swiftly adapted the actual view of the leading >interest. Such updated statements do not reflect previously preferred >constituency positions any longer but rather give in to the expectations >of the leading interests. As a result, the constituencies thus do not >act as self-confident sui juris bodies advocating the views they stand >for, which would be a solid basis for further deliberation and >consent-driven process based on seeking unifying arguments, but rather >quickly seek political consent managed among constituency >representatives; of course, driven by the leading interests they are >advised to pursue. This tendency is apparent in several places in the >Final Report on Domain Tasting when tracking the evolution of the >constituency statements. That is, over and over again politics instead >of deliberation. > >An interesting question is why it is, in certain circumstances, >necessary to rush for unified statements at any price prior proper >deliberation on the modifications. This, at first glance weird logic, >starts making sense when we realize that a) the issue has to be approved >quickly by minimizing the possible undesired impact of public comments, >and b) the overall responsibility must be spread and crumbled among all >involved parties so that nobody could be accused of anything. Either >everyone or no one. As a practical consequence, those people are doing >nearly nothing productive for their communities in such cases. Yes, >there are cases when a progress is remarkable and reasonable motions are >being approved but only if they do not clash with the leading interests >or they are so apparent that simply cannot be ignored. A good example >again is domain tasting. The phenomenon was recognized yonks ago and has >been known and heavily reported for years as an abuse being constantly >committed on wide community. So it had to be opened. But there is also >the clash here as it is a profitable business of very high importance >for all interested parties. The first shot was the $0.20-for-all-deletes >motion. The same one I wrote a joke about more than a year ago. That >time it was a joke only, but this time it seemed to become reality. The >currently proposed final motion is unclear and ambiguous enough to allow >for continuing the game under the hood. And when the public outreach >fades out the practice can be guardedly reinstated. > >I would therefore strongly recommend that all staffers look into the >ICANN Core Values again and carefully. Anyone who does not feel >comfortable with the Core Values should reconsider his or her stay >within the ICANN structures in order not to hinder active and competent >participants from fluent work on substantive ICANN issues. > >I see just one important ICANN issue to address, to encourage the public >community to clearly and dauntlessly identify and face those staffers >who are exploiting the ICANN mission in order to privilege their own >private businesses, deals, and interests to the detriment of all others. >Namely, those who are just spoiling valuable effort presented by honest >and competent members of the ICANN community. > >ICANN is an international organization representing all Internet users, >not a private business elite club of registrars and registries! > > >Dominik Filipp, a GNSO General Assembly list member > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 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] wikicann.org by france@large
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

JFC and all, You and/or franceatlarge.org has a few more problems than just 2. For instance, franceatlarge.org's DNS is mis configured, see:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&tok… and it appears that the registrant is an unknown person from execlub.org See:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=franceatlarge.org&server=&ema… and execlub.org's DNS is also badly mis configured and as such represents a clear and present danger to any user whom might visit that web site. See: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=execlub.org&token=06e0f6d… So you'll pardon me, and our members whom reside in France, which number approx. 3,400, we at this time cannot consider franceatlarge.org being very interested in their safty, security or any other of their Internet related interests or concerns at this time. I for one agree with our French members in this position and cannot immagine any self aware French citizen being interested in franceatlarge.org at this time. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 25, 2008 8:29 PM >To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: adherents07(a)isoc.fr >Subject: [At-Large] wikicann.org by france@large > >Dear Friends, >we have two problems : >- to make Staff understand that for france@large, an on-line oriented >association, a money is only an hassle for the Treasurer :-) >- to make French people understand what ICANN is really about and to >give their @large's point of view. > >To address the second point we have added a wiki on ICANN issues on >our http://francealarge.org site. > >I would thank all the francophones and all those who can help us >making this wiki a nice and friendly place to learn in English, >French and possibly many others language about ICANN topics, in an >@large vision. We look for specialised synthesis able to be >understood by laymen and women. We also look for ties to be built >among French and foriegn @larges that could result in friendly f2f >discussions in Paris. > >Thank you ! >jfc >http://franceatlarge.org > >PS. france@large was created in 2000. It already is an "old" ALS :-) Time flows. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 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

The problem with ALAC Statements
by Danny Younger April 25, 2008

April 25, 2008

Let's talk about how the ALAC generates a "Statement" and what our NA reps on the ALAC can do to fix this problem. We saw an abuse of process in the ALAC Statement on the JPA which was put forward without an ALAC vote (for that matter, it was put forward even without ALAC-member consensus: "Whilst this document is not tendered to you as formally constituted consensus of the views of all of the At-Large community on this important matter..."). We recently have witnessed the ALAC "Joint Statement" that once again was not subject to a vote of the ALAC nor was it a product of any wide-reaching discussions. Further, almost all recent ALAC documents have had a public comment period of extremely limited duration: The (non-joint) ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements had a one week window for comments; the Statement on the Draft Operating Plan as well as the Statement on Travel Policy had a 10-day window for comment. Frankly, this sucks. Even ICANN routinely allows 3-4 weeks for comments. I see the same types of things going on in the NCUC where members are given one or two days maximum to elicit organizational feedback in response to a position "already" taken by the leadership. More and more, we are witnessing the emergence of private fiefdoms wherein just one or two people within a constituent group call the shots and generate the Statements without any truly broad consultation. We don't need this kind of pattern to take hold in the ALAC. It's time for our reps to take a principled stand on this issue and to insist on proper methodologies; otherwise, the NARALO should formally consider seceding from the ALAC. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

4 3

GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by At-Large Staff April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 3

GNSO reform and ALAC
by Evan Leibovitch April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Hello everyone, For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a document being drafted on a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some sort of "public" representation that has come up with some very strange conclusions. Here is an early draft of the document: http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refo… A more recent version of the draft has essentially gutted ALAC's role and calls for some sort of direct participation by ALSs. The truly amazing thing is that this is being advanced as having the support of ALAC itself! http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html Compounding the problem is that the closing of public comments is this week -- and the fact that the document is still in flux!! How can "the public" adequately address a moving target in this manner? Frankly, not only the document but the process that has produced it is flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now heard from Beau and Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list -- why is it being debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with me). I am asking one or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that we can submit this week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be incapacitated for most of the rest of this week because of surgery. Both the document (at least in its current form) and the process that developed it IMO should not be submitted as something with widespread -- let alone universal -- public support. Can some folks here please get together to draft something upon which NARALO can get a consensus statement and submit before the deadline? Thanks! - Evan

6 10

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Jeff, Re: "If you view the current structure as having the pendulum swing too far in favor of the contracted parties..." That's certainly how I view it. For instance, how many registry/registrar regional sessions have been sponsored/supported by ICANN over the years? Has ICANN ever once sponsored a session just for the non-contracted parties? ICANN continues to operate as a Guild Manager favoring certain groups over others, and by now we're all getting pretty sick of it. Perhaps in the upcoming 2008 North American Regional Registry/Registrar Gathering in New Orleans next week, you can ask your peers to offer up a suitable counter-proposal that would better position the pendulum. regards, Danny --- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > It is of course no surprise that the same document > which purports to > "strike a balance" has ensured that the GNSO Council > could always obtain > a Supermajority Vote without ever even involving the > Registries and or > Registrars (who by no coincidence could actually be > bound by their > decisions). > > It is also no coincidence that no registries or > registrars were even > asked to participate in the process to come up with > the new structure. > It is extremely telling of how the signatories plan > on conducting policy > in the future ... namely, without the involvement of > the registries and > registrars. > > If you view the current structure as having the > pendulum swing too far > in favor of the contracted parties, the solution is > NOT to swing the > pendulum completely the opposite way, but rather to > find some common > ground. That did not happen here...... > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > > Business Development > > NeuStar, Inc. > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and > ALAC > > What a farce. > > Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no > consultation with ALAC > that would support the claim that "The attached > document is a unique > collaboration of the joint users groups > represented within > ICANN today: > The At-Large Advisory Committee > The Commercial and Business Users Constituency > The Intellectual Property Constituency > The Internet Service and Connection Providers > Constituency > The Non-Commercial Users Constituency." > > --Wendy > > Danny Younger wrote: > > Evan, > > > > The ALAC has participated in a joint statement > without > > any consultative engagement with its own > membership; > > such behavior should not be countenanced -- the > final > > Statement is posted here: > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > > > --- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a > >> document being drafted on > >> a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some > >> sort of "public" > >> representation that has come up with some very > >> strange conclusions. Here > >> is an early draft of the document: > >> > > > http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20R > eform.pdf > >> A more recent version of the draft has > essentially > >> gutted ALAC's role > >> and calls for some sort of direct participation > by > >> ALSs. The truly > >> amazing thing is that this is being advanced as > >> having the support of > >> ALAC itself! > >> > > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html > >> Compounding the problem is that the closing of > >> public comments is this > >> week -- and the fact that the document is still > in > >> flux!! How can "the > >> public" adequately address a moving target in > this > >> manner? > >> > >> Frankly, not only the document but the process > that > >> has produced it is > >> flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now > >> heard from Beau and > >> Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC > list > >> -- why is it being > >> debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact > with > >> me). I am asking one > >> or more of you to help craft a NARALO position > that > >> we can submit this > >> week. I will do my best to help but I will likely > be > >> incapacitated for > >> most of the rest of this week because of surgery. > >> > >> Both the document (at least in its current form) > and > >> the process that > >> developed it IMO should not be submitted as > >> something with widespread -- > >> let alone universal -- public support. Can some > >> folks here please get > >> together to draft something upon which NARALO can > >> get a consensus > >> statement and submit before the deadline? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> - Evan > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > > 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 > .icann.org > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School > of Law > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by Evan Leibovitch April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Hello Carlos, > Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about something, try to inform yourself first. > > this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint document with other constituencies neither negotiate secretly nothing. > > In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you personally in the next meeting. > In this case at least, Danny far from alone in his anger on this issue, so I ask you to please do not take issue personally with him. There are numerous complains within NARALO on the document, the process used to achieve it, and the level of consultation with the general At-Large community. In the view of everyone who has expressed an opinion within NARALO, this is a major step backwards in the evolution of ALAC after a long and tortured period of progress. Unlike Danny I will make no assumptions regarding how things were actually done; however, based on what we have seen this issue has been handled in a totally unacceptable manner. It is a fact that late changes were made to the document that directly affect -- and refer to -- ALSs and RALOs without their awareness or consultation. The changes contain language that adversely affect ALAC's own participation in the proposed new GNSO. It is also a fact that these changes were not conveyed to us by ALAC, not to RALO secretariats nor to individual ALSs; it was only the diligence of a number of NARALO members that brought this serious news to our attention. And finally ... the fact that the deadline for public comments exists just a few days after the final draft was published is absolutely unconscionable. It is an abdication of the authors' responsibility to the At-Large community to offer so little time to respond. So, Carlos, please do not take this personally with Danny. At least within NARALO, the anger over this issue is both deep and widespread. It is highly likely that we will submit a response that completely disassociates us from the recommendations, and states that they do not have the support of the At-Large community (at least in our region). - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Carlos, Re-read the first two sentences written by ICANN Staff: "As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, THE WORKING GROUP WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATIONS (*emphasis mine*) with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies." Staff is saying that your group negotiated with the other constituencies. Apparently, you are denying that claim. So, who is speaking the truth? --- carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about > something, try to inform yourself first. > > this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s > document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint > document with other constituencies neither negotiate > secretly nothing. > > In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I > hope to have the opportunity to talk with you > personally in the next meeting. > > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre > abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

Mailing list administrative action
by Evan Leibovitch April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hello everyone, This is to let you know that Jeffrey Williams has been suspended from posting to the na-discuss list for a period of one week, effective immediately. According to the NARALO Code of Conduct, > The NARALO Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's > posting rights when the content that person has posted is > inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The Chair defines and > determines what is inappropriate content on a case-by-case basis. Our > definitions are not limited to this list. If the Chair suspends > posting rights or deletes a comment or link, he will say so and > explain why. When determining the duration of the suspension, the > Chair is encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the > postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an > aberration or typical. I have determined that the volume, personal baiting, and unsubstantiated claims made in Jeffrey Williams posts have constituted a pattern of abuse. I have taken into account similar patterns exhibited on other mailing lists. I do not take such action lightly, but I have little tolerance for activity that impedes the ability of NARALO to carry out its mandate. While I take responsibility for this action, it has the support and agreement of the Secretariat and many NARALO members that this is a matter of abuse. One's freedom of speech does not obligate others to provide a forum, especially if that forum is abused. Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair

1 0

New Spam Site Found Every Three Seconds
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

All, An industry study FYI that should be helpful to users. New figures suggest that 92.3 percent of all email sent globally during the first three months of 2008 was spam. The data from Sophos also indicated that 23,300 new spam-related web pages were created every day during the period, or http://www.itnews.com.au/News/74071,new-spam-site-found-every-three-seconds… about every three seconds. For the first time Turkey's contribution to the global spam problem puts it in the top three offending countries. Compromised computers in Turkey are now responsible for relaying 5.9 percent of the world's junk email, compared to 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 2007." 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