[icann-eu] Jim Fleming's posting privileges have been suspended.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Jim: Since you demonstrate that you don't seem to wish to abide by
the rules of this list, and ignore the warning posted earlier today,
your posting rights to icann-europe are hereby suspended until
December 21, 2000.  The suspension is effective immediately.  On
December 21, you can apply for removal of the block by sending
e-mail to <owner-icann-europe@fitug.de>.  Note that we won't bother
to remove it unless you ask us to do so.  Also note that requests
submitted before December 21 will be ignored.

Included below is the third inappropriate message you sent to
icann-europe after you were warned.  The message included was
blocked by the domain-policy cross-post filter (as was a successor
which arrived here while I have been typing this message), but
nevertheless triggered the suspension of your privileges.

For discussion of this decision (and possibly others to follow), an
entirely open mailing list named <icann-europe-abuse@fitug.de> has
been set up. Those who are interested are invited to join, and asked
to refrain from discussing this decision on icann-europe.

Cross-postings to icann-europe and icann-europe-abuse will not be
forwarded to icann-europe.

In order to subscribe to icann-europe-abuse, please send a message
containing the words "subscribe icann-europe-abuse" to
<majordomo@fitug.de>.


I should probably also point out that the filter which is in effect
to prevent Jim from posting to icann-europe may produce false
positives, and prevent others from sending legitimate messages to
the list.  When this happens, messages affected will be approved by
the list owners as soon as possible, and the filter will - if
practical - be refined, so further unnecessary delays can be
avoided.


Kind regards,

Thomas Roessler
(wearing his list owner's hat)

----- Forwarded message from owner-icann-europe@fitug.de -----

From: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
To: icann-europe-approval@fitug.de
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:26:28 +0100 (MET)
Subject: BOUNCE icann-europe@fitug.de:  taboo header: /domain-policy/i

From: "JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>
To: <jandl@jandl.com>, <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Cc: <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>, <andy@ccc.de>, <karl@cavebear.com>,
   <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn.com>, <icann-europe@fitug.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:19:32 -0600
Subject: Re:      Re: "There was strong objection from one board member..."
>From anet.com!jfleming Tue Nov 21 01:26:27 2000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200

Are these people on the Internet ?

http://www.icann.org/general/abouticann.htm
Board of Directors

Vinton G. Cerf, Chairman 
Amadeu Abril i Abril 
Karl Auerbach 
Robert Blokzijl 
Ivan Moura Campos 
Jonathan Cohen 
Philip Davidson 
Frank Fitzsimmons 
Ken Fockler 
Masanobu Katoh 
Hans Kraaijenbrink 
Sang-Hyon Kyong 
Andy Mueller-Maguhn 
Jun Murai 
Alejandro Pisanty 
Nii Quaynor 
Michael Roberts 
Helmut Schink 
Linda S. Wilson 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


----- Original Message ----- 
From: JandL <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: "There was strong objection from one board member..."


> Ya wanna guess?  I can never remember the spelling of his name -
> 2.   Kraaijenbrink: Have discussed
> > and considered the Afilias proposal on .web. We should
> award them .web,
> > knowing that IOD has been in operation as an
> alternative root with .web
> > for some time. Fully aware of what we're doing here.
> 
> (Emphasis on the word "knowing.")  It was a direct challenge to the
> legal aspect of IOD's .WEB.  If you watch the video, you have to
> see the anger on his face.  Also of note is the direct and
> antagonistic challenge to Vint Cerf's reasoning for not wanting to
> award Afilias that string - because it is a functioning registry in
> another rootzone...and IOD has been operating it for some time...
> 
> This director was fighting really hard for Afilias and fighting just as
> hard against IOD.  He was as close to livid as I have seen anyone
> when the vote was a true consensus to award .info to Afilias IN
> LIEU of .web.  The audience was very happy and broke the rules by
> applauding.
> 
> Go, Chris!
> 
> 
> > "There was strong objection from one board member..."
> >
> > Who ?
> >
> > Is the person a U.S. citizen ?
> >
> >
> > BTW....I was amazed that someone did not hire a court reporter
> > and have the actual transcripts from the meeting posted...Pacifica.org
> > does that for their Board meetings...it is not that expensive given
> > the amount of other money being spent..
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://Register.WEB.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: JandL <jandl@jandl.com>
> > To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: new tlds
> >
> >
> > > The scribe's notes are very incomplete.  The board's conversation
> > > was much more involved.  To simply go by the scribe notes, you do
> > > NOT get the reasons for the vote at all.  Vint Cerf had the courage
> > > to bring out his real discomfot wth awarding .WEB to anyone other
> > > than IOD.  It would be preferable to not include it in the root at
> > > all, rather than award to someone else.  His reason was that the TLD
> > > was and has been operated by IOD and is a functioning registry.
> > > There was support for that premise by several board members,
> > > including Esther.  There was strong objection from one board member
> > > and he was quite willing to ignore any possible legal consequences
> > > of his actions because he doesn't want to encourage alternate roots.
> > >  Gee.  The audience felt differently.  He looked like a fool,
> > > actually.  The remote participants were quite animated about it also
> > > - in favor of IOD's .WEB.  You might check the chat logs for that.
> > > I might suggest you and others watch it the video clip to understand
> > > what really happened.
> > >
> > > Here's the clip:
> > >
> > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber
> > > &dir=icann&file=icann-111600&start=6-17-00
> > >  (make sure there are no spaces in the URL if you must
> > > cut and paste).
> > >
> > > > Hello Patrick,
> > > >
> > > > Sunday, November 19, 2000, 11:39:12 PM, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> The only reason .web was put forward over .info was that .info
> > > > >> met with no objection at all, whereas 2 out of 8 voting had an
> > > > >> issue with delegating .web to Afilias.  The record is there.
> > > >
> > > > > That is of course a selective retelling of events. Your strong
> > > > > sense of right and wrong would not seem to extend to the
> > > > > historical accuracy of events you are emotionally tied to. For
> > > > > those that were not there, please see the relevant portions of
> > > > > the RealVideo archive. The vote which was called was quite
> > > > > clear: to give Afilias .info IN LIEU OF .web.
> > > >
> > > > B.   Sims: String before the board for the Afilias application is
> > > > .web, not .info or .site or anything else. Let there be no
> > > > confusion here. C.   Roberts: As I recall it, discussion to get
> > > > Afilias into the basket considered .web. 1.   Cerf: Continue to be
> > > > concerned about assigning .web to Afilias. Would be more
> > > > comfortable if we assigned them a different string and reserved
> > > > .web. 2.   Kraaijenbrink: Have discussed and considered the
> > > > Afilias proposal on .web. We should award them .web, knowing that
> > > > IOD has been in operation as an alternative root with .web for
> > > > some time. Fully aware of what we're doing here. 3.
> > > >   Fockler: Would be comfortable with voting on the whole package.
> > > >   4.
> > > > Roberts: Support for changing the string restriction? 5.   Touton:
> > > > Straw poll for continuing to include Afilias with .web? 6.   Sims:
> > > > Board's decision must be a consensus decision. Just want to be
> > > > careful. 7.   Cerf: Board support for reserving .web and awarding
> > > > Afilias .info? 8.   Sims: Afilias with the .web string is
> > > > currently on the list. How many directors want to leave it on the
> > > > list as it is? Six. How many are opposed to having Afilias awarded
> > > > .web? Three. Rest abstain. Is that consensus? 9.   Sims: Award
> > > > .info to Afilias (instead of .web)? Eight in favor. Two opposed.
> > > > More of a consensus. 10. Cerf: Recommend that Afilias be awarded
> > > > .info. 11.   Schink: Do this for every applicant? . Sims: No, this
> > > > is the only one that was a close call. 12.   Sims: Afilias on the
> > > > list with .info? Nine in favor. Consensus.
> > > >
> > > > The in lieu of was because of the objection of 2 board members to
> > > > .web whereas .info met with less objection, and therefore since
> > > > .info had less objections, that it would go forward since it was
> > > > "more of a consensus" to quote Sims.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >  William
> > > >  mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> > >
> 



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>