Re: INEG. INC. Proposal Bylaws Proposal for the ICANN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>]

William and all,

William Allen Simpson wrote:

> > From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
> > On Mon, 05 Oct 1998 19:01:17 BST, Jeff Williams said:
> > >   Attached is a Text Version of our (INEG. INC.) proposals for bylaws
> > > for the ICANN.  This is an effort determined by some 24,000 different
> > > Stakeholders, users, and other interested parties and was arrived at
> > > by unanimous vote of all of these groups, individuals, Users, and Stakeholders.
> >
> > (Apologies for swallowing troll bait.. but.. ;)
> >
> I remind you that we had called for formally shunning Allisat (in
> February) and Williams (in July) in the IETF; for abusive language,
> personal attacks, and excessive cross-posting.  Please do not reply to
> Allisat or Williams postings on the IETF list.  (I left Williams in the
> CC to help activate the bogon filters.)

  Well I have not made any personal attacks on anyone, first of all unless theyhad
attacked me first.  I do have the right of self defense.  Be that as it may,
it is plain to see from this statement that you seem to support Censorship.  This
is a very bad thing.  Censorship in any of its forms is WRONG.



>
>
> > The only recorded cases of 24,000 people all voting the same way
> > are in totalitarian regimes where you are given a choice between
> > putting the check mark where you are told or meeting the wrong end of
> > a semi-automatic weapon behind the local polling place.
> >
> Oh, I'm sure there are other examples.  Large corporate entities with
> formal proxy voting, for example.
>
> The surprise is "unanimous".  Especially as I consider myself a
> "Stakeholder", and I was not consulted.

The only reason you were not consulted is that you are not a part or the INEG INC.group
of companies and organizations.  So of course you were not consulted.
However you are free to read our proposal and formulate your opinion.  >;)

>
>
> All he has to do is post the names, addresses, and email contacts of all
> the unanimous voters, so that it can be verified, in the interest of
> "transparency".  Please, not to the IETF list, but I'm sure that NTIA
> would be happy to record the information for posterity.

  Ohhh, you want them posted, but of course not to the IETF list.  Well somuch for your
support of transparency, eh?  But this isn't really the point
now is it?  We developed this proposal from our own internal sources along
with pieces of the IANA Draft-4, ORSC's ideas, the BWG Draft, and several
other drafts out there.  Our format is very similar to the IANA draft-4 for our
draft of bylaws.  The NTIA correctly ask for other ideas and drafts, so we
felt compelled to submit it.  We would have anyway, had the NTIA not ask
as well.

>
>
> WSimpson at UMich.edu
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com