Re: working group to design a better RAA

Hi Chris,

We're in agreement with you that WG forums hosted elsewhere
would be a
better alternative. Doing so would address the following:

1) Limit postings in each WG only to WG participants
2) Provide full transparency by allowing non-WG participants
to follow
developments in each WG
3) Encourage people intimidated by the GA mailing list to
participate in the
forums - perhaps through a separate suggestions forum for
each WG
4) Findings of each WG are then posted to the GA list
5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as witnessed by the recent
deletion of the
registry / registrar lists after the Registerfly meltdown
6) Build a mailing list that could be tapped into for future
grass roots
campaigns - perhaps by getting people to opt-in to a monthly
newsletter
7) Website traffic and referrer stats would provide insight
into what ICANN
topics are of interest to the general public

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kidsearch" <kidsearchbellsouth.net>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>; "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better
RAA


> A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying to
discuss ten things
at
> once is an obvious distraction. it would still be done
mailing list style
> even though that is totally outdated and not
user-friendly for most users.
>
> Forums would still be a better option and more people
are familiar with
> forums and how to use them and they find it easier
because it is separated
> into different threads.
>
> The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a few
people who can follow
> it.
>
> However, since it seems no one involved in Internet
governance can seem to
> grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a
mailing list and will
> always have limited participation, which I believe is
the real goal of
> proponents of this method of communication.
>
> Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG until
it achieves it's
goal
> is necessary in my opnion.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>
> To: "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a
better RAA
>
>
> > Joop and all,
> >
> > What distractions, and distractions from what
exactly are you
> > referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
> >
> > [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is also
what Dr. Dierker had
> > already suggested.
> >
> > CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if whom is
being CC'ed is
> > a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for
informational purposes
> > and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing is
overly redundant.
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> >>    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch wrote:
> >> >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to
address. Whenever a WG is formed
> >> but
> >> >still posts to the list, even with the
subject line changed, people
> >> not
> >> >involved in the WG continue to comment. I
understand the need for
> >> >transparency and agree with anything that
makes things more
> >> transparent.
> >> >However, I run a nonprofit org and
whenever a committee is formed to
> >> >discuss a particular topic, they do it
among themselves and take
> >> minutes
> >> >so others can read what went on in those
discussions. Then the
> >> committee
> >> >reports their findings back to the board.
it's efficient.
> >> >
> >> >I think a WG should have their own mailing
list and archives that
> >> anyone
> >> >can read. If you really want to get
something done, then a WG has to
> >> be
> >> >formed and allowed to get their work done,
then report their findings
> >> back
> >> >to the list. That's my opinion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >> I agree with Chris. We can report weekly or
fortnightly to the list,
> >> but in
> >> order to get work done, we need to be free
from distractions and
> >> possible
> >> trolling.
> >> As long as we have to operate by cc-ing, I
would like to ask WG
> >> participants to put [RAA] in the subject
line.
> >>
> >>
> >> -joop-
> >>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -
> >   Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of
duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore
Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury,
L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L
multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d
Cir. 1947]
> >
============================================================
===
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network
data security
> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG.
INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> > E-Mail jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827

Ted, I would help even set it up. Most people are concerned
about "owned" 
sites doing this though. So there would have to be thought
put into how to 
make it so no one person has ultimate control of everything.
take the domain 
name for instance. Who would own it? Who would have
responsibility for 
backing it up, installing no spam modules, admin priveleges,
etc. Those are 
all valid points that will definitely be brough up.

One solution that was explored a long time ago was the
formation of a 
nonprofit organization whose sole mission was to provide
this type of 
facilitation for and user-oriented group involved in
Internet governance 
that would make tools available to all of them. Joop has
been great with 
putting up a voting booth, but even that could be offered by
this nonprofit 
that was created for that purpose. If the bylaws of the
nonoprofit were 
written properly, then no deletions, censorship, etc. would
be allowed. if 
the bylaws were written so that changing them was extremely
difficult it 
would be even better. Most orgs do just the opposite and try
to make sure 
they can change the bylaws whenever they want. By doing the
opposite, we 
would give some security to those who used the tools.

It would also add creditbilty to groups if done properly.
Properly still has 
to be defined and would require a lot of input from people
who might use the 
tools offered. I would be happy to make a donation toward
the startup of 
such a group. I'm sure there are others on this list who
could do the same. 
It's not that expensive depending on where it is formed
which opens up a 
whole other topic.

I don't think all that is necessary to start with, but
should be considered 
as an option or a goal at some point.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prophet Partners Inc." <DomainsProphetPartners.com>
To: <gagnso.icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better
RAA


> Hi Chris,
>
> We're in agreement with you that WG forums hosted
elsewhere would be a
> better alternative. Doing so would address the
following:
>
> 1) Limit postings in each WG only to WG participants
> 2) Provide full transparency by allowing non-WG
participants to follow
> developments in each WG
> 3) Encourage people intimidated by the GA mailing list
to participate in 
> the
> forums - perhaps through a separate suggestions forum
for each WG
> 4) Findings of each WG are then posted to the GA list
> 5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as witnessed by the
recent deletion of 
> the
> registry / registrar lists after the Registerfly
meltdown
> 6) Build a mailing list that could be tapped into for
future grass roots
> campaigns - perhaps by getting people to opt-in to a
monthly newsletter
> 7) Website traffic and referrer stats would provide
insight into what 
> ICANN
> topics are of interest to the general public
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
> http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "kidsearch" <kidsearchbellsouth.net>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>; "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a
better RAA
>
>
>> A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying
to discuss ten things
> at
>> once is an obvious distraction. it would still be
done mailing list style
>> even though that is totally outdated and not
user-friendly for most 
>> users.
>>
>> Forums would still be a better option and more
people are familiar with
>> forums and how to use them and they find it easier
because it is 
>> separated
>> into different threads.
>>
>> The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a
few people who can 
>> follow
>> it.
>>
>> However, since it seems no one involved in Internet
governance can seem 
>> to
>> grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a
mailing list and will
>> always have limited participation, which I believe
is the real goal of
>> proponents of this method of communication.
>>
>> Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG
until it achieves it's
> goal
>> is necessary in my opnion.
>>
>> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>> http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>
>> To: "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design
a better RAA
>>
>>
>> > Joop and all,
>> >
>> > What distractions, and distractions from what
exactly are you
>> > referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
>> >
>> > [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is also
what Dr. Dierker had
>> > already suggested.
>> >
>> > CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if whom
is being CC'ed is
>> > a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for
informational purposes
>> > and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing
is overly redundant.
>> >
>> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >
>> >>    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch
wrote:
>> >> >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to
address. Whenever a WG is formed
>> >> but
>> >> >still posts to the list, even with the
subject line changed, people
>> >> not
>> >> >involved in the WG continue to
comment. I understand the need for
>> >> >transparency and agree with anything
that makes things more
>> >> transparent.
>> >> >However, I run a nonprofit org and
whenever a committee is formed to
>> >> >discuss a particular topic, they do it
among themselves and take
>> >> minutes
>> >> >so others can read what went on in
those discussions. Then the
>> >> committee
>> >> >reports their findings back to the
board. it's efficient.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a WG should have their own
mailing list and archives that
>> >> anyone
>> >> >can read. If you really want to get
something done, then a WG has to
>> >> be
>> >> >formed and allowed to get their work
done, then report their findings
>> >> back
>> >> >to the list. That's my opinion.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Eric,
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Chris. We can report weekly
or fortnightly to the list,
>> >> but in
>> >> order to get work done, we need to be free
from distractions and
>> >> possible
>> >> trolling.
>> >> As long as we have to operate by cc-ing, I
would like to ask WG
>> >> participants to put [RAA] in the subject
line.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -joop-
>> >>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeffrey A. Williams
>> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
members/stakeholders strong!)
>> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -
>> >   Abraham Lincoln
>> >
>> > "Credit should go with the performance of
duty and not with what is
>> > very often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt
>> >
>> > "If the probability be called P; the
injury, L; and the burden, B;
>> > liability depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by
>> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169
[2d Cir. 1947]
>> >
============================================================
===
>> > Updated 1/26/04
>> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng.
Network data security
>> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG.
INC.
>> > ABA member in good standing member ID
01257402
>> > E-Mail jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
>> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
>> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
> 

Ted, Chris and all,

Ted and Chris, I disagree with both of your possitions
here.

  First, Ted we need to be open and transparent and allow
anyone
whom is willing be able to actively participate in any and
all WG's
the chair determines lest we fall victim to being like ICANN
which is
and has proven to be unhealthy.

  Second Ted, part of your list below seems to make it even
harder
and more confusing for non WG members to follow as they
would
have two different places to look and review in order to
follow
adequately.

  Third Chris, mailing list style is not out dated.  Blog
style is becoming
a bad idea of late given fairly recent big media exposure to
blog's negative
aspects.


Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> We're in agreement with you that WG forums hosted
elsewhere would be a
> better alternative. Doing so would address the
following:
>
> 1) Limit postings in each WG only to WG participants
> 2) Provide full transparency by allowing non-WG
participants to follow
> developments in each WG
> 3) Encourage people intimidated by the GA mailing list
to participate in the
> forums - perhaps through a separate suggestions forum
for each WG
> 4) Findings of each WG are then posted to the GA list
> 5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as witnessed by the
recent deletion of the
> registry / registrar lists after the Registerfly
meltdown
> 6) Build a mailing list that could be tapped into for
future grass roots
> campaigns - perhaps by getting people to opt-in to a
monthly newsletter
> 7) Website traffic and referrer stats would provide
insight into what ICANN
> topics are of interest to the general public
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
> http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kidsearch" <kidsearchbellsouth.net>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>; "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a
better RAA
>
> > A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying
to discuss ten things
> at
> > once is an obvious distraction. it would still be
done mailing list style
> > even though that is totally outdated and not
user-friendly for most users.
> >
> > Forums would still be a better option and more
people are familiar with
> > forums and how to use them and they find it easier
because it is separated
> > into different threads.
> >
> > The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a
few people who can follow
> > it.
> >
> > However, since it seems no one involved in
Internet governance can seem to
> > grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a
mailing list and will
> > always have limited participation, which I believe
is the real goal of
> > proponents of this method of communication.
> >
> > Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG
until it achieves it's
> goal
> > is necessary in my opnion.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to
design a better RAA
> >
> >
> > > Joop and all,
> > >
> > > What distractions, and distractions from what
exactly are you
> > > referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
> > >
> > > [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is
also what Dr. Dierker had
> > > already suggested.
> > >
> > > CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if
whom is being CC'ed is
> > > a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for
informational purposes
> > > and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing
is overly redundant.
> > >
> > > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >
> > >>    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch
wrote:
> > >> >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to
address. Whenever a WG is formed
> > >> but
> > >> >still posts to the list, even with
the subject line changed, people
> > >> not
> > >> >involved in the WG continue to
comment. I understand the need for
> > >> >transparency and agree with anything
that makes things more
> > >> transparent.
> > >> >However, I run a nonprofit org and
whenever a committee is formed to
> > >> >discuss a particular topic, they do
it among themselves and take
> > >> minutes
> > >> >so others can read what went on in
those discussions. Then the
> > >> committee
> > >> >reports their findings back to the
board. it's efficient.
> > >> >
> > >> >I think a WG should have their own
mailing list and archives that
> > >> anyone
> > >> >can read. If you really want to get
something done, then a WG has to
> > >> be
> > >> >formed and allowed to get their work
done, then report their findings
> > >> back
> > >> >to the list. That's my opinion.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Eric,
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Chris. We can report weekly
or fortnightly to the list,
> > >> but in
> > >> order to get work done, we need to be
free from distractions and
> > >> possible
> > >> trolling.
> > >> As long as we have to operate by cc-ing,
I would like to ask WG
> > >> participants to put [RAA] in the subject
line.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -joop-
> > >>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -
> > >   Abraham Lincoln
> > >
> > > "Credit should go with the performance
of duty and not with what is
> > > very often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > "If the probability be called P; the
injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > > liability depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by
> > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d
169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > >
============================================================
===
> > > Updated 1/26/04
> > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng.
Network data security
> > > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG.
INC.
> > > ABA member in good standing member ID
01257402
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827

Regards,

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

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

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]
============================================================
===
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

Adding further to the benefits to be gained from an external
forum /
website:

8) Cut down on the amount of spam sent to people on the GA
list - Although
the email addresses on this list are masked on the ICANN
site to prevent
spam, some GA subscribers republish posts on the web with
full email
addresses intact. Email addresses of forum participants
would be hidden and
thwart spam email harvesting.
9) Include a convenient reference section for ICANN FAQ's,
policies,
acronyms, bios and useful links to get people up to speed on
ICANN issues -
The less people are intimidated by the jargon, the more
likely they are to
participate. More participants would likely result in higher
chances of
success at ICANN reform.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prophet Partners Inc." <DomainsProphetPartners.com>
To: <gagnso.icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better
RAA


> Hi Chris,
>
> We're in agreement with you that WG forums hosted
elsewhere would be a
> better alternative. Doing so would address the
following:
>
> 1) Limit postings in each WG only to WG participants
> 2) Provide full transparency by allowing non-WG
participants to follow
> developments in each WG
> 3) Encourage people intimidated by the GA mailing list
to participate in
the
> forums - perhaps through a separate suggestions forum
for each WG
> 4) Findings of each WG are then posted to the GA list
> 5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as witnessed by the
recent deletion of
the
> registry / registrar lists after the Registerfly
meltdown
> 6) Build a mailing list that could be tapped into for
future grass roots
> campaigns - perhaps by getting people to opt-in to a
monthly newsletter
> 7) Website traffic and referrer stats would provide
insight into what
ICANN
> topics are of interest to the general public
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
> http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "kidsearch" <kidsearchbellsouth.net>
> To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>; "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a
better RAA
>
>
> > A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying
to discuss ten things
> at
> > once is an obvious distraction. it would still be
done mailing list
style
> > even though that is totally outdated and not
user-friendly for most
users.
> >
> > Forums would still be a better option and more
people are familiar with
> > forums and how to use them and they find it easier
because it is
separated
> > into different threads.
> >
> > The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a
few people who can
follow
> > it.
> >
> > However, since it seems no one involved in
Internet governance can seem
to
> > grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a
mailing list and will
> > always have limited participation, which I believe
is the real goal of
> > proponents of this method of communication.
> >
> > Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG
until it achieves it's
> goal
> > is necessary in my opnion.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "GA" <gagnso.icann.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to
design a better RAA
> >
> >
> > > Joop and all,
> > >
> > > What distractions, and distractions from what
exactly are you
> > > referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
> > >
> > > [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is
also what Dr. Dierker had
> > > already suggested.
> > >
> > > CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if
whom is being CC'ed is
> > > a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for
informational purposes
> > > and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing
is overly redundant.
> > >
> > > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >
> > >>    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch
wrote:
> > >> >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to
address. Whenever a WG is
formed
> > >> but
> > >> >still posts to the list, even with
the subject line changed, people
> > >> not
> > >> >involved in the WG continue to
comment. I understand the need for
> > >> >transparency and agree with anything
that makes things more
> > >> transparent.
> > >> >However, I run a nonprofit org and
whenever a committee is formed to
> > >> >discuss a particular topic, they do
it among themselves and take
> > >> minutes
> > >> >so others can read what went on in
those discussions. Then the
> > >> committee
> > >> >reports their findings back to the
board. it's efficient.
> > >> >
> > >> >I think a WG should have their own
mailing list and archives that
> > >> anyone
> > >> >can read. If you really want to get
something done, then a WG has to
> > >> be
> > >> >formed and allowed to get their work
done, then report their
findings
> > >> back
> > >> >to the list. That's my opinion.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Eric,
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Chris. We can report weekly
or fortnightly to the list,
> > >> but in
> > >> order to get work done, we need to be
free from distractions and
> > >> possible
> > >> trolling.
> > >> As long as we have to operate by cc-ing,
I would like to ask WG
> > >> participants to put [RAA] in the subject
line.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -joop-
> > >>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > "Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -
> > >   Abraham Lincoln
> > >
> > > "Credit should go with the performance
of duty and not with what is
> > > very often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt
> > >
> > > "If the probability be called P; the
injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > > liability depends upon whether B is less than
L multiplied by
> > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d
169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > >
============================================================
===
> > > Updated 1/26/04
> > > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng.
Network data security
> > > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG.
INC.
> > > ABA member in good standing member ID
01257402
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>