From mirlo344 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  3 08:56:00 2000
From: mirlo344 at yahoo.com (Jorge)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 10:56:00 -0500
Subject: SCN: excuse this mail
Message-ID: <95984633603@209.58.67.69>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20000603/8d311dc1/attachment.html>

From bn890 at scn.org  Thu Jun  1 13:26:51 2000
From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: excuse this mail (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000601132628.13950L-100000@scn>

I got 2 of these, does anyone know this person?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:49:00 -0500
From: Jorge <mirlo344 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: jorge at 209.58.67.69
To: bn890 at scn.org
Subject: excuse this mail


From douglas  Fri Jun  2 16:27:14 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: report from symposium -- fairly long
Message-ID: <200006022327.QAA13667@scn.org>

Here is a report on the conference from David Silver
at the University of Maryland.



***                                                  ***
*** feel free to forward as far and wide as possible ***
***                                                  ***

  Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing 2000: Shaping the
  Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace
  
  Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
  May 20 - 23, 2000, Seattle, Washington, USA
  http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/


Setting E-Commerce Aside: A Conference Review
By David Silver, University of Maryland


As we slouch towards the real millennium, Internet dreams have turned
quickly into dot.com desires.  The worthy yet too often utopian hopes of
cyber-jumpstarted cultural, social, and political revolutions have been
ditched largely for IPOs, untaxed e-commerce, and millionaire teens and
twenty-somethings.  Indeed, for many, the dominant mantra of our times may
very well be: start up, pitch fast, sell out.

But not for all, including the several hundred scholars, students,
activists, artists, community leaders, computer scientists, politicians,
techies, and freaks who showed up last weekend in Seattle for "Shaping the
Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace," sponsored
by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and organized
excellently by Doug Schuler.  Informed, perhaps, less by the Nasdaq and
more by the events that went down during the WTO protests in the fall,
conference attendees were asked what directions and implications does
cyberspace foretell for community, democracy, education and culture? what
is the public sphere in cyberspace? what should it be? how can people use
it? and what experiments, projects, and policies should we initiate?

To answer such questions, conference organizers threw a wide net,
attracting folks from within and without academe, folks from across the
disciplines, and folks from around the world, including Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United States, and
the former Yugoslavia.  Matching the international flavor of the
conference was organization diversity: on the first day alone, artists,
activists, and scholars representing Adbusters, the American Library
Association, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, Paper
Tiger Television, PovNet (Poverty Network), the San Jose Information
Technology Planning Board, the Seattle City Council, the Social Science
Research Council, the Society for Old and New Media, the Vancouver Public
Library, and a few dozen colleges and universities delivered papers and
conducted workshops.  For this conference attendee -- still jazzed by but
growing weary of academic conferences; quick to test theoretical
frameworks and methodological minutia but even quicker to test
applications -- the diversity was a welcomed bonus.

So what went down?  The conference was divided largely into three
categories:  research sessions; workshops; and special events.  There were
ten research sessions -- Regional Snapshots; Foundations; Crossing
Boundaries; Socio-Technical; In the Community; Museums, Libraries, and
Culture; Public Policy Issues; Public/Private Sector Tensions; Looking at
the Community; and New Models -- ranging, as their titles suggest, from
conceptual frameworks and research models to disciplinary and
inter-organizational convergences to public policy and community
applications.  Unfortunately, the research sessions were held concurrently
(more on that later), which prevented this conference attendee from
sitting in on all the sessions.

The ones I did attend, however, were amazing, and provided equal amounts
of questions and answers, complex dilemmas and partial solutions facing
progressive- and community-minded cybernauts.  For example, in the
research session title Foundations, an international panel of scholars
explored and discussed a number of models with which to assess online
environments.  Ian Beeson, Professor of Computer Studies and Mathematics
at the University of the West of England, presented a number of
theoretical positions to understand better the ways in which communities
might use hypermedia to tell their individual and collective
stories.  Jenny Preece, Chair of the Information Systems Department at the
University of Maryland Baltimore County and author of the forthcoming book
Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability,
addressed the multiplicity of definitions of online communities and argued
for the need for online communities to support well designed usability and
well supported sociability.  Celia Romm from Central Queensland University
in Australia analyzed existing literature on community informatics and
applied her Autonomy/Harmony model to four case studies.  Finally, Erik
Stolterman from the Department of Informatics at Umea University in Sweden
argued that creating a public sphere in cyberspace is, in part, a matter
of design, a process in which members of the community must be involved.

My own research session, Socio-Technical, was comprised of graduate
students from a number of American universities and, informed by theories
of human-computer interaction and models of participatory design, explored
the intersections between interface design and online community
formations.  Kelly Parker, a graduate student in Philosophy from Grand
Valley State University, examined the potentially dramatic social and
political implications of the Open Source/Free Software movement.  Josh
Berman, a graduate student in Computer Science from Georgia Institute of
Technology, showcased The Turing Game 
<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/turing/>, an online environment he developed
with Amy Bruckman, to reveal the ways in which identity is expressed --
and tweaked -- within cyberspace.  My own presentation, growing out of my
work in American Studies and the Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies
at the University of Maryland, challenged the prevailing and dangerous
assumption that the Net is a neutral, barren, and settlerless frontier,
and argued instead for the need for scholars to explore the cultural and
historical construction of online communities.  Finally, Warren Sack, a
recent graduate of the MIT Media Lab, wowed the audience with Conversation
Map <http://www.media.mit.edu/~wsack/CM/>, a piece of software he
developed to map visually the kinds of threads and interactions that take
place within discussion lists.

Like most conference attendees, I solved the problem of concurrent
sessions by racing frantically between rooms, hearing a paper here,
sitting in on a Q and A there.  The result was worth the effort.  In 
this manner, I was able to hear Maja Kuzmanovic, a digital artist par
excellence from Amsterdam, brainstorm and discuss what a truly
participatory and interactive cyberspace would/could look  like.  
Similarly, Adrian Mihalache, a Fullbright Scholar from Romania
currently visiting Western Michigan University, offered a review of
existing discourses of cyberspace and concluded with a spirited call for a
second generational countercultural movement.  Eszter Hargittai, a
graduate student in Sociology at Princeton, explored the discrepancy
between accessibility and prominence of public interest, not-for-profit
content on the Web, and offered a list of useful guidelines for such
organizations to get their word out.  Finally, Murali Venkatesh, an
Associate Professor and Director of the Community and Information
Technology Institute at Syracuse University, discussed early findings from
a large scale grant to construct a number of community networks for New
York-based economically disadvantaged communities, focusing especially on
the gap between technologists and community organizers.

While the research sessions sought to bridge research and application, the
workshops provided a forum to discuss past, ongoing, and future
projects.  Again, the spectrum was international, and conference attendees
learned about projects from around the world and brought to life by
non-profit organizations, public interest institutes, local governments,
and universities.  Although the nature of the projects was diverse, a
common theme among many was an attempt to bridge the so-called Digital
Divide.  Thus, we heard from Susan Kretchmer, Rod Carveth, and Nancy
Kranich, who presented a workshop titled, "High Tech, Low Tech, No
Tech: Moving Beyond Economics to Bridge the Digital Divide," and from
Bruce Takata and David Matteson, who conducted a workshop titled "Bridging
the Wisdom Divide: Beyond the Knowedge Era Part I & II."

Another common goal was to develop a set of strategies to reimagine and
reinvigorate community networks.  Towards this goal, William Belsey
presented early findings on Igalaaq, Canada's first arctic community
access center, while Evergreen State College students John B. Adams & Matt
Powell showcased new software which allows online applications of Robert's
Rules of Order.  One of the most rewarding -- not to mention well attended
-- workshops was an impromptu one convened by Peter Royce, coordinator of
the Vancouver CommunityNet, to discuss the current state of community
networks.  With all the chairs taken and with a few folks standing,
representatives from Davis Community Network, Eugene Free Community
Network, Petaluma Community Network, Seattle Community Network, Toledo
Free Net, and Vancouver CommunityNet shared their experiences, 
frustrations, and plans for the future.

In addition to research sessions and workshops were a number of special
events, including the plenary sessions.  The first plenary, Patterns and
Implications of the Network Society, featured Oliver Boyd-Barrett from
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, and Craig
Calhoun, President of the Social Science Research Council in New
York. Unfortunately, the third panelist, Veran Matic of B92 Radio and
Internet in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, was unable to attend due to the recent
seizure of B92 broadcasting equipment. The closing plenary featured Gary
Chapman of the 21st Century Project at the LBJ School of Public Affairs 
at the University of Texas, Bill Joy, Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems,
and Howard Rheingold, author of many books, including The Virtual
Community and Tools for Thought.  The session focused on Joy's recent
article in Wired, "Why the Future Doesn't Need
Us" <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html>, with Joy providing
some background on the article and with commentary from both Chapman and
Rheingold.  The audience peppered Joy with agreement and challenges, and
raised questions concerning the role of corporations (like Sun
Microsystems) in the situation Joy describes, the need for spokespeople
like Joy to work with existing organizations, and the barriers to healthy
dialogue on new technologies and society. (I'm excited to note that video
footage of the Chapman/Joy/Rheingold panel will be available on the Web
from CPSR in about two weeks.)

The closing plenary was followed by what many conference attendees
described as the most debaucherous conference-sponsored event in recent
memory.  Held at the hip club iSpy in downtown Seattle, the event was
organized by local students, artists, and activists and sponsored by
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.  Featuring live bands on
one level and throbbing techno on another, the party also included a
"cyber fashion show" (which apparently means lots of tight black leather
and lots of exposed flesh) and a fire show seemingly organized by a local
chapter of the Burning Man movement.  Fun and confusion abounded. 

Like all conferences, Shaping the Network Society was not without a few
flaws.  Most notably, organizing the first plenary around three men and
organizing the last plenary around three men is unsettling to say the
least, and stood in stark contrast with issues of cultural diversity
addressed by dozens of research panelists and workshop conveners.  
Similarly, while questions of race, gender, and class were explored by
many sessions, issues of sexuality were altogether missing.

The other flaw was an embarrassment of riches -- there were simply too
many interesting sessions and workshops going on concurrently.  Unlike
most academic conference which offer a dizzying array of (often
unrelated) scholarship, Shaping the Network Society enjoyed -- and
succeeded because of -- a carefully crafted focus.  The result, as noted
earlier, was a mad scramble between papers, where frantic conference
attendees tried to fit in as many papers as possible.

The timing of Shaping the Network Society could not be better.  Today, as
cyberspace becomes synonymous with e-commerce and many folks' idea of an
online public sphere is a chat room on AOL, forums like this are
desperately needed.  Indeed, as cyberspace continues to be colonized by
commercial interests, progressive- and community-minded artists,
activists, community leaders, computer scientists, journalists,
politicians, scholars, students, techies, and freaks need multiple,
international forums like this one to discuss what's happening, where
were heading, and how to turn the tide.  (Another step in the right
direction is the Seattle Statement, a statement developed by many
participants of the conference and available at
http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/seattle-statement.html).

As an academic, I found the conference to be a breath of fresh air
compared to the commercialization of cyberspace that is currently taking
place within society in general and within academia in particular. 
Advertisements for companies like Blackboard and WebChat have turned the
first ten pages of the Chronicle of Higher Education into a shopping mall
for distance education companies. Moreover, whether you like David Noble's
ideas or not, what he describes is certainly taking place at an alarming
rate; as I write this conference review, many courses at my university
have been transformed from traditional to entirely online, as deans,
provosts, and presidents continue to run their departments, colleges, 
and universities as mini corporations. Finally, the kind of   
corporate-sponsored scholarship which marks the sciences has made its way
into the humanities.  Witness, for example, US WEST's funding of the
"research" institute, the Center for Digital Culture, whose most recent
white paper is titled, unsurprisingly, "E-Commerce and the Digital
Frontier."

While thousands race to make bank in cyberspace, it is refreshing to see
so many cybernauts from around the world brainstorm, discuss, and help
construct public space on the Internet.  Although many battles against the
forces to recraft cyberspace into cyberspace.com have been lost, the fight
-- and dance -- is not over, as was clearly evident in full force in
Seattle.

*****

David Silver is a doctoral candidate in American Studies at the University
of Maryland and the founder and director of the Resource Center for
Cyberculture Studies.  He can be reached via his Web site at
<http://www.glue.umd.edu/~dsilver/>.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Sat Jun  3 00:50:11 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:50:11 -0700
Subject: SCN: Access
Message-ID: <39385643.12344.921EB26@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=========================

Backbone Bullies: Beneath the Internet's happy communal culture, a cadre 
of giant carriers is mercilessly squeezing every last dime it can out of 
smaller players. Users are picking up the tab.  

by Neil Weinberg  

(Forbes)---John M. Brown runs IHighway, an Internet access firm in 
Albuquerque, N.M. He'd like to give his clients the fastest possible link to 
the rest of the Web world--but he can't.  

That is because Uunet and the few other giant data haulers that dominate 
Internet traffic don't have the fat, 45-megabit lines Brown would like in 
Albuquerque. And Brown can't afford $120,000 a year to lease a pipe 
running 330 miles to the Uunet hub in Phoenix.  

Without Uunet, a Net service can slow to a crawl. An e-mail from one of 
Brown's clients must pass through a poky, clogged--but mostly free--
"public" access point in California, rather than zip along the snazzy but 
expensive Uunet hub. Messages back up. Web pages wither. Forget 
streaming video.  

"It frustrates the hell out of me," Brown says. "When I ask big providers for 
local service, they're blasé." 

But in Internet traffic, the big guys--WorldCom's Uunet, Sprint Corp., Cable & 
Wireless, AT&T and GTE unit Genuity--are the only game in town. They 
control 80% of long-haul traffic. Uunet alone zaps perhaps half of the 
world's Net bits, and 30% of all Web sites transmit their pages on Uunet's 
300,000 miles of fiber.  

This concentration could get even worse, for WorldCom is trying to acquire 
Sprint and its 30,000-mile fiber network. Here's the rub: These few 
behemoths have a cozy arrangement for swapping traffic free-of-charge 
among themselves--but they charge stiff fees for the very same service 
when dealing with smaller players.  

The practice is a stark departure from how the Internet worked its first three 
decades, when networks handled one another's data for free under a 
communal love-in known as "peering." It threatens to balkanize the Net into 
haves and have-nots.  

A balkanized Net is just what the government hoped to avoid when it 
privatized it in 1994 and bestowed special rights upon the cadre of Net 
titans. Their brazen ways risk riling antitrust regulators, still giddy from 
smacking around that rapacious monopolist, Microsoft.  

"The only way to get access to their part of the Net is to pay them a tithe, 
and to that extent it's a classic monopoly," says Paul Vixie, head of Internet 
services for Metromedia Fiber Network, which is building its own network. 
"The playing field isn't level. The people who got in first got all the best 
land and now dictate peering terms to everyone else."  

Forget the hype about the Internet as an egalitarian cyberparadise. Behind 
the warm and fuzzy facade is a merciless commercial hierarchy ruled by an 
oligopoly of carriers as indispensable as the local electric company--but 
with the clout to act like a bunch of bullies.  

The big carriers serve whom and where they want and require everyone 
who deals with them to keep the terms secret. Nor do they have to fear 
competition from their most formidable natural rivals, the regional Bell 
companies, because the Bells are barred from carrying traffic long distance. 
 
The biggest firms spend billions on their massive fiber infrastructures, and 
it is simply good business to pass along costs and earn a respectable 
return. The question is whether, given their dominance of what is arguably a 
vital public network, they could end up being seen as exploiting their 
position with impunity and draw government scrutiny.  

"It's about someone giving as much traffic as they're getting," says 
Kathleen Earley, president of AT&T's Internet group. "No business with 
shareholders can have asymmetric peering relationships. There would be 
no way to earn a return and upgrade your backbone."  

As it stands, puny ISPs pay for services without a clue about how the terms 
compare. There aren't any publicly disclosed rules for who rides free and 
who must pay, or for what are reasonable rates; a data "packet" can travel 
over several networks, and some peer while others pay.  

"The last thing the big guys want is to rationalize the system and 
commoditize themselves out of business," says Paul McBride, chief 
financial officer of InterNap, a builder of systems that bypass peering 
points. "The problem is the Internet won't scale this way forever."  

Bad as the system is, regulators have shied away from this arcana. But 
they could yet feel compelled to act. When MCI merged with WorldCom two 
years ago, the European Commission forced the pair to spin off MCI's 
Internet backbone. Cable & Wireless paid $1.75 billion for it--then later sued 
MCI WorldCom for trying to hamstring the business by withholding 
contracts, blocking database access and failing to transfer key people. 
WorldCom recently agreed to fork over $200 million to settle out of court.  

Two years later WorldCom is seeking to buy close rival Sprint. Sprint 
vociferously opposed the merger of WorldCom and MCI on antitrust 
grounds; now, of course, it sees no threat in merging into them. If the FCC 
and Department of Justice allow the deal to go through at all, they will likely 
demand a spinoff of part of the trio's Internet backbone. But WorldCom Chief 
Executive Bernard Ebbers has said he will scuttle the entire Sprint 
purchase before he will spin off Uunet.  

One look at WorldCom's pricing power shows why. The $875 per megabit 
that Uunet gets is double what smaller backbones fetch, says a local ISP. If 
a small ISP refuses to pay up, its users may suffer a World Wide Wait.  

The Internet got here via a peculiar history. Founded to keep military 
communications flowing after a nuclear attack, it was later turned over to the 
National Science Foundation. Amazingly, it began accepting commercial 
traffic only in the early 1990s. Early commercial users had to honor the 
peering protocol, swapping data free of charge. That way, all data could 
travel on all wires for free; any message could go to any recipient 
anywhere, whether the hauler was a multibillion-dollar powerhouse or a 
punky startup.  

Looking to get out of the way but prevent the fledgling Internet from 
fragmenting, the National Science Foundation paid four private enterprises 
in 1994 to build public Internet access points. The one in Washington, D.C. 
is now run by WorldCom; the site in San Francisco is Pacific Bell; Sprint 
has the hub in Pennsauken, N.J., and Ameritech the one in Chicago.  

They effectively became the Net's on-ramps in 1995 when the feds closed 
their own backbone. As traffic grew, these four public access points (and a 
fifth added in Palo Alto, Calif.) clogged up. The biggest and richest players 
responded by setting up hundreds of faster, private peering points.  

Then in 1997 Uunet said it would stop peering with small carriers; they 
would have to pay. Sprint and AT&T followed suit within months. The 
modern Net began to emerge. Titans swap traffic free and charge others; 
those who can't pay take the back roads of unreliable public exchanges. 
These days Cable & Wireless, for one, peers with just 52 carriers; the other 
10,000 or so ISPs must pay the freight.  

In a sense, the NSF's nightmare has come to pass: The Net is balkanized.  

Yet the big guys can't tread too heavily. Given the Net's collectivist past 
and regulators' unease with concentration, they haven't abandoned peering 
altogether. But in reality, the large backbone carriers have the clout and the 
incentive to make "public" interchanges as onerous as they can.  

In the past two months WorldCom has slapped smaller carriers with 
monthly fees that have run to tens of thousands of dollars, merely for 
locating their gear inside the public-access facilities that WorldCom 
manages.  

The difference between public and private access is jolting. Sprint runs 
much of its backbone at a blinding 2.5 billion bits per second--but at the 
public access point it oversees, it offers just 45 million bits. It is like giving 
drivers on a six-lane highway access via a dirt road.  

"The public peering points are by design bottlenecks," says Scott Hiles, 
Sprint's network operations manager. "We've moved to private peering."  

That's great for other networkers--unless, of course, they are too small or 
too far away to be admitted to the club.

Copyright 2000 Forbes.com





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Sat Jun  3 17:03:04 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 17:03:04 -0700
Subject: SCN: DeCSS
Message-ID: <39393A48.4146.C9CB332@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=======================

An Interview with Martin Garbus

(FEED)---Early this year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation 
announced that Martin Garbus would be the lead litigator in its 
attempt to block a gag order that prevented the hacker magazine 
2600 from discussing DeCSS, a software program that circumvents 
the copyright protection built into all DVDs. The original injunction 
itself, filed by the powerful Motion Picture Association of America 
and widely denounced by the Open Source and cryptography 
community, had already attracted the attention of the mainstream 
media, but Garbus' arrival on the scene brought the case to a whole 
new level -- and arguably marked a new phase in one of the most 
interesting legal careers of our time.  

Described recently by the Village Voice as the closest thing to a 
"modern-day Daniel Webster," Garbus has a long and unparalleled 
record as an advocate for first amendment rights -- dating back to 
his work for Lenny Bruce and Timothy Leary in the sixties. Garbus 
famously harbored the Pentagon Papers in his apartment during the 
early 1970s, and played a key role in the Satanic Verses affair in the 
late eighties. The DeCSS case stands as one of Garbus' most high-
profile forays into the digital world, and it's not hard to see why the 
dispute caught his attention: the MPAA gag order has implications 
for digital-age fair-use issues, for the legal status of hypertext 
linking, and even the intersection point between operating systems 
and antitrust law. "A different legal system is going to have to be 
constructed to deal with these issues on the Web," Garbus says. 
"And this case is going to play a large part in that construction."  

FEED: What's the evaluation process when you decide to take on a 
case like this?  

GARBUS: I think you decide based on the significance of the case: 
What are the values that get involved? What are the social values? 
Why is it worth spending the time and energy? And it seems to me 
what this case basically deals with is balancing First Amendment 
values -- the right to an open Internet, the right to free speech, the 
right to the preservation of fair use with software materials -- against 
the claims of the people like the MPAA that permitting fair use just 
allows for piracy and the bringing down of their industry. I think it's 
the question of how you achieve that balance, protecting the 
artist/publishers who are entitled to be paid for the work that they do, 
while on the other hand making sure that other people can use what 
is appropriate for them. It's a balancing act.  

I also think what the case will probably deal with or will affect is how 
the entertainment business or how the media business will change 
because of this new technology. Generally what happens is the law 
sets up a cage under which the technologies operate. Here the 
technology is outstripping the law, and the law is going to have to 
adjust somewhat to the technology. Law is based on two hundred 
years of precedence, and I think the precedent is the structure, and 
I'm not so sure that that structure can handle these demands. So the 
question is how do you build new structures, and what are those 
new structures going to be. And this is going to be the first case to 
define those.  

FEED: How would you distinguish the DeCSS case from the Napster 
disputes of late?  

GARBUS: The most important difference is that there's been no 
piracy that they've found through the use of the DeCSS. There are a 
lot of reasons why that's so: because it takes so long to download, 
etc., etc. Now, if there's no piracy, there's absolutely no reason why 
this DeCSS shouldn't be discussed, explained, posted. If, in fact, 
there was substantial piracy coming from it -- or the potential for 
enormous piracy -- then one might come to a different conclusion. 
But clearly here, based on all the testimony to date, there has to be 
a better balance. There was a case here -- the Betamax case -- 
where the movie companies came in, and they said you shouldn't 
have VCRs. You shouldn't be able to copy movies that come off TV 
because that's an infringement. And the court said, "Yes, it may be 
an infringement. The question is, is it a substantial infringement, 
and what are the other values that it serves by permitting that 
infringement?"  

The other thing this case is about, which is very interesting to me, is 
that it's kind of going to be an Internet legal trial in the sense that 
some of the people on the Internet and some people who deal with 
the Internet are very interested in this particular trial -- and every 
document, witness's word, judge's ruling, and lawyer's call will be 
on the Internet within a day. Now, a federal court -- such as this court 
with Judge Kaplan -- is closed to cameras, but can't be closed to the 
Internet. There's going to be this extraordinary high-stakes battle for 
the control of the Internet on the Internet. In the sense that O. J. 
Simpson was the first TV trial, this becomes in a peculiar way the 
first documented Internet trial.  

FEED: Now, tell me if I'm getting this correctly. It seems to me that 
there are three layers to free speech elements of this case. There is 
the fair use element, which is that the technology itself enables 
people to take small samples from DVDs and "quote" them 
effectively in their work. There's the right of the cryptography 
community to discuss techniques of getting through encryption 
schemes in some kind of public way. And then there's also a 
question, if I understand it correctly, of people linking to pages 
where these things are discussed.  

GARBUS: Exactly. Right now the MPAA has got an order from the 
court which makes it possible to stop the posting of the DeCSS. The 
MPAA has now made a motion to expand the injunction to include 
linking. Now, the New York Times has talked about this case on its 
Web site. The New York Times has linked when it talks about the 
right to carry the DeCSS. Under the logic of this case, if you ban 
linking, you can stop places like the New York Times from doing 
that. The Associated Press, both in its pieces of paper and its Web 
site, has also referred to linking sites. Now, the New York Times is 
allowed to say that crack is being bought on 120th Street -- a 
different kind of linking -- without being told that it can't say that 
because it's going to be a participant in the crime that ultimately 
occurs. So I think the linking and posting, while separate issues, are 
related. If you now went to the Disney Infoseek site, you would find 
references to DeCSS -- you would get through that site the exact 
thing that Disney's trying to stop in this suit. You would find that the 
search engines that are owned by these very plaintiffs do exactly 
the same thing that they're trying to stop. They link. What the MPAA 
is doing is trying to stop certain people from linking.  

FEED: It seems to me like this has been an issue from the early 
days of the Web: Linking itself as a technology has challenged a lot 
of our assumptions about the legal status of copyright and free 
speech, and so on. And we've still not figured out how to handle it.  

GARBUS: Right. I think nobody has quite figured it out. What 
happens if you link into the Coca-Cola code, and you know that 
everybody can get that secret formula? Is Coca-Cola entitled to 
protection? We do have trade-secret laws. My estimate is that there 
probably have been three hundred thousand downloads of the 
DeCSS now in the United States. Now, once that's out there -- putting 
aside the question of whether it should be out there -- how do you 
put it back? How do you enforce trade secret laws? A different legal 
system is going to have to be constructed to deal with these issues 
on the Web. And this case is going to play a large part in that 
construction.  

FEED: Is there a case from your past that this most resembles, or 
does it seem very different because of all the technological issues?  

GARBUS: I think the technology makes it really different. Take the 
matter of operating systems -- there's another and very separate 
issue that you have with the Linux operating system. One of the 
reasons that there's so much interest in the DeCSS is that DVDs are 
not yet licensed to play on the Linux operating system. Now, to 
bring us back to the Betamax case, is Linux like a VCR? Can the 
motion-picture industry control distribution from the very beginning 
to the very end? Maybe the only platforms that can play DVD are 
those that pay the licensing fees. Or can you have other systems? 
Is that a violation of antitrust? Years ago, they made the motion-
picture studios give up their control over theaters because they 
found it was a violation of antitrust. There are similar issues here.  

FEED: Obviously the objection in terms of the piracy question is that 
the technology and the bandwidth is expanding so fast that in a few 
years software like DeCSS will enable widespread piracy. I mean, 
you look at the case of Napster -- three years ago, what goes on now 
with Napster and audio files was impossible because downloading a 
three megabyte file was ridiculously slow over a 14k modem. But 
now it takes thirty seconds.  

GARBUS: I think that this process of copying data will always be 
longer and more expensive than traditional pirating methods. But 
one really can't project out until the end of time. Let's assume that at 
the end of the year, one percent of the total piracy is caused by the 
DeCSS, and let's presume that the discussion is there are First 
Amendment values with respect to the discussion of the DeCSS. 
How do you balance that? Now, in the Betamax case, the court did 
balance it. They said there will be infringements, but we don't look 
upon that as substantial infringement. We don't look upon that as 
infringement sufficient to override, let's say, a fair-use defense. So I 
don't rule out the possibility of piracy. I know enough now about the 
way things are copied to believe that, no matter how good the 
machinery ever got, there would be faster and more inexpensive 
ways. But as of today, nobody that I have spoken to can claim that 
any particular movie that was ever shown on the Internet ever came 
off a DVD, and nobody is even claiming that.  

But in the end, I think Napster was too difficult a case for the court to 
accept at this time. Our case may be too difficult for the court to 
accept at this time. Piracy has a very large and powerful meaning. In 
the Rio case, a witness testified about the negative and positive 
effect of piracy. I don't think anybody believed it. No one wants to 
hear it. In the Napster case, there was -- if you want to use that word -
- piracy. People were downloading files; you had ten million 
criminals. I think the problem is with the DeCSS if you have ten 
million criminals, what do you do then? And the other issue is how 
quickly the copyright holders have to move. Look at what happens in 
something like this MPAA case: A small group of people find out 
about these potential violations, and they bring a lawsuit. And then 
there's an extraordinary proliferation. Probably if the MPAA had left 
it alone, fewer people would have heard about it. If the MPAA weren't 
claiming that you could make these wonderful copies, that people 
were making copies, then I think most people would have left it 
alone. So I think that what this case may teach the MPAA and other 
copyright holders is that you can exacerbate a situation by trying to 
stop something that really is not affecting you.  

Copyright 2000 FEED Inc.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun  9 07:55:02 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:55:02 -0700
Subject: SCN: Anonymous posting
Message-ID: <3940A2D6.11843.47A00D@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

============================

Judge Says Online Critic Has No Right to Hide

by Carl S. Kaplan

(NY Times)---People accused of anonymously posting libelous 
statements online may find it harder to keep their real-world 
identities secret following a judge's ruling in a libel case in Florida.  

The judge ruled that an anonymous critic is not entitled to any 
special privileges that would prevent or delay his unmasking in a 
lawsuit just because his comments were posted on the Internet.  

The oral decision was issued from the bench late last month by 
Judge Eleanor Schockett of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in 
Florida, on behalf of a Fort Lauderdale businessman. The judge 
squarely rejected First Amendment arguments made by a lawyer 
representing one or more Internet speakers who had sought to 
protect their anonymity.  

The judge ordered that Yahoo and America Online must comply with 
a subpoena and unveil the names of the lawyer's clients so that 
they may be formally named as defendants in a libel case.  

The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, may serve as a precedent 
supporting the notion that anonymous speakers on the Internet, 
when informed or notified about pending subpoenas seeking to 
unmask them in the context of libel trials, do not have much of a 
chance of quashing the subpoenas on First Amendment grounds.  

It may also serve to chill the overheated climate of financial 
message boards on the Internet, which feature pseudonymous 
postings celebrating and castigating public companies and their 
executives.  

Judge Schockett's order becomes effective on June 14. Christopher 
K. Leigh, the lawyer who is representing the anonymous speakers, 
said in an interview that he intends to appeal the order next week to 
the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami. He said he will also seek 
a stay of the order pending resolution of the appeal.  

"Our argument on appeal will be the same exact argument we used 
at the trial court," he said. "The law recognizes a limited First 
Amendment protection for anonymous Internet postings. As a public 
policy matter, we want to encourage people to engage in non-
defamatory discourse about matters of importance to all of us."  

Leigh added that given the First Amendment values at stake, a court 
should strive to preserve the anonymity of Internet speakers, and 
should order an unmasking only after the court has decided other 
important issues, like whether the case is frivolous or not and 
whether the comments in question are opinions, and thus not the 
stuff of defamation.  

Lyrissa Lidsky, a professor at the University of Florida College of 
Law in Gainesville, helped write a friend-of-the-court brief in the case 
for the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida. She 
said that courts increasingly will have to grapple with the First 
Amendment questions raised by motions to quash subpoenas 
seeking to identify Internet speakers.  

"It's not clear how far courts are willing to go to protect peoples' 
right to speak anonymously on the Internet, especially when there 
are allegations that defamatory statements were made," she said. 
"In our brief, we raised the question: What steps should a court take 
to protect anonymity? Do you divulge identities automatically or do 
you require more?"  

Bruce D. Fischman, a Miami lawyer who is representing J. Erik 
Hvide, the plaintiff in the libel suit, recalled in an interview that 
Judge Schockett said there are no superior First Amendment rights 
for Internet speakers. A transcript of the court's decision was not yet 
available.  

In the past two years, more than 70 lawsuits have been brought 
against "John Does" for posting anonymous and allegedly 
defamatory comments on Internet message boards, according to 
legal experts. In many cases, the anonymous speakers are not 
initially aware of the lawsuits or the resulting subpoenas that are 
sent out to reveal their identities.  

Even in cases where the John Does do become aware of the 
subpoenas -- AOL, Yahoo and MSN inform users about their receipt 
of an unmasking subpoena -- an anonymous speaker may not be 
able to afford a lawyer to go to court and fight it.  

Legal experts estimate that motions to quash have been filed in 
about five or six John Doe Internet libel lawsuits so far. Most of 
them have been concerned with technical objections to the form of 
the subpoenas. The Florida decision by Judge Schockett, by 
contrast, represents the first time that a "John Doe" motion to quash 
was decided -- and ultimately rejected -- on First Amendment 
grounds.  

Like many libel lawsuits against Internet speakers, the Florida 
lawsuit has its roots in a Yahoo message board. The site features 
hundreds of boards devoted to discussions of individual companies 
and their stocks.  

In an amended complaint filed in February, Hvide, former chairman 
and chief executive of Hvide Marine Inc., claimed that beginning in 
1998, eight "John Does", including one or more persons using the 
screen names "justthefactsjack" and "inquizitr1," posted false and 
defamatory statements on the message board dedicated to 
discussion of his Florida-based company.  

According to the complaint, the comments were so harmful -- falsely 
accusing Hvide of being under investigation by the SEC, engaging in 
illegal accounting practices and fraud -- that Hvide (pronounced Vee-
Dee) was forced to resign.  

Following the filing of the complaint, Hvide's lawyer issued 
subpoenas to Yahoo and AOL to determine the identity of 
"justthefactsjack" and "inquizitr1".  

The online critics apparently learned of the lawsuit and subpoenas 
through local press accounts. They quickly hired a lawyer to block 
the unmasking.  

In its friend of the court brief, the ACLU argued that speech on the 
Internet is unique owing to the network's broad reach, the low 
barriers to access and the ability of speakers to promptly post a 
reply to an objectionable posting. In light of these qualities, the 
ACLU said, defamation on the Internet should be subject to special 
court rules or mechanisms, and anonymity should be breached 
"only when necessary."  

Among other things, the ACLU asked the court to first examine the 
underlying complaint to see if it was sufficiently detailed to warrant 
a lawsuit. If the case passed that first screen, it said, then the court 
should consider whether any defense exists to the defamation 
charge, as well as require the plaintiff to prove special economic 
harm -- all before ordering any unmaskings.  

Judge Schockett declined to take these actions, which she implied 
were unprecedented in libel cases, according to lawyers who were 
at the hearing.  

For his part, Fischman, Hvide's lawyer, said in an interview that the 
ACLU's suggestions were impractical.  

"You can't pre-try the case," Fischman said. "You can't joust with 
Zorro, the masked man. A plaintiff is entitled, for starters, to figure 
out who the defendant is. That's necessary in order to plan legal 
strategy."  

But David Sobel, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information 
Center who has followed the John Doe Internet cases, disagreed. 
"The ACLU is not arguing that there is an absolute right to 
anonymity" on the Internet, he said. "We need some sort of 
mechanism to screen out the legitimate cases from the bad ones."  

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun  9 15:34:54 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:34:54 -0700
Subject: SCN: Microsoft
Message-ID: <39410E9E.28659.87D5B0@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

====================

Microsoft: Breaking Up Is Good to Do  

by Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia 
University Law School

(The Nation)---The pace of recent events made one of the most 
significant rulings in the history of American antitrust law seem like 
an anti-climax. The headline news that Microsoft will cease to exist 
as we have known it, if the government has its way, was thoroughly 
anticipated in the weeks of final maneuvering.  

But on closer inspection there was enough drama and substance to 
satisfy any observer. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision to 
speed the case in its final stages will certainly be controversial on 
appeal, as Microsoft will argue that it was deprived of its opportunity 
to submit more evidence and cross-examine extensively the Justice 
Department's consultants who advised on the breakup plan. The 
tone of Jackson's final opinion, which flatly stated that Microsoft 
"has proved untrustworthy in the past," reminded readers of the 
terrible cost in credibility that Microsoft has paid as a result of its 
intransigence in this and prior proceedings before the judge.  

Microsoft's existence now hangs on two weak threads: that it can 
convince appellate judges that the remedy ordered is unjustified by 
the facts proved, or that the facts Jackson regards as "proved" are 
so clearly wrong as to warrant an exceptional decision reversing the 
trial court on this ground.  

The first is much the more promising wager. Jackson concluded that 
"it is time to put...to the test" by immediate appeal the belief that 
Microsoft is innocent of any wrongdoing, a belief shared by 
Microsoft and, as Jackson stingingly put it, "a substantial body of 
public opinion, some of it rational." Jackson's confidence in the 
strength of his factual findings is justified: The government proved a 
pattern of business conduct amounting to an illegal attempt to 
maintain monopoly power, and did so through a compelling range of 
evidence, including Bill Gates's aggressive e-mail and his 
discrediting videotaped testimony denying knowledge of the very e-
mail he had written. Microsoft's defense was inept where it was not 
self-destructive. Whether, on the other hand, Jackson's complete 
acceptance of the government's strong remedy was justified either 
by the facts proved or by the preference for a faster road to 
appellate review will be more difficult to demonstrate to skeptical 
judges on the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.  

It is appropriate to be skeptical too about the remedy itself. If fully 
implemented, it results in two companies, one of which will, like the 
original Microsoft, possess an apparent monopoly in the market for 
PC operating systems. The theory is that this monopoly will be 
successfully undermined by the activities of Microsoft Two, which 
may choose to distribute, for example, Word and Excel for use with 
other competing operating systems. This approach to restoring 
competition is purely speculative. As Jackson himself said in the 
opinion accompanying his final judgment concerning the intended 
testimony of proposed Microsoft witnesses, "For the most part they 
are merely the predictions of purportedly knowledgeable people as 
to effects which may or may not ensue if the proposed final 
judgment is entered." The same is true with respect to the theories 
of the consultants who helped the government shape its own 
proposals.  

But the more important question, now that this trial is over, is what it 
told us about the political relevance of antitrust law in the Internet 
Era. Shorn of the legal technicalities, Microsoft's defense against 
the government rested on three claims. Each of these assertions 
involved a fundamental attack on the role of antitrust in the 
protection of democratic equality.  

First, Microsoft claimed that it was being punished for the 
successful exploitation of its own new ideas. As Gates claimed after 
the judgment was announced, "This ruling says to creators of 
intellectual property that the government can take away what you 
created if it turns out to be too popular." Of course, this statement 
disregarded the factual finding that the property in question had 
been used illegally to injure others. But it appealed to the 
antagonism between the "owners" of ideas and those who believe 
that the new world of the Internet should lessen, rather than 
increase, the political power of "intellectual property."  

Second, Microsoft claimed, the fast-changing nature of the software 
industry rendered the slow processes of the law completely 
irrelevant: Before judgment could be reached, it said, events 
occurring on "Internet time" would render the decision obsolete. This 
amounted to an assertion of antitrust immunity for technology firms, 
and is no more sensible than asserting that judges were incapable 
of applying the Sherman Act to the rapidly changing industrial 
economy at the end of the nineteenth century, or the equally 
dizzying pace of economic change after the Second World War. 
However illogical it was in historical terms, this claim appealed to a 
widespread belief in the inherent inefficiency of government, 
irresponsibly propounded by a generation of Reaganite politicians 
in both parties.  

Third, Microsoft argued that application of antitrust law would 
endanger the competitiveness of the United States in the global 
economy. Microsoft was no longer, like the bankrupt aerospace and 
automotive giants of the eighties, "too big to fail"; it was instead too 
big to punish or control. This was the most dangerous argument of 
all, for it was precisely this sort of bigness, towering beyond the 
reach of democratic government, against which antitrust law was 
aimed in the first place.  

In the end, therefore, United States v. Microsoft did much more than 
bring to book a company whose illegal activities briefly made its 
founder the richest man in the world. Far more important, the 
rejection of Microsoft's defenses reasserted the importance of 
antitrust in preserving American democracy from the control of 
owners and the curse of bigness. "If there are men in this country 
big enough to own the government of the United States, they are 
going to own it," said Woodrow Wilson as a presidential candidate 
in 1912. In the coming months the current presidential candidates--
eager to trumpet their respectful familiarity with the Internet 
entrepreneurs and even more avid to accept their "campaign 
contributions"--should be called upon to explain their own views of 
the Microsoft case and the limits of private economic power in a 
democratic society. Bad as things may look just now, during the last 
and perhaps most corrupt campaign of the twentieth century, Judge 
Jackson has reminded us that there are reasons for hope.  

Copyright 2000 The Nation Company, L.P.

If you liked what you just read, you can subscribe to The Nation by 
calling 1-800-333-8536. Please attach this notice when copying or 
redistributing material from The Nation. The Nation encourages 
activists and friends of the magazine to share our articles with 
others. However, it is mandatory that academic institutions, 
publications and for-profit institutions seeking to reprint material 
contact us for permission.






* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun  9 17:07:04 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:07:04 -0700
Subject: SCN: Brits
Message-ID: <39412438.25296.DC3C5E@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=======================

A Bill which is slipping through the House of Lords will allow MI5 
access to all our online communications, says John Naughton. It 
could mean we're all guilty until proven innocent. So why don't we 
care more?  

(London Observer)---When you wake on Thursday 5 October next, 
you will find yourself living in a different country. An ancient bulwark 
of English law - the principle that someone is presumed innocent 
until proven guilty - will have been overturned. And that is just for 
starters. From that date also the police and security services will 
enjoy sweeping powers to snoop on your email traffic and web use 
without let or hindrance from the Commissioner for Data Protection.  

Every UK internet service provider (ISP) will have to install a black 
box which monitors all the data-traffic passing through its 
computers, hard-wired to a special centre currently being installed in 
MI5's London headquarters. This new mass surveillance facility is 
called the Government Technical Assistance Centre (GTAC). Who 
said Jack Straw had no sense of humour?  

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill which is now 
before the Lords gives the Home Secretary powers of interception 
and surveillance which would be the envy of the most draconian 
regime. In addition to encroaching on civil liberties, the same Bill 
will also drive hordes of e-commerce companies from Britain to 
countries like Ireland where their encryption keys - extended pin 
numbers allowing users to decipher jumbled data - will be protected 
from government prying. An administration which complains 
continually about making Britain 'the most e-friendly country in the 
world' by 2002 is busily making sure that exactly the opposite 
happens.  

How has this extraordinary state of affairs come about? Is it another 
manifestation of the cock-up theory of history, or are there more 
sinister forces at work? The answer is a bit of both. For some time, it 
has been obvious to Ministers and civil servants that British law 
needed updating to cope with the internet. In an era when online 
trading becomes ubiquitous, for example, some way has to be found 
of making 'digital signatures' legally valid. Accordingly, a special 
Cabinet Office unit headed by Professor Jim Norton set to work to 
devise a new legislative framework for the emerging world of e-
commerce and online communications. The main result of his labour 
was the Electronic Commerce Bill.  

As that Bill went through its Parliamentary hoops, it became clear 
that some parts of it - mainly the sections dealing with data 
encryption, interception and surveillance - were so deeply flawed 
that they threatened to sink the Bill. Given the Government's desire 
to make headway on the e-commerce front, the problematic sections 
were eventually jettisoned and the Electronic Commerce Bill 
became law in 1999.  

It was a smart decision, but it left unresolved the problem of what to 
do about the encryption stuff. The DTI, smarting from its bruising at 
the hands of the computer scientists who had comprehensively 
shredded the original encryption proposals, wanted nothing more to 
do with it. Accordingly the poisoned chalice passed to the Home 
Office, which knows little of business and even less about the 
internet, but is endlessly attentive to the needs of the police, the 
security services and the Byzantine imperatives of official secrecy. 
The RIP Bill is the fruit of that secretive bureaucratic milieu.  

The official rationale for the legislation is that it is required to bring 
UK law into conformance with the European Convention on Human 
Rights. In the end, this will have to be tested in the courts, but 
Straw's confidence is not shared by the Commons Trade & Industry 
Select Committee which last October recommended that the 
Government publish a detailed analysis to substantiate its 
confidence that the Bill does not contravene the Convention. This 
the Government has so far declined to do.  

The Bill has four main parts. The first deals with the interception of 
communications. the second covers 'surveillance and covert human 
intelligence sources'. The third tackles encryption and the fourth 
covers the 'scrutiny of investigatory powers and of the functions of 
the intelligence services'. Parts I to III propose massive extensions 
of the state's powers to spy on its citizens while the fourth suggests 
a regulatory regime which seems laughably inadequate to anyone 
familiar with internet technology. All sections of the Bill have been 
heavily criticised by external experts and a small number of 
committed MPs, but the legislation has passed through its 
Commons scrutiny with its central provisions intact.  

Part I gives the Home Secretary the power to issue a warrant 
requiring ISPs to intercept the communications of one or more of 
their subscribers. The problem is that the internet is not like the 
telephone system - where it is technically feasible to tap into a 
particular individual's communications link. In order to monitor a 
person's internet traffic, you have to tap into all the traffic running 
through his or her ISP. As a result, the expectation is that Part I of 
the Bill will be implemented using so-called 'passive monitoring': 
ISPs will be required to install a 'black box' which will monitor all 
their data traffic and pass it to the GTAC centre.  

The news that henceforth all UK internet traffic will find its way to 
MI5 does not seem to have yet reached MPs, most of whom don't 
understand the technology and assume that the Home Office must 
know what it is doing. Defenders of the Bill point out that MI5 can 
only legally read the content of communications for which specific 
warrants exist, which is true. But they fail to notice that the Bill 
affords no such protection to the pattern of one's internet 
connections.  

In other words, while MI5 may need a warrant actually to read your 
email, many other people will have essentially unregulated access 
to logs of the websites you access, the pages you download, the 
addresses of those with whom you exchange email, the discussion 
groups to which you belong and the chat rooms you frequent - in 
short, a comprehensive record of what you do online and with whom. 
It will be interesting to see how this squares with the European 
Convention's requirements about privacy.  

It is Part III of the Bill, however, which is most likely to contravene 
the Convention. Section 46 gives the Home Secretary the power to 
compel the surrender of keys used to encrypt communications data. 
Failure to comply carries a prison sentence of two years. If someone 
cannot comply because they have lost or forgotten the key then they 
have to prove that to the satisfaction of a court. In other words, the 
burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence - one 
is presumed guilty until proved innocent. And how do you prove that 
you have forgotten something?  

Even more oppressive is the Bill's creation of a secondary offence - 
revealing that you have been required to supply, or supplied, a 
decryption key - which carries an even stiffer penalty. Under the 
terms of the Bill, for example, the police could arrive at 4am and 
demand that you produce such a key. If you were unable to comply 
and were taken in for questioning, it would be a criminal offence 
punishable by five years' imprisonment to explain to your family 
why you were being dragged off.  

Civil liberties campaigners are predictably opposed to the RIP Bill. 
But it is also widely opposed by the business community. Even 
Professor Norton, the architect of the Government's e-commerce 
legislation, describes the proposals as 'a classic own goal' that will 
undermine the aim of making Britain a centre for e-commerce. 
Encryption is central to e-business, and many companies have 
contractual agreements with clients for whom they hold 
cryptographic keys. Under the RIP Bill they would be banned from 
revealing that they had surrendered a key and thereby compromised 
the client's security.  

'This is a clear case,' says Norton, 'of the futility of government 
treating internet policy as a national issue when what is needed is 
international agreement. A UK firm which handed over the key of a 
multinational client would be vulnerable to a compensation claim in 
an overseas court for compromising that client's global security. US 
businesses are not happy about that liability and will opt to work in 
countries like Ireland.'  

The most astonishing thing about Straw's pre-emptive strike on civil 
liberties and e-commerce is that, to date, there has been almost no 
public discussion of it. The Ministers driving his Bill through 
Parliament concede that the powers they seek are sweeping, but 
argue that they can be trusted to apply them reasonably and that in 
any case the powers are commensurate with the threat from online 
criminals, terrorists, paedophiles and pornographers. In the 
absence of proper safeguards, the first argument is absurd.  

As far as the second is concerned, nobody has yet produced any 
convincing empirical evidence that the supposed threats are more 
than the fantasies of security services and hysterical projections of 
some newspapers. The internet undoubtedly provides a conduit for 
criminal conversations and porno graphic transactions. But then so 
does the telephone system and the Royal Mail, and yet nobody 
proposes tapping every phone in the land or scanning every letter. A 
terrifying erosion in our liberties is being planned, yet the threat is 
largely ignored.  

Could it be that this collective passivity is because, for most 
citizens, the liberties that are being eroded lie in the future rather 
than the present? Most people do not currently encrypt their email, 
even though an unencrypted email is as vulnerable to snooping as 
an ordinary postcard. But in five years' encryption will have become 
a necessity.  

Human nature being what it is, people will lose or forget their 
decryption keys - and some will find themselves attempting to 
convince a judge that they are not paedophiles feigning amnesia to 
qualify for a shorter sentence. Will they then remember Burke's 
warning that for evil to triumph it is necessary only for good men to 
do nothing? And will they wonder why they had not been more 
alarmed on the morning of 5 October 2000?  

Copyright 2000 Guardian Newspapers Limited





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From guests at scn.org  Mon Jun 12 05:38:46 2000
From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: SCN 2: Special June 28th Meeting
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000612052949.8382C-100000@scn>

Mark your calendars for 6:30pm, Wednesday, June 28 at the University
Branch Library (50th & Roosevlet)!  We're going to kick off the beginning
of SCN 2 with our first lively public discussion and brainstorming session
about the possibilities.

What is SCN 2?  Beyond a few pieces of new equipment, we're planning to
design, fund and build a completely new system and services.  We want your
help, first by telling us your hopes and dreams for what a new SCN system
could be capable of, and then (hopefully!) your assistance making at least
some of the dreams into reality.

For the 28th, we're planning to have fun fantasizing - no need for
practicality, and no critiquing of the ideas that are gathered during this
session (that comes later). 

We'll have a small spread of munchies - bring some to share if you are so
inclined.  Even if you don't have any specific thoughts on a new computer
system right now, come down just to see your fellow SCNers face-to-face!

This is only the very first of the input gathering efforts, so if you
can't make it, don't worry - we'll bug you again.  We will be using some
online input-gathering process as well, and will let you know as soon as
that is set up.

Hope to see you there!  If you know anyone who'd be interested, please
forward this message on to them!

 - Steve & Mel

-=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=-  -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- 
Melissa & Steve Guest, Co-Presidents           email: guests at scn.org
Seattle Community Network Assoc.                  ph: (425) 653 7353
http://www.scn.org/scna                              8am to 11pm PST
 
"Bringing People & Communities Together with Free Internet Services"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 12 13:52:43 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000224091409.18928A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000612135121.28618C-100000@scn>


This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that this
is not a lawsuit against SCNA.

If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out on
the table.

Later,

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the Board
> that he is suing.
> 
> Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working within
> the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to correct
> any flaws you think it has.
> 
> Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is taking a
> sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> 
> So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> members and users, and has the potential for improvement and correcting
> problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> 
> Ken Applegate
> 
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
> <starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Mon Jun 12 19:53:23 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000612135121.28618C-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000612185633.19489A-100000@scn>

What "misconception", Rich?  

Were you not running for the Board?

Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  

Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have an
interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to improve
it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?

No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.

Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!  You
have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.

=== JJ =================================================================

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that this
> is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> 
> If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out on
> the table.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the Board
> > that he is suing.
> > 
> > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working within
> > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to correct
> > any flaws you think it has.
> > 
> > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is taking a
> > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > 
> > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and correcting
> > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > 
> > Ken Applegate
> > 
> > > 
> > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > > 
> > 
> > Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
> > <starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!
> > 
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 14 13:57:20 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000612185633.19489A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000614135019.7761B-100000@scn>


I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
connection with my messages and with his response.

If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
be pleased to answer them.

One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.

By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.

Later,

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> What "misconception", Rich?  
> 
> Were you not running for the Board?
> 
> Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
> Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  
> 
> Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have an
> interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to improve
> it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> 
> No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
> way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> 
> Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!  You
> have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
> the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that this
> > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > 
> > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out on
> > the table.
> > 
> > Later,
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the Board
> > > that he is suing.
> > > 
> > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working within
> > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to correct
> > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > 
> > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is taking a
> > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > 
> > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and correcting
> > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > 
> > > Ken Applegate
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > > unsubscribe scn
> > > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
> > > <starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Thu Jun 15 00:06:53 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:06:53 -0700
Subject: SCN: Web libraries
Message-ID: <39481E1D.13121.3A0D7E6@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

======================

The Library as the Latest Web Venture  

by Lisa Guernsey

(NY Times)---When Carrie Larkworthy, a student at Harvard 
University, is faced with a research project, getting a book out of the 
library is the last thing on her mind. Instead she sits in her 
dormitory room and logs onto the Web, starting with Harvard's 
online system for searching and retrieving journal articles. "I hate 
the library, so I try to avoid it," Ms. Larkworthy said. "It's such a big 
facility that you have to search through."  

If Ms. Larkworthy's experience is anything like that of other 
students, and many librarians acknowledge that it is, the use of 
books for research is becoming an archaic concept. If scholarly 
books are not on the Web, they are invisible to anyone using the 
Internet as a substitute for in-depth investigation.  

But new efforts are afoot to change that. Several companies are 
racing to put the full texts of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted 
books, old and new, on the Web.  

NetLibrary started the contest, with technology that lets people view 
books online for short periods of time, the digital equivalent of 
borrowing them from the library.  

Now two other companies, Ebrary.com and Questia Media, are 
taking on the same challenge but using a new strategy. They want to 
give people the opportunity to search through reams of pages at no 
charge, then will charge people a few cents a page for using that 
information. (Questia users will be asked to pay for viewing, copying 
and printing the online pages. Ebrary.com users will be able to view 
pages free but will pay for copying and printing.)  

These electronic library projects are not attempts to compete with 
the budding electronic book industry, which offers books for 
downloading to handheld devices and is focused on popular fiction, 
like Stephen King's recent Web-only novella, "Riding the Bullet," 
and on other newly published trade books. The library projects have 
very little to do with the debate over the promise or pitfalls of 
gadgets that let people read novels electronically from the comfort 
of their beds.  

In fact, the new effort to build an electronic library is not about 
reading at all. It is about the power of electronic searching. With 
digital scanning, texts of works that may be decades old can be 
mined for those few morsels of insight that may enhance a research 
paper or help prove an argument. It could be a way, some 
publishers say, to move books into the Web's fold and make them 
more visible to students like Ms. Larkworthy.  

"In an ideal world, a person would find a book in the card catalog, 
pull it off the shelf and use it," said Kate Douglas Torrey, director of 
the University of North Carolina Press. "But that is just not the world 
we live in today." The University of North Carolina Press is among 
more than 80 publishers working with Questia to turn many of their 
titles into searchable documents available on the Web.  

Laziness is not always the excuse for avoiding the traditional 
library. Even people who do go hunting in the stacks are sometimes 
thwarted. The books they want might be checked out or misplaced, 
lost forever among call numbers that have no relation to the sticker 
on their spines. Or the books might be at other libraries and 
available only to those researchers who are willing to wait weeks for 
interlibrary loans.  

Such situations can be avoided on the Internet, proponents of digital 
libraries say. "This will take some of the tedium out of research," 
Ms. Torrey said, "and make it easy to use an extensive collection of 
scholarly work."  

Of course, people have been hailing the promise of digitized 
libraries for years, and the reality has not yet measured up. When 
netLibrary opened in March 1999, for example, it was promoted in 
press releases as a company that would "revolutionize the library 
system" by enabling people to tap into a searchable and 
comprehensible database of reference and scholarly books.  

Until this month, netLibrary offered two types of access: holders of 
library cards from participating libraries could use the service at no 
charge, and others could subscribe to the service for $29.95 a year. 
The subscription option is no longer being offered to new users.  

Now netLibrary is primarily a service for public, academic and 
corporate libraries that want to buy electronic titles and make them 
available to their patrons.  

Rob Kaufman, netLibrary's president and chief executive, said the 
shift away from a consumer service was partly an attempt to 
appease librarians and publishers. Some librarians said the service 
was competing with them. Publishers did not like the subscription 
model for another reason: they said it gave people too much access 
to electronic texts at too low a price.  

Even those who gain access to netLibrary may find the experience 
less than satisfying. There are just not yet enough books in the 
site's collection to make serious searching worthwhile. The site now 
has about 18,000 copyrighted books and 4,000 public-domain works, 
numbers that are tiny compared with the hundreds of thousands of 
volumes in most research libraries and the millions of volumes in 
major ones.  

Will companies like Questia Media and Ebrary.com do any better? 
Ebrary.com already has more than 130,000 volumes in its 
demonstration database and says that it may include as many as 
600,000 by the time it opens in the fall.  

Questia, backed by $45 million in venture capital, plans to offer 
access to 50,000 volumes when it opens next spring and is working 
toward a goal of 250,000 books in three years.  

These numbers are possible, the founders say, because they have 
appealed to publishers' pocketbooks. When a book is sold to an 
actual library, the publisher makes a one-time profit. That book 
might be retrieved and read by hundreds of people, but the 
publisher never sees another dime. In the models used by Questia 
and Ebrary.com, however, that book could continue to make the 
publisher money as more people see it.  

Anyone going to Questia's site, for example, will be able to search 
the entire database of books at no cost, but only subscribers will be 
able to see the books' pages by clicking on the search results. 
(Questia has not yet set its subscription price, but Troy Williams, 
the company's chief executive, said that it would be "affordable for 
the average college student.")  

Ebrary.com has adopted what Christopher Warnock, the chief 
executive, calls "the photocopier model." Searching will be free, he 
said, and so will the act of simply reading whatever pages are 
retrieved from a search. But when a person tries to copy the text of 
those pages by using copy and paste commands, a dialogue box 
will appear on the screen. In a recent demonstration, the box said: 
"This will cost you $0.25. Would you like to continue?"  

The same kind of message pops up when a user tries to print the 
page. If the user decides to pay for copying or printing, the software 
will automatically generate a citation for the work and place it below 
the copied or printed text.  

Most people will have no problem paying a few cents for what they 
want, Mr. Warnock said, since they already scrounge up quarters to 
use photocopy machines. At the site, a user will be able to sign up 
for a debit account of, say, $10 and will then need to type in a user 
name and password during each session in which the user prints or 
copies pages.  

These payments, the founders say, can add up to big money when 
millions of people are spending a few cents at a time. And many 
publishers are willing to license their copyrighted material in 
exchange for some of that cash. "It holds the promise of being 
profitable," said Tim Cooper, vice president for strategic operations 
at Harcourt Trade Publishers, one of the companies that has signed 
a letter of intent with Questia.  

It is not just those micropayments that interest publishers, said 
Larry Weissman, director of new business development for Random 
House, which, he added, has struck no deals with either Questia or 
Ebrary.com. But the ideas are appealing, Mr. Weissman said, partly 
because they may introduce readers to new works. "The hope is that 
they would want to continue that reading experience by buying a 
book," he said.  

If the sites succeed, they will be mixing the qualities of libraries and 
bookstores. Most people think of the bookstore as a place to buy 
and the library as a place to borrow or browse at no charge. But on 
the Internet, where full texts can be searched in seconds and 
information can be retrieved with a few clicks, convenience is part of 
the package as well. These companies, including netLibrary, are 
betting that people will pay for it.  

Librarians are intrigued by the concept, said Kenneth L. Frazier, the 
president of the Association of Research Libraries. And they are 
eager to see how quickly texts can be digitized when put into the 
hands of companies, which may find more efficient ways to scan 
books on a huge scale.  

But Mr. Frazier, who is director of the general library system at the 
University of Wisconsin at Madison, also wonders what that will 
mean to traditional research libraries, which have always been 
motivated by public interest, not private profits. Making sure that low-
income people have access to expansive new online libraries is 
one area of concern. Another concerns the selections made by 
digital libraries. Will databases include only the most popular 
books, Mr. Frazier asked, "or the stuff that gets the highest return 
economically?"  

At Ebrary.com, books are included for technical reasons. They must 
already exist on publishers' computers in a format called PDF (for 
portable document file), which was developed by Adobe Systems 
and is commonly read online using the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Many 
publishers, Mr. Warnock said, have been using this format since the 
early 1990's during the design of their hard-copy books.  

Questia is taking a more academic approach. It has hired Dr. Carol 
Hughes, a research librarian who recently worked at the University 
of Iowa, to lead a team of librarians in selecting core titles that have 
been known to be useful to college students. A few of the books that 
will be included on Questia are "The Industrial Revolution," a 1956 
book by Arnold Toynbee, and a 1982 edition of Dante's "Divine 
Comedy."  

Dr. Hughes said she suspected that Questia might drive more 
students to the actual library instead of away from it. After using the 
Web to find books that meet their needs, she said, they may want to 
check them out to read them more closely. "I think it is going to 
greatly enhance libraries," she said.  

Being able to search online books will help students see their value, 
Dr. Hughes said, particularly when they can easily get access to 
books that have become classics in particular subject areas.  

A nonprofit project called JStor is often offered as proof that 
digitizing old texts can breathe life into them. For the past five 
years, JStor has been creating digital copies of scores of scholarly 
journals, some of which have issues more than 100 years old. 
University libraries around the world pay for access to JStor and 
provide it to their students free. A recent study by JStor showed that 
students used the online service almost 20 times as much as they 
dug into the stacks for the paper versions.  

Just a few years ago, said Mr. Frazier, of the University of 
Wisconsin, librarians and publishers scoffed at the idea that a full-
scale project like JStor could be adopted for books any time soon. 
Many people said it would take centuries before the equivalent of a 
library's bookshelves would ever make it onto the Web.  

But now that Mr. Frazier has seen and heard about new efforts, he 
said, "I'm not so sure about that anymore." "I think this might 
happen much more quickly than we might have imagined a few 
years ago," he added. No longer, he said, will books suffer from 
what he called that "fatal disadvantage": the fact that they are 
available only in print.  

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Thu Jun 15 01:32:47 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000614135019.7761B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615002133.22530D-100000@scn>

Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
"get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.) 

Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
"What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
light on logic"--this is a constructive response?  

Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established. 

=== JJ =================================================================

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
> on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
> him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> connection with my messages and with his response.
> 
> If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> be pleased to answer them.
> 
> One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> 
> By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > What "misconception", Rich?  
> > 
> > Were you not running for the Board?
> > 
> > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
> > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  
> > 
> > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have an
> > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to improve
> > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > 
> > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
> > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > 
> > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!  You
> > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
> > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that this
> > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > 
> > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out on
> > > the table.
> > > 
> > > Later,
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the Board
> > > > that he is suing.
> > > > 
> > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working within
> > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to correct
> > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > 
> > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is taking a
> > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and correcting
> > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > 
> > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Thu Jun 15 07:36:45 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:36:45 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA38A1B5@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have gathered,
in total:

- Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do with
his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this mailing
list).
- Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means SCNA
stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.
- SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
defense could well break the organization.
- Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
the SCNA board.
- JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for the
SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
- The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
counsel.
- Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms, either
on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
- Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
occurred.

I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it. However, if
anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth time,
at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?

----------------------------------- 
Joe Mabel
Saltmine
206.284.7511

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
To: Rich Littleton
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
"get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.) 

Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
"What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
light on logic"--this is a constructive response?  

Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established. 

=== JJ =================================================================

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
> on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
> him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> connection with my messages and with his response.
> 
> If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> be pleased to answer them.
> 
> One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> 
> By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > What "misconception", Rich?  
> > 
> > Were you not running for the Board?
> > 
> > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
> > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  
> > 
> > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have
an
> > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
improve
> > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > 
> > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
> > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > 
> > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
You
> > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
> > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that
this
> > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > 
> > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out
on
> > > the table.
> > > 
> > > Later,
> > > 
> > > Rich
> > > 
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the
Board
> > > > that he is suing.
> > > > 
> > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working
within
> > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
correct
> > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > 
> > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is
taking a
> > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > 
> > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
correcting
> > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > 
> > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Thu Jun 15 08:14:35 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:14:35 -0700
Subject: SCN: Today's in joke
Message-ID: <3948906B.32557.773857@localhost>



After a couple of requests to post this, I succumbed to the intense 
pressure.  Sorry.

The justice department released its recommended names for the two 
parts of Microsoft after the split:  

MICROS~1 and MICROS~2





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bb140 at scn.org  Thu Jun 15 15:00:20 2000
From: bb140 at scn.org (Barb Avonia Weismann)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: More work at the Bathhouse (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000615145931.25833B-100000@scn>

Please help bring back a Seattle cultural environment...sure to be
interesting this fall with the new plays.
Barb


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:37:57 -0700
From: Dennis Kessner <dennisk at nwlink.com>
To: Barb Weismann <bb140 at scn.org>, Paul Stevenson <paul_megan at email.msn.com>,
    Deborah Dickstein <ddickstein at earthlink.net>,
    Doug Hillman <DLH at hartcrowser.com>, Jan Strolle <jstrolle at wolfenet.com>,
    Janny Becker <jannybseattle at aol.com>, JoDee Celes <jdc at hartcrowser.com>,
    Michael Hobson <mjhobson at wans.net>, Sophia Smith <sas at hartcrowser.com>,
    Thomas Schmitz <Thomas at fund-development.com>,
    Angela Hawse <anghawse at earthlink.net>,
    Andrea DeTerra <adeterra at hotmail.com>,
    Ania Olivia Krol <aniakrol at u.washington.edu>,
    Chris Sigmoro <chris at jonessoda.com>, Chris Wilde <cwilde at netzero.net>,
    Clare T Zeran <seminars at wstla.org>,
    Colleen McConnell <theceilidh at hotmail.com>,
    Darcanne Preble <darcanne at hotmail.com>,
    Elena Arosteguy <earosteguy at trammellcrow.com>,
    Jason Butler <jbutler at amazon.com>, Jeff Bull <bull6969 at wa.freei.net>,
    Jen Lund <hecateisme at aol.com>,
    Jenni Lougheed <FaeriesRevenge at hotmail.com>,
    Josh Logan <themysterian at earthlink.net>,
    Kathleen Ulrich <kmulrich at hotmail.com>,
    Lisa Webb <lwebb at u.washington.edu>,
    Marshal Peterson <MPeterson at puyallup.k12.wa.us>,
    Monica Tooley <monitooley at aol.com>, Nam Nguyen <namdnguyen at hotmail.com>,
    Sean Avery <jc_avery at msn.com>, Simon <essweet at juno.com>,
    Susan Biles <sbiles at cks.ssd.k12.wa.us>,
    Tracy O'Neal <toneal5644 at aol.com>,
    Radhika Nimmagadda <rkongara at aol.com>,
    Meredyth Masterson <PrtyWoman at aol.com>,
    Kim Lopez-Walters <KLopez at starbucks.com>,
    Jenny Johnson <gapchick16 at hotmail.com>,
    Jaline Quinto <curelove at hotmail.com>,
    Ethan Carlson <fullsoccer at aol.com>, Deborah Hawron <deb at tcpnet.net>,
    Casey Bogert <ndgtta at aol.com>, Brandon Cogo <bcogo at hotmail.com>,
    Allyson Kuntz <liberalguppy at aol.com>, Susan Ross <Susanr at summitlaw.com>,
    Shale Cloud <Shale at nwlink.com>, Sarod Dhuru <sarod at meritsteel.com>,
    Rowena Hatfield <rhatfield at rockey-seattle.com>,
    Megan Harding <megharding at hotmail.com>, Kim Aquino <kaquin at chmc.org>,
    Kenneth Bowman <ken134 at worldnet.att.net>,
    Katie Partlow <olyturtle at hotmail.com>,
    Don Jalovich <ducksoul at ix.netcom.com>,
    David Calof <76430.2614 at compuserve.com>,
    Anna Machan <102454.3555 at compuserve.com>,
    Lauren Marshall <LaurenMarshall at compuserve.com>,
    Lynn Stromski <LStromski at uwkc.org>,
    "Philip A. Spadaro" <PAS at hartcrowser.com>,
    Sarah Kaiser <sarahcanoe at aol.com>
Subject: More work at the Bathhouse

We are in need of extra volunteers this weekend to help us at the Bathhouse. We fell behind last week and there is a lot of painting that needs to be done before the carpeting comes in.

We will be working both Saturday and Sunday. Please come down and lend a hand. We really need your help.Please call me at 425/754-4600 if you need directions or have questions.

Dennis

From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun 16 08:38:31 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:38:31 -0700
Subject: SCN: Links
Message-ID: <3949E787.31568.879B49@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

========================

Is Linking Illegal?

(Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---A crucial aspect of online journalism is 
the ability to garnish articles with hyperlinks that instantly refer 
readers to Web sites related to newsworthy issues.  

But suppose one of those sites contains material alleged to be 
illegal--a pirated copy of an author’s book, perhaps, or an unlawful 
software program. Is the publisher who did the linking in hot water?  

The answer, according to legal papers recently filed by eight motion 
picture studios in a closely-watched federal case in Manhattan, is 
sometimes yes and sometimes no.  

Lawyers for the movie companies have asked U. S. District Judge 
Lewis A. Kaplan to order a Web publisher to stop linking to hundreds 
of sites carrying a piece of software—DeCSS--that they say threatens 
their industry with mass piracy and violates a federal law.  

Lawyers for the defendant, Eric Corley, who under the name 
Emmanuel Goldstein runs a print and Web publication, “2600: The 
Hacker Quarterly,” have sought to protect the act of linking. They 
claim that a link, in essence, tells someone where to go to get 
information. Thus it is a form of speech shielded by the First 
Amendment.  

Martin Garbus, a New York lawyer who is defending Corley, has 
also argued in papers that many other news organizations, 
including the Web sites of The New York Times, The San Jose 
Mercury News, the Associated Press and the Village Voice, have in 
the course of news articles about the case linked to sites that 
contain DeCSS or to sites that contain a catalog of links to DeCSS 
sites.  

The movie studios “must acknowledge that if the Linking Motion 
wins” then other, more mainstream news organizations “will be 
barred from linking too,” Garbus wrote in legal papers.  

The court’s decision, which is expected in the next week or two, will 
set an important precedent in the fast-moving area of linking law, 
according to legal experts.  

“Liability for a person’s linking to alleged wrongful content is really 
the next big thing” on the cyberlaw horizon, said Mark Sableman, a 
lawyer in St. Louis who specializes in new media law and who has 
written scholarly articles on the legal aspects of linking.  

Puzzles about linking have been raised recently in a few cases in 
the U.S., including a dispute in California where earlier this month a 
music Web site sued the recording industry to retain the ability to 
link to music files even though some of the linked-to sites may 
contain infringing material. Courts in Japan, Belgium and Sweden 
have also wrestled with linking cases in the past few months, said 
Sableman.  

In the New York lawsuit, Corley was accused of posting on his Web 
site the software program DeCSS, which, the movie studios claimed, 
allows users to bypass the security system of their DVD movie 
disks, thus opening the door, they say, to unauthorized viewing or 
piracy.  

Despite protests from Corley’s lawyers, who claimed that DeCSS is 
merely designed to help consumers play DVD movies on Linux 
operating systems, the court issued a preliminary injunction 
ordering Corley to take down DeCSS from his Web site. In issuing 
the order, Judge Kaplan found that it was likely that the posting of 
DeCSS violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which 
makes it illegal for anyone to provide to the public or traffic in a 
device that is designed to circumvent a measure controlling access 
to a copyright-protected work.  

Corley immediately took the DeCSS code off his site. But in the 
following Weeks, he added more than 300 links from his site to 
other sites that have posted the software. In addition, his site 
encourages others to set up so-called mirror sites of DeCSS.  

Convinced that Corley was making an end-run around Judge 
Kaplan’s order, the movie studios asked the court to amend its 
initial ruling to include a ban on the defendant’s linking activity.  

In its most recent set of papers, the movie studios attempted to draw 
a clear distinction between Corley’s linking conduct, which they 
argued should be barred, and the linking conduct of other news 
organizations, which they said is proper.  

“[T]here is nothing illegal about linking as such,” wrote the lawyers 
for the studios. But there are two main differences between Corley’s 
links to DeCSS and other news organizations’ links to the program, 
they maintained. For one thing, Corley’s actions, taken as a whole, 
actively encouraged others to make copies of DeCSS in an effort to 
disseminate the controversial code, wrote the movie studio lawyers. 
As evidence, they pointed to Corley’s massive list of links and his 
apparent invitation to his readers to create mirror sites of DeCSS.  

Other news sites that might have linked to DeCSS did so incidentally 
as part of pure journalistic activity, argued the lawyers. “The 
difference, among other things, is . . . in [Corley’s] demonstrated 
continuing intent to traffic” in DeCSS, Charles Sims, a lawyer for the 
movie studios, said in an interview.  

“When the Times does an article about the drug situation in 
Manhattan, and mentions that drugs are available on the corner of 
85th Street and Amsterdam, that is different than people who are 
engaged in trafficking in drugs by sending people to buy drugs at 
different corners,” Sims said. “The difference is intent, among other 
things.” '  

In addition, Corley--unlike other news organizations--was already 
subject to an initial injunction barring his posting of DeCSS. Courts 
have wide latitude to enforce their orders. And in doing so, they may 
prohibit a defendant from doing something that might be permissible 
under different circumstances, Sims said.  

For his part, Garbus continued to deny that his client’s linking 
activity was improper. In an interview, he said that the initial court 
injunction barred posting DeCSS, not linking to it. And he argued that 
Corley’s “intent” or motivation in compiling his links was 
legitimate—to help Linux advocates find DeCSS in order to play DVDs 
on Linux machines. Garbus also noted that that no evidence has 
surfaced to date that demonstrates that DeCSS has been used by 
anyone to hack DVDs and make unauthorized copies.  

Dan L. Burk, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s law 
school, said he believed it was likely that Judge Kaplan would ban 
Corley’s links, pending a full trial on the legitimacy of DeCSS.  

“My take on this is that the movie studios are making the right 
argument. Not so much in terms of good linking and bad linking, but 
that the defendant has already been subject to the court’s authority, 
“said Burk. Under the circumstances, Corley has to keep a safe 
distance from improper conduct, he said.  

“It would be very strange if a court ordered a defendant not to sell a 
product in his store, but then the defendant was allowed to place a 
sign in the store window saying, ‘We can’t sell the item, but here’s 
where you can get it,’” said Burk.  

But Burk said he found the “intent” argument proffered by the movie 
studios to be a “bankrupt” theory.  

If Corley had originally linked to DeCSS and the movie studios went 
after him for his linking activity, they would not get a preliminary 
injunction, predicted Burk. “A link is essentially a citation,” he said. 
Telling someone where to find a thing cannot be a violation of the 
DMCA or the copyright law, Burk opined.  

“The only thing that is different between what [Corley] did and the 
rest of the press did is that Corley was already subject to the court’s 
authority,” Burk said.  

A trial in the NY DeCSS case is scheduled to begin on July 17.  

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 19 20:39:36 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA38A1B5@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000619202744.2102B-100000@scn>


Good show, Joe.  Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below. 

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have gathered,
> in total:
> 
> - Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do with
> his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
> possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this mailing
> list).

The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.


> - Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
> against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means SCNA
> stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.

This is partly true.  However, the founders modified the obligation of
SCNA to indemnify board members.  Keep reading the section that provides
for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental.  Also, the
conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc.  (Why hasn't anyone
found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)

> - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
> defense could well break the organization.

This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
into the funds improperly.  As stated above, these defendants don't
qualify for the indemnification.  They are going ahead and committing it,
so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
board, not with me.

> - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
> the SCNA board.

	Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.

> - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for the
> SCNA board, as do several other individuals.

	First, see the answer above.  Second, what do JJ and these
"several other individuals" want.  No accountability of officers?  No
adhearance to organizational rules?  No telling the accused what
constituted the "crime"?


> - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> counsel.
	Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals.  They were not talking
BEFORE the lawsuit.  


> - Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms, either
> on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
> - Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
> documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
> occurred.

	Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting.  It
might be that it is not what folks want to hear.

> 
> I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
> corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it. 

	With significant modifications.

However, if
> anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth time,
> at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
> mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?
> 
> ----------------------------------- 
> Joe Mabel
> Saltmine
> 206.284.7511
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
> To: Rich Littleton
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
> changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
> "get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
> suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.) 
> 
> Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
> "What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
> light on logic"--this is a constructive response?  
> 
> Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
> makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established. 
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
> > on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
> > him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> > connection with my messages and with his response.
> > 
> > If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> > be pleased to answer them.
> > 
> > One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> > definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> > money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> > organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> > 
> > By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> > provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> > Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> > 
> > Later,
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > > What "misconception", Rich?  
> > > 
> > > Were you not running for the Board?
> > > 
> > > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
> > > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  
> > > 
> > > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have
> an
> > > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
> improve
> > > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > > 
> > > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
> > > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > > 
> > > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
> You
> > > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
> > > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > > 
> > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that
> this
> > > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > > 
> > > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out
> on
> > > > the table.
> > > > 
> > > > Later,
> > > > 
> > > > Rich
> > > > 
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the
> Board
> > > > > that he is suing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working
> within
> > > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
> correct
> > > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is
> taking a
> > > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
> correcting
> > > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Tue Jun 20 13:38:21 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:38:21 -0700
Subject: SCN: Terms of service
Message-ID: <394F73CD.11433.195E777@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=======================

Don't get boxed in by changes to your service providers' TOS 
agreement  

by Ed Foster  

(InfoWorld)---Protecting yourself against sneakwrap terms on the 
Internet is simple. All you have to do is spend virtually all your 
online time reading reams of legalese to make sure they haven't 
changed since the last time you were logged in.  

If you don't believe me, go read the posted terms of service, privacy 
policy, acceptable use policy, and so on, of the service you use 
most often. Chances are you'll find that the service provider 
reserves the right to change those terms at any time, and the mere 
posting of the new terms is sufficient notice to you. The provider can 
start charging you more while giving you less or start selling 
information about you to whomever it likes. And your continued use 
of the service is deemed sufficient to indicate approval of the new 
terms, even if you didn't happen to notice the change.  

Part of this trend that I find particularly worrisome is the way that 
"free" Internet services are adopting the harshest sneakwrap terms 
of all. The TOS (terms of service) for Winfire's FreeDSL that we 
discussed last week are the scariest I've seen in their repeated 
assertion of the company's right to change what you're getting or 
what you're paying for it at any time. And this even applies to 
FreeDSL's extended services for which there is a charge. The TOS 
very explicitly state that the company will charge a $200 
cancellation fee even when the customer is terminating due to "a 
change in features by Winfire ... or by reason of a modification of 
terms by Winfire ... ." (They do promise to give extended service 
customers 30 days' notice of such changes via e-mail, but of course 
that promise could be eliminated when they change their terms.)  

FreeDSL isn't the only free service with sneakwrap terms that have 
raised eyebrows. NetZero's legalese defines four different 
documents posted on its site -- its terms and conditions, acceptable 
use guidelines, software license agreement, and privacy statement --
 collectively as NetZero's "Rules." Of course, it goes on to say that 
NetZero can change those Rules and the scope of NetZero at any 
time by posting new terms, and that's the only notice you'll get, and 
so on. And then it adds a kicker: "Each time before using the 
NetZero Services, you agree to review changes to the Rules and, if 
any change is not acceptable to you, you agree to terminate use of 
NetZero Services."  

By my count, those four documents total over 11,000 words. No date 
or other clue in the documents themselves will let you know if it's 
changed since the last time you read it. How long does it take to 
read 11,000 words of thick legalese? I'm not sure, but NetZero users 
who don't spend that time at the beginning of every Internet session 
are violating their agreement with the service. Somehow I doubt this 
is the kind of freedom that the Russian defector in the company's TV 
commercial had in mind.  

Am I being paranoid? Maybe. After all, we haven't seen any of these 
free services actually take advantage of their sneakwrap terms to 
start charging their customers. To do so, as the Winfire official said 
last week, would be tantamount to closing down their business. 
Besides, what do the customers of these free services expect? They 
aren't paying anything, so they shouldn't be surprised if these 
companies take steps to protect themselves against unforeseen 
circumstances. You get what you pay for.  

Based on what we've seen in the past, though, I can't help but think 
that these draconian terms are there to be used. In the last year we 
have seen services that you do pay for such as Excite at Home, 
Cox at Work, and US West try to quietly change their service 
offerings without customers noticing. Yahoo tried to slip its content-
grabbing terms past users of the just-acquired GeoCities last spring. 
And there was the well-publicized case of RealNetworks changing its 
privacy policy after RealJukebox users discovered the program was 
sending personal information about them to the company.  

The RealNetworks example brings us to the heart of the issue 
concerning free services and sneakwrap. There is indeed no such 
thing as a free lunch; the coin with which customers pay for free 
services is the privacy they agree to give up. Just how much 
privacy they surrender -- be it ads displayed on their system, usage 
information shared with partners, or whatever -- is spelled out in 
privacy statements. Providers of free services are making it clear by 
their aggressive sneakwrap language that they want the right to 
change those privacy polices without notice.  

Free-service providers that are unable to turn a profit -- and there 
will be many -- won't have to start charging to open a new revenue 
stream. They just need to change their privacy policy so they can 
sell more information about their customers. Companies that do 
charge have done it; why expect companies that don't to behave any 
better?  

Copyright 2000 InfoWorld Media Group, Inc.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Tue Jun 20 14:56:00 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:56:00 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000619202744.2102B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHAEOICDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
operation.

First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead to a
long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago) has
unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
of the board and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a lawsuit as
being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.

Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and demand
that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I thought
that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".  I don't
believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the bylaws
will not cover with financial support, then the question would be addressed
about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.

I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should put
the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people in
the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?

If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are not an
attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.

					Kenneth Crandall
					bd252 at scn.org

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
Littleton
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:40 PM
To: Joe Mabel
Cc: 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



Good show, Joe.  Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have gathered,
> in total:
>
> - Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do
with
> his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
> possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this
mailing
> list).

The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.


> - Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
> against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means SCNA
> stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.

This is partly true.  However, the founders modified the obligation of
SCNA to indemnify board members.  Keep reading the section that provides
for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental.  Also, the
conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc.  (Why hasn't anyone
found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)

> - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
> defense could well break the organization.

This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
into the funds improperly.  As stated above, these defendants don't
qualify for the indemnification.  They are going ahead and committing it,
so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
board, not with me.

> - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
> the SCNA board.

	Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.

> - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for
the
> SCNA board, as do several other individuals.

	First, see the answer above.  Second, what do JJ and these
"several other individuals" want.  No accountability of officers?  No
adhearance to organizational rules?  No telling the accused what
constituted the "crime"?


> - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> counsel.
	Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals.  They were not talking
BEFORE the lawsuit.


> - Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms,
either
> on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
> - Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
> documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
> occurred.

	Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting.  It
might be that it is not what folks want to hear.

>
> I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
> corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it.

	With significant modifications.

However, if
> anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth
time,
> at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
> mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?
>
> -----------------------------------
> Joe Mabel
> Saltmine
> 206.284.7511
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
> To: Rich Littleton
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.
>
>
> Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
> changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
> "get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
> suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.)
>
> Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
> "What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
> light on logic"--this is a constructive response?
>
> Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
> makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established.
>
> === JJ =================================================================
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
>
> >
> > I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and
light
> > on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating
with
> > him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> > connection with my messages and with his response.
> >
> > If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> > be pleased to answer them.
> >
> > One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> > definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> > money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> > organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> >
> > By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> > provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> > Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > What "misconception", Rich?
> > >
> > > Were you not running for the Board?
> > >
> > > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity
as
> > > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?
> > >
> > > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you
have
> an
> > > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
> improve
> > > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > >
> > > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some
> > > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > >
> > > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
> You
> > > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding
back
> > > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > >
> > > === JJ
=================================================================
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that
> this
> > > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > >
> > > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them
out
> on
> > > > the table.
> > > >
> > > > Later,
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on
the
> Board
> > > > > that he is suing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working
> within
> > > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
> correct
> > > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > >
> > > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is
> taking a
> > > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of
its
> > > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
> correcting
> > > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Thu Jun 22 08:20:29 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:20:29 -0700
Subject: SCN: Privacy
Message-ID: <3951CC4D.13370.7CC9F7@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

==========================

(Jeri Clausing, NY Times)---Major Internet companies and the Web's 
standard-setting body on Wednesday unveiled some long-awaited 
technology that would alert computer users before they visited Web 
sites that collect more personal information than they are willing to 
share.  

Although the new standard, called the Platform for Privacy 
Preferences, or P3P, was billed as just one step in improving the 
state of privacy on the Internet, it was immediately denounced by 
some privacy advocates as a way for companies to avoid increased 
regulation and a tool that would give consumers a false sense of 
security.  

Still, if the technology proves to be widely accepted by Internet 
companies and Web sites, it would give consumers a way to more 
easily control whether and how companies track their Web 
movements and gather information about them.  

"The goal is to give users on the Web more control," said Daniel J. 
Weitzner, an official with the World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, 
which develops open standards to promote universal Web access 
and interoperability between Web sites and different technologies.  

"We hope that it will make privacy policies easier to find, easier to 
understand," he said.  

The standard has been under development for about three years by 
the W3C, AT&T Labs , and major companies like IBM, Microsoft and 
America Online. The Center for Democracy and Technology, an 
online civil liberties group, has also been a key supporter of the 
project.  

Basically, P3P sets standards that will allow browsers to 
automatically read privacy policies that have been posted on 
participating Web sites. The browser will then only go to sites that 
agree to follow the preferences pre-selected by the computer user. It 
will alert them before going to any Web sites that collect more 
information than they are willing to give.  

For instance, computer users could choose to visit only Web sites 
that promise not to track their movements or to collect personal 
information. Or they could say they will go to Web sites that collect 
personal information, like their name and address, but only if that 
company promises not to share that information with anyone else.  

If a site has a banner ad capable of planting tracking technology, 
like cookies, to follow their movements on the Internet, computer 
users will be notified. They will also be alerted before their browsers 
display Web sites that do not have P3P-readable policies.  

For the technology to work, however, it will be have to be adopted by 
the millions of Web sites on the Internet. As of Wednesday, the 
White House and 13 other Web sites -- mostly the companies and 
groups involved in the project -- had created privacy policies that 
could be read by P3P enabled software.  

Deidre Mulligan, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and 
Technology who has been involved in the project since it began, 
said the focus now is to work with industry groups to aggressively 
promote the new standard and get Web sites to start using it.  

Several companies have already developed software that translates 
written privacy polices to the code needed for P3P enabled browsers 
to read them.  

And the first software that will let computer users begin using P3P in 
their browsers will be launched next week at PC Expo by a company 
called YouPowered. That new software, called Orby Privacy Plus, 
has four settings users can choose: private, cautious, trusting and 
open.  

At Wednesday's introduction, another company, Idcide, previewed a 
similar software product that is in development. And Microsoft and 
the AOL-Netscape said they hope to have P3P plug-ins for their 
browsers later this year. The standard will also be part of the next 
version of Windows, due for release at the beginning of next year, 
Microsoft said.  

But not everyone is falling in line behind the project, which has been 
controversial since it was announced in the summer of 1997.  

Webwasher.com AG, a German privacy software company affiliated 
with Siemens AG, called P3P "too little, too late." P3P will actually 
damage privacy by aggregating personal information and releasing 
it to any Web site with a compliant privacy policy, said Dr. Horst 
Joepen, chief executive of the company that develops privacy 
protection software.  

"Since no one ever verifies that Web sites actually conform to their 
stated policies," he said, "P3P effectively transforms your browser 
into a lockbox full of sensitive personal information that can be 
opened with a publicly available key."  

A group of privacy advocates also blasted the standard as a 
"complex and confusing protocol that will make it more difficult for 
Internet users to protect their privacy."  

"We do not view P3P as technology that will promote privacy," said 
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy 
Information Center, which put together a report on P3P along with a 
company called Junkbusters Corp., Computer Professionals for 
Social Responsibility and Chris Hunter, a doctoral candidate at the 
University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for 
Communications.  

Catlett said his biggest concern about the technology was that 
companies were promoting it as an alternative to new laws setting 
baseline privacy standards for Web sites to follow. TheFederal 
Trade Commission recently asked Congress for authority to 
implement such standards, saying few companies on the Internet 
have adopted acceptable standards for both notifying consumers 
about their practices or giving them a choice and control over how 
their personal information is used.  

But officials involved in developing P3P emphasized that the 
technology was designed to work globally -- both in countries with 
self-regulatory regimes and those with strict data privacy protection 
laws -- not as an alternative to regulation.  

P3P is designed to encourage more transparency on the part of 
companies collecting personal information, Mulligan said. Right 
now, many Web sites have no posted policies about how they 
gather and use information collected from visitors. Those that do 
often have policies that are lengthy and hard to understand.  

"This is only part of the solution," said Lorrie Faith Cranor, a 
researcher with AT&T Labs who chaired the P3P project. "It offers an 
easy way for Web sites to communicate about their Web policies in 
a machine-readable format."  

Faith Cranor said she hopes that additional work on P3P will allow it 
to negotiate different privacy policies without users noticing any 
slowdown in browsing speed.  

Unless the standard is widely adopted, however, anyone who uses 
the technology with a high privacy setting will likely have little 
success in finding Web sites that their browser will visit.  

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company  

 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Thu Jun 22 12:24:52 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHAEOICDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000622115937.10393A-100000@scn>


Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
Please see comments below in your message.

______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
> operation.
> 
> First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead to a
> long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago) 

Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.

> has
> unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
> of the board 

MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
"board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
context of the bylaws is simply not true.

and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
> Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a lawsuit as
> being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
> 
Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.  

By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
issues.

> Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and demand
> that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I thought
> that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".  

Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
(a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
proven guilty).

That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?

> I don't
> believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
> burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the bylaws
> will not cover with financial support, then the question would be addressed
> about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.

Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
actions.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
also.  

Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!

> I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should put
> the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
> action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
> believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
> volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people in
> the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
> 
> If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are not an
> attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.

Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
head-in-the-sand position, however.  

Rich

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:40 PM
> To: Joe Mabel
> Cc: 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> Good show, Joe.  Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
> miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> 
> > I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have gathered,
> > in total:
> >
> > - Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do
> with
> > his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
> > possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this
> mailing
> > list).
> 
> The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.
> 
> 
> > - Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
> > against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means SCNA
> > stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.
> 
> This is partly true.  However, the founders modified the obligation of
> SCNA to indemnify board members.  Keep reading the section that provides
> for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
> payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental.  Also, the
> conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc.  (Why hasn't anyone
> found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)
> 
> > - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a successful
> > defense could well break the organization.
> 
> This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
> into the funds improperly.  As stated above, these defendants don't
> qualify for the indemnification.  They are going ahead and committing it,
> so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
> board, not with me.
> 
> > - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run for
> > the SCNA board.
> 
> 	Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
> To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
> operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
> basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.
> 
> > - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for
> the
> > SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
> 
> 	First, see the answer above.  Second, what do JJ and these
> "several other individuals" want.  No accountability of officers?  No
> adhearance to organizational rules?  No telling the accused what
> constituted the "crime"?
> 
> 
> > - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> > counsel.
> 	Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals.  They were not talking
> BEFORE the lawsuit.
> 
> 
> > - Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms,
> either
> > on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
> > - Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
> > documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
> > occurred.
> 
> 	Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting.  It
> might be that it is not what folks want to hear.
> 
> >
> > I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
> > corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it.
> 
> 	With significant modifications.
> 
> However, if
> > anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth
> time,
> > at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
> > mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> > Joe Mabel
> > Saltmine
> > 206.284.7511
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
> > To: Rich Littleton
> > Cc: scn at scn.org
> > Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> >
> >
> > Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
> > changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
> > "get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
> > suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.)
> >
> > Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
> > "What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
> > light on logic"--this is a constructive response?
> >
> > Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
> > makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established.
> >
> > === JJ =================================================================
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and
> light
> > > on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating
> with
> > > him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> > > connection with my messages and with his response.
> > >
> > > If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> > > be pleased to answer them.
> > >
> > > One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> > > definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> > > money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> > > organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> > >
> > > By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> > > provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> > > Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> > >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > What "misconception", Rich?
> > > >
> > > > Were you not running for the Board?
> > > >
> > > > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity
> as
> > > > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?
> > > >
> > > > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you
> have
> > an
> > > > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
> > improve
> > > > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > > >
> > > > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some
> > > > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
> > > > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > > >
> > > > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
> > > > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
> > You
> > > > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > > > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding
> back
> > > > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > > > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
> > > > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > === JJ
> =================================================================
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that
> > this
> > > > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them
> out
> > on
> > > > > the table.
> > > > >
> > > > > Later,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rich
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on
> the
> > Board
> > > > > > that he is suing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working
> > within
> > > > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
> > correct
> > > > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is
> > taking a
> > > > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of
> its
> > > > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
> > correcting
> > > > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > > >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Thu Jun 22 13:06:58 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:58 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: Privacy
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B283@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

For a good critique of P3P, see http://www.kcoyle.net/p3p.html.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From GoodNews at list.cb.com  Thu Jun 22 12:09:51 2000
From: GoodNews at list.cb.com (GoodNews)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:09:51 -0700
Subject: SCN: Good News from College Broadcast!
Message-ID: <20000622120951.FVSE0AAS.103614@list.cb.com>

GOOD NEWS FROM COLLEGE BROADCAST - June 22, 2000
http://WWW.CB.COM

WIN A WILD WEST ADVENTURE AT OUR TRAVEL CHANNEL
Go to our Travel Channel and Register to win a Wild West Adventure from
GORP! Ride the range in the old West for 7 Days/6 Nights at the Pines
Guest Ranch near Colorado Springs. Entry deadline is June 30! Check out
other Travel Channel contests at http://www.cb.com such as; a Hawaiian
Multi-sport Getaway from GORP, a Northstar Tahoe Getaway from RSN, and
much more!

"PAPA ROACH" INFESTS THE MUSIC CHANNEL AT CB.COM
Listen to Papa Roach, one of the hottest bands in the country. Go to
http://www.cb.com and visit our Music Channel--watch the group's latest
video called "Their Last Resort" from the "Infestation" album. Get news,
photos, tour information and merchandise from Papa Roach.

GET THE ULTIMATE HOOK UP - JOIN THE COLLEGE BROADCAST TEAM
Become a College Broadcast College Street Representative and we'll hook
ya' up. Earn college credit
 Get free music
 Earn cash while walking to
class
 Host your own parties. All of this and more, just E-mail
army at cb.com and we'll give you all the details.

DIVE INTO FILM @ CB.COM
 "TAKE A BATH" WITH ATOM FILMS
Test the water at College Broadcast by checking out Atom Films' latest
and greatest short films. Go to http://www.cb.com and visit the Film
Channel to view three new films: "Take a Bath," "Break and Enter," and
"Girl Go Boom." 


ROMP WITH US IN ANIMATION
You'll giggle, blush and bug out at The Romp. Just go to the CB
Animation Channel by clicking on http://www.cb.com. Check out these
original animated webisodes as well as other Animation Channel classics,
such as Sal & Su-ie, Joe Cartoon and Dotcomix. 


COLLEGE BROADCAST
ONLINE * ON CABLE * ON CAMPUS
http://WWW.CB.COM



---------------------------------------------------------------

If you would like to be removed from this list, please click:
http://list.cb.com:80/UM/U.ASP?A2.2.103614 and you will be removed
immediately! 

Thank you!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20000622/956cff15/attachment.html>

From jj at scn.org  Fri Jun 23 02:26:31 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000622115937.10393A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623011719.7981J-100000@scn>

Rich, you are a jerk.  (So sue me.)  In your recent message you maligned
Ken, suggesting that he should post the portion of the by-laws relating to
indemnification of Board members.  Listen, jerk:  the by-laws are already
on-line.  Your complaint (the legal basis of your suit) is not.  And
despite your faulty reconstruction of the past, you did not "explain"
anything at the annual meeting.  You did promise to post your complaint. 
You have not delivered.  (Gibes, specious rhetoric: yes; substance: no.)

=== JJ =================================================================





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun 23 09:02:15 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:02:15 -0700
Subject: SCN: Food for thought...
Message-ID: <39532797.12830.5C9973D@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes  

========================  

Excerpts from: The Second Coming - A Manifesto, by David 
Gelertner  

Computing will be transformed. It's not just that our problems are 
big, they are big and obvious. It's not just that the solutions are 
simple, they are simple and right under our noses.  

It's not just that hardware is more advanced than software; the last 
big operating-systems breakthrough was the Macintosh, sixteen 
years ago, and today's hottest item is Linux, which is a version of 
Unix, which was new in 1976. Users react to the hard truth that 
commerical software applications tend to be badly-designed, badly-
made, incomprehensible and obsolete by blaming themselves:  
"Computers for Morons,"  "Operating Systems for Livestock."  

Because we don't believe in technological change (we only say we 
do), we accept bad computer products with a shrug; we work around 
them, make the best of them and barely even notice their defects -  
instead of demanding that they be fixed and changed.   

We know that big developments are inevitable in the software world -
if only because nothing in that world corresponds to a "book." You 
can see a book whole from the outside. You know in advance how a 
book is laid out - where the contents or the index will be - and how to 
"operate" one. As you work through it, you always know where you 
stand: how far you have gone and how much is left. "Book" can be a 
physical object or a text - an abstraction with many interchangeable 
physical embodiments. These properties don't hold for file systems 
or web sites. You can't see or judge one from the outside, anticipate 
the lay-out, tell where you stand as you work your way through.  

When you deal with a remote web site, you largely bypass the 
power of your desktop in favor of the far-off power of a web server. 
Using your powerful desktop computer as a mere channel to reach 
web sites, reaching through and beyond it instead of using it, is like 
renting a Hyundai and keeing your Porsche in the garage. Like 
executing programs out of disk storage instead of main memory and 
cache. The Web makes the desktop impotent.   

The windows-menus-mouse "desktop" interface was a brilliant 
invention and is now obsolete. It wastes screen space on 
meaningless images, fails to provide adequate clues to what is 
inside the files represented by those blurry little images, forces 
users to choose icons for the desktop when the system could 
choose them better itself, and keeps users jockeying windows in a 
losing battle for an unimpeded view of the workspace.   

Icons and "collapsed views" seem new, but we have met them 
before. Any book has a "collapsed" or "iconified" view, namely its 
spine. An icon conveys far less information that the average book 
spine - and is much smaller. Might a horizontal stack of "book 
spines" onscreen be more useful than a clutter of icons?  

Computers are fundamentally unlike file cabinets because they can 
take action. Metaphors have a profound effect on computing: the file-
cabinet metaphor traps us in a passive instead of active view of 
information management that is fundamentally wrong for computers. 

The rigid file and directory system you are stuck with on your Mac or 
PC was designed by programmers for programmers - and is still a 
good system for programmers. It is no good for non-programmers. It 
never was, and was never intended to be.  

If you have three pet dogs, give them names. If you have 10,000 
head of cattle, don't bother. Nowadays, the idea of giving a name to 
every file on your computer is ridiculous.   

Our standard policy on file names has far-reaching consequences: it 
doesn't merely force us to make up names where no name is called 
for; it also imposes strong limits on our handling of an important 
class of documents - ones that arrive from the outside world. A 
newly-arrived email message, for example, can't stand on its own 
as a separate document - can't show up alongside other files in 
searches, sit by itself on the desktop, be opened or printed 
independently; it has no name, so it must be buried on arrival inside 
some existing file that does have a name.  

You shouldn't have to put files in directories. The directories should 
reach out and take them. If a file belongs in six directories, all six 
should reach out and grab it automatically, simultaneously.   

A file should be allowed to have no name, one name or many 
names. Many files should be allowed to share one name. A file 
should be allowed to be in no directory, one directory, or many 
directories. Many files should be allowed to share one directory. Of 
these eight possibilities, only three are legal and the other five are 
banned - for no good reason.  

A well-designed store or public building allows you to size up the 
whole space from outside, or as soon as you walk in - you see 
immediately how things are laid out and roughly how large and deep 
the space is. Today's typical web site is a failure because it is 
opaque. You ought to be able to see immediately how the site is 
arranged, how big it is, how deep and how broad. It ought to be 
transparent.  

Software can solve hard problems in two ways: by algorithm or by 
making connections - by delivering the problem to exactly the right 
human problem-solver. The second technique is just as powerful as 
the first, but so far we have ignored it.  

If you have plenty of money, the best consequence (so they say) is 
that you no longer need to think about money. In the future we will 
have plenty of technology - and the best consequence will be that 
we will no longer have to think about technology. We will return with  
gratitude and relief to the topics that actually count.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Fri Jun 23 13:20:50 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623011719.7981J-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623132044.12941E-100000@scn>



______________________________________________________________________


On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> Rich, you are a jerk.  (So sue me.)  In your recent message you maligned
> Ken, suggesting that he should post the portion of the by-laws relating to
> indemnification of Board members.  Listen, jerk:  the by-laws are already
> on-line.  Your complaint (the legal basis of your suit) is not.  And
> despite your faulty reconstruction of the past, you did not "explain"
> anything at the annual meeting.  You did promise to post your complaint. 
> You have not delivered.  (Gibes, specious rhetoric: yes; substance: no.)
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Fri Jun 23 17:40:58 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:40:58 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000622115937.10393A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPCCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi Rich,

I found your review of my Lack of logic and the determination that there
were 4 errors in the message that I sent very interesting.  It is satisfying
to know that we can deal on the level of logic.

I have found that logic tends to be very dependant upon your world view (I
find the sacrifice of children to a god as illogical but there are world
views where is practice is logical).  I will not get into a protracted
discussion in a forum type environment but I will try to explain my
rationale (even if it is fuzzy logic) so you can better understand what was
behind my previous message.

I believe that a brief discussion of two possible world views will be useful
since I  operate in the second of these views.  One world view is satisfied
with the concept that the many things that you do or that happen to you in
your life can be separated into different compartments and each compartment
is unrelated to any other compartments and actions and consequences that
occur in one compartment have no bearing on anything in another compartment
of your life.  A second world view believes that life is a continuum and all
that you do and the things that happen to you and those around you are
related.

I therefore believe that your actions in any organization will have an
impact on how well you function in that organization.  Likewise your actions
will affect how you are treated in that organization.  Therefore I can't
agree that your previous "in-your-face" communications are unrelated to this
issue.  I reject error #1.

I currently serve in another organization that is associated with teaching
computer skills.  Each area of teaching is headed up by a coordinator.  Once
in a while the coordinator finds that they have to tell a teacher that they
will have to make changes in their teaching materials or else they can no
longer teach the specific course.  This is done to insure that the students
are prepared for further courses.  These events are dealt with quietly and
routinely.

I don't know the details in the event that you call a "rogue action" but it
doesn't sound too different than the type of actions noted above. I have to
assume that SCNA can determine who can teach their courses.  Further, I
can't believe that removal of an instructor requires a "board action".
Therefore in the absence of specific information about detail actions that
violated usual norms, I am left to assume that people have acted  properly.
Thus I would believe your second complaint (error #2) is a moot point unless
removal all instructors specifically requires board action.

Again, since there has never been any data presented showing that board
members acted "outside permissible board action", I have to support the
indemnification of the board members until it is shown that they have acted
improperly.  This is necessary to protect board members from nuisance
lawsuits.  If it is determined by a properly constituted review body that
the board members acted improperly, then a claim can be made that they acted
"outside permissible board action".  Has this been done?  I can't accept the
decision of the claimant that the action was unacceptable. (so much for
error #3)

The cause of my anger is my belief that this whole issue is primarily a
problem of personalities.  This type of problem should be handled within
normal inter-personal activities.  However, resolution requires basic civil
communication skills (what this issue again?).  I still haven't seen any
evidence of a significant offence that should result in a lawsuit, that
jeopardizes SCNA's existence, to seek justice.  If every volunteer
organization that had to ask a person to stop teaching was faced with a
lawsuit, there would be very few such organizations.  (fortunately this is
not the case).

If you really want to know how illogical I am, I still have hopes that you
will see how others view this issue and that you will, in the best behalf
for SCNA, drop the lawsuit.  Isn't that crazy?
								Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:25 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
Please see comments below in your message.

______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
> operation.
>
> First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead to
a
> long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago)

Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.

> has
> unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
> of the board

MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
"board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
context of the bylaws is simply not true.

and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
> Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a lawsuit
as
> being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
>
Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.

By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
issues.

> Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and demand
> that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I
thought
> that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".

Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
(a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
proven guilty).

That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?

> I don't
> believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
> burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the
bylaws
> will not cover with financial support, then the question would be
addressed
> about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.

Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
actions.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
also.

Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!

> I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should put
> the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
> action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
> believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
> volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people in
> the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
>
> If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are not
an
> attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.

Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
head-in-the-sand position, however.

Rich

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:40 PM
> To: Joe Mabel
> Cc: 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
>
>
>
> Good show, Joe.  Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
> miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below.
>
> Rich
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
>
> > I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have
gathered,
> > in total:
> >
> > - Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do
> with
> > his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
> > possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this
> mailing
> > list).
>
> The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.
>
>
> > - Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
> > against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means
SCNA
> > stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.
>
> This is partly true.  However, the founders modified the obligation of
> SCNA to indemnify board members.  Keep reading the section that provides
> for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
> payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental.  Also, the
> conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc.  (Why hasn't anyone
> found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)
>
> > - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a
successful
> > defense could well break the organization.
>
> This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
> into the funds improperly.  As stated above, these defendants don't
> qualify for the indemnification.  They are going ahead and committing it,
> so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
> board, not with me.
>
> > - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run
for
> > the SCNA board.
>
> 	Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
> To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
> operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
> basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.
>
> > - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for
> the
> > SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
>
> 	First, see the answer above.  Second, what do JJ and these
> "several other individuals" want.  No accountability of officers?  No
> adhearance to organizational rules?  No telling the accused what
> constituted the "crime"?
>
>
> > - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> > counsel.
> 	Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals.  They were not talking
> BEFORE the lawsuit.
>
>
> > - Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms,
> either
> > on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
> > - Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
> > documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
> > occurred.
>
> 	Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting.  It
> might be that it is not what folks want to hear.
>
> >
> > I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
> > corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it.
>
> 	With significant modifications.
>
> However, if
> > anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth
> time,
> > at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
> > mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> > Joe Mabel
> > Saltmine
> > 206.284.7511
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
> > To: Rich Littleton
> > Cc: scn at scn.org
> > Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> >
> >
> > Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
> > changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
> > "get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
> > suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.)
> >
> > Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
> > "What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom
and
> > light on logic"--this is a constructive response?
> >
> > Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
> > makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established.
> >
> > === JJ =================================================================
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and
> light
> > > on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating
> with
> > > him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> > > connection with my messages and with his response.
> > >
> > > If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent),
I'll
> > > be pleased to answer them.
> > >
> > > One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> > > definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> > > money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> > > organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> > >
> > > By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> > > provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> > > Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> > >
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > What "misconception", Rich?
> > > >
> > > > Were you not running for the Board?
> > > >
> > > > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity
> as
> > > > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?
> > > >
> > > > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you
> have
> > an
> > > > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
> > improve
> > > > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > > >
> > > > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in
some
> > > > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN
when
> > > > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > > >
> > > > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting)
you
> > > > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
> > You
> > > > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > > > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding
> back
> > > > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > > > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You
withhold
> > > > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > === JJ
> =================================================================
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know
that
> > this
> > > > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them
> out
> > on
> > > > > the table.
> > > > >
> > > > > Later,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rich
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on
> the
> > Board
> > > > > > that he is suing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in
working
> > within
> > > > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
> > correct
> > > > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one,
is
> > taking a
> > > > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of
> its
> > > > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
> > correcting
> > > > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > > >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Fri Jun 23 18:41:47 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPCCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623183658.364A-100000@scn>


You didn't deal with the problems in your first communication; you just
wrote a philosophical letter.  So why reply to this one (with yet more
errors), when your style of discussion is to simply ignore the errors and
start another tangent. 

I'd love to see you apply logic and deal with the points raised in the
earlier communication.

By the way, I noticed that you declined the invitation to read and post
the text of the indemnification section of the bylaws.  Of course, that
would be dealing with reality, not your "personal feelings."

 
______________________________________________________________________


On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi Rich,
> 
> I found your review of my Lack of logic and the determination that there
> were 4 errors in the message that I sent very interesting.  It is satisfying
> to know that we can deal on the level of logic.
> 
> I have found that logic tends to be very dependant upon your world view (I
> find the sacrifice of children to a god as illogical but there are world
> views where is practice is logical).  I will not get into a protracted
> discussion in a forum type environment but I will try to explain my
> rationale (even if it is fuzzy logic) so you can better understand what was
> behind my previous message.
> 
> I believe that a brief discussion of two possible world views will be useful
> since I  operate in the second of these views.  One world view is satisfied
> with the concept that the many things that you do or that happen to you in
> your life can be separated into different compartments and each compartment
> is unrelated to any other compartments and actions and consequences that
> occur in one compartment have no bearing on anything in another compartment
> of your life.  A second world view believes that life is a continuum and all
> that you do and the things that happen to you and those around you are
> related.
> 
> I therefore believe that your actions in any organization will have an
> impact on how well you function in that organization.  Likewise your actions
> will affect how you are treated in that organization.  Therefore I can't
> agree that your previous "in-your-face" communications are unrelated to this
> issue.  I reject error #1.
> 
> I currently serve in another organization that is associated with teaching
> computer skills.  Each area of teaching is headed up by a coordinator.  Once
> in a while the coordinator finds that they have to tell a teacher that they
> will have to make changes in their teaching materials or else they can no
> longer teach the specific course.  This is done to insure that the students
> are prepared for further courses.  These events are dealt with quietly and
> routinely.
> 
> I don't know the details in the event that you call a "rogue action" but it
> doesn't sound too different than the type of actions noted above. I have to
> assume that SCNA can determine who can teach their courses.  Further, I
> can't believe that removal of an instructor requires a "board action".
> Therefore in the absence of specific information about detail actions that
> violated usual norms, I am left to assume that people have acted  properly.
> Thus I would believe your second complaint (error #2) is a moot point unless
> removal all instructors specifically requires board action.
> 
> Again, since there has never been any data presented showing that board
> members acted "outside permissible board action", I have to support the
> indemnification of the board members until it is shown that they have acted
> improperly.  This is necessary to protect board members from nuisance
> lawsuits.  If it is determined by a properly constituted review body that
> the board members acted improperly, then a claim can be made that they acted
> "outside permissible board action".  Has this been done?  I can't accept the
> decision of the claimant that the action was unacceptable. (so much for
> error #3)
> 
> The cause of my anger is my belief that this whole issue is primarily a
> problem of personalities.  This type of problem should be handled within
> normal inter-personal activities.  However, resolution requires basic civil
> communication skills (what this issue again?).  I still haven't seen any
> evidence of a significant offence that should result in a lawsuit, that
> jeopardizes SCNA's existence, to seek justice.  If every volunteer
> organization that had to ask a person to stop teaching was faced with a
> lawsuit, there would be very few such organizations.  (fortunately this is
> not the case).
> 
> If you really want to know how illogical I am, I still have hopes that you
> will see how others view this issue and that you will, in the best behalf
> for SCNA, drop the lawsuit.  Isn't that crazy?
> 								Ken
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:25 PM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
> Please see comments below in your message.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> 
> > This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
> > operation.
> >
> > First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead to
> a
> > long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago)
> 
> Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
> several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.
> 
> > has
> > unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved action
> > of the board
> 
> MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
> "board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
> tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
> context of the bylaws is simply not true.
> 
> and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
> > Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a lawsuit
> as
> > being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
> >
> Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
> scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
> his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
> embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
> for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.
> 
> By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
> indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
> enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
> issues.
> 
> > Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and demand
> > that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I
> thought
> > that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".
> 
> Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
> my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
> until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
> you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
> (a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
> was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
> proven guilty).
> 
> That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?
> 
> > I don't
> > believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
> > burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the
> bylaws
> > will not cover with financial support, then the question would be
> addressed
> > about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.
> 
> Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
> expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
> out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
> actions.
> 
> Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
> the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
> on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
> also.
> 
> Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!
> 
> > I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should put
> > the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
> > action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
> > believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
> > volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people in
> > the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
> >
> > If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are not
> an
> > attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.
> 
> Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
> of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
> possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
> whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
> head-in-the-sand position, however.
> 
> Rich
> 
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> > Littleton
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 8:40 PM
> > To: Joe Mabel
> > Cc: 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> >
> >
> >
> > Good show, Joe.  Your summary helps the discussion, though it seems to
> > miss the main problems. I've modified/edited some of it below.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> >
> > > I've now gotten over 20 emails related to this from which I have
> gathered,
> > > in total:
> > >
> > > - Rich is suing several SCNA board members over something having to do
> > with
> > > his being removed from the responsibility of teaching email classes (and
> > > possibly over other things, which have never been enumerated on this
> > mailing
> > > list).
> >
> > The "things" haven't been "enumerated" to me.
> >
> >
> > > - Because, like most organizations, SCNA indemnifies its board members
> > > against lawsuits relating to their role as board members, this means
> SCNA
> > > stands to take any financial costs this suit may entail.
> >
> > This is partly true.  However, the founders modified the obligation of
> > SCNA to indemnify board members.  Keep reading the section that provides
> > for indemnification, and you will see that this is withheld (that is, no
> > payment to board members) if the conduct was not accidental.  Also, the
> > conduct has to have been approved by the board, etc.  (Why hasn't anyone
> > found and copied this section; it shows one of the main problems.)
> >
> > > - SCNA does not have relevant insurance, so the cost of even a
> successful
> > > defense could well break the organization.
> >
> > This is a real problem only if you members allow the miscreants to dip
> > into the funds improperly.  As stated above, these defendants don't
> > qualify for the indemnification.  They are going ahead and committing it,
> > so you who don't want to see the coffers drained, get in touch with the
> > board, not with me.
> >
> > > - Rich does not see any contradiction between this and his recent run
> for
> > > the SCNA board.
> >
> > 	Actually, I see this as going after officers who have embezzled.
> > To fault me with objecting to conduct that just brushes aside the
> > operating rules of the organization, as well as goes against the most
> > basic form of fairness, is to completely misunderstand what happended.
> >
> > > - JJ sees enormous contradiction between this and Rich's recent run for
> > the
> > > SCNA board, as do several other individuals.
> >
> > 	First, see the answer above.  Second, what do JJ and these
> > "several other individuals" want.  No accountability of officers?  No
> > adhearance to organizational rules?  No telling the accused what
> > constituted the "crime"?
> >
> >
> > > - The board and its members are not discussing the case, on advice of
> > > counsel.
> > 	Joe, you are too kind -- to these rascals.  They were not talking
> > BEFORE the lawsuit.
> >
> >
> > > - Rich is not discussing the case in any but the most general terms,
> > either
> > > on advice of counsel or for other unstated reasons.
> > > - Several members have asked for the posting of the relevant court
> > > documents, which are presumably a matter of record, but this has not
> > > occurred.
> >
> > 	Actually, Rich laid this out the night of the annual meeting.  It
> > might be that it is not what folks want to hear.
> >
> > >
> > > I believe that is a fair summary of where this stands. If anyone has
> > > corrections or additions to make I'd be glad to hear about it.
> >
> > 	With significant modifications.
> >
> > However, if
> > > anyone feels a need to restate portions of the above for the umpteenth
> > time,
> > > at great length, and with lots of vituperation, could you please start a
> > > mailing list of your own instead of sending this stuff to scn at scn.org?
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > Joe Mabel
> > > Saltmine
> > > 206.284.7511
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J. Johnson [mailto:jj at scn.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:33 AM
> > > To: Rich Littleton
> > > Cc: scn at scn.org
> > > Subject: Re: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > >
> > >
> > > Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
> > > changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
> > > "get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
> > > suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.)
> > >
> > > Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
> > > "What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom
> and
> > > light on logic"--this is a constructive response?
> > >
> > > Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
> > > makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established.
> > >
> > > === JJ =================================================================
> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and
> > light
> > > > on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating
> > with
> > > > him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> > > > connection with my messages and with his response.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent),
> I'll
> > > > be pleased to answer them.
> > > >
> > > > One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> > > > definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> > > > money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> > > > organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> > > > provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> > > > Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> > > >
> > > > Later,
> > > >
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What "misconception", Rich?
> > > > >
> > > > > Were you not running for the Board?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity
> > as
> > > > > Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you
> > have
> > > an
> > > > > interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to
> > > improve
> > > > > it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in
> some
> > > > > way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN
> when
> > > > > you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting)
> you
> > > > > would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!
> > > You
> > > > > have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
> > > > > charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding
> > back
> > > > > the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
> > > > > conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You
> withhold
> > > > > information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > > > === JJ
> > =================================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know
> that
> > > this
> > > > > > is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them
> > out
> > > on
> > > > > > the table.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Later,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rich
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on
> > the
> > > Board
> > > > > > > that he is suing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in
> working
> > > within
> > > > > > > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to
> > > correct
> > > > > > > any flaws you think it has.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one,
> is
> > > taking a
> > > > > > > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > > > > > > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of
> > its
> > > > > > > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and
> > > correcting
> > > > > > > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ken Applegate
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
> >
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun 23 19:11:50 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:11:50 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623183658.364A-100000@scn>
References: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPCCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <3953B676.6541.C08219@localhost>




Ok, enough already about the bylaws.  Here's the indemnification provision:

BYLAWS OF SEATTLE COMMUNITY NETWORK ASSOCIATION  

ARTICLE 9.

"The Corporation shall indemnify its officers, directors, employees, and 
agents to the greatest extent permitted by law."

The rest of the provision has to do with the purchase of insurance.  As is 
typical, it allows for liability insurance coverage "whether or not the 
Corporation would have the power to indemnify such person against such 
liability under the provisions of this Article."  But the courts will generally 
find it against public policy to permit insurance indemnification for illegal 
acts.







* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jw4 at scn.org  Sat Jun 24 01:18:25 2000
From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: 9th Circuit open access decision in Portland case
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000624010439.16622A-100000@scn>

See below: (from WAISP - WA Assoc of ISPs)

The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that cable modem service is a
telecommunications service.  It therefore can be expected to be 
subject to "open access" provisions.  Unfortunately, they also ruled
that local governments do not have the power to mandate open access -- so
we have to look to the Federal government, specifically the FCC, for help.

Regards,
    -Joel.


Joel Ware, IV           jw4 at scn.org
Volunteer Coordinator, Member of Governance, HR, Ops, Board, ExComm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:38:25 -0700
Subject: URGENT -- Open Access Decision

Open Access -- A Win in Portland

By now you may have heard that the 9th Circuit Court ruled, in a Portland,
Oregon case that while local governments don't have authority to require
cable operators to provide open access, it did rule that Internet service
is a "telecommunications" and not a "cable" service.  Open access has been
a hallmark of industries regulated under telecommunications law.

In their decision, the Ninth Circuit ruled that cable modem service falls
under the legal classification of a telecommunications service.  As such,
the court overturned the lower court ruling.  However, by finding that
high-speed access to the Internet via a cable system (cable modem service)
is a telecommunications service, the court has subjected the cable industry
to the same open access requirements applicable to telephone
company-provided broadband (DSL) Internet service.

What that means is that open access is inevitable now as it is the rule of
the road in the broader world of telecommunications, and the cable
industry's attempt to create a monopoly will not stand.  We have a lost a
battle today and won the war.  WAISP and our Open Access Coalition partners
will now be demanding that  the Federal Communications Commission to stop
protecting cable industry and do its job - stand up for consumers and open
access.

In Congress today, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Ranking Democrat on the
House Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, said:

	"The decision today in the Portland case confirms what many of us
who worked on the Telecommunications Act have known all along - that
broadband access to the Internet over cable systems is a
'telecommunications service' and therefore must be treated with the same
openness and access that consumers and Internet providers enjoy today over
the phone lines. I had introduced a Congressional Resolution (H.Con.Res.
173) earlier in this session of Congress calling upon the FCC to implement
the market opening provisions of the Telecommunications Act on this point.
With this decision it is my hope that the FCC will take greater steps to
make open access a reality for consumers across the country."

We are still discussing how best to work with the King County Council and
other local jurisdictions on the impact of the decision, and our next step.
We will be asking both the King County Council and City of Seattle to file
with the FCC a demand to require ATT to provide immediate open access.  In
the mean time though we have to (unfortunately) sit and wait.

I did want to again thank all of our WAISP members who have been suportive
of our efforts before local jurisdictions.  Your efforts were not in vain
at all, as without the heated discussions and pushing the issue to the
front we wouldn't even have the Portland decision affirming that it is a
telecommunications service.

Gary Gardner
Executive Director, WAISP





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bc500 at scn.org  Sat Jun 24 03:00:43 2000
From: bc500 at scn.org (bc500 at scn.org)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623132044.12941E-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000624025813.28151A-100000@scn>

Gee Rich...did you actually have something to say?  Oh, I get it, you
said what you usually do...NOTHING!  which is as expected. 

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Rich, you are a jerk.  (So sue me.)  In your recent message you maligned
> > Ken, suggesting that he should post the portion of the by-laws relating to
> > indemnification of Board members.  Listen, jerk:  the by-laws are already
> > on-line.  Your complaint (the legal basis of your suit) is not.  And
> > despite your faulty reconstruction of the past, you did not "explain"
> > anything at the annual meeting.  You did promise to post your complaint. 
> > You have not delivered.  (Gibes, specious rhetoric: yes; substance: no.)
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Sat Jun 24 14:59:36 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:59:36 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623183658.364A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHIEPFCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Rich,

You have insisted that I read and post the by law information relating to
indemnification of board members.  Steve has done me the favor of posting
the bylaw section.  I have also read the bylaw section as shown on the web
page and on the normal SCN BBS (they are identical as would be assumed).  I
have repeated the bylaw data.

ARTICLE 9.

"The Corporation shall indemnify its officers, directors, employees, and
agents to the greatest extent permitted by law."

I can not see where the above bylaw supports any part of your position.  No
where does ARTICLE 9 state or imply that that a board member is denied
indemnity "if his offense was outside permissible board action" (see below).

(quoting from your earlier message -
> Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
> scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
> his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
> embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
> for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.)

Reference to the by laws would indicate that a board member can expect SCNA
to indemnify them without any stated restrictions.  Where do you get your
interpretations "if his offense was outside permissible board action"  &
"The bylaw provision specifically rules that out."?

Also, since the by laws indicate that SCNA must indemnify the board members,
how do you presume that your law suit will have no effect on SCNA?

By what "logic" do you use to reach these amazing interpertations?

							Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:42 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



You didn't deal with the problems in your first communication; you just
wrote a philosophical letter.  So why reply to this one (with yet more
errors), when your style of discussion is to simply ignore the errors and
start another tangent.

I'd love to see you apply logic and deal with the points raised in the
earlier communication.

By the way, I noticed that you declined the invitation to read and post
the text of the indemnification section of the bylaws.  Of course, that
would be dealing with reality, not your "personal feelings."


______________________________________________________________________


On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> I found your review of my Lack of logic and the determination that there
> were 4 errors in the message that I sent very interesting.  It is
satisfying
> to know that we can deal on the level of logic.
>
> I have found that logic tends to be very dependant upon your world view (I
> find the sacrifice of children to a god as illogical but there are world
> views where is practice is logical).  I will not get into a protracted
> discussion in a forum type environment but I will try to explain my
> rationale (even if it is fuzzy logic) so you can better understand what
was
> behind my previous message.
>
> I believe that a brief discussion of two possible world views will be
useful
> since I  operate in the second of these views.  One world view is
satisfied
> with the concept that the many things that you do or that happen to you in
> your life can be separated into different compartments and each
compartment
> is unrelated to any other compartments and actions and consequences that
> occur in one compartment have no bearing on anything in another
compartment
> of your life.  A second world view believes that life is a continuum and
all
> that you do and the things that happen to you and those around you are
> related.
>
> I therefore believe that your actions in any organization will have an
> impact on how well you function in that organization.  Likewise your
actions
> will affect how you are treated in that organization.  Therefore I can't
> agree that your previous "in-your-face" communications are unrelated to
this
> issue.  I reject error #1.
>
> I currently serve in another organization that is associated with teaching
> computer skills.  Each area of teaching is headed up by a coordinator.
Once
> in a while the coordinator finds that they have to tell a teacher that
they
> will have to make changes in their teaching materials or else they can no
> longer teach the specific course.  This is done to insure that the
students
> are prepared for further courses.  These events are dealt with quietly and
> routinely.
>
> I don't know the details in the event that you call a "rogue action" but
it
> doesn't sound too different than the type of actions noted above. I have
to
> assume that SCNA can determine who can teach their courses.  Further, I
> can't believe that removal of an instructor requires a "board action".
> Therefore in the absence of specific information about detail actions that
> violated usual norms, I am left to assume that people have acted
properly.
> Thus I would believe your second complaint (error #2) is a moot point
unless
> removal all instructors specifically requires board action.
>
> Again, since there has never been any data presented showing that board
> members acted "outside permissible board action", I have to support the
> indemnification of the board members until it is shown that they have
acted
> improperly.  This is necessary to protect board members from nuisance
> lawsuits.  If it is determined by a properly constituted review body that
> the board members acted improperly, then a claim can be made that they
acted
> "outside permissible board action".  Has this been done?  I can't accept
the
> decision of the claimant that the action was unacceptable. (so much for
> error #3)
>
> The cause of my anger is my belief that this whole issue is primarily a
> problem of personalities.  This type of problem should be handled within
> normal inter-personal activities.  However, resolution requires basic
civil
> communication skills (what this issue again?).  I still haven't seen any
> evidence of a significant offence that should result in a lawsuit, that
> jeopardizes SCNA's existence, to seek justice.  If every volunteer
> organization that had to ask a person to stop teaching was faced with a
> lawsuit, there would be very few such organizations.  (fortunately this is
> not the case).
>
> If you really want to know how illogical I am, I still have hopes that you
> will see how others view this issue and that you will, in the best behalf
> for SCNA, drop the lawsuit.  Isn't that crazy?
> 								Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:25 PM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
>
>
>
> Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
> Please see comments below in your message.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
>
> > This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
> > operation.
> >
> > First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead
to
> a
> > long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago)
>
> Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
> several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.
>
> > has
> > unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved
action
> > of the board
>
> MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
> "board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
> tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
> context of the bylaws is simply not true.
>
> and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
> > Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a
lawsuit
> as
> > being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
> >
> Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
> scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
> his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
> embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
> for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.
>
> By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
> indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
> enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
> issues.
>
> > Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and
demand
> > that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I
> thought
> > that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
> my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
> until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
> you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
> (a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
> was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
> proven guilty).
>
> That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?
>
> > I don't
> > believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
> > burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the
> bylaws
> > will not cover with financial support, then the question would be
> addressed
> > about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.
>
> Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
> expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
> out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
> actions.
>
> Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
> the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
> on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
> also.
>
> Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!
>
> > I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should
put
> > the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
> > action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
> > believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
> > volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people
in
> > the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
> >
> > If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are
not
> an
> > attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.
>
> Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
> of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
> possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
> whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
> head-in-the-sand position, however.
>
> Rich
>

Previous messages deleted to shorten post.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 04:07:17 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000624025813.28151A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625040713.27939B-100000@scn>



______________________________________________________________________


On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 bc500 at scn.org wrote:

> Gee Rich...did you actually have something to say?  Oh, I get it, you
> said what you usually do...NOTHING!  which is as expected. 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > > Rich, you are a jerk.  (So sue me.)  In your recent message you maligned
> > > Ken, suggesting that he should post the portion of the by-laws relating to
> > > indemnification of Board members.  Listen, jerk:  the by-laws are already
> > > on-line.  Your complaint (the legal basis of your suit) is not.  And
> > > despite your faulty reconstruction of the past, you did not "explain"
> > > anything at the annual meeting.  You did promise to post your complaint. 
> > > You have not delivered.  (Gibes, specious rhetoric: yes; substance: no.)
> > > 
> > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 04:21:10 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <3953B676.6541.C08219@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625041409.28517A-100000@scn>


Steven, Kurt, Crandall, JJ, Malcolm and all who wondered.

See below.

After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.  It
certainly does not mean an unconditional right to indemnification.  BUT,
Gianni and company are ignoring this and claiming that you all have to pay
their legal expenses, even though their actions violated SCNA procedure.

Mighty generous of you folks.....

 ______________________________________________________________

Articles of Incorporation

....

7.2.    Right to Indemnification.  

7.2.1.  Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held 
harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable 
law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss 
(including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to 
be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by 
such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in 
this Section 7.2.

7.2.2.  Such right of indemnification shall not exist 
where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional 
misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or 
loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or 
(iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will 
receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is 
not legally entitled.

7.2.3.  Such right of indemnification shall also not 
exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness 
or gross negligence.

........

7.2.5.  Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of 
indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks 
indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof) 
initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof) 
was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 04:24:48 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHIEPFCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625042211.28517B-100000@scn>


Ken,

I'd be interested in your interpretation of the following.  Read your
earlier stuff in connection with this.



7.2.    Right to Indemnification.  

7.2.1.  Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held 
harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable 
law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss 
(including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to 
be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by 
such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in 
this Section 7.2.

7.2.2.  Such right of indemnification shall not exist 
where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional 
misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or 
loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or 
(iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will 
receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is 
not legally entitled.

7.2.3.  Such right of indemnification shall also not 
exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness 
or gross negligence.

7.2.4.  Such right of indemnification shall continue as 
to a person who has ceased to be a director, trustee, officer, employee, 
or agent and shall inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, executors, 
and administrators.

7.2.5.  Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of 
indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks 
indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof) 
initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof) 
was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Rich,
> 
> You have insisted that I read and post the by law information relating to
> indemnification of board members.  Steve has done me the favor of posting
> the bylaw section.  I have also read the bylaw section as shown on the web
> page and on the normal SCN BBS (they are identical as would be assumed).  I
> have repeated the bylaw data.
> 
> ARTICLE 9.
> 
> "The Corporation shall indemnify its officers, directors, employees, and
> agents to the greatest extent permitted by law."
> 
> I can not see where the above bylaw supports any part of your position.  No
> where does ARTICLE 9 state or imply that that a board member is denied
> indemnity "if his offense was outside permissible board action" (see below).
> 
> (quoting from your earlier message -
> > Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
> > scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
> > his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
> > embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
> > for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.)
> 
> Reference to the by laws would indicate that a board member can expect SCNA
> to indemnify them without any stated restrictions.  Where do you get your
> interpretations "if his offense was outside permissible board action"  &
> "The bylaw provision specifically rules that out."?
> 
> Also, since the by laws indicate that SCNA must indemnify the board members,
> how do you presume that your law suit will have no effect on SCNA?
> 
> By what "logic" do you use to reach these amazing interpertations?
> 
> 							Kenneth Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 6:42 PM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't deal with the problems in your first communication; you just
> wrote a philosophical letter.  So why reply to this one (with yet more
> errors), when your style of discussion is to simply ignore the errors and
> start another tangent.
> 
> I'd love to see you apply logic and deal with the points raised in the
> earlier communication.
> 
> By the way, I noticed that you declined the invitation to read and post
> the text of the indemnification section of the bylaws.  Of course, that
> would be dealing with reality, not your "personal feelings."
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > I found your review of my Lack of logic and the determination that there
> > were 4 errors in the message that I sent very interesting.  It is
> satisfying
> > to know that we can deal on the level of logic.
> >
> > I have found that logic tends to be very dependant upon your world view (I
> > find the sacrifice of children to a god as illogical but there are world
> > views where is practice is logical).  I will not get into a protracted
> > discussion in a forum type environment but I will try to explain my
> > rationale (even if it is fuzzy logic) so you can better understand what
> was
> > behind my previous message.
> >
> > I believe that a brief discussion of two possible world views will be
> useful
> > since I  operate in the second of these views.  One world view is
> satisfied
> > with the concept that the many things that you do or that happen to you in
> > your life can be separated into different compartments and each
> compartment
> > is unrelated to any other compartments and actions and consequences that
> > occur in one compartment have no bearing on anything in another
> compartment
> > of your life.  A second world view believes that life is a continuum and
> all
> > that you do and the things that happen to you and those around you are
> > related.
> >
> > I therefore believe that your actions in any organization will have an
> > impact on how well you function in that organization.  Likewise your
> actions
> > will affect how you are treated in that organization.  Therefore I can't
> > agree that your previous "in-your-face" communications are unrelated to
> this
> > issue.  I reject error #1.
> >
> > I currently serve in another organization that is associated with teaching
> > computer skills.  Each area of teaching is headed up by a coordinator.
> Once
> > in a while the coordinator finds that they have to tell a teacher that
> they
> > will have to make changes in their teaching materials or else they can no
> > longer teach the specific course.  This is done to insure that the
> students
> > are prepared for further courses.  These events are dealt with quietly and
> > routinely.
> >
> > I don't know the details in the event that you call a "rogue action" but
> it
> > doesn't sound too different than the type of actions noted above. I have
> to
> > assume that SCNA can determine who can teach their courses.  Further, I
> > can't believe that removal of an instructor requires a "board action".
> > Therefore in the absence of specific information about detail actions that
> > violated usual norms, I am left to assume that people have acted
> properly.
> > Thus I would believe your second complaint (error #2) is a moot point
> unless
> > removal all instructors specifically requires board action.
> >
> > Again, since there has never been any data presented showing that board
> > members acted "outside permissible board action", I have to support the
> > indemnification of the board members until it is shown that they have
> acted
> > improperly.  This is necessary to protect board members from nuisance
> > lawsuits.  If it is determined by a properly constituted review body that
> > the board members acted improperly, then a claim can be made that they
> acted
> > "outside permissible board action".  Has this been done?  I can't accept
> the
> > decision of the claimant that the action was unacceptable. (so much for
> > error #3)
> >
> > The cause of my anger is my belief that this whole issue is primarily a
> > problem of personalities.  This type of problem should be handled within
> > normal inter-personal activities.  However, resolution requires basic
> civil
> > communication skills (what this issue again?).  I still haven't seen any
> > evidence of a significant offence that should result in a lawsuit, that
> > jeopardizes SCNA's existence, to seek justice.  If every volunteer
> > organization that had to ask a person to stop teaching was faced with a
> > lawsuit, there would be very few such organizations.  (fortunately this is
> > not the case).
> >
> > If you really want to know how illogical I am, I still have hopes that you
> > will see how others view this issue and that you will, in the best behalf
> > for SCNA, drop the lawsuit.  Isn't that crazy?
> > 								Ken
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 12:25 PM
> > To: Kenneth Crandall
> > Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoa, there Ken.  There are about 4 errors in what you said I said.
> > Please see comments below in your message.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> >
> > > This does clarify many things for me.  I am very angered by the whole
> > > operation.
> > >
> > > First, Rich (the vociferous author of many SCN communications that lead
> to
> > a
> > > long series of commentaries about civil communications over a year ago)
> >
> > Wrong issue, Ken.  This is not about civil speech.  If it were, JJ and
> > several others would have be bounced long ago.  Again, WRONG ISSUE.
> >
> > > has
> > > unilaterally decided that the board's action was 1) not an approved
> action
> > > of the board
> >
> > MAJOR GOOF HERE!  The action taken (subject of the suit) was never a
> > "board action."  That's the point, it was a rogue action.  The board is
> > tolerating it after the fact.  But your calling it a "board action" in the
> > context of the bylaws is simply not true.
> >
> > and 2) was not accidental (is any board action accidental?).
> > > Using this interpretation, any board action could be subject to a
> lawsuit
> > as
> > > being non-accidental by anyone disagreeing with that action.
> > >
> > Ken, you are so angry that you are not seeing the point, which is:  can an
> > scna member who is on the board get SCNA to pay for his/her legal fees, if
> > his offense was outside permissible board action.  If such a member
> > embezzles, are you saying that you are willing to use scna funds to pay
> > for his defense?  The bylaw provision specifically rules that out.
> >
> > By the way, Ken, why didn't you read the bylaw provision related to
> > indemnification and post it for all to see?  It looks like you are
> > enjoying being angry more than you are interested in looking at the
> > issues.
> >
> > > Secondly, Rich would have the membership judge the board guilty and
> demand
> > > that funds be withheld before any authority has determined guilt.  I
> > thought
> > > that in this country we professed "innocent until proven guilty".
> >
> > Ken, where did you learn you (lack of) logic?  One of the main points of
> > my claim is that the action against me was the violation of the "innocent
> > until proven guilty" rule.  So, if that is one of your values, tell us why
> > you don't apply that rule to the dismissal?  As I repeated several times,
> > (a) I was never told what actions of mine constituted my "crime."  (b) I
> > was judged guilty and dismissed WITHOUT THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS (i.e. NOT
> > proven guilty).
> >
> > That's the entire issue, Ken.  How could you miss that?
> >
> > > I don't
> > > believe board members should be subjected to an out-of-pocket financial
> > > burden to defend themselves.  If proven guilty of an action that the
> > bylaws
> > > will not cover with financial support, then the question would be
> > addressed
> > > about re-funding the funds to cover the defense.
> >
> > Ken, in your ardent unwillingness to read the bylaws, you have clearly
> > expressed an approach which the bylaws specifically forbid.  Get your head
> > out and read the bylaws.  They specifically block the funding of improper
> > actions.
> >
> > Additionally, as others have pointed out, SCNA could drain its treasury in
> > the short term just paying legal costs.  My actions don't drain SCNA funds
> > on the short term.  Yours would.  The position of the defendants would
> > also.
> >
> > Who is looking out for SCNA's welfare, here.  Certainly not your position!
> >
> > > I have yet to understand what significant offense occurred that should
> put
> > > the SCN organization into this financial bind.  In any event, I see this
> > > action as a direct attack on SCN, the organization that Rich wants us to
> > > believe that he supports.  At the very least, this is an attack on
> > > volunteers that will greatly impair the recruitment of valuable people
> in
> > > the future.  Tell me again, what was this immense offense?
> > >
> > > If Rich is seeking sympathy with this letter and that his actions are
> not
> > an
> > > attack on SCN, he needs to provide a lot more information than he has.
> >
> > Or, you need to read things more carefully, Ken, and consider the results
> > of your position.  If, in the end, you simply don't want to consider any
> > possibility that the violation of the procedures was wrong, you can think
> > whatever you wish.  It's not a great use of bandwidth to publicize your
> > head-in-the-sand position, however.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> 
> Previous messages deleted to shorten post.
> 
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Sun Jun 25 06:24:13 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 06:24:13 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625041409.28517A-100000@scn>
References: <3953B676.6541.C08219@localhost>
Message-ID: <3955A58D.7788.4F25A4D@localhost>

> After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.

At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
Bylaws.

But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
provision.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bn890 at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 15:03:39 2000
From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPCCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625145457.28924A-100000@scn>

All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  

A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.

May the best man win?????


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Sun Jun 25 17:23:25 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:23:25 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625042211.28517B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHMEPHCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi again Rich,

   You are a tough task master!  I believe that you will note that the
earlier comments I made were relative to the bylaw provisions on
indemnification that you strongly suggested that I read, post and
understand.  The indemnification provisions in the Articles of Incorporation
that you are now asking me to comment on are very complex compared to the
simple provisions of the bylaws.  It is obvious that you were basing your
previous arguments on these Articles of Incorporation while referring to the
bylaws as your basis of fact.  That threw us off a bit there.

    These Articles of Incorporation (I have included the total wording of
Section 7 below in place of your limited reference to this section since the
other sections appeared to be relevant as well) use legal language that
gladden the hearts of attorneys.  The words in sections, "7.2.2  Such right
of indemnification shall not exist where the act or omission of the
Indemnitee involves (i) intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the
law" and "7.2.3 Such right of indemnification shall also not exist where the
act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness or gross
negligence", have specific meaning before the law.  I do not claim to be
able to fully understand the total significance of these words.  However,
like Steve's previous comments, I do not believe that they apply to failure
to follow internal procedures.  My belief is meaningless though and these
provisions would have to be judged in a court of law to see what exact acts
are covered by this language.  I know that I would not take the
interpretation of the claimant as a valid assessment of the meaning of these
words.

    I also find wording in section 7.3 (which you some how failed to include
but I have added below) to be equally interesting and subject to legal
interpretation (not interpretation by a novice like myself).  Starting about
half way down the section 7.3 I found these words; "The claimant shall be
presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this Article upon
submission of a written claim (and, in an action brought to enforce a claim
for expenses incurred in defending any
proceeding in advance of its final disposition, where the required
undertaking has been tendered to the Corporation), and thereafter the
Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.  Neither the failure of
the Corporation (including the Board of Directors, independent legal
counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a determination prior to the
commencement of such action that indemnification of or reimbursement or
advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in the circumstances
nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including the Board of
Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that the
claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
presumption that the claimant is not so entitled."   Now isn't that a mouth
full and a half?  Don't you just love the way these lawyers communicate?

    So I guess I my novice's interpretation all of this mess of legalize
would be to imply a significant obligation of the Corporation (SCNA) to
indemnify their officers or else "the Corporation shall have the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so
entitled."

What is your interpretation?
								Ken Crandall
								bd252 at scn.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 4:25 AM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.

Ken,

I'd be interested in your interpretation of the following.  Read your
earlier stuff in connection with this.



ARTICLE 7. INDEMNIFICATION

7.1.	Indemnitee.  The term "Indemnitee" as used in this Article
shall mean any person who was or is threatened to be made a party to or
is otherwise involved (including, without limitation, as a witness) in
any actual or threatened action, suit, or proceeding, whether civil,
criminal, administrative, or investigative, by reason of the fact that
he or she is or was a director or officer of the Corporation or, being
or having been a director or officer, he or she is or was serving at the
request of the Corporation as a director, trustee, officer, employee, or
agent of another corporation or a partnership, joint venture, trust, or
other enterprise, including service with respect to employee benefit
plans, whether the basis of such proceeding is alleged action in an
official capacity as a director, trustee, officer, employee, or agent or
in any other capacity while serving as a director, trustee, officer,
employee, or agent.

7.2.	Right to Indemnification.

7.2.1.	Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held
harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable
law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss
(including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to
be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by
such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in
this Section 7.2.

7.2.2.	Such right of indemnification shall not exist
where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional
misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or
loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or
(iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will
receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is
not legally entitled.

7.2.3.	Such right of indemnification shall also not
exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness
or gross negligence.

7.2.4.	Such right of indemnification shall continue as
to a person who has ceased to be a director, trustee, officer, employee,
or agent and shall inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, executors,
and administrators.

7.2.5.	Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of
indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks
indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof)
initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof)
was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.

7.2.6.	The right of indemnification conferred in this
Section 7.2 shall be a contract right and shall include the right to
have the Corporation pay the expenses incurred in defending any such
proceeding in advance of its final disposition; provided, however, that
the payment of such expenses in advance of the final disposition of a
proceeding shall be made only upon delivery to the Corporation of an
undertaking, by or on behalf of the Indemnitee, to repay all amounts so
advanced if it shall ultimately be determined that the Indemnitee is not
entitled to be indemnified under this Section 7.2 or otherwise.

7.3.	Right of Claimant to Bring Suit.  If a claim under Section
7.2 is not paid in full by the Corporation within sixty (60) days after
a written claim has been received by the Corporation, except in the case
of a claim for expenses incurred in defending a proceeding in advance of
its final disposition, in which case the applicable period shall be
twenty (20) days, the claimant may at any time thereafter bring suit
against the Corporation to recover the unpaid amount of the claim and,
to the extent successful in whole or in part, the claimant shall also be
entitled to reimbursement for the expenses of prosecuting such claim.
The claimant shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under
this Article upon submission of a written claim (and, in an action
brought to enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any
proceeding in advance of its final disposition, where the required
undertaking has been tendered to the Corporation), and thereafter the
Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.  Neither the failure of
the Corporation (including the Board of Directors, independent legal
counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a determination prior to the
commencement of such action that indemnification of or reimbursement or
advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in the circumstances
nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including the Board of
Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that the
claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
presumption that the claimant is not so entitled.

7.4.	Nonexclusivity of Rights.  The right to indemnification and
the payment of expenses incurred in defending a proceeding in advance of
its final disposition conferred in this Article shall not be exclusive
of any other right which any person may have or hereafter acquire under
any statute, provision of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws,
agreement, vote or consent of shareholders or disinterested directors,
or otherwise.

7.5.	Insurance, Contract, and Funding.  The Corporation may
maintain insurance at its own expense to protect itself and any
Indemnitee against any expense, liability, or loss against which the
Corporation has the power to indemnify pursuant to this Article.  In
addition, the Corporation may maintain insurance against such expense,
liability, or loss whether or not the Corporation would have the power
to provide indemnification under the Washington Business Corporation
Act.  The Corporation may, without further shareholder action, enter
into contracts with any director or officer of the Corporation in
furtherance of the provisions of this Article and may create trust
funds, grant security interests in corporate assets, provide letters of
credit, and use such other means as the Corporation deems necessary or
appropriate to ensure that indemnification is provided under this
Article.

7.6.	Indemnification of Employees and Agents of the Corporation.
The Corporation may, by action of the Board from time to time, provide
indemnification and pay expenses in advance of the final disposition of
a proceeding to or on behalf of employees and agents of the Corporation
with the same scope and effect as the provisions of this Article with
respect to the indemnification and advancement of expenses of directors
and officers of the Corporation or pursuant to rights granted pursuant
to, or provided by, the Washington Business Corporation Act or
otherwise.


7.2.    Right to Indemnification.

7.2.1.  Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held
harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable
law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss
(including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to
be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by
such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in
this Section 7.2.

7.2.2.  Such right of indemnification shall not exist
where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional
misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or
loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or
(iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will
receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is
not legally entitled.

7.2.3.  Such right of indemnification shall also not
exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness
or gross negligence.

7.2.4.  Such right of indemnification shall continue as
to a person who has ceased to be a director, trustee, officer, employee,
or agent and shall inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, executors,
and administrators.

7.2.5.  Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of
indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks
indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof)
initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof)
was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.

Rich


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Sun Jun 25 17:28:23 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:28:23 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625145457.28924A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHGEPICDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Irene,

I would agree that this should be settled in some intelligent manner.  I
wouldn't chose a fist fight as my first choice, but I would have to accept
any thing that works!
						Ken Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Irene
Mogol
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 3:04 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Rich Littleton; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.


All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.

A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.

May the best man win?????


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 22:32:43 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: "SCN2" concern
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625223108.27861D-100000@scn>

"SCN2":  To the extent this is a review and even a readjustment of SCN's
goals and priorities--fine.  But it could also be a major disaster, if
we do not carefully consider certain as yet unquestioned assumptions.

The major problem (that I see) is the implicit assumption (in some
quarters) that "SCN2" is a _replacement_ system:  That we buy a bunch
of new hardware, "set it up right this time", and then unplug the old
system.  (There has even been a suggestion of collecting a new "Ops2"
group to replace those obstreperous fuddie-duddie geeks now in Ops.)

Folks, the monolithic replacement approach (build a bigger, better
system, and just drop it in place) is an invitation to disaster.
(Trust me on this.  I have been a participant or front-row observer of
large software projects for about twenty years.)  Even after forty
years of development, that kind of process fails about three-quarters
of the time.  If you try to "re-invent" SCN without understanding what
went wrong the first time you lose the benefits gained, and you risk
making the same mistakes all over again. 

There is a better approach:  incremental improvements.  Determine (or
re-determine) the result desired, then determine what is needed to go
from where you are to where you want to be.  Then bite off a small
piece of work.  When that works go on to the next step.  Small bites,
but with a huge advantage:  with a shorter feedback cycle you don't
lose so much when the inevitable failures and unforseen problems--and
these are inevitable--force you to backtrack.

I suspect that one reason monolithic replacement fails is because it
is subject to grandiose overstatment of expectations.  And focusing
on the "big picture" it conveniently overlooks all the tiresome
details.  Do not be misled:  many of the difficulties SCN currently
faces are due to skipping over tiresome details.  Repeating that
mistake is not going to make anything better.

=== JJ =================================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Sun Jun 25 23:33:47 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625145457.28924A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625223336.27861E-100000@scn>

Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)

It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?

The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)  
A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.

=== JJ =================================================================

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:

> All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  
> 
> A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> 
> May the best man win?????
> 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Mon Jun 26 08:50:40 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:50:40 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625223336.27861E-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPKCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi J,

You stated my understanding much better than I could have.  I still hope
that the parties to this lawsuit find a reasoned way to settle without a
protracted litigation.  I further believe that some harm has already been
done since board members have incurred lawyers fees.  As I read the Bylaws
and the recently advanced Articles of Incorporation, SCNA must pay these
fees.
						Ken Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of J.
Johnson
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 11:34 PM
To: Irene Mogol
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)


Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)

It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?

The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)
A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.

=== JJ =================================================================

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:

> All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.
>
> A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
>
> May the best man win?????
>
>
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From starsrus at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 09:27:23 2000
From: starsrus at scn.org (Kenneth Applegate)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625223336.27861E-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626091939.13583A-100000@scn>

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

[...]
> 
> It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> 

Thanks, JJ. I believe this is the FIRST time anyone involved has ever
bothered to put an actual $$$ figure on the cost of Rich's suit! 

Now, if we could just get Rich to be as clear and brief in stating the
actual things that he is accusing the SCNA board of doing, instead of
posting endless, meaningless mumbo-jumbo, we might get somewhere in
judging if there is any basis for his accusations. 

Ken Applegate

[...]
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 

Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
<starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 12:32:32 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <3955A58D.7788.4F25A4D@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626122644.3581A-100000@scn>

Steve,
Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> 
> At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> Bylaws.
> 
I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
The By Laws merely make a general policy.

> But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 

Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
"heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
major or a minor rule or process. 

However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.

> generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> provision.

I concur.

Rich
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 12:39:44 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625145457.28924A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626123311.3581B-100000@scn>


Irene, the Wicked Witch of the World (that encompasses both your former
"east" and current "west" coverage area.).

First, when are we going to have coffee.  I'm in need of a caffeine fix.

Second, I like the part about "intelligent people"  However, the rest
misses the target. Actually the last sending to which you were replying
was perhaps the most significant.  It showed the specific provisions that
should protect SCNA from "mis-contributing" SCNA money to the wrong uses.
There is a pop quiz, so re-read the message.

Also, talk to JJ.  He was extremely, extremely, extremely upset that there
was no discussion.  I'm only trying to please him. (-;

Smilingly,

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:

> All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  
> 
> A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> 
> May the best man win?????
> 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Mon Jun 26 12:39:47 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:39:47 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2AF@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly forgotten
by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity around
this event is an outgrowth of the suit.

Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?

JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
To: Steve
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Steve,
Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> 
> At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> Bylaws.
> 
I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
The By Laws merely make a general policy.

> But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 

Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
"heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
major or a minor rule or process. 

However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.

> generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> provision.

I concur.

Rich
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 12:59:36 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: My Apologies
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHMEPHCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626124710.3581E-100000@scn>


Ken,

I apologize for mis-stating the location of the provisions I was standing
on. See my comments below.

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi again Rich,
> 
>    You are a tough task master!  I believe that you will note that the
> earlier comments I made were relative to the bylaw provisions on
> indemnification that you strongly suggested that I read, post and
> understand.  

You are right.  I screwed up, there.

The indemnification provisions in the Articles of Incorporation
> that you are now asking me to comment on are very complex compared to the
> simple provisions of the bylaws.  It is obvious that you were basing your
> previous arguments on these Articles of Incorporation while referring to the
> bylaws as your basis of fact.  That threw us off a bit there.
> 
>     These Articles of Incorporation (I have included the total wording of
> Section 7 below in place of your limited reference to this section since the
> other sections appeared to be relevant as well) use legal language that
> gladden the hearts of attorneys.  The words in sections, "7.2.2  Such right
> of indemnification shall not exist where the act or omission of the
> Indemnitee involves (i) intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of the
> law" and "7.2.3 Such right of indemnification shall also not exist where the
> act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness or gross
> negligence", have specific meaning before the law.  I do not claim to be
> able to fully understand the total significance of these words.  However,
> like Steve's previous comments, I do not believe that they apply to failure
> to follow internal procedures.  My belief is meaningless though and these
> provisions would have to be judged in a court of law to see what exact acts
> are covered by this language.  I know that I would not take the
> interpretation of the claimant as a valid assessment of the meaning of these
> words.

First, see my reply to Steve:  The definitions do apply to rule violation.
They don't depend on the perceived seriousness (breaking rules, killing a
pedestrian with your car -- both can be the result of gross negligence,
recklessness, etc.)  

Actually, you can take comfort in this: Even if the provisions are not
clear, the point is, the miscreants should not be able to drain SCNA
coffers in the short term.  Rather, they should first prove a right to the
funds (indemnification) when faced with these particular provisions.
> 
>     I also find wording in section 7.3 (which you some how failed to include
> but I have added below) to be equally interesting and subject to legal
> interpretation (not interpretation by a novice like myself).  Starting about
> half way down the section 7.3 I found these words; "The claimant shall be
> presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this Article upon
> submission of a written claim (and, in an action brought to enforce a claim
> for expenses incurred in defending any
> proceeding in advance of its final disposition, where the required
> undertaking has been tendered to the Corporation), and thereafter the
> Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
> evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.  Neither the failure of
> the Corporation (including the Board of Directors, independent legal
> counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a determination prior to the
> commencement of such action that indemnification of or reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in the circumstances
> nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including the Board of
> Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that the
> claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
> presumption that the claimant is not so entitled."   Now isn't that a mouth
> full and a half?  Don't you just love the way these lawyers communicate?

You raise a good point, Ken.  This is all the more reason that the
membership will have to speak up to get this clarified BEFORE funds are
taken.  The provision you properly copied contradicts itself and has to be
clarified.  You can't limit indemnification in one provision and then say
the no limitation will be recognized in another.
> 
>     So I guess I my novice's interpretation all of this mess of legalize
> would be to imply a significant obligation of the Corporation (SCNA) to
> indemnify their officers or else "the Corporation shall have the burden of
> proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so
> entitled."

So, it is time to start "prepondering" the evidence and get this
clarified.  Only the members can press for this.

My amazement is the wish to pay the freight for these folks who did not
follow procedures and who did not follow the basic value earlier mentioned
by you: innocent until proven guilty.  Why this strong urge to protect
this kind of conduct?



> 
> What is your interpretation?

You did an excellent job of probing this issuel, Ken.  Good work.

Rich

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 4:25 AM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I'd be interested in your interpretation of the following.  Read your
> earlier stuff in connection with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 7. INDEMNIFICATION
> 
> 7.1.	Indemnitee.  The term "Indemnitee" as used in this Article
> shall mean any person who was or is threatened to be made a party to or
> is otherwise involved (including, without limitation, as a witness) in
> any actual or threatened action, suit, or proceeding, whether civil,
> criminal, administrative, or investigative, by reason of the fact that
> he or she is or was a director or officer of the Corporation or, being
> or having been a director or officer, he or she is or was serving at the
> request of the Corporation as a director, trustee, officer, employee, or
> agent of another corporation or a partnership, joint venture, trust, or
> other enterprise, including service with respect to employee benefit
> plans, whether the basis of such proceeding is alleged action in an
> official capacity as a director, trustee, officer, employee, or agent or
> in any other capacity while serving as a director, trustee, officer,
> employee, or agent.
> 
> 7.2.	Right to Indemnification.
> 
> 7.2.1.	Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held
> harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable
> law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss
> (including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to
> be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by
> such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in
> this Section 7.2.
> 
> 7.2.2.	Such right of indemnification shall not exist
> where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional
> misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or
> loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or
> (iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will
> receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is
> not legally entitled.
> 
> 7.2.3.	Such right of indemnification shall also not
> exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness
> or gross negligence.
> 
> 7.2.4.	Such right of indemnification shall continue as
> to a person who has ceased to be a director, trustee, officer, employee,
> or agent and shall inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, executors,
> and administrators.
> 
> 7.2.5.	Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of
> indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks
> indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof)
> initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof)
> was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.
> 
> 7.2.6.	The right of indemnification conferred in this
> Section 7.2 shall be a contract right and shall include the right to
> have the Corporation pay the expenses incurred in defending any such
> proceeding in advance of its final disposition; provided, however, that
> the payment of such expenses in advance of the final disposition of a
> proceeding shall be made only upon delivery to the Corporation of an
> undertaking, by or on behalf of the Indemnitee, to repay all amounts so
> advanced if it shall ultimately be determined that the Indemnitee is not
> entitled to be indemnified under this Section 7.2 or otherwise.
> 
> 7.3.	Right of Claimant to Bring Suit.  If a claim under Section
> 7.2 is not paid in full by the Corporation within sixty (60) days after
> a written claim has been received by the Corporation, except in the case
> of a claim for expenses incurred in defending a proceeding in advance of
> its final disposition, in which case the applicable period shall be
> twenty (20) days, the claimant may at any time thereafter bring suit
> against the Corporation to recover the unpaid amount of the claim and,
> to the extent successful in whole or in part, the claimant shall also be
> entitled to reimbursement for the expenses of prosecuting such claim.
> The claimant shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under
> this Article upon submission of a written claim (and, in an action
> brought to enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any
> proceeding in advance of its final disposition, where the required
> undertaking has been tendered to the Corporation), and thereafter the
> Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
> evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.  Neither the failure of
> the Corporation (including the Board of Directors, independent legal
> counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a determination prior to the
> commencement of such action that indemnification of or reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in the circumstances
> nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including the Board of
> Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that the
> claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
> presumption that the claimant is not so entitled.
> 
> 7.4.	Nonexclusivity of Rights.  The right to indemnification and
> the payment of expenses incurred in defending a proceeding in advance of
> its final disposition conferred in this Article shall not be exclusive
> of any other right which any person may have or hereafter acquire under
> any statute, provision of the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws,
> agreement, vote or consent of shareholders or disinterested directors,
> or otherwise.
> 
> 7.5.	Insurance, Contract, and Funding.  The Corporation may
> maintain insurance at its own expense to protect itself and any
> Indemnitee against any expense, liability, or loss against which the
> Corporation has the power to indemnify pursuant to this Article.  In
> addition, the Corporation may maintain insurance against such expense,
> liability, or loss whether or not the Corporation would have the power
> to provide indemnification under the Washington Business Corporation
> Act.  The Corporation may, without further shareholder action, enter
> into contracts with any director or officer of the Corporation in
> furtherance of the provisions of this Article and may create trust
> funds, grant security interests in corporate assets, provide letters of
> credit, and use such other means as the Corporation deems necessary or
> appropriate to ensure that indemnification is provided under this
> Article.
> 
> 7.6.	Indemnification of Employees and Agents of the Corporation.
> The Corporation may, by action of the Board from time to time, provide
> indemnification and pay expenses in advance of the final disposition of
> a proceeding to or on behalf of employees and agents of the Corporation
> with the same scope and effect as the provisions of this Article with
> respect to the indemnification and advancement of expenses of directors
> and officers of the Corporation or pursuant to rights granted pursuant
> to, or provided by, the Washington Business Corporation Act or
> otherwise.
> 
> 
> 7.2.    Right to Indemnification.
> 
> 7.2.1.  Each Indemnitee shall be indemnified and held
> harmless by the Corporation, to the full extent permitted by applicable
> law as then in effect, against all expenses, liability, and loss
> (including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines, penalties, and amounts to
> be paid in settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by
> such person in connection therewith, except as otherwise provided in
> this Section 7.2.
> 
> 7.2.2.  Such right of indemnification shall not exist
> where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves (i) intentional
> misconduct or a knowing violation of the law, (ii) distributions or
> loans contrary to the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, or
> (iii) any transaction in which the Indemnitee has received or will
> receive a benefit in money, property, or services to which he or she is
> not legally entitled.
> 
> 7.2.3.  Such right of indemnification shall also not
> exist where the act or omission of the Indemnitee involves recklessness
> or gross negligence.
> 
> 7.2.4.  Such right of indemnification shall continue as
> to a person who has ceased to be a director, trustee, officer, employee,
> or agent and shall inure to the benefit of his or her heirs, executors,
> and administrators.
> 
> 7.2.5.  Except as provided in Section 7.3, such right of
> indemnification shall not exist where the Indemnitee seeks
> indemnification in connection with a proceeding (or part thereof)
> initiated by such Indemnitee unless such proceeding (or part thereof)
> was authorized by the Board of Directors prior to its initiation.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 13:01:23 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHGEPICDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130001.3581F-100000@scn>


Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Irene,
> 
> I would agree that this should be settled in some intelligent manner.  I
> wouldn't chose a fist fight as my first choice, but I would have to accept
> any thing that works!
> 						Ken Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Irene
> Mogol
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 3:04 PM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Rich Littleton; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.
> 
> A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> 
> May the best man win?????
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 13:06:52 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Amazingly Correct!  SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625223336.27861E-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130243.3581G-100000@scn>


I can't believe it.  I actually agree with JJ in much of what he said.

I would alter "credibilty" to something more like "board responsibility."
But JJ is generally right.

His money figure is outdated, but that is secondary.

I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
heavily used up in the meantime.

This is very serious organization business.

Rich


 
______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
> 
> It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> 
> The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)  
> A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
> 
> > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  
> > 
> > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> > 
> > May the best man win?????
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 13:15:26 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2AF@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130932.15459A-100000@scn>


Joe,

Several points were missed here.  See comments below.

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
> All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly forgotten
> by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. 

This is incorrect to call it private.  That's like my accusing you of some
crime in a committee list and at a meeting, and then trying to claim it
was private.  Your thinking reminds me of the thinking that condemns a
whistleblower -- if he would only shut up about the cost overrun, there
would be calm.  Or the person who sues because he she is overlooked for a
promotion (merely a couple thou a year diff) because of gender or race.
You are using the wrong measuring stick:  the discomfort of making this
public.

Most of the publicity around
> this event is an outgrowth of the suit.
> 
> Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
> pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
> allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
> position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
> in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?
> 
No.  And I already dealt with this.  Stay more in tune with the
discussion.

I did not accuse anyone of embezzlement.  I compared the situation with
suing a board member for embezzlement to make the point that the issue is
the misconduct, not the disruption resulting from making the charge.

Rich

> JM
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Steve
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> > 
> > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> > Bylaws.
> > 
> I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> 
> > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
> 
> Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> major or a minor rule or process. 
> 
> However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> 
> > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> > provision.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> Rich
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 13:21:05 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: More Missed
In-Reply-To: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2AF@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626131621.15459B-100000@scn>


Joe,

If you are upset about all this hoopla, then you should be furious at the
Governance committee that refused to handle my complaints.  That left no
other forum.

Whatever your feelings, you need to condemn that commitee and the board
which tolerated this dereliction of duty.

If the dispute-settlement mechanism abandons its duty, expect solution
seeking in other forums.

Similarly, the fact that this reached lawsuit stage is a seriously
negative comment on the performance of the board.  How should the board
have handled it to get the civilized resolution you would have wanted.
(flip answers need not be sent.)

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
> All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly forgotten
> by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity around
> this event is an outgrowth of the suit.
> 
> Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
> pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
> allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
> position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
> in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?
> 
> JM
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Steve
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> > 
> > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> > Bylaws.
> > 
> I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> 
> > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
> 
> Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> major or a minor rule or process. 
> 
> However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> 
> > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> > provision.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> Rich
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Mon Jun 26 14:10:24 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:10:24 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: More Missed
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2B2@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

It's not my job to tell the Board how to do their job.
My own past experience is that if I don't get along with a lot of people in
a volunteer organization, I find another volunteer organization to work
with.
JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:21 PM
To: Joe Mabel
Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
Subject: More Missed



Joe,

If you are upset about all this hoopla, then you should be furious at the
Governance committee that refused to handle my complaints.  That left no
other forum.

Whatever your feelings, you need to condemn that commitee and the board
which tolerated this dereliction of duty.

If the dispute-settlement mechanism abandons its duty, expect solution
seeking in other forums.

Similarly, the fact that this reached lawsuit stage is a seriously
negative comment on the performance of the board.  How should the board
have handled it to get the civilized resolution you would have wanted.
(flip answers need not be sent.)

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
> All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly
forgotten
> by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity
around
> this event is an outgrowth of the suit.
> 
> Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
> pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
> allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
> position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
> in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?
> 
> JM
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Steve
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> > 
> > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> > Bylaws.
> > 
> I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> 
> > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
> 
> Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> major or a minor rule or process. 
> 
> However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> 
> > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> > provision.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> Rich
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Mon Jun 26 14:20:45 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:20:45 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: SCN 2: Special June 28th Meeting
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2B5@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

I am not sure that I can make it to Wednesday's meeting (I have a late,
probably long, business meeting on the East Side that afternoon), so I
thought I'd try to share my thoughts in advance.

1. What are SCN's constituencies? This should not be a simple restatement of
our constituencies in the days when the Web was little more than a toy. I
would suggest that the current answer should be something like the
following, in declining order of importance. 
1A. People in the Greater Seattle area who -- for economic, cultural, or
other similar reasons -- are deprived of easy access to the Web and other
related technologies.
1B. People concerned with the creation and preservation of "public space" in
cyberspace.
1C. The Greater Seattle community at large, with an emphasis on
non-commercial aspects of that community.
1D. People pursuing similar goals in other geographic areas.

2. How can we best serve these constituencies?
2A. I would suggest that the answer for 1A may be very different from the
answers for the other constituencies. As J.K. Galbraith famously said, the
main thing you can do to help poor people is to give them money. The single
biggest thing we can do for people who can't afford access to the Web is to
(1) help them obtain computers and (2) help them obtain telecommunications
access. This may have very little to do directly with how we serve our other
constituencies. This involves things like recycling used equipment, hooking
people up to free or subsidized services which may be provided by groups
other than ourselves, etc. The biggest needs of this group cannot be solved
through a website, and I would argue that they cannot be solved by providing
them with access to an arcane, 1980s-style text-only menu-driven interface.
We need to work out how to provide these people with decent, reasonably
contemporary tools. I guess it's OK if they are 3 years behind the curve:
lots of people are. It's not OK if they are 10 years behind the curve.
2B. As for the rest of the constituencies, I would guess that a website *is*
the heart of how we can serve them.

3. We should know what other services are out there and direct people to
them rather than duplicating available services. We should try to support
other groups in what they do well instead of doing the same thing poorly.
For example, if there is a group doing a good job of recycling old
computers, lets help them and help publicize them instead of competing.

----------------------------------- 
I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say (including a lot about web content) if
I can make it on the night, but I felt that the above is what is most
crucial to have on the table.

----------------------------------- 
Joe Mabel
Saltmine
206.284.7511


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve and Melissa Guest [mailto:guests at scn.org]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:39 AM
To: scn at scn.org; vol-announce at scn.org; vol-reserves at scn.org
Cc: SCN's ExComm Members; SCNA's Board Members
Subject: WEB: SCN 2: Special June 28th Meeting


Mark your calendars for 6:30pm, Wednesday, June 28 at the University
Branch Library (50th & Roosevlet)!  We're going to kick off the beginning
of SCN 2 with our first lively public discussion and brainstorming session
about the possibilities.

What is SCN 2?  Beyond a few pieces of new equipment, we're planning to
design, fund and build a completely new system and services.  We want your
help, first by telling us your hopes and dreams for what a new SCN system
could be capable of, and then (hopefully!) your assistance making at least
some of the dreams into reality.

For the 28th, we're planning to have fun fantasizing - no need for
practicality, and no critiquing of the ideas that are gathered during this
session (that comes later). 

We'll have a small spread of munchies - bring some to share if you are so
inclined.  Even if you don't have any specific thoughts on a new computer
system right now, come down just to see your fellow SCNers face-to-face!

This is only the very first of the input gathering efforts, so if you
can't make it, don't worry - we'll bug you again.  We will be using some
online input-gathering process as well, and will let you know as soon as
that is set up.

Hope to see you there!  If you know anyone who'd be interested, please
forward this message on to them!

 - Steve & Mel

-=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=-  -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- 
Melissa & Steve Guest, Co-Presidents           email: guests at scn.org
Seattle Community Network Assoc.                  ph: (425) 653 7353
http://www.scn.org/scna                              8am to 11pm PST
 
"Bringing People & Communities Together with Free Internet Services"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe webmasters
Messages posted on this list are available on the Web at:
http://www.scn.org/volunteers/webmasters/webmasters-l/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Mon Jun 26 14:54:26 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:54:26 -0700
Subject: Amazingly Correct!  SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130243.3581G-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHGEPMCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi Rich,

This is truly amazing!  You can make a statement like ("I would also add
that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their hands on SCNA money
IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  -- even though the
miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will owe SCNA the
money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been heavily used
up in the meantime.") in the face or the wording in section 7 (The Articles
of Incorporation which you now cite as the basis of your suit, the
unsupported stand that the sued are not entitled to indemnification, and I
would assume your use of the word miscreants).  Section 7.3 of these
articles seen to require that the sued board members be funded for their
legal fees.

I have attached the last half of Section 7.3 below as I have done in a
previous message.
"The claimant shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
Article upon submission of a written claim (and, in an action brought to
enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any proceeding in advance
of its final disposition, where the required undertaking has been tendered
to the Corporation), and thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so
entitled.  Neither the failure of the Corporation (including the Board of
Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a
determination prior to the commencement of such action that indemnification
of or reimbursement or advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in
the circumstances nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including
the Board of Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that
the claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
presumption that the claimant is not so entitled."

Here the claimant is the person being sued who asks for reimbursement.  What
part of  "shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
Article upon submission of a written claim" is not clear?  Furthermore,
"thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.", at
least suggest that there needs to be a preponderance of evidence
[preponderance - when enough just is not enough].  Your claims to the
contrary, there has been a lack of evidence that the claimants are not
entitled and it appears that a determination of the Board of Directors,
independent counsel, or its shareholders that the claimant(s) are not
entitled to indemnification shall not create a presumption that the
claimant(s) is not so entitled.  These are powerful words.  How do suggest
that they be put aside?  Your demands are not enough in themselves.  Where
is your preponderance of evidence to save SCNA these expenses that you say
are unwarranted?

If you are really interested in the future of SCNA, then why are you
proceeding with this lawsuit that guarantees a major fiscal problem for
SCNA.  I agree that this is a serious organizational problem, but it is a
problem of your making and that only you can control.  I am not a lawyer,
nor are must of us, but it not clear to me that even in the event that you
were successful in your lawsuit, that the parties you are suing would not
still be indemnified ($86,000 {or what ever} plus legal expenses).  Please
be more specific in how you plan to protect the interests of SCNA for those
of us who are concerned.
						Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
Littleton
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:07 PM
To: J. Johnson
Cc: Irene Mogol; scn at scn.org
Subject: Re: Amazingly Correct! SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)



I can't believe it.  I actually agree with JJ in much of what he said.

I would alter "credibilty" to something more like "board responsibility."
But JJ is generally right.

His money figure is outdated, but that is secondary.

I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
heavily used up in the meantime.

This is very serious organization business.

Rich



______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
>
> It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
>
> The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)
> A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
>
> === JJ =================================================================
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
>
> > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.
> >
> > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> >
> > May the best man win?????
> >
> >
> >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Mon Jun 26 15:54:54 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:54:54 -0700
Subject: SCN: Web future
Message-ID: <39577CCE.9039.20AAEF3@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

===========================

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, 6/25/00

Many people have said that the Justice Department was fighting the 
last war in their focus on the browser wars. Now that the Justice 
Department has won, Microsoft goes one step further and declares 
that the proposed penalty (forcing Microsoft to give up Windows) 
was the last war as well. 

Operating systems are history as the nexus to coordinate users' 
interactions with their computers. Sure, each device will continue to 
run some kind of OS (maybe Windows, maybe Linux, maybe 
PalmOS, maybe some new thing), but the main user interactions will 
be mediated by network services and not by the OS. The Network is 
the User Experience.  

Of course, Microsoft is not going to publicly proclaim that they have 
abandoned Windows: they expect to make billions as companies 
upgrade to Windows 2000. The strategy is to stall for time in the 
lawsuit and milk the OS as much as possible while preparing for the 
day of divestiture.  

Since the late 1980s, hypertext theory has predicted the emergence 
of a navigation layer that would be the nexus of the user experience. 
Traditionally, we assumed that this would happen by integrating the 
browser with the operating system to create a unified interface for 
manipulating remote information and local files. It has always been 
silly to have some stuff treated specially because it happened to 
come in over a certain network. Browsers must die as independent 
applications. It is counter-productive to have users suffer sub-
standard user interfaces for applications that happen to run across 
the Internet as opposed to the local client-server environment. 
Application functionality requires more UI than document browsing: 
another reason browsers must die.  

The new coordinating layer will manage users' access to 
information objects and functionality objects across multiple 
devices. In the old days of local software, we used to complain 
about the stupidity of having separate spelling checkers for each 
application. The goal was OpenDoc-like integration where a single 
service could apply to multiple data objects. Over the Internet, this 
works even better:  

...the dictionary used in the spelling checker can be instantly 
updated as new words emerge.

...users can license rights to domain-specific dictionaries or slang-
specific dictionaries as needed. 

Microsoft may hope to supply the biggest of these network services, 
but there will be plenty of room for other companies to sell services 
as well, once a single standard infrastructure has been built. Maybe 
people will subscribe to English-language spelling services from 
Microsoft, but dentists will get their specialized spelling checks from 
a company that specializes in Internet services for dentists. 

Similarly with spelling services for smaller languages: Microsoft will 
probably offer Japanese, French, and many other big languages, but 
they won't cover all the languages in the world. And even if 
Microsoft tries to offer, say, French spelling services, nobody says 
that they will win. It will even be possible for several competing 
services to survive for each feature as long as they all follow the 
rules for data interchange and plug into the coordinating nexus.  

The new nexus will coordinate:  

...traditional software services like spelling check. Most of this 
software will be cached on your local device, so there will be no 
need to download several megabytes of code every time you need a 
feature. If the feature has been updated or if you have not used it 
before, it will simply appear.

...information storage to replace the file system with a more flexible 
object storage that works across multiple devices (no more "I forgot 
to bring that file" when you are off on a business trip).

...the user interface, allowing each user's preferences to follow him 
or her around on the Internet.

...user identity and security: hopefully all data will be encrypted at 
all times, except when it is displayed on the user's screen.

...payment services (a nano-payment every time you get a French 
word spell checked, a micro-payment per page view, bigger charges 
when you buy physical stuff).

...user guidance: subscribe to reputation managers to recommend 
products you see on other websites and warn against (or completely 
remove) misleading advertisements.

...guard the user's time and protect against too much email and 
other interruptions. 

This may sound like my 1996 Alertbox "The Internet Desktop" and 
my 1999 Alertbox "User-Supportive Internet Architecture." Fine with 
me. 

What this means for websites: In the short term - nothing. The old 
software will still be out there, and because of the conservatism of 
Web users it will be several years before the majority of users 
upgrade to the new services, even after they ship in 2002. 

Long term changes are profound. Websites will have to stop 
thinking of themselves as the center of the user's attention. Since 
the network is the user experience, individual sites will have to tone 
down their individual designs and aim at fitting in. More about this in 
my next column, The End of Web Design.  

Instead of having every single site supply a complete user 
experience, each site will supply a component of the overall user 
experience that is coordinated by the new nexus. This will lead to 
many opportunities for highly targeted narrow services. Microsoft 
may define the platform, but they cannot supply more than a tiny 
fraction of the necessary services.  

All experience shows that once a standard platform is available, a 
thousand flowers will bloom. Start thinking now about what services 
you can provide once a fully-intertwined Web becomes a reality and 
replaces the point-to-point sites we see today.  

Also plan for making your site benefit from closer integration with 
other services that are running on other sites. No more doing 
everything yourself.  

Sites that attempt to own their own private mini-networks will come 
upon hard times:  

...Amazon's attempt to be a shopping network will be doomed once 
users can perform zero-click shopping everywhere they go with 
privacy and security guaranteed by the new nexus services.

...Yahoo's attempt at a network of information services may not be 
doomed (since they are the most supremely well-designed 
minimalist services on the Web), but the relative importance of 
Yahoo will decline as it becomes easier to navigate to specialized 
services and to integrate them into a sustained user experience 
(and as it becomes easier for specialized services to collect 
payments). 

...Every website you visit can access as many of your 
customization preferences as you are willing to disclose; this will 
greatly diminish the value of special portal start pages (My.foobar). 

...AOL's attempt to have a closed instant messaging system will be 
doomed since an integrated approach that works well with the other 
nexus services will win. 

A new and easier way of constructing integrated services by 
combining multiple online sources may also be bad news for "e-
business builders" like Andersen Consulting and IBM,	 to the extent 
that they rely on skills at constructing monolithic systems.







* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From starsrus at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 16:46:55 2000
From: starsrus at scn.org (Kenneth Applegate)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Amazingly Correct!  SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130243.3581G-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626164059.11737A-100000@scn>

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

[...]

> 
> I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
> hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
> even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
> owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
> heavily used up in the meantime.

Rich - 

Ummm, pardon my gross stupidity in failing to appreciate your logic, but
is it not true that, if you win the suit, then YOU will wind up with $86 K
(or whatever is correct) of SCNA's money? In that event, my logic says
that the blame for draining the SCNA coffers falls directly on your
doorstep.

Ken A.

> 
> This is very serious organization business.

Well, you got that right, at least! Unfortunately, while being serious
business, it also strikes me as being a complete farce. Gilbert and
Sullivan could have done wonders with it!

> 
> Rich
> 
> 
>  
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> > between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> > comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> > of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> > the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> > let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> > the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
> > 
> > It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> > issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> > members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> > And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> > foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> > 
> > The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> > existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)  
> > A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
> > 
> > > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  
> > > 
> > > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> > > 
> > > May the best man win?????
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
<starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From douglas  Mon Jun 26 17:02:45 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Big Community Networks study
Message-ID: <200006270002.RAA17677@scn.org>


Here is some news on a less depressing note than our 
festering legal infection...

-- Doug


   For Immediate Release
   June 22, 2000
   Contact: Morrie Goodman (202)482-4883
   Ranjit de Silva (202)482-7002
   Art Brodsky (202)482-0019
   
   COMMERCE SECRETARY DALEY ANNOUNCES CONTRACT AWARD FOR STUDY ON
   VIABILITY OF COMMUNITY NETWORKS
   
   Study is one of several Administration initiatives to close the
   digital divide.
   
   WASHINGTON -- Commerce Secretary William M. Daley today announced the
   award of a $100,000 contract to the Center for Civic Networking of
   Friday Harbor, Wash., to study the sustainability of community
   networks, often the only means by which communities without access to
   information technologies can get information on health, public safety
   and community services.
   
   The contract is one of several Clinton/Gore administration initiatives
   designed to help close the nation's digital divide, the gap between
   Americans with access and those without access to information
   technologies -- tools critical to economic success and professional
   advancement.
   
   "Community-based organizations can help us achieve our goal of closing
   the technology gap because each community knows best how to reach and
   connect its citizens," Secretary Daley said in announcing the contract
   award. " Often, community networks are the only way communities
   without ready access to information technologies can access
   information on health, public safety, community services, or economic
   development," he said. "This project will provide crucial information
   on how to keep community networks viable," he said.
   
   The project will focus on locally-based, non-profit or public sector
   entities specializing in public access networks supporting civic
   participation, community economic development, health and human
   service delivery, and the arts. Topics to be addressed include
   "Creating Demand Aggregation" and "Managing Organization Change,"
   among others.
   
   The contract, which was signed today, was awarded by Commerce's
   National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The
   project's goal is to provide information about how existing community
   networks adjust to the changing environments in which they operate,
   thus helping them to remain effective and robust.
   
   NTIA's [1]Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) awards grants for
   model projects demonstrating innovative uses of network technology,
   and has accumulated a significant body of knowledge about the creation
   and management of network technology. The present contract is the
   fifth in a series of contracts awarded by TOP for research and
   evaluation on the diffusion of telecommunications and information
   technology applications in the public and non-profit sectors.
   
   NTIA serves as the principal adviser to the executive branch on
   domestic and international telecommunications issues.
   
   The [2]Center for Civic Networking (CCN) is a non-profit organization.
   
   
   ###
   
   
   Ranjit de Silva
   Director, Public Affairs
   National Telecommunications & Information Administration
   U.S. Department of Commerce
   14th & Constritution Avenue NW
   Washington, D.C. 20230
   Tel: (202) 482-7002
   Fax : (202) 219-2077
   Internet: RdeSilva at ntia.doc.gov

References

   1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/index.html
   2. http://civic.net/ccn.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Mon Jun 26 17:34:10 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:34:10 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626122644.3581A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPOCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi all,

Legal terms can be tricky.  It is nice to know Rich's interpretation of
intentional misconduct, recklessness, and gross negligence but I have
decided it would be useful to go to the Internet and get the definitions
from a legal dictionary.  I have included them just below Rich's
interpretation in response to Steve's note.  I hope this will add an
outsiders perspective since the legal dictionary is not involved in this
issue but Rich is.

						Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
Littleton
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
To: Steve
Cc: scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.


Steve,
Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
>
> At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained
> in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the
> Bylaws.
>
I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
The By Laws merely make a general policy.

> But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far
> more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures),

Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
"heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
major or a minor rule or process.

Note: the following definitions are from a legal dictionary available on the
web at http://dictionary.findlaw.com/
negligence
['ne-gli-jens] : failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person
of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a
foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation also :
conduct that reflects this failure (called also ordinary negligence, simple
negligence) (compare abuse § 2 due care intent) Note: Negligence may render
one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.  gross
negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an
unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even
the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes
associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights (see also
recklessness) (compare criminal negligence in this entry)


misconduct
[mis-'kän-dekt] : intentional or wanton wrongful but usu. not criminal
behavior: as a: deliberate or wanton violation of standards of conduct by a
government official b: wrongful behavior (as adultery) by a spouse that
leads to the dissolution of the marriage c: an attorney's violation of the
standards set for professional conduct also : an attorney's and esp. a
prosecutor's use of deceptive or reprehensible methods in presenting a case
to a jury d: impermissible behavior by a juror (as communicating about the
case with outsiders, witnesses, or others, reading or hearing news reports
about the case, or independently introducing evidence to other jurors) e: an
employee's deliberate or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or
disregard or violation of the employer's standards or rules that is
sufficient to justify a denial of unemployment compensation

recklessness
: the quality or state of being reckless also : reckless conduct (compare
negligence) Note: Recklessness may be the basis for civil and often criminal
liability. Unlike negligence it requires conscious disregard of risk to
others.

Further comments by Ken:  Even the words used to define these terms are
subject to further definition by legal precedent (such as "deliberate or
wanton violation of standards of conduct by a government official").  What
are the standards?  What applies to a non-governmental official?  A lawyer
needs to be able to cite the legal precedents that apply.  We non-lawyers
can only guess at what we would believe to be correct.  At the limit, a jury
must decide.

However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.

> generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would
> likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving
> indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws
> provision.

I concur.

Rich
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Mon Jun 26 21:25:52 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:25:52 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough!  Enough!).
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130001.3581F-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHOEPOCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Hi all,

I would seem that this provides a rational avenue to end this energy wasting
efforts and concern about the financial aspects related to the pending
lawsuit.  There should be a grievance review procedure,  a method of
establishing one if none exists,  or use the Governance committee if that is
the best procedure and give Rich his review before his fellow SCNA members
rather that solve internal problems in the court.

Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
concentrate on productive ventures.

I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
the mess we are currently in.
						Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Irene Mogol; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.

Rich


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bc500 at scn.org  Mon Jun 26 23:55:00 2000
From: bc500 at scn.org (bc500 at scn.org)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000625040713.27939B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626235122.6609C-100000@scn>

well you managed to say nothing again...no big surprise.  And this time
you compounded it by sending it to me...and JJ twice.  We are obviously
both on the scn at scn.org list...It is really inconsiderate of you to do
so...please note that I did you the courtesy of not doing so.
thanks

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 bc500 at scn.org wrote:
> 
> > Gee Rich...did you actually have something to say?  Oh, I get it, you
> > said what you usually do...NOTHING!  which is as expected. 
> > 
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Rich, you are a jerk.  (So sue me.)  In your recent message you maligned
> > > > Ken, suggesting that he should post the portion of the by-laws relating to
> > > > indemnification of Board members.  Listen, jerk:  the by-laws are already
> > > > on-line.  Your complaint (the legal basis of your suit) is not.  And
> > > > despite your faulty reconstruction of the past, you did not "explain"
> > > > anything at the annual meeting.  You did promise to post your complaint. 
> > > > You have not delivered.  (Gibes, specious rhetoric: yes; substance: no.)
> > > > 
> > > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bb156 at scn.org  Tue Jun 27 00:50:45 2000
From: bb156 at scn.org (Andrew Higgins)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough! Enough!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.10.10006270035550.14422@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.10.10006270038310.14767-100000@scn>


2� 
2� Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
2� review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
2� concentrate on productive ventures.
2� 
2� I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
2� the mess we are currently in.
2� 


We are _all_ involved if SCNA is threatened with insolvency. If Rich
Littleton is interested in SCN he should well attend the "Special June
28th Meeting" scheduled to deal with the future of our network. Apparently
what RL does or does not do concerning his lawsuit has everything to do
with any future we might have. Rich Littleton, what do you say? Are you
going to show? Participate in moving forward and improving SCN? I am very
interested to know. Your 'concern' for SCN & SCNA seems convenient,
self-serving and specious. I would love to be proved wrong.

-Andrew

   ,_____,_____,    6 __     _                                 User: bb156
   T\  :.      .^\,_/__|_   /_|   _/_ _     )__/'_ _ '   _   Domain: scn.org  
   I ^T=====;=====T   /|   (  |/)(// (-((/ /  //(/(///)_)    Seattle, WA
      I           I _|_|                       _/_/          


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Tue Jun 27 01:16:04 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626130001.3581F-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626234640.21816G-100000@scn>

Governance refused to handle this?  Absolutely FALSE!!

Governance arranged for a mediator, but _Rich_ refused to respond.  

The 'forum', and any other mechanisms SCN has for resolving problems, may
be slow, inadequate, and amateurish.  But--the primary reason it didn't
work in this case is because >>Rich refused to participate<<.

Quite aside from Rich's alternate reality and general intransigence:
If SCN's (more properly, SCNA's) dispute resolution mechanisms really
worked, he would have been shown the door a couple of years ago.

=== JJ =================================================================

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> 
> Rich
> 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Tue Jun 27 01:52:27 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough! Enough!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.10.10006270038310.14767-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000627012305.21816I-100000@scn>

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andrew Higgins wrote:

> > Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes ...
> 
> We are _all_ involved if SCNA is threatened with insolvency. If Rich
> Littleton is interested in SCN he should well attend the "Special June
> 28th Meeting" scheduled to deal with the future of our network. Apparently
> what RL does or does not do concerning his lawsuit has everything to do
> with any future we might have. Rich Littleton, what do you say?  [....]

  Do we really care to waste any time listening to his slippery
explanations that don't explain, and his glib promises that he doesn't
deliver?  He has had five months since he promised at the annual meeting
to explain this suit, and he has not explained it.  Maybe what we need to
discuss is why this situation got to be a problem.
  
=== JJ =================================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Tue Jun 27 08:16:52 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:16:52 -0700
Subject: SCN: Technology
Message-ID: <395862F4.20994.6DA850@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=========================

Who Wins in the New Economy?

Adapted from the book "The Wealth of Choices" by Alan Murray, 
Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal.


(Wall Street Journal)---It is difficult to live in the United States at the 
turn of the millennium and not be optimistic.   

The constant threat of annihilation that was part of the Cold War has 
been eliminated. The once-confident predictions of American 
economic decline have been thoroughly disproved. And two 
centuries of dismal predictions about the dehumanizing effects of 
technology -- from Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" to "Fahrenheit 
451" -- have been discredited.   

Instead, the century that witnessed history's great struggle with 
communism and fascism has ended with a remarkable celebration 
of human freedom. The walls that separate nations have crumbled. 
Technology has not devalued individual human life; it has elevated 
it, creating new opportunities, new connections, new freedoms. The 
human imagination has not been suppressed; it has been liberated, 
in ways unimaginable even a decade or two ago. To be alive in 
America today is to face an exhilarating wealth of choices.   

But what kind of New Society will this New Economy create? And, in 
particular, what will it do to the widening gap between rich and poor 
people, rich and poor nations, that is one of the most disturbing 
bequests of the final decades of the 20th century?   

The answer to that question is far from clear. For at war in the New 
Economy are two great myths -- the Populist Myth and the 
Monopolist Myth. And which is the more powerful remains to be 
seen.   

The Populist Myth is the most popular at the moment, favored by the 
editors of Wired magazine and countless other technology 
enthusiasts, who argue fervently that this new world empowers the 
little guy. A generation ago, there was a sense that the big 
corporations controlled our lives and ran the world; John Kenneth 
Galbraith's "The New Industrial State" was the defining text, and 
IBM was the corporate standard of the computer world. But then 
came Apple, started in a suburban bedroom, championing the notion 
of a personal computer on every desktop. The myth was captured in 
the famous advertisement that Apple aired during the 1984 Super 
Bowl, in which a lone female runner tossed a sledgehammer 
through the ominous screen visage of Big Brother.   

The Internet has strengthened the Populist Myth by democratizing 
information. Hierarchies, based on the upward flow of information, 
have been flattened. Anyone with a modem can gather nearly as 
much intelligence as the CIA, access nearly as much knowledge as 
resides in the Library of Congress, and play in the global 
marketplace on nearly equal footing with General Motors. Or so the 
myth contends.   

"When a majority of people get connected," says Steve Case, 
America Online's chief executive, "it will put the consumer in charge 
in ways that weren't really possible before. They can get the 
information they want, when they want, the way they want, on topics 
they care about ... It will give them more perfect information in a 
more perfect market."   

But in his courtroom in Washington, Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson has reminded all that countering this Populist Myth is a 
powerful Monopolist Myth. Companies like Microsoft or Cisco or 
American Online have acquired huge power and wealth at a pace 
that would make the robber barons of the Gilded Age blush. And 
amid the talk about empowering the little guy, already-giant 
companies are merging at a surprising rate.   

Scholars of the new economy talk of the "economies of scale" that 
rapidly propel today's businesses to such proportions. In software 
and network businesses, the costs of expansion are often small or 
nil, while the benefits from expansion are enormous. Such markets 
are thought to eventually "tip" to one or two big players and 
squeeze out the also-rans. If there is a big advantage to being the 
"first mover" in this world, as so many in today's business world 
contend, then there must also be an advantage to the people and the 
nations who are first to enjoy the benefits. And what does that leave 
for the latecomers?   

In a winner-take-all world, the losers don't have much to look forward 
to.   

James Wolfensohn is one of the optimists. As president of the 
World Bank, he can recite some of the grimmer statistics of the 
existing order. Half the world's people survive on the equivalent of 
less than $2 a day. Nearly a quarter survive on $1 a day. Over the 
last four decades, the gap between per capita income in the world's 
richest and poorest nations has doubled.   

Yet Mr. Wolfensohn believes the new technology has the power to 
alter that. Today's information technologies "change the nature of 
society, as is and will be happening in China and in many of the 
former countries of the Soviet Union, and as I believe can happen in 
Africa."   

Much of the value of that technology, Mr. Wolfensohn contends, is 
as a tool for basic training. "If countries are to develop, they need to 
build capacity in governance, and they need to strengthen their 
legal, financial and other systems," he says. "It has become clear 
that just throwing money at countries where there isn't a structure 
doesn't make a lot of sense."   

Every Saturday morning, he says, 300 mayors in Latin America 
connect from remote locations to hear basic lessons on running a 
city government, taught via the Monterrey Institute of Technology in 
Mexico and sponsored by the World Bank. A similar program has 
been set up to help bureaucrats in African countries who are fighting 
corruption. The bank recently opened up 13 videoconferencing 
centers around the globe and by the end of next year will have as 
many as 100.   

"We are now doing 400 videoconferences a month, by satellite," Mr. 
Wolfensohn says. "We are putting computers in villages where the 
villagers want them, where they may not have water or power."   

He adds: "I am personally convinced that the use of Internet 
technology and modern communications technology will be a leveler 
in terms of opportunity."   

Mohsen Khalil of the bank says the economic benefits have already 
begun for some developing countries. He tells of the artisans in 
Kenya who, by marketing their goods over the Internet, have 
increased their export earnings to $2 million from $10,000. "This is 
a great opportunity to connect to the global marketplace," he says.   

Nicholas Negroponte, one of the leading thinkers on the digital 
world, goes even further. He says most people greatly 
underestimate the leverage that the Internet provides to those who 
now lag behind. He predicts that within a few years, the developing 
world will represent more than half of the traffic on the global 
Internet.   

"I'm a very optimistic person, so discount as you wish," he said in 
an e-mail interview. "But in the case of Third World leapfrogging, I 
have seen lots of it firsthand, notably in China, Latin America, and 
remote places like the nation of Nui. In fact, isolation adds even 
further incentive and explains some of the extraordinary statistics of 
Net usage in places like Iceland."   

But count Steve Woolgar a skeptic. He is one of the few who has 
actually attempted to study how these rapid technological and 
economic changes affect society. He heads up a multimillion-dollar, 
25-university project called "Virtual Society?" that is funded by the 
British government and held its first conference in London this 
month.   

His main conclusion: "We have to do everything we can to combat 
what I call 'cyberbole' " -- exaggerated claims about the effect the 
new technology has on society. Indeed, much of the research done 
by his group suggests the problems of social division in a society 
"far outweigh what the Internet can bring to them."   

Middle-class and professional people may be using the new 
networks to their advantage, but others aren't. One study, for 
instance, showed that cyberkiosks and cybercafes intended to 
expand access to the Internet were primarily being used by people 
who had access elsewhere anyway. Another paper, titled "They 
Came, They Surfed, They Went Back to the Beach," documents how 
the Internet is more of a fad for many young people than it is a 
source of empowerment.   

Mr. Woolgar gives a slide-show presentation that include quotes 
like the following: "Over the course of a few years, a new 
communications technology annihilated distance and shrank the 
world faster and further than ever before. A world-wide 
communications network whose cables spanned continents and 
oceans, it revolutionized business practices and gave rise to new 
forms of crime."   

The subject: not the Internet, but the telegraph, in 1840. "In the end, 
this will probably be like the telephone," Mr. Woolgar guesses, "this 
huge new revolution that didn't make much difference to existing 
social structures."   

William Dutton, a professor at the Annenberg School of 
Communications at the University of South Carolina, agrees. Since 
the beginning of the computer age nearly a half century ago, he 
says, some social observers have seen the computer as a force for 
centralizing power, while others have seen it as a democratizing 
force. In the '60s the former held sway; today, the latter do. But both 
positions, he says, "are overly deterministic." Society's 
development depends on many other factors.   

If the history of the last two decades has taught anything, it should 
be that forecasting such things is a tricky business. Even a decade 
ago, no one came close to imagining the world we live in today. 
Why should anyone presume we can forecast the world a generation 
from now?   

But both the Populist Myth and the Monopolist Myth reflect important 
parts of this developing new world. In the end, says Mr. Wolfenson, 
it's inevitable that some will benefit more than others.   

But overall, the new technologies ensure better opportunities for a 
larger number. More people will have more access to more 
information than ever before. And that information is power.   

Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.  

Book Copyright 2000 by Alan Murray. Published by Crown Business, 
a trademark of Random House, Inc.  




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From starsrus at scn.org  Tue Jun 27 12:20:54 2000
From: starsrus at scn.org (Kenneth Applegate)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough! Enough!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.10.10006270038310.14767-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000627121434.25196B-100000@scn>

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andrew Higgins wrote:

> 
> We are _all_ involved if SCNA is threatened with insolvency. If Rich
> Littleton is interested in SCN he should well attend the "Special June
> 28th Meeting" scheduled to deal with the future of our network. Apparently
> what RL does or does not do concerning his lawsuit has everything to do
> with any future we might have. Rich Littleton, what do you say? Are you
> going to show? Participate in moving forward and improving SCN? I am very
> interested to know. Your 'concern' for SCN & SCNA seems convenient,
> self-serving and specious. I would love to be proved wrong.

I would really hope that the meeting tomorrow night does NOT get diverted
in any way to the business with Rich's lawsuit, even though it most
certainly affects the future of SCNA. For tommorrow night's meeting we
should just take the position that SCNA will continue to exist in a
solvent state, and get on with discussing the sort of services we want SCN
to provide. If Rich can participate on that level, fine. 

Ken Applegate

> 
> -Andrew
> 
>    ,_____,_____,    6 __     _                                 User: bb156
>    T\  :.      .^\,_/__|_   /_|   _/_ _     )__/'_ _ '   _   Domain: scn.org  
>    I ^T=====;=====T   /|   (  |/)(// (-((/ /  //(/(///)_)    Seattle, WA
>       I           I _|_|                       _/_/          
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
<starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From douglas  Tue Jun 27 14:24:22 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: "Closing the Divide" from Seattle PI
Message-ID: <200006272124.OAA01611@scn.org>


FYI, an op-ed from Sunday's PI (and, presumably lots of other papers).  
Robert Putnam from the Kennedy School at Harvard will be at Town Hall 
tomorrow evening.


   Closing the Divide: Turning virtual communities into real ones 
   
   Sunday, June 25, 2000
   
   By ROBERT PUTMAN and PAUL RESNICK 
   SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE P-I
   
   The New Economy led by technology pioneers in places like Seattle is
   making Americans more prosperous. But material wealth is joined on the
   national stage by a sense of spiritual impoverishment: feelings of
   isolation among individuals, distance between neighbors, disconnection
   within communities.
   
                                                                         

   The challenge before us and not just in places where entrepreneurs and
   future-thinking individuals thrive is whether the people who were
   smart enough to invent the New Economy can also help us retool our
   social connections, so the advances of this age can bring us together
   rather than drive us further apart.
   
   The loss of connection is what we call "civic disengagement." Evidence
   for this lost sense of community can be found all around us; its costs
   are increasing and are quite real.
   
   Americans spend more time than ever watching television and less time
   participating in civic organizations and having friends over to
   dinner. In the past 40 years, our civic and voluntary organizations
   have experienced a sustained decline. Some, like the PTA, have lost
   more than 50 percent of their membership. We spend about one-third
   less time with friends and neighbors than we did two decades ago. The
   percentage of income that Americans donate to charity is down 30
   percent over the same period. Fading political participation is marked
   not just by the 25 percent decline in voting turnout, but also by the
   60 percent decline in participation in any public meeting about local
   affairs. Bowling in leagues is down 60 percent.
   
   No matter where you look, the activities that brought Americans closer
   together the activities that built friendships and relationships, that
   made neighborhoods and opportunities for cooperation and advancement
   are all in deep decline.
   
   The origins of these trends had nothing to do with the personal
   computer and the Internet, for the collapse of connectedness began
   before Bill Gates left View Ridge Elementary School.
   
   However, many serious social critics argue that the tools and terms of
   the New Economy will make these disturbing social trends even worse.
   That our gadgets and the entertainment they deliver, from the Walkman
   to Napster, seem customized to increase that sense of national
   solitude. We hear reports (as yet unconfirmed) that surfing the Net
   fosters social isolation. And even the language of the New Economy
   reminds us that when we live in a "virtual community," it's something
   short of the real thing.
   
   Does it matter that we would rather watch "The Simpsons" than go down
   to the Moose Lodge? Does it matter that we are substituting Internet
   Radio for concerts in the public square? That we spend more time with
   "Friends" than with friends?
   
   It matters enormously: The positive effects of civic engagement cause
   many of the things we cherish safe streets, good schools and healthy
   families. The best predictor of SAT scores in a community is not
   spending on schools but civic involvement. The best predictor of low
   crime in a neighborhood is the number of people who know one another's
   name.
   
   A few days ago, the Annie E. Casey Foundation published its latest
   "Kid's Count" index of children's welfare in different states covering
   infant mortality, teen pregnancy, teen suicide and the like. The best
   predictor of that doleful index is not poverty or poor education but
   community disconnectedness. Our concern about the decline in community
   represents not nostalgia for the long-gone '50s, but a hardheaded
   assessment of the measurable costs of a frayed community fabric.
   
   This is neither a jeremiad against the New Economy nor a tirade
   against the people who enjoy its benefits. We know from history that
   Americans a century ago who faced a hauntingly similar crisis of
   community responded magnificently, creating opportunities for
   engagement from the Boy Scouts to Hadassah to the National Consumers
   League.
   
   And we know on a practical level today that in places like Seattle, at
   the leading edge of technology and the global marketplace, people are
   using their know-how to create new organizations that can revitalize
   American civic life in the Information Age. Rebuilding community in
   America is a big, hairy, audacious goal. It is a challenge uniquely
   suited to a town that combines unusual community-mindedness with a
   well-honed ability to make the future happen.
   
   Currently, television is the only leisure activity for which doing
   more of it is associated with lower social capital; it provides
   passive, solitary entertainment. It is up to high-tech meccas like
   Seattle to ensure that the Internet becomes more like a nifty
   telephone (an invention that enhanced social connectedness) than a
   nifty television.
   
   Although far too much has been said about the Internet and pornography
   and other civic evils, not enough has been said about the great civic
   capacity that the Internet could have. The trick, in our view, is to
   avoid dichotomous thinking "virtual community" vs. "real community"
   and to think instead about how to blend computer-mediated
   communication and face-to-face communities. (One promising technique
   is to connect people based on common interests and geographic
   proximity, as we are doing at BetterTogether.org).
   
   The idea that the Internet should be used to enhance social capital is
   not inimical to the idea of earning a profit. One commercial Web site,
   evite.com, exemplifies how you can create an Internet venture that
   boosts social capital. Evite.com is a one-stop social calendar. It
   allows you to send out personalized invitations to social gatherings,
   it tallies RSVPs and keeps track of who has responded, and it even
   sends you reminders of important events like birthdays and
   anniversaries. By facilitating entertaining and social planning, this
   Web site increases our stock of social capital.
   
   Additionally, by putting entertaining online, it helps to lend an aura
   of modernity to something that many people had viewed as passe.
   However, a site like evite only helps you interact with people you
   already know. While this is an important part of rebuilding social
   capital, it is also important for Americans to enlarge their networks
   and to reach out to a broader array of people. Luckily, the Internet
   also can be used to create synergy between virtual and real
   communities in order to produce dynamic new networks of social
   connectedness.
   
   One example is webgrrls.com. The mission statement at the
   organization's Web site states that "Webgrrls International provides a
   forum for women in or interested in new media and technology to
   network, exchange job and business leads, form strategic alliances,
   mentor and teach, intern and learn the skills to help women succeed in
   an increasingly technical workplace and world." Webgrrls not only
   offers its members extensive resources online, such as tutorials on
   "understanding techie terminology" and a member chat room, but it
   includes local chapters that meet regularly to network and to listen
   to speakers discussing various aspects of the technology industry.
   
   Another hopeful idea is the creation by Fast Times, an e-zine, of a
   nationwide network of local chapters called Company of Friends that
   link New Economy entrepreneurs in ways that enhance both career
   prospects and community service. In a sense, Webgrrls and Company of
   Friends aim to do for America's women and men in today's tech sector
   what Paul Harris did for America's men in business and the professions
   when he founded the Rotary Club in 1905.
   
   While Webgrrls and Fast Company have yet to create as developed a
   civic agenda as the Rotary Club, these organizations are still only a
   few years old, and there are signs that they are starting to plant
   civic roots. For example, the New York City chapter of Webgrrls is
   currently participating "in a new group called Girl Friends, a NYC
   organization created by the Girl Scouts that brings together
   organizations that work with and serve young women"
   ([22]www.webgrrls.com/ny/aboutus/volunteer.shtml). This represents not
   only a blending of virtual and real communities, but also a synergy
   between old-line and cutting-edge organizations.
   
   Another use of new technology to create social capital can be found at
   Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater. Wellesley
   operates a sophisticated bulletin system that all its students can
   access from their dorm rooms. This system allows students to post
   announcements for social activities, club meetings and job
   opportunities. Many students are induced to attend conferences or join
   organizations solely because of the information they receive over
   bulletin. Additionally, many of the campus' most heated debates about
   politics or school life occur over bulletin, a forum where every
   student has an equal opportunity to speak her mind.
   
   Analogous in some respects to Wellesley's bulletins are neighborhood
   e-mail lists. These lists allow one person to send a message quickly
   to a whole group. Too many messages can be overwhelming, but useful
   social conventions may evolve. For example, one of the authors set up
   an e-mail list for his block. It receives about one message a month,
   but it's there when needed.
   
   Of course, the cases presented here represent only a tiny fraction of
   the traffic that daily crisscrosses the "information superhighway."
   Not all of the promising ideas for blending real and virtual
   communities will turn out to be successful, any more than every
   dot-com will flourish.
   
   But with enough bright ideas being tried, some winning ideas will
   surely emerge. The challenge for Seattle, and for the whole country,
   is to create more of the kind of Web sites and software that will
   allow us to unlock the social capital capacity of the Internet.
   
   Imagine looking back in the year 2010 to see that America's social
   capital has been renewed. Almost certainly, computers and the Internet
   will have been part of the solution. Maybe the historians will say it
   all started here in Seattle. How do you want to rebuild community
   today?
   ___________________________________
   
   Robert Putnam is the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard
   University. His most recent book is "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
   Revival of American Community." Paul Resnick is an associate professor
   at the University of Michigan School of Information, where he
   organizes the school's Community Information Corps.
   
Book Talk

   A conversation about the loss of social capital in America, as
   detailed in Robert Putnam's book, "Bowling Alone," will be held at
   7:30 p.m. Wednesday at Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave., Seattle.
   
   The CityClub event, sponsored by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
   the Seattle Foundation, is open to the public. Tickets, at $5, can be
   purchased from CityClub (206-682-7395), at Elliott Bay Books, 101 S.
   Main St., and at the door.
   
More Info

   BetterTogether.org is devoted to documenting and spreading innovations
   in how Americans connect to each other. It connects organizers to each
   other through stories about their organizing efforts.
   
   Want to know what other social capitalists are doing? Have a story to
   tell about new ways of connecting people?
   
   Visit the "Story Collector" at [23]www.BetterTogether.org
   
   BetterTogether.org is a project of the Saguaro Seminar on civic
   engagement at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
   

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bn890 at scn.org  Tue Jun 27 19:20:30 2000
From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626123311.3581B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000627192011.14351A-100000@scn>

Is that invitation to coffee to all of us or just me?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Wed Jun 28 11:11:06 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:11:06 -0700
Subject: SCN: API
Message-ID: <3959DD4A.14941.110A16B@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=========================

(Jesse Berst, Editorial Director, ZDNet AnchorDesk)---Want to know how 
Microsoft will try to take over the Web? They'll use the same bag of tricks 
they used to dominate the PC. And the most powerful trick is a morsel of 
computer knowledge well known to developers but obscure to almost 
everyone else: Application programming interfaces (APIs).

APIs are functions that allow software applications to talk to one another. 
Control over them is a key weapon Microsoft wields to make sure its 
software works better on Windows -- which is just another software 
application -- than anybody else's. The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case 
ruled that Microsoft must make its APIs open and available and, of course, 
Microsoft has balked and appealed.  

It's anybody's guess whether the ruling will stand up on appeal. I have my 
doubts. But today I'll tell you how Microsoft has used APIs, and what it tells 
us about the future.  

APIs have great power to save developers time and money. They don't 
have to invent a new way for their products to work with Windows every 
time they write a new program. APIs also provide a high degree of 
commonality among programs written for Windows.  

Microsoft already releases APIs to developers. But Microsoft has long been 
accused by developers of keeping some APIs to itself, giving its own 
software writers an edge. These are like back doors or secret passageways 
that only MS writers know about. Microsoft, of course, denies this.  

This is nothing new: Sun Microsystems and a host of other software 
companies have tried the same trick. Microsoft has just had more success 
at it.  

Here's the scenario: A small startup, using Windows APIs supplied by 
Microsoft, writes a program that turns out to be very popular. Microsoft -- no 
great innovator -- sees this and sets to write a similar program itself. But 
Microsoft has an advantage. It has all the APIs for Windows and can easily 
produce a viable or superior knock-off, undercutting its competitors and 
killing them.  

Microsoft knows the power of APIs very well. In his ruling against the 
company, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson not only found that the folks in 
Redmond had illegally leveraged Windows and its APIs to move into the 
browser market, but that MS had also stifled other technologies, such as 
Java, that would give developers another API to write to.

Microsoft recognizes that the open-source movement is gaining strength, or 
at least public appeal, and now plays footsie with the open-source 
advocates.  

Company President Steve Ballmer has repeated on several occasions over 
the last two years that Microsoft might be willing to make at least part of its 
Windows source code and APIs openly available.

Then in March, Microsoft reportedly offered to publish all of its APIs and 
Windows source code as part of a settlement of the antitrust suit. Nobody 
believed them.

When Microsoft got around to responding to the government's call for it to 
open up its APIs, the same company that denied the existence of secret 
APIs called the demand to release them robbery of its most basic 
intellectual property. Which is it?  

When Microsoft announced its Microsoft.Net new business strategy last 
week, Chairman Bill Gates conceded that while all users of .Net devices 
would have access to Microsoft's .Net infrastructure, those running the MS 
interface would work better.

Sound familiar?  

Windows APIs may become irrelevant before long. Microsoft has correctly 
realized that the focus is shifting away from the desktop PC. But beware. 
Windows APIs could soon be replaced by an equivalent stranglehold from 
Redmond.  

Copyright 2000 ZD Inc.




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 12:42:11 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: RE: More Missed
In-Reply-To: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2B2@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628124140.7461A-100000@scn>

Sooooo, how many organizations have you gone through with this philosophy?

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> It's not my job to tell the Board how to do their job.
> My own past experience is that if I don't get along with a lot of people in
> a volunteer organization, I find another volunteer organization to work
> with.
> JM
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:21 PM
> To: Joe Mabel
> Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
> Subject: More Missed
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> If you are upset about all this hoopla, then you should be furious at the
> Governance committee that refused to handle my complaints.  That left no
> other forum.
> 
> Whatever your feelings, you need to condemn that commitee and the board
> which tolerated this dereliction of duty.
> 
> If the dispute-settlement mechanism abandons its duty, expect solution
> seeking in other forums.
> 
> Similarly, the fact that this reached lawsuit stage is a seriously
> negative comment on the performance of the board.  How should the board
> have handled it to get the civilized resolution you would have wanted.
> (flip answers need not be sent.)
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> 
> > Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather odd.
> > All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly
> forgotten
> > by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity
> around
> > this event is an outgrowth of the suit.
> > 
> > Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
> > pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
> > allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from a
> > position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty shot
> > in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?
> > 
> > JM
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> > To: Steve
> > Cc: scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> > 
> > > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> > > 
> > > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained 
> > > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> > > Bylaws.
> > > 
> > I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> > The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> > 
> > > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> > > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> > > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
> > 
> > Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> > "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> > recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> > as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> > forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> > major or a minor rule or process. 
> > 
> > However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> > wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> > the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> > 
> > > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> > > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> > > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> > > provision.
> > 
> > I concur.
> > 
> > Rich
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From douglas  Wed Jun 28 12:45:24 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: RE: SCN 2: Special June 28th Meeting
Message-ID: <200006281945.MAA10052@scn.org>

Hi, SCNites,

I'm going to assume (call me naive?) that this bad dream will end soon
and we can work on the things that got us interested in SCN in the
first place.

I, like Joe, won't be able to make the Wednesday night meeting but I'm
glad it's happening.  (And, like Ken, hope it doesn't become a
discussion forum for the @#!@! lawsuit.)

I wanted to just offer a few of my ideas hoping that they might get
tossed into the brainstorm mix tonight.

I'm using two guidelines for thinking about this...

1) That we do not want to turn into a solely technical service.  We do
NOT want to redefine our mission to make it *easier* or less oriented
towards social justice, equity, access, etc.  2) that innovative
projects will help us keep us thinking about the future and will help
us attract new users and good publicity and will generally be very
important for our future success.

(PS.  I hope that you just don't talk about which software and hardware
to buy!)

Here are my suggestions... (in typical brainstorm -- i.e. unedited --
fashion)

1) Do something with mapping and/or other visual ways to provide
"views" of Seattle and our region -- can we begin to think about
Graphical Information Systems for the masses??  Access to geographical
data?  These types of systems can -- in theory -- be used to overlay
levels of pollution or economic information or ?? on to maps.

Also some of you may remember Toru Ishida's work on Digital Kyoto.
Toru has an easy fast way to represent walk-throughs of city life on
the web.

2)  It would be GREAT (imo) and relatively easy to launch some sort of
neighborhood project.  What services do all Seattle neighborhoods
need?  What information?  We have volunteers all over the place.  Could
we have a troupe of itinerant Johnny (and Janie) Webpagers developing
LOTS of neighborhood information.

3) I'd like to see some sort of regional networking project and SCN
could probably be a leader in this.

4)  One or more international networking project (perhaps with people
from the CPSR conference...)  (Our principles state that we will
work with anybody -- not just those within our geographic boundaries.)

5) Working with a revitalized CPSR/Seattle.  It now looks like
CPSR/Seattle might get back into operation again after a 2 (3? 4?) year
hiatus.  There are lots of possible tie-ins...  What projects would we
like to see?  A lecture series?

Thanks!!  And good luck (to all of us)!!!

-- Doug

     ****************************************************************** 
     *  Help Shape the Network Society                                * 
     *               Sign the Seattle Statement!                      *     
     *  http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/seattle-statement.html        *
     *               Discuss the Seattle Statement!                   *
     *  http://www.scn.org/cgi-bin/diac-00/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro  *
     ******************************************************************


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Wed Jun 28 12:44:57 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:44:57 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: More Missed
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2DD@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

Typically, if I don't fit I've worked it out fast: one or two meetings.
Maybe four times I left a group where I didn't seem a good fit after a
matter of months or years; in one of those cases I had been an officer, but
the group seemed to be changing its nature. There is at least one functional
group within SCN that I tried being active in for a while & found it wasn't
a great fit for me.

Conversely, I've been active in CPSR and later SCNA for most of my adult
life, and in the Peace Heathens for over a decade.

JM

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:42 PM
To: Joe Mabel
Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: More Missed


Sooooo, how many organizations have you gone through with this philosophy?

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:

> It's not my job to tell the Board how to do their job.
> My own past experience is that if I don't get along with a lot of people
in
> a volunteer organization, I find another volunteer organization to work
> with.
> JM
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:21 PM
> To: Joe Mabel
> Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
> Subject: More Missed
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> If you are upset about all this hoopla, then you should be furious at the
> Governance committee that refused to handle my complaints.  That left no
> other forum.
> 
> Whatever your feelings, you need to condemn that commitee and the board
> which tolerated this dereliction of duty.
> 
> If the dispute-settlement mechanism abandons its duty, expect solution
> seeking in other forums.
> 
> Similarly, the fact that this reached lawsuit stage is a seriously
> negative comment on the performance of the board.  How should the board
> have handled it to get the civilized resolution you would have wanted.
> (flip answers need not be sent.)
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Joe Mabel wrote:
> 
> > Rich, your concern with "wrongful and public" dismissal seems rather
odd.
> > All of this woud have been close to private and certainly quickly
> forgotten
> > by most parties if you hadn't filed a lawsuit. Most of the publicity
> around
> > this event is an outgrowth of the suit.
> > 
> > Also, while I hate to open this box, you have alleged "embezzlement", a
> > pretty nasty charge, but I've heard nothing from you but a sweeping
> > allegation. Given that your focus seems to be on your own dismissal from
a
> > position, I have to suspect that "embezzlement" claim is just a nasty
shot
> > in the dark. Or have I missed something concrete?
> > 
> > JM
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> > To: Steve
> > Cc: scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> > 
> > > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> > > 
> > > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions
contained 
> > > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the 
> > > Bylaws.
> > > 
> > I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> > The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> > 
> > > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct, 
> > > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far 
> > > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures), 
> > 
> > Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> > "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> > recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved
--
> > as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> > forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> > major or a minor rule or process. 
> > 
> > However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in
a
> > wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and
by
> > the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> > 
> > > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would 
> > > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving 
> > > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws 
> > > provision.
> > 
> > I concur.
> > 
> > Rich
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * *
*
> > > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > > unsubscribe scn
> > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at:
====
> > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * *
*
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 13:02:54 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Amazingly Correct!  SCN: $86,000  (was: Put up or shut up.)
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHGEPMCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628124802.7461B-100000@scn>


Questionable interpretations to the side, Ken, what are you saying?  For
the good of the organization you will tolerate board member and
coordinator misconduct?

What part of "there were no other forums" don't you understand.

Your bottom line appears to be, "I, Ken Crandall, will not criticize and
board action, nor support the rules and regs of the organization." 

If you want people to be responsible for the organizaiton, start being
half as agressive with the persons who broke all the rules in the first
place.  

You're using a lot of time talking about the effect of this situation,
and carefully avoilding dealing with the cause.

As I said earlier, no matter what your personal opinion of this situation
is, you should fire the board members who handled things so badly, and
then refused to go through the Governance process, so that unusual action
was necessary.  You are awfully gentle with those elected to deal with
these situations.

--------

Rather than repeating our already stated disagreements, let's just
contribute new elements.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi Rich,
> 
> This is truly amazing!  You can make a statement like ("I would also add
> that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their hands on SCNA money
> IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  -- even though the
> miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will owe SCNA the
> money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been heavily used
> up in the meantime.") in the face or the wording in section 7 (The Articles
> of Incorporation which you now cite as the basis of your suit, the
> unsupported stand that the sued are not entitled to indemnification, and I
> would assume your use of the word miscreants).  Section 7.3 of these
> articles seen to require that the sued board members be funded for their
> legal fees.
> 
> I have attached the last half of Section 7.3 below as I have done in a
> previous message.
> "The claimant shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
> Article upon submission of a written claim (and, in an action brought to
> enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any proceeding in advance
> of its final disposition, where the required undertaking has been tendered
> to the Corporation), and thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of
> proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so
> entitled.  Neither the failure of the Corporation (including the Board of
> Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) to have made a
> determination prior to the commencement of such action that indemnification
> of or reimbursement or advancement of expenses to the claimant is proper in
> the circumstances nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including
> the Board of Directors, independent legal counsel, or its shareholders) that
> the claimant is not entitled to indemnification or to the reimbursement or
> advancement of expenses shall be a defense to the action or create a
> presumption that the claimant is not so entitled."
> 
> Here the claimant is the person being sued who asks for reimbursement.  What
> part of  "shall be presumed to be entitled to indemnification under this
> Article upon submission of a written claim" is not clear?  Furthermore,
> "thereafter the Corporation shall have the burden of proving by a
> preponderance of the evidence that the claimant is not so entitled.", at
> least suggest that there needs to be a preponderance of evidence
> [preponderance - when enough just is not enough].  Your claims to the
> contrary, there has been a lack of evidence that the claimants are not
> entitled and it appears that a determination of the Board of Directors,
> independent counsel, or its shareholders that the claimant(s) are not
> entitled to indemnification shall not create a presumption that the
> claimant(s) is not so entitled.  These are powerful words.  How do suggest
> that they be put aside?  Your demands are not enough in themselves.  Where
> is your preponderance of evidence to save SCNA these expenses that you say
> are unwarranted?
> 
> If you are really interested in the future of SCNA, then why are you
> proceeding with this lawsuit that guarantees a major fiscal problem for
> SCNA.  I agree that this is a serious organizational problem, but it is a
> problem of your making and that only you can control.  I am not a lawyer,
> nor are must of us, but it not clear to me that even in the event that you
> were successful in your lawsuit, that the parties you are suing would not
> still be indemnified ($86,000 {or what ever} plus legal expenses).  Please
> be more specific in how you plan to protect the interests of SCNA for those
> of us who are concerned.
> 						Kenneth Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:07 PM
> To: J. Johnson
> Cc: Irene Mogol; scn at scn.org
> Subject: Re: Amazingly Correct! SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe it.  I actually agree with JJ in much of what he said.
> 
> I would alter "credibilty" to something more like "board responsibility."
> But JJ is generally right.
> 
> His money figure is outdated, but that is secondary.
> 
> I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
> hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
> even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
> owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
> heavily used up in the meantime.
> 
> This is very serious organization business.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> > between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> > comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> > of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> > the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> > let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> > the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
> >
> > It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> > issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> > members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> > And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> > foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> >
> > The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> > existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)
> > A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
> >
> > === JJ =================================================================
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
> >
> > > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.
> > >
> > > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> > >
> > > May the best man win?????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 13:14:23 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHEEPOCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628130633.7461C-100000@scn>


Thanks, Ken.  You've done good researcdh and cme up with my very
positions.

Gross Negligence (from your didctiionary)

 and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them
from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful
indifference to their rights (see also recklessness)

Had you been reading carefully, you'd see that this is precisely what I
have been complaining about.

Later,

Rich
______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Legal terms can be tricky.  It is nice to know Rich's interpretation of
> intentional misconduct, recklessness, and gross negligence but I have
> decided it would be useful to go to the Internet and get the definitions
> from a legal dictionary.  I have included them just below Rich's
> interpretation in response to Steve's note.  I hope this will add an
> outsiders perspective since the legal dictionary is not involved in this
> issue but Rich is.
> 
> 						Kenneth Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Steve
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> >
> > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained
> > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the
> > Bylaws.
> >
> I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> The By Laws merely make a general policy.
> 
> > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct,
> > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far
> > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures),
> 
> Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> major or a minor rule or process.
> 
> Note: the following definitions are from a legal dictionary available on the
> web at http://dictionary.findlaw.com/
> negligence
> ['ne-gli-jens] : failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person
> of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a
> foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation also :
> conduct that reflects this failure (called also ordinary negligence, simple
> negligence) (compare abuse � 2 due care intent) Note: Negligence may render
> one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.  gross
> negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an
> unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even
> the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes
> associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights (see also
> recklessness) (compare criminal negligence in this entry)
> 
> 
> misconduct
> [mis-'k�n-dekt] : intentional or wanton wrongful but usu. not criminal
> behavior: as a: deliberate or wanton violation of standards of conduct by a
> government official b: wrongful behavior (as adultery) by a spouse that
> leads to the dissolution of the marriage c: an attorney's violation of the
> standards set for professional conduct also : an attorney's and esp. a
> prosecutor's use of deceptive or reprehensible methods in presenting a case
> to a jury d: impermissible behavior by a juror (as communicating about the
> case with outsiders, witnesses, or others, reading or hearing news reports
> about the case, or independently introducing evidence to other jurors) e: an
> employee's deliberate or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or
> disregard or violation of the employer's standards or rules that is
> sufficient to justify a denial of unemployment compensation
> 
> recklessness
> : the quality or state of being reckless also : reckless conduct (compare
> negligence) Note: Recklessness may be the basis for civil and often criminal
> liability. Unlike negligence it requires conscious disregard of risk to
> others.
> 
> Further comments by Ken:  Even the words used to define these terms are
> subject to further definition by legal precedent (such as "deliberate or
> wanton violation of standards of conduct by a government official").  What
> are the standards?  What applies to a non-governmental official?  A lawyer
> needs to be able to cite the legal precedents that apply.  We non-lawyers
> can only guess at what we would believe to be correct.  At the limit, a jury
> must decide.
> 
> However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
> 
> > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would
> > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving
> > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws
> > provision.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> Rich
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Wed Jun 28 13:16:34 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:16:34 -0700
Subject: SCN: Lawsuit
Message-ID: <3959FAB2.7511.1838541@localhost>



I vote to remove all further discussion of the lawsuit from this list, 
and confine it to personal communications among those parties who 
would like to continue the back-and-forth until death do they part.

But I hold out little hope that this vote will have any effect.  Sigh...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 16:52:26 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough! Enough!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.10.10006270038310.14767-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628165032.11477A-100000@scn>


Andrew, your insincerity is cloying.  

However, I plan to be at the meeting, but not to focus on the suit. 

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andrew Higgins wrote:

> 
> 2� 
> 2� Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
> 2� review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
> 2� concentrate on productive ventures.
> 2� 
> 2� I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
> 2� the mess we are currently in.
> 2� 
> 
> 
> We are _all_ involved if SCNA is threatened with insolvency. If Rich
> Littleton is interested in SCN he should well attend the "Special June
> 28th Meeting" scheduled to deal with the future of our network. Apparently
> what RL does or does not do concerning his lawsuit has everything to do
> with any future we might have. Rich Littleton, what do you say? Are you
> going to show? Participate in moving forward and improving SCN? I am very
> interested to know. Your 'concern' for SCN & SCNA seems convenient,
> self-serving and specious. I would love to be proved wrong.
> 
> -Andrew
> 
>    ,_____,_____,    6 __     _                                 User: bb156
>    T\  :.      .^\,_/__|_   /_|   _/_ _     )__/'_ _ '   _   Domain: scn.org  
>    I ^T=====;=====T   /|   (  |/)(// (-((/ /  //(/(///)_)    Seattle, WA
>       I           I _|_|                       _/_/          
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 17:01:43 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000626234640.21816G-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628165246.11477B-100000@scn>


JJ,

Cool your enthusiasm.  You came close to the line there asserting as fact
something that wasn't.  You might need your own insurance if you don't
stay within hailing distance of the truth.

AFTER the suit was filed, someone called me to informally discuss the
case.  Not before the suit.  He never identified himself as having
any governance connection.  They guy was so unavailable, the effort
collapsed.

In any case, if confirms the value of the suit.  Even that weak effort
wouldn't have happended without filing.

I still have not been told by Governance the basis for my dismissal.  JJ,
could you count the number of months that have passed since early December
and let me know?

 
______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> Governance refused to handle this?  Absolutely FALSE!!
> 
> Governance arranged for a mediator, but _Rich_ refused to respond.  
> 
> The 'forum', and any other mechanisms SCN has for resolving problems, may
> be slow, inadequate, and amateurish.  But--the primary reason it didn't
> work in this case is because >>Rich refused to participate<<.
> 
> Quite aside from Rich's alternate reality and general intransigence:
> If SCN's (more properly, SCNA's) dispute resolution mechanisms really
> worked, he would have been shown the door a couple of years ago.
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> > handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> > Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> > precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Wed Jun 28 17:07:24 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:07:24 -0700
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628130633.7461C-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHAEAJCEAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Rich,

You are incredible.  You have quoted out of context to try and justify your
position.  Read the definition again.  You will see that the portion that
you have quoted begins: " gross negligence : negligence that is marked by
conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others
........" and then on to your quote.  How can an issue about who does or
doesn't teach an e-mail course "present an unreasonably high degree of risk
to others"?  I would have thought life or limb were more likely the risks
considered.

I have decided to remove myself from any further discussions with you since
you are not trying to communicate or to reach a resolution to this current
problem we have been discussing.
							Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:14 PM
To: Kenneth Crandall
Cc: Steve; scn at scn.org
Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.



Thanks, Ken.  You've done good researcdh and cme up with my very
positions.

Gross Negligence (from your didctiionary)

 and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them
from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful
indifference to their rights (see also recklessness)

Had you been reading carefully, you'd see that this is precisely what I
have been complaining about.

Later,

Rich
______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Legal terms can be tricky.  It is nice to know Rich's interpretation of
> intentional misconduct, recklessness, and gross negligence but I have
> decided it would be useful to go to the Internet and get the definitions
> from a legal dictionary.  I have included them just below Rich's
> interpretation in response to Steve's note.  I hope this will add an
> outsiders perspective since the legal dictionary is not involved in this
> issue but Rich is.
>
> 						Kenneth Crandall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich
> Littleton
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:33 PM
> To: Steve
> Cc: scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
>
>
> Steve,
> Good summary.  See my comment inside your text.
>
> Rich
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
>
> > > After you read this, tell us your understanding of what this means.
> >
> > At first glance, it looks like the indemnification provisions contained
> > in the Articles of Incorporation are in conflict with those in the
> > Bylaws.
> >
> I don't see a conflict.  The articles are more inclusive and complete.
> The By Laws merely make a general policy.
>
> > But references in the Articles to intentional misconduct,
> > recklessness, and gross negligence (the standards for which are far
> > more rigorous than a simple violation of SCNA procedures),
>
> Actually, that is not correct.  The definitions do not depend on the
> "heaviness" or gravity of the offense.  Intentional misconduct,
> recklessness, and gross negligence measure the intentionality involved --
> as opposed to truly accidental events, such as misplacing a file or
> forgetting a deadline.  One can be very intentional about violating a
> major or a minor rule or process.
>
> Note: the following definitions are from a legal dictionary available on
the
> web at http://dictionary.findlaw.com/
> negligence
> ['ne-gli-jens] : failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a
person
> of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a
> foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation also :
> conduct that reflects this failure (called also ordinary negligence,
simple
> negligence) (compare abuse § 2 due care intent) Note: Negligence may
render
> one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.  gross
> negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an
> unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise
even
> the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes
> associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights (see
also
> recklessness) (compare criminal negligence in this entry)
>
>
> misconduct
> [mis-'kän-dekt] : intentional or wanton wrongful but usu. not criminal
> behavior: as a: deliberate or wanton violation of standards of conduct by
a
> government official b: wrongful behavior (as adultery) by a spouse that
> leads to the dissolution of the marriage c: an attorney's violation of the
> standards set for professional conduct also : an attorney's and esp. a
> prosecutor's use of deceptive or reprehensible methods in presenting a
case
> to a jury d: impermissible behavior by a juror (as communicating about the
> case with outsiders, witnesses, or others, reading or hearing news reports
> about the case, or independently introducing evidence to other jurors) e:
an
> employee's deliberate or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or
> disregard or violation of the employer's standards or rules that is
> sufficient to justify a denial of unemployment compensation
>
> recklessness
> : the quality or state of being reckless also : reckless conduct (compare
> negligence) Note: Recklessness may be the basis for civil and often
criminal
> liability. Unlike negligence it requires conscious disregard of risk to
> others.
>
> Further comments by Ken:  Even the words used to define these terms are
> subject to further definition by legal precedent (such as "deliberate or
> wanton violation of standards of conduct by a government official").  What
> are the standards?  What applies to a non-governmental official?  A lawyer
> needs to be able to cite the legal precedents that apply.  We non-lawyers
> can only guess at what we would believe to be correct.  At the limit, a
jury
> must decide.
>
> However, in this case, the violation was serious because it resulted in a
> wrongful and public dismissal.  And because it was done by officers and by
> the very ones in charge of upholding the rules.
>
> > generally mean as adjudicated. If found guilty, the offender would
> > likely be prohibited as a matter of public policy from receiving
> > indemnification.  Which is pretty much the same thing as the Bylaws
> > provision.
>
> I concur.
>
> Rich
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> >
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 17:09:09 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up (Enough! Enough!)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000627121434.25196B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628170859.11477D-100000@scn>

As stated, I agree with this.



______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andrew Higgins wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We are _all_ involved if SCNA is threatened with insolvency. If Rich
> > Littleton is interested in SCN he should well attend the "Special June
> > 28th Meeting" scheduled to deal with the future of our network. Apparently
> > what RL does or does not do concerning his lawsuit has everything to do
> > with any future we might have. Rich Littleton, what do you say? Are you
> > going to show? Participate in moving forward and improving SCN? I am very
> > interested to know. Your 'concern' for SCN & SCNA seems convenient,
> > self-serving and specious. I would love to be proved wrong.
> 
> I would really hope that the meeting tomorrow night does NOT get diverted
> in any way to the business with Rich's lawsuit, even though it most
> certainly affects the future of SCNA. For tommorrow night's meeting we
> should just take the position that SCNA will continue to exist in a
> solvent state, and get on with discussing the sort of services we want SCN
> to provide. If Rich can participate on that level, fine. 
> 
> Ken Applegate
> 
> > 
> > -Andrew
> > 
> >    ,_____,_____,    6 __     _                                 User: bb156
> >    T\  :.      .^\,_/__|_   /_|   _/_ _     )__/'_ _ '   _   Domain: scn.org  
> >    I ^T=====;=====T   /|   (  |/)(// (-((/ /  //(/(///)_)    Seattle, WA
> >       I           I _|_|                       _/_/          
> > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
> <starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 17:10:26 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000627192011.14351A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628171007.11477E-100000@scn>

Just you.  The others have clubs and pikes and spears and .....

______________________________________________________________________


On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:

> Is that invitation to coffee to all of us or just me?
> 
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 17:23:39 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Put up or shut up.
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHAEAJCEAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628172225.19419A-100000@scn>



______________________________________________________________________


On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Rich,
> 
(snip)

> 
> I have decided to remove myself from any further discussions with you since
> you are not trying to communicate or to reach a resolution to this current
> problem we have been discussing.
> 

Better late than never.

Rich

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 17:34:23 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 17:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Crandall's Idea
In-Reply-To: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHOEPOCDAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628131727.7461D-100000@scn>


I think this is a good-faith suggestion.  It might lead to others that
could reach the same result.

The problem with this PARTICULAR (but logical) proposal is that, this sort
of review was PRECISELY what Haskins and the two guests deliberately
ignored.  Such a review was the missing step and that step would have
resulted in a finding that there was no basis for dismissal.  

And who would do the review?  Governance? which now has to justify its
inaction before?  The Board? which also has to justify its refusal to step
in earlier when asked.

Are you aware of any unbiased members?  If so, maybe there can be formed a
task force.  If so.

It's a positive thought.

Rich
______________________________________________________________________


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I would seem that this provides a rational avenue to end this energy wasting
> efforts and concern about the financial aspects related to the pending
> lawsuit.  There should be a grievance review procedure,  a method of
> establishing one if none exists,  or use the Governance committee if that is
> the best procedure and give Rich his review before his fellow SCNA members
> rather that solve internal problems in the court.
> 
> Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
> review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
> concentrate on productive ventures.
> 
> I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
> the mess we are currently in.
> 						Kenneth Crandall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
> To: Kenneth Crandall
> Cc: Irene Mogol; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From bkh at arilabs.com  Wed Jun 28 18:24:35 2000
From: bkh at arilabs.com (Brian High)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:24:35 -0700
Subject: SCN: Washington wiring up to become America's first cyberstate
Message-ID: <00c101bfe168$c91f8e00$fd00a8c0@arilabs.com>

x-no-archive: yes

=========================================================================

Washington wiring up to become America's first cyberstate

   Copyright ) 2000 Nando Media
   Copyright ) 2000 Christian Science Monitor Service

   By DEAN PATON, The Christian Science Monitor

   SEATTLE (June 28, 2000 12:06 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -
   Every workday morning, as millions of Americans commute to their jobs,
   a growing number of Seattleites are avoiding the traffic, George
   Jetson-style.

   While pouring their orange juice, they turn on their computers and
   call up www.smarttrek.com, a real-time map of the major traffic
   arteries in and out of the city. At 8:15 a.m., both bridges across
   Lake Washington are pulsing red - the indicator of bad traffic - and
   so they begin work at the kitchen table.

   By 8:37 a.m., when the sensors embedded in the roadway detect fewer
   vehicles per minute, the red changes to yellow or even green -
   indicators that traffic has lessened - and so these Emerald City
   residents grab their last bites of toast and choose the least
   congested routes to the office.

   With technologies like this changing the way everyday citizens perform
   even the most mundane tasks, Washington is fast becoming the nation's
   first cyberstate. In part because of the climate fostered by Microsoft
   and the high-tech industry, in part because of its progressive
   heritage, and catalyzed by Gary Locke, its technophile governor,
   Washington is spending millions of dollars digitizing everything from
   the way businesses pay taxes to the way school principals shape
   classroom environments.

   Last year, in its landmark report on the New Economy, the Progressive
   Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., ranked Washington state No. 1 in
   digital governance, No. 2 in technology applied to schools and No. 2
   in digital economic indicators.

   "We're trying to be as innovative as we can - to create a state
   government that's more cost effective, but also more convenient for
   citizens," explains David Danner, executive policy adviser to Locke.
   "Technology allows us to do that."

   Or, as the governor is fond of saying, the state wants to get people
   who are in lines online.

   Budding entrepreneurs, for example, can apply for and receive all
   necessary licenses with just a few keystrokes. Once the business has
   cash flow, they can pay all fees and taxes online as well. Indeed,
   Washington was the first state to implement digital-signature
   legislation, allowing people to sign documents online.

   Since 1996, the state has spent about $60 million to install what it
   calls the K-20 Network, a commitment that has brought high-speed data
   infrastructure to all of the state's 286 school districts, all
   universities, all two-year colleges and eventually, all Washington
   libraries.

   According to Danner, "Even the smallest school districts will have at
   least one T-1 line" - a high-capacity Internet connection capable of
   carrying 24 telephone lines or their equivalent.

   "We want all the students in Washington to have access to resources so
   that they can get the skills they need," he adds. "If a student in
   Forks, Wash., wants to study Russian, he can't do it. Except that with
   this network, he can. Online."

   Alongside the K-20 Network is the Smart Tools Academy, a program
   funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Its aim is to
   help all of Washington's school administrators use new technologies
   more effectively in their classrooms.

   "It's a four-day residential training program for superintendents and
   principals," explains Marty Smith, volunteer chair of Smart Tools
   Academy and a Seattle attorney. "We've trained over a thousand to date
   and have 18 sessions that we're running this summer to train the
   balance of them, about 2,000 total."

   Besides cost savings and better public access, there is another reason
   for Washington's evolution from ecotopia to digitopia: the need to
   keep up with the demands of a sped-up society, used to faster
   computers, cellular phones and overnight delivery.

   "We are seeing a change in people's expectations - in how quickly they
   want things done," says Lee Cheatam, executive director of the
   Washington Technology Center, a nonprofit group funded partly by the
   state and dedicated to exploring electronic futures.

   "There's just a difference in the way people expect to communicate,"
   he says.

   The virtual bricks and mortar of the digital state of Washington are
   being tamped into place rapidly. Locke has already convinced the
   legislature to expand advanced telecommunications systems into rural
   areas, which account for much of the state.

   Now public utility districts and rural port districts may form
   partnerships with private enterprise in order to bring down the costs
   of such infrastructure and make it accessible to the hinterland
   residents and businesses.

   And on June 22, Washington contracted with a Virginia-based technology
   firm to create an electronic shopping mall that permits agencies
   statewide to purchase everything from telephones to paper clips to
   tires at lower prices.

   "We really want to capture time - precious staff time - and redirect
   it to frontline services," says Marsha Tadano Long, director of the
   Washington State Department of General Administration.


    Copyright ) 2000 Nando Media




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From grayfox at foxinternet.net  Wed Jun 28 18:40:34 2000
From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:40:34 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: Lawsuit
In-Reply-To: <3959FAB2.7511.1838541@localhost>
Message-ID: <LPBBILNKLFCDDAJKMCGHMEAJCEAA.grayfox@foxinternet.net>

Steve,

Unfortunately, I made one more response before I read your note.  I will
remove myself from this apparently discussion since it seems to go no where.

						Kenneth Crandall

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:17 PM
To: scn at scn.org
Subject: SCN: Lawsuit




I vote to remove all further discussion of the lawsuit from this list,
and confine it to personal communications among those parties who
would like to continue the back-and-forth until death do they part.

But I hold out little hope that this vote will have any effect.  Sigh...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From ttrim at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 19:50:21 2000
From: ttrim at scn.org (Terry Trimingham)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Lawsuit
In-Reply-To: <3959FAB2.7511.1838541@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628194750.16910C-100000@scn>


I heartily add my vote to yours. 

For me, it has come to the point that I just look
at who is sending email and I DELETE anything remotely looking like it
might pertain to this discussion.

I am sure I am not alone in my actions!

Terry

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jj at scn.org  Wed Jun 28 23:47:53 2000
From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Lawsuit
In-Reply-To: <3959FAB2.7511.1838541@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628230245.21327B-100000@scn>

The essential, prerequisite basis of _community_ is _common_, as in a
common (or shared) experience or knowledge.  And while I would not "hold
any one's feet to the fire" to the extent of requiring anyone to read, let
alone follow, all the excruciating twists and turns of the ostensible
debate with Rich, I will argue that _everyone_ needs to know that there is
a debate, as well as the character of that debate.  If you turn your back
on this, if you choose to be oblivious to a long-running problem, then
your participation in SCN is ill-informed, and you no longer share
community with those of us that have been dealing with this problem for
several years.  Is Rich off-base?  Only you can decide.

You don't have to read every message of "more explanation" that comes by. 
But the issue needs public airing, so that everyone at least knows that
there is an issue, or we might as well become just "SN". 

=== JJ =================================================================

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:

> I vote to remove all further discussion of the lawsuit from this list, 
> and confine it to personal communications among those parties who 
> would like to continue the back-and-forth until death do they part.
> [....]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Thu Jun 29 08:14:48 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:14:48 -0700
Subject: SCN: Net elections
Message-ID: <395B0578.23350.A60E1D@localhost>

x-no-archive: yes

=======================

(Jeri Clausing, NY Times)---Hoping to raise public awareness and 
participation in an international election to help administer the 
Internet, public interest groups on Wednesday launched a voter 
registration and education campaign to recruit what it called "Cyber 
Citizens." The campaign urges Internet users to join the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which was selected 
by the Clinton Administration in 1998 to take over administration of 
the network's addressing, or so-called domain name system.  

The nonprofit group is holding its first global elections this fall. 
Anyone age 16 or older with an Internet address is eligible to join 
the group. Those who register by July 31 will be able to vote in the 
first election.  

The "Become a Cyber Citizen" effort was launched by the Center for 
Democracy and Technology, Common Cause and the American 
Library Association, three groups that have been working with Icann 
to try to ensure that individual Internet users are properly 
represented on the board.  

While representatives of business and technical groups have 
already elected nine board members for Icann, the group this fall 
will hold elections for the first five of what ultimately will be nine at-
large members, who will represent Internet users in general in Icann 
policy making.  

Although Icann defines itself as a standards-setting body with a role 
limited to the technical functions of the Internet, it has already made 
rules to protect trademark interests from so-called cybersquatters, 
or domain name speculators. And in their next meeting, scheduled 
to begin July 13 in Japan, the group is expected to begin moving on 
plans to add new top-level domains to supplement the popular .com, 
.net and .org suffixes.  

Jerry Berman, executive director of CDT, said the goal of the 
campaign is to educate Internet users about Icann and how the 
group's decisions can effect them.  

He compared Icann's role to one of being able to "rearrange the 
streets of a city. Because they are registering our identity. All of us 
have property, an identity stake in our domain name. ... They are 
essentially effecting what is going to be a critical identity and 
property right of every person in the 21st Century."  

And Berman warned that there is a risk that ICANN might some day 
take on greater policy-making powers beyond its current technical 
role.  

"Internet users need to exercise their right to vote to ensure that 
ICANN's decisions are in the best interests of the greater Internet," 
he said.  

CDT, Common Cause and the ALA said they would be alerting their 
members and the companies and groups they work with in hopes 
that word of the registration drive will spread. Any company or group 
wanting to post information on the campaign is welcome to copy the 
CDT page, Berman said.  

Additionally, the ALA said it would be urging librarians around the 
country to post the campaign information on the first page that 
Internet users see when using public computers.  

Although Icann's relationship with the three groups has been 
contentious since they issued a report that forced the board to make 
the at-large elections more open, the group's president, Mike 
Roberts, said Icann welcomes help with outreach.  

In addition to Icann's own voter registration efforts that more 
specifically target the members of more traditional Internet 
associations, some countries, like Germany and Japan, have 
implemented aggressive campaigns to get their Internet users 
signed up.  

Roberts said about 20,000 people have already registered, an 
updated numbers with country specific information should be posted 
on the Icann Web site this week  

During the first round of elections, five directors representing 
geographic regions will be chosen. Icann has proposed that people 
must vote for candidates from their region. The election rules are 
expected to finalized next month at the board's meeting in Japan.  

CDT and the other groups said they plan to attend that meeting and 
to continue monitoring the election process.  

"We recognize that Icann is an experiment of sorts," said Scott 
Harshbarger, president of Common Cause. "But they are trying to 
manage a worldwide resource. That is too important to leave to a 
body that is not accountable to anyone."  

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company 

Web sites:

Center for Democracy and Technology:  www.cdt.org

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers:
http://www.icann.org/

Common Cause:  www.commoncause.org

American Library Association:  www.ala.org






* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From douglas  Thu Jun 29 09:38:05 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: press release from the city - tech indicators
Message-ID: <200006291638.JAA05613@scn.org>


Seattle is developing a set of technology indicators
that are designed to show effects of technology -- both
good and bad -- on our city.

Here is the link...
http://www.cityofseattle.net/news/detail.asp?ID=905

-- Doug



   Paul Schell, Mayor
   
   NEWS ADVISORY
   SUBJECT:   Results of study regarding impacts of technology on the
   community to be released
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:   
   6/27/00 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
   David Keyes - (206) 386-9759
   Katherine Schubert-Knapp  (206) 684-0909
   Kathy Sugiyama  (206) 684-0909 
   
        City to release signposts for a technology-healthy community
    Technology impact study results presented to City Council committee
                                   July 5
                                      
   SEATTLE The results of the first phase of Seattles study of the
   impacts of technology on the community will be presented to the City
   Council Public Safety and Technology Committee at 2 p.m. on July 5 by
   Seattle's Department of Information Technology and the Citizens
   Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board (CTTAB).
   
   This first in the world set of "indicators for a technology-healthy
   community" measures the overall impact technology is having on our
   community. These indicators are already being seen as a potential
   national model for other communities.
   
   "Technology in the modern age tends to become enmeshed in ever larger
   complex systems that have major implications for society. There is a
   need to understand the influence and directions of technology and
   technological systems, both positive and negative," says Doug Schuler,
   author, teacher and former CTTAB member.
   
   Seattle has created a new model for evaluating the impact both
   positive and negative technology is having on our region. "We think of
   technology indicators as signposts that mark and measure our progress
   in developing a technology-healthy city," says David Keyes, Seattles
   community technology planner. "These indicators will become working
   tools for those who plan, fund and implement programs intended to
   close the digital divide and build a sustainable community."
   
   The Indicator Project is a two-phase effort measuring the impact of
   information technology on the health and vitality of Seattle. The city
   and CTTAB worked with other technology, education, and community
   leaders to develop this set of impact indicators that will be used to
   measure information technologys impact over time.
   
   This set of indicators represents the completion of Phase I of the
   project. The next step will be to collect the first set of data for
   these indicators. Data will be collected and assembled from existing
   sources, surveying, and focus groups as appropriate.The purpose of
   this project is to understand the influence and directions of
   information technology and technological systems both positive and
   negative in the Seattle region and to use these indicators to target
   programs and secure additional resources. These indicators are
   intended to be measured over time, and the city currently has a goal
   of collecting and publishing the data every two years. For more
   information, visit the project web site at:
   [11]http://www.cityofseattle.net/tech/indicator_main.htm
   
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From jmabel at saltmine.com  Thu Jun 29 11:18:17 2000
From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:18:17 -0700
Subject: SCN: RE: Washington wiring up to become America's first cyberstate
Message-ID: <9545E045B91BD411999E00D0B74423BA68B2ED@ip7.70.244.216.mpl.net>

Gosh, if I hit www.smarttrek.com I get junk in Swedish. Now if I hit
www.smarttrek.org, I get a traffic map of Seattle. Sounds like:

1) Christian Science Monitor didn't actually check the link before
publishing.
2) Brian didn't actually check the link before forwarding.
3) .com is becoming so dominant, people forget there are .orgs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian High [mailto:bkh at arilabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 6:25 PM
To: scn at scn.org
Subject: SCN: Washington wiring up to become America's first cyberstate


x-no-archive: yes

=========================================================================

Washington wiring up to become America's first cyberstate

   Copyright ) 2000 Nando Media
   Copyright ) 2000 Christian Science Monitor Service

   By DEAN PATON, The Christian Science Monitor

   SEATTLE (June 28, 2000 12:06 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -
   Every workday morning, as millions of Americans commute to their jobs,
   a growing number of Seattleites are avoiding the traffic, George
   Jetson-style.

   While pouring their orange juice, they turn on their computers and
   call up www.smarttrek.com, a real-time map of the major traffic
   arteries in and out of the city. At 8:15 a.m., both bridges across
   Lake Washington are pulsing red - the indicator of bad traffic - and
   so they begin work at the kitchen table.

   By 8:37 a.m., when the sensors embedded in the roadway detect fewer
   vehicles per minute, the red changes to yellow or even green -
   indicators that traffic has lessened - and so these Emerald City
   residents grab their last bites of toast and choose the least
   congested routes to the office.

   With technologies like this changing the way everyday citizens perform
   even the most mundane tasks, Washington is fast becoming the nation's
   first cyberstate. In part because of the climate fostered by Microsoft
   and the high-tech industry, in part because of its progressive
   heritage, and catalyzed by Gary Locke, its technophile governor,
   Washington is spending millions of dollars digitizing everything from
   the way businesses pay taxes to the way school principals shape
   classroom environments.

   Last year, in its landmark report on the New Economy, the Progressive
   Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., ranked Washington state No. 1 in
   digital governance, No. 2 in technology applied to schools and No. 2
   in digital economic indicators.

   "We're trying to be as innovative as we can - to create a state
   government that's more cost effective, but also more convenient for
   citizens," explains David Danner, executive policy adviser to Locke.
   "Technology allows us to do that."

   Or, as the governor is fond of saying, the state wants to get people
   who are in lines online.

   Budding entrepreneurs, for example, can apply for and receive all
   necessary licenses with just a few keystrokes. Once the business has
   cash flow, they can pay all fees and taxes online as well. Indeed,
   Washington was the first state to implement digital-signature
   legislation, allowing people to sign documents online.

   Since 1996, the state has spent about $60 million to install what it
   calls the K-20 Network, a commitment that has brought high-speed data
   infrastructure to all of the state's 286 school districts, all
   universities, all two-year colleges and eventually, all Washington
   libraries.

   According to Danner, "Even the smallest school districts will have at
   least one T-1 line" - a high-capacity Internet connection capable of
   carrying 24 telephone lines or their equivalent.

   "We want all the students in Washington to have access to resources so
   that they can get the skills they need," he adds. "If a student in
   Forks, Wash., wants to study Russian, he can't do it. Except that with
   this network, he can. Online."

   Alongside the K-20 Network is the Smart Tools Academy, a program
   funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Its aim is to
   help all of Washington's school administrators use new technologies
   more effectively in their classrooms.

   "It's a four-day residential training program for superintendents and
   principals," explains Marty Smith, volunteer chair of Smart Tools
   Academy and a Seattle attorney. "We've trained over a thousand to date
   and have 18 sessions that we're running this summer to train the
   balance of them, about 2,000 total."

   Besides cost savings and better public access, there is another reason
   for Washington's evolution from ecotopia to digitopia: the need to
   keep up with the demands of a sped-up society, used to faster
   computers, cellular phones and overnight delivery.

   "We are seeing a change in people's expectations - in how quickly they
   want things done," says Lee Cheatam, executive director of the
   Washington Technology Center, a nonprofit group funded partly by the
   state and dedicated to exploring electronic futures.

   "There's just a difference in the way people expect to communicate,"
   he says.

   The virtual bricks and mortar of the digital state of Washington are
   being tamped into place rapidly. Locke has already convinced the
   legislature to expand advanced telecommunications systems into rural
   areas, which account for much of the state.

   Now public utility districts and rural port districts may form
   partnerships with private enterprise in order to bring down the costs
   of such infrastructure and make it accessible to the hinterland
   residents and businesses.

   And on June 22, Washington contracted with a Virginia-based technology
   firm to create an electronic shopping mall that permits agencies
   statewide to purchase everything from telephones to paper clips to
   tires at lower prices.

   "We really want to capture time - precious staff time - and redirect
   it to frontline services," says Marsha Tadano Long, director of the
   Washington State Department of General Administration.


    Copyright ) 2000 Nando Media




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From alboss at scn.org  Thu Jun 29 15:40:54 2000
From: alboss at scn.org (Al Boss)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: SCN: A modest proposal
Message-ID: <395BD076.8B3A1E5C@scn.org>

Bloody hell. 

Rich, I'd personally give you ten dollars if you'd drop the lawsuit and
find a new volunteer home where you can invest your energy in a more
positive fashion. Anyone else want to pitch in?

If it's not about the money, however, then it's time for the King County
Dispute Resolution Center. No cost to Rich or to SCN for the service.
I'll even make the first phone call for you if you want. Are both
parties, Rich and whoever you've filed suit against, willing to publicly
commit to working with an impartial, third-party mediator? (That
includes making and keeping appointments, following through,
cooperating, and accepting the outcome. I wasn't kidding when I used the
words "working" and "commit".) So, folks, are you up for this? Yes or
no?

"Yes, but..." = "no" as far as I'm concerned. There's a world of reasons
why mediation won't work, and only one reason why it would--because we
all agree to consider pursuing a reasonable possible outcome for SCN,
SCNA, Rich, the Board, and all of us who have been and continue to be
affected by this morass. 

More info on the Dispute Resolution Center is available at:

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/crisisclinic/lev3/svcdtail.asp?ServiceNo=5510&AgencyNo=1405
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From douglas  Thu Jun 29 16:45:59 2000
From: douglas (Doug Schuler)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Speaking of new hardware, software
Message-ID: <200006292345.QAA19493@scn.org>

FYI...

To: Globalcn2000 at egroups.com
From: Gareth Shearman <shearman at victoria.tc.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:19:31 -0700
Subject: [Globalcn2000] Community Portal software

Telecommunities Canada has released its "Community Portal" software 
to the world.  This software is "open source" and thus available to 
everyone.  It requires a server running Linux or other versions of 
UNIX, Perl and MySQL.

For those without servers the software is available for use at 
several sites, including http://portal.tc.ca/  The portal template 
currently supports English, French and Spanish, while channel content 
may be in any language.

The Spanish version needs a better translation.

Telecommunities Canada acknowledges the support of Industry Canada in 
the development of this software.

There are several copies of the software already running on various 
servers.  See, for example:

portal.tc.ca
portal.bccna.bc.ca
portal.victoria.tc.ca
portal.prcn.org

As I suggested to Artur recently, I'd like to see us set up an 
International site using this software as a legacy from the Barcelona 
Congress.

The original announcement, which was posted to "freshmeat" 
(www.freshmeat.net), is below:


Community Portal (CommPort) 1.00
     Chris Halsall <chalsall at csp.net> - June 17th 2000, 06:59 EST

     CommPort is a community portal system based on Perl and MySQL. 
Each user gets a personal portal page to which they can add their
     own "channels" or select from a growing list of pre-prepared 
local, national and international content. This allows any individual 
to always
     have a page of their own personal favourites in front of them. 
Channels may be either "active" with continually updated weather or 
news
     headlines or "passive" with collections of links. Each user can 
publish channels they've created for other users to incorporate into 
their
     own Portal. Locally created channels (administrated by a 
web-based interface) are also available in standard RSS/RDF format for
     integration with any other RSS aware system (e.g. MyNetscape, 
MyUserland, etc.).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Thu Jun 29 17:50:11 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Lawsuit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628230245.21327B-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000629173748.29975A-100000@scn>


HERE I think JJ understands an underlying truth that others want to avoid.
(I wish he understood the SAME one I'm focussing on, but....).

JJ sees a rogue member de-stabilizing the organization.

I see de-stabilizing conduct by the ones running the organization.

Unfortunately, there aren't many options for JJ's position, except group
opinion.  He has been successful at energizing this, but it ultimately
does not have any control over my actions.  This is not said snidely;  it
is simply the reality limiting his options.

I ran out of options when attempting to undo the dismissal and so have
gone outside the organization to a different forum.  However, JJ's
concern that this will cost the organization is correct, if the
defendants in the suit get SCNA money.  It is likely that they will lose
the suit. 

As I see it, the only viable direction is to focus the light on the
performance of the miscreants and the current position of the current
board.  Are any corrective measures being taken?  Is anyone analyzing the
events that led to this?  Those are minimum steps to lead to some sort of
resolution.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:

> The essential, prerequisite basis of _community_ is _common_, as in a
> common (or shared) experience or knowledge.  And while I would not "hold
> any one's feet to the fire" to the extent of requiring anyone to read, let
> alone follow, all the excruciating twists and turns of the ostensible
> debate with Rich, I will argue that _everyone_ needs to know that there is
> a debate, as well as the character of that debate.  If you turn your back
> on this, if you choose to be oblivious to a long-running problem, then
> your participation in SCN is ill-informed, and you no longer share
> community with those of us that have been dealing with this problem for
> several years.  Is Rich off-base?  Only you can decide.
> 
> You don't have to read every message of "more explanation" that comes by. 
> But the issue needs public airing, so that everyone at least knows that
> there is an issue, or we might as well become just "SN". 
> 
> === JJ =================================================================
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> 
> > I vote to remove all further discussion of the lawsuit from this list, 
> > and confine it to personal communications among those parties who 
> > would like to continue the back-and-forth until death do they part.
> > [....]
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From be718 at scn.org  Thu Jun 29 18:03:52 2000
From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: A modest proposal
In-Reply-To: <395BD076.8B3A1E5C@scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000629175552.29975C-100000@scn>


If your point is to just get rid of the hassle without examining the
problems, forget it.  You are right;  it is not about the money.

It continues to be apparent to me that no one sees any problems with the
initial actions of the (now) defendants.  Even Al's tone is one of
impatience at me.

As long as there is no real willingness to look at the conduct of the ones
who triggers this suit, I don't have much faith in the sincerity of these
suggestions.

And if the suggestion would simply allow the issue to be put out of sight,
then even its decision would not be accepted by those who simply focus on
the disruption.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________


On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Al Boss wrote:

> Bloody hell. 
> 
> Rich, I'd personally give you ten dollars if you'd drop the lawsuit and
> find a new volunteer home where you can invest your energy in a more
> positive fashion. Anyone else want to pitch in?
> 
> If it's not about the money, however, then it's time for the King County
> Dispute Resolution Center. No cost to Rich or to SCN for the service.
> I'll even make the first phone call for you if you want. Are both
> parties, Rich and whoever you've filed suit against, willing to publicly
> commit to working with an impartial, third-party mediator? (That
> includes making and keeping appointments, following through,
> cooperating, and accepting the outcome. I wasn't kidding when I used the
> words "working" and "commit".) So, folks, are you up for this? Yes or
> no?
> 
> "Yes, but..." = "no" as far as I'm concerned. There's a world of reasons
> why mediation won't work, and only one reason why it would--because we
> all agree to consider pursuing a reasonable possible outcome for SCN,
> SCNA, Rich, the Board, and all of us who have been and continue to be
> affected by this morass. 
> 
> More info on the Dispute Resolution Center is available at:
> 
> http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/crisisclinic/lev3/svcdtail.asp?ServiceNo=5510&AgencyNo=1405
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From alboss at scn.org  Thu Jun 29 19:50:57 2000
From: alboss at scn.org (Al Boss)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:50:57 -0700
Subject: SCN: A modest proposal
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000629175552.29975C-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <395C0B11.DCCDD635@scn.org>

Rich Littleton wrote:
> 
> Even Al's tone is one of impatience at me.

My impatience is a lot bigger than just you, Rich, but really, my tone
is not relevant to the question at hand.

> I don't have much faith in the sincerity of these
> suggestions.

I can understand that from your perspective, you must lack faith in the
sincerity of the suggestion. I know that's an important issue for you.

It's not about whether or not you think I'm sincere. It's about whether
or not you (and the folks you're suing) are willing to publicly commit
to accepting dispute resolution?

Yes or no?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From rockybay at scn.org  Thu Jun 29 23:53:39 2000
From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 23:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Can these spammers be bounced, automatically?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000623033000.3790S-100000@scn>


--> Can these spammers be bounced, automatically?
--> Is there, or are there, sites that zap spammers?
--> sites, hackitivists that DDOS spam ISPs?

For example

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:09:51 -0700
From: GoodNews <GoodNews at list.cb.com>
To: GoodNews <GoodNews at list.cb.com>
Subject: SCN: Good News from College Broadcast!
Parts/attachments:
   1 Shown    52 lines  Text
   2   OK    202 lines  Text
----------------------------------------

GOOD NEWS FROM COLLEGE BROADCAST - June 22, 2000
http://WWW.CB.COM

WIN A WILD WEST ADVENTURE AT OUR TRAVEL CHANNEL

[snip]
________________________________________


Malcolm Taran

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From remove at u-only.com  Fri Jun 30 01:59:22 2000
From: remove at u-only.com (remove at u-only.com)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:59:22
Subject: SCN: COMPUTER SECURITY
Message-ID: <630716222_Au2Email>

Hello, 

Your computer password is not enough to protect your
valuable business, professional and personal information.
Unfortunately, trusted insiders account for over $44
Billion in financial and intellectual property theft per
year.

We have contacted you because you fit the profile of
those whose computer information needs protection the
most.  Although you didn't specifically request our
contacting you, the response from others has shown that
the following information has been welcomed as both
informative and helpful.  We hope you will agree.

Your computer keyboard is the entry point of choice for
information thieves.  Passwords are a first line of
defence, but they are easily stolen and often forgotten.
We have determined that the best solution is that you
have a 30 digit lifetime password that is unique and that
you can never forget.  Now your fingerprint can be that
password!  Confound thieves with a sophisticated James
Bond style fingerprint scanning device that is built into
a computer keyboard.  Your fingerprint is the password
that controls access to your computer.  Never have a
password lost or stolen again!

Please visit the following web site now to see how
important this easy to use and affordable technology can
be for you.

http://www.u-only.com 

Thank you, 
Maury Mason 
Vice President, Marketing 
U-ONLY.COM - Computer Security Technologies
-------------------------------------------

We hope that this message has been informative.  If you
would like to be removed from our list, please send a
message here: mailto:remove at u-only.com 

Our mailing list was compiled in-house and will never be
shared.




*************************************
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From steve at advocate.net  Fri Jun 30 07:13:52 2000
From: steve at advocate.net (Steve)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:13:52 -0700
Subject: SCN: Useful web sites
Message-ID: <395C48B0.15920.28AFA2@localhost>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20000630/27b9097c/attachment.bin>

From brian at happygardening.com  Fri Jun 30 09:51:05 2000
From: brian at happygardening.com (Brian High)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:51:05 -0700
Subject: SCN: Feds' Hands Caught in Cookie Jar 
Message-ID: <002b01bfe2b3$65ad9000$0200005a@happygardening.com>

Feds' Hands Caught in Cookie Jar
by Declan McCullagh

3:00 a.m. Jun. 30, 2000 PDT
WASHINGTON -- Federal agencies are ignoring stern White House instructions
not to use cookies on government websites.

Dozens of U.S. government sites, including ones operated by the Justice
Department, the Defense Department, and the Energy Department continue
sending
cookies to the computers of unsuspecting visitors.

An investigation by Wired News shows that these agencies and many others
appear to be violating a Clinton administration directive that halted the
controversial
practice last week. Cookies track what people do online, and government use
of them may also run afoul of a 1974 privacy law.

"'Cookies' should not be used at federal websites, or by contractors when
operating websites on behalf of agencies," Jacob Lew, director of the White
House's
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote in a memo to agencies last
Thursday. Lew's memo came after news reports revealed the White House's drug
policy office used cookies to surreptitiously track behavior.

But the agencies aren't paying attention. In the Defense Department, at
least 13 websites continue to use cookies, including the U.S. European
Command, the Air
Force Space Command, a Pentagon records agency, and the Army's training
command.

So do Federal Reserve banks, the U.S. Mint, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Wired News conducted its investigation by writing a Perl program to connect
to the website of every agency and commission listed in the U.S. Government
Manual, an official government publication. After connecting, the program
recorded whether or not each website used cookies, and if the cookies were
temporary
or permanent.

[...]

http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,37314,00.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


From kgillgrn at scn.org  Fri Jun 30 10:22:43 2000
From: kgillgrn at scn.org (Ken Gillgren)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SCN: Crandall's Idea
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000628131727.7461D-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1000630101714.19124A-100000@scn>

Well, for what it's worth, I would be interested in participating in some
kind of review process. I was involved years ago in helping to get SCN on
the ground, and have continued to encourage the use of SCN by schools and
community groups. Except for these email exchanges, I don't know Rich or
is work on the email training at all. I don't know the names of the folks
named in the suit, but would feel comfortable talking with anyone on
resolutions short of formal court action. 

Are there two or three others? I'm at least open to meeting with folks.

Ken Gillgren


On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I think this is a good-faith suggestion.  It might lead to others that
> could reach the same result.
> 
> The problem with this PARTICULAR (but logical) proposal is that, this sort
> of review was PRECISELY what Haskins and the two guests deliberately
> ignored.  Such a review was the missing step and that step would have
> resulted in a finding that there was no basis for dismissal.  
> 
> And who would do the review?  Governance? which now has to justify its
> inaction before?  The Board? which also has to justify its refusal to step
> in earlier when asked.
> 
> Are you aware of any unbiased members?  If so, maybe there can be formed a
> task force.  If so.
> 
> It's a positive thought.
> 
> Rich
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kenneth Crandall wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I would seem that this provides a rational avenue to end this energy wasting
> > efforts and concern about the financial aspects related to the pending
> > lawsuit.  There should be a grievance review procedure,  a method of
> > establishing one if none exists,  or use the Governance committee if that is
> > the best procedure and give Rich his review before his fellow SCNA members
> > rather that solve internal problems in the court.
> > 
> > Assuming the Rich is as concerned about SCNA as he professes, having this
> > review within SCNA should allow him to withdraw his suit and everyone can
> > concentrate on productive ventures.
> > 
> > I hope those involved will see this or some other process as preferable to
> > the mess we are currently in.
> > 						Kenneth Crandall
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rich Littleton [mailto:be718 at scn.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
> > To: Kenneth Crandall
> > Cc: Irene Mogol; Joe Mabel; 'J. Johnson'; scn at scn.org
> > Subject: RE: SCN: Put up or shut up.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Herein lies the seriousness of the refusal of the Governance committee to
> > handle this.  Whatever your feeling on this issue, the fact that the
> > Governance committee refused to handle this and other complaints is
> > precisely what led to the filing of a suit:  There was no workable forum.
> > 
> > Rich
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *