response 83 of 133:

Apr 17 18:22 UTC 2001

Re 82 - Doesn't much matter to me whether you care about what
I think - but you did ask, so I answered.

response 85 of 133:

Apr 17 19:13 UTC 2001

I also notice that usgov is using the term "make a copy of a driver's 
license."  I suspect that what's illegal is making a copy for 
fraudulent purposes (as in a fake ID), not a garden variety photocopy, 
and that he's pretending not to understand the difference.  I'll 
believe otherwise if someone can cite the relevent law.

response 87 of 133:

Apr 17 20:12 UTC 2001

Where did we ask for the contact person's home address and phone 
number? I don't think it can at all be considered an invasion of 
privacy to ask for the corporate address and phone number of the 
contact person for a corporate account.

Usgov- did you not see the part about how the rules/policies concerning 
corporate accounts changed after those previous accounts were made?  Is 
it that unreasonable to request a phone number (work phone number at 
that) of the contact person?

For people who wish to become members- we are, in a way, in the 
verification business.  Grex does have to protect itself, now doesn't 
it?

response 91 of 133:

Apr 17 22:18 UTC 2001

Too, discussion seems to be focusing on registered corporate
entities, but Grex also welcomes organizations which are
not formally structured and legally defined.  I think we are 
pretty open and welcoming here and our policy is a nice fit
for our abilities.

I have to think this is a huge miscommunication.  usgov, if up
to no good, could have easily sent along some bogus ID when 
first asked.  He/she didn't.  We are a weird group, with 
priorities that might not make a whole lot of sense if you
hadn't been here to watch the system develop.  usgov is way into
privacy, and most of us might even agree, in theory.  But there
are practical concerns when you open your doors and unleash
people on the Internet.  We are not rich enough to afford to
get into trouble so we must be cautious.  Asking for ID, on
the honor system, isn't really that cautious, actually, and 
certainly shouldn't be seen as offensive.  Maybe, once
usgov gets a chance to know us better, he or she will agree.

Until then we should thank the organization for the donation
but tear it up or send it back.  

response 93 of 133:

Apr 17 23:20 UTC 2001

I think someone might explain to usgov that Grex is a very small 
organization, run by volunteers, with a budget of a few thousand dollars 
per year sent as voluntary contributions by those who think Grex is 
worthwhile.  Grex doesn't have any lawyers, except those who log in and 
offer free advice from time to time.  The entire budget goes into 
maintaining a 10 year old computer system, several phone lines, and an 
Internet connection, along with a few necessary accessory expenses such 
as insurance.  There are no paid staff, no corporate office, and there's 
no paid advertising done to promote the system.  Everyone running Grex 
is doing the best they can to stretch *very* limited resources to cover 
a pretty nice and interesting service.

Also, I don't know what usgov needs from Grex, but I don't think a 
corporate membership donation is going to get any tangible benefits.  
The only two benefits I know of for any members are a vote and outbound 
Internet service (through an ISDN line shared with 60 or 70 other 
people).  Do corporate members get even these things?  Usgov can support 
Grex by just making a donation.  It's employees are all welcome to 
create their own accounts and use them to their hearts content.  I've 
been a user here since the first day Grex opened to the public.  I've 
been a member at times, but am not currently a member; it hasn't 
affected the usability of Grex for me in the slightest.

response 95 of 133:

Apr 18 00:24 UTC 2001

usgov sent me an address which I can send the check back to, if that's what
we decide to do.  (We seem to have almost reached a consensus on this
point.)

Rane: you keep saying that we ought to accept a resident agent's address as
ID.  That is contrary to our current policy, which was voted and approved by
the board.  If you think we should change the policy, you should say so in
item 255 and/or make a motion in a new item.

As for Hamlet, I was quoting from the Pelican Books edition.  If it's good
enough for them, it's good enough for me.

response 97 of 133:

Apr 18 03:27 UTC 2001

I'm going to relocate the above motion to an item specifically for it.

response 99 of 133:

Apr 18 03:44 UTC 2001

As I've stated before, that access is IN PRACTICE, if not in theory, 
predicated on the responsibility of an individual person.  

We grant institutional memberships to individual persons on behalf of 
organizations, based on the willingness of those individual persons to 
take responsibility for the use to which the access is put, as evidenced 
by their meeting of the validation requirements.

response 101 of 133:

Apr 18 06:45 UTC 2001

According to #96, corporate members do not get outbound telnet (ftp etc.)
access.  And since they don't get voting privileges either, the only reason
left to have a corporate membership is to avoid account reaping due to
inactivity.  That's the only thing they get for their money.  Does usgov
understand that?

Without outbound telnet, I'm not as concerned about verification of account
"ownership".  But quite frankly, it's my belief that choice of usgov as
account ID was no accident - experienced users know that there are thousands
of inexperienced users out there that are quite willing to believe that
something from ID usgov - even if from usgov@cyberspace.org  - must really
be from the US government.  Who knows what fraudulent spamming schemes could
be used, e.g. "This is the US government, you must send us your SSN for
verification."  How many seniors, new to the internet, might actually fall
for that?  Of course, that doesn't require outbound telnet access to
perpetrate, e-mail would suffice.  But usgov's argument would be 10 times
stronger if it had chosen an ID such as pes or peands.

I still say that there is a dead fish smell in the air about this whole thing.

response 103 of 133:

Apr 18 15:00 UTC 2001

I have to say I'm disappointed with the way this is being handled.

I think the best course of action would have been to tell them, "we're 
sorry, but this is our current policy.  If you don't want to follow it, 
we can't make you a member." I think usgov's arguments about why the 
policy is incorrect are interesting, but they don't require us to do 
anything.  We aren't obligated to take anyone as a member.

I kind of cringe at the combative tone people are taking in this item.  
If I had been treated this way when I came to Grex, I wouldn't have 
stayed.  We're acting in a really unfriendly manner, over what's 
basically a difference of opinion.

I am *appalled* that we now have a motion singling out a specific 
user.  I don't think that's a polite or businesslike way to do things, 
and I think it smacks of viciousness -- someone doesn't like usgov's 
attitude, so they're going to "punish" them with a public motion 
suggesting we do what we should have done through simple procedure.  I 
don't think this is a can of worms we want to open.  What's next?  
Motions to remove certain users because we don't like their political 
attitudes?

response 105 of 133:

Apr 18 15:41 UTC 2001

albaugh is incorrect in #101 when he says "And since they don't get voting
privileges either, the only reason left to have a corporate (sic)
membership is to avoid account reaping due to inactivity.  That's the only
thing they get for their money." This is only the selfish perspective. 

I obtained four institutional memberships for non-profit organizations
(one was not incorporated at the time) for whom I used Grex accounts for
hosting web sites and for e-mail addresses for them. Since these did not
involve telnet access from Grex, it was not required to even have
memberships for them. So why was it done? To support Grex. 

It would help Grex if more users took this charitable perspective.

I agree with albaugh that the choice of the ID "usgov" does sound like the
several junk mail advertisers that use language or address formats to make
their junk sound like government mailings:  anything to get the recipients
to at least open, and maybe even be intimidated into sending money (if
they are stupid enough). Even if this is not usgov's intention, he puts
himself into the position of being viewed that way by almost anyone with
even a minimum of experience with internet use. I do not think, however,
it can be considered a disqualification until something illegal is done.
The company he claims to represent (this is not yet confirmed), however,
might take a dim view of the implications of the choice of such an ID.