Articles

• ACLU News of Cyberspace
• Differences: FidoNet/Internet
• Beware the Ides of March
• Fido Copyright in Danger?
• The Great ZEC Election Hoax
• R19 activity?

ACLU News of Cyberspace

--- Following message extracted from FIDONEWS @ 1:18/14 ---
By Christopher Baker on Sun Mar 09 19:05:14 1997

[reformatting this msg for FidoNews compromised the PGP signature clear-signing this as authentic from Mike Bilow. The original is available in the FIDONEWS Echo if anyone wants to test it.] Ed.

From: Mike Bilow
To: Christopher Baker
Date: 07 Mar 97 12:37:04
Subj: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update

* Forwarded (from: Netmail) by Mike Bilow using BilowMail0.2.
* Originally from ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner to Mike Bilow.
* Original dated: Mar 06 '97, 23:40

From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com
To: cyber-liberties@aclu.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update
Thursday, March 5, 1997

CONTENTS:
* ACLU Welcomes "Pro-CODE" Encryption Bill, Warns of Anti-Privacy Legislation Waiting in the Wings
* ACLU Moves to Protect Netizens From Prosecution Under New York Cybercensorship Law
* About Cyber-Liberties Update (Unchanged since Feb 5)

* ACLU Welcomes "Pro-CODE" Encryption Bill, Warns of Anti-Privacy Legislation Waiting in the Wings

The American Civil Liberties Union today praised Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) for his leadership in protecting free speech and online privacy and welcomed the introduction of S.377, the "Promotion of Commerce in a Digital Era Act (Pro-CODE)."

The bill, introduced by Senator Burns on the Senate floor last week, aims at lifting export controls on encryption with a resulting increase in privacy protection for both communications and stored information, the ACLU said.

Encryption programs scramble information so that it can only be read with a "key" -- a code the recipient uses to unlock the scrambled electronic data. Programs that use more than 40 bits of data to encode information are considered "strong" encryption. Currently, unless these keys are made available to the government, the Clinton/Gore Administration bans export of hardware or software containing strong encryption, treating these products as "munitions."

The ACLU said the anti-cryptography ban has considerably weakened U.S. participation in the global marketplace, in addition to curtailing freedom of speech by denying users the right to "speak" using encryption. The ban also violates the right to privacy by limiting the ability to protect sensitive information in the new computerized world.

The ACLU believes that both encryption programs and communications using such programs are free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment. A recent federal court decision -- now under appeal by the government -- has upheld this view. The ACLU plans to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in that case (Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of State), as it has done in other legal challenges to the Administration's anti-encryption policy.

"Privacy, anonymity and security in the digital world depend on encryption," said Donald Haines, legislative counsel on privacy and cyberspace issues for the ACLU's Washington national office. "The aim of the Pro-CODE bill is to allow U.S. companies to compete with industries abroad and lift restrictions on the fundamental right to free speech, the hallmark of American democracy."

Haines said that the ACLU is urging other senators to support and co-sponsor the bill. However, he noted that certain provisions raised important, "troubling" concerns that should be addressed before a final vote.

For example, the bill provides that, in exchange for "relaxing export controls...this Act creates an obligation on the part of...companies involved in the export of information security products to share information ...about those products to designated representatives of the federal government." (Section 2(a)(16)). Such an exchange undermines a central purpose of Pro-CODE: fostering American competitiveness, Haines said.

"Who would want to buy a privacy protection program bearing a label 'inspected by the U.S. government?' That's fine for meat inspection, but it is not appropriate or wise for cryptography products," Haines said. "It is also downright offensive to say you can exercise your free speech rights only after discussing what you want to say with federal agents."

Another troubling provision of Pro-CODE would establish a secret "Information Security Board" composed of agencies involved in information security policy. According to the bill, the purpose of the board would be for government agencies -- including the CIA, FBI, NSA and Department of Defense -- to meet with industry leaders to review "developments" in cryptography technologies.

Aside from concerns that such agencies have a history of invading privacy and violating civil liberties, the bill wrongly exempts the board from the federal open-meeting requirements, according to Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the national ACLU and chair of the ACLU's Cyber-Liberties Task Force.

"Government should not operate in secret," Steinhardt said. "Even if the board's meetings are limited to discussing general, non-proprietary industry developments, the Federal Advisory Committee Act should apply and the meetings should be open to the public. While we continue to urge against the creation of an advisory board, at a minimum any meetings should be open and should include consumers and members of the privacy community, who are conspicuously absent from the list."

Some cryptography experts have also questioned whether the technical definitions in the bill will actually provide the broad-scale protection for encryption supported by Senator Burns. While clearly covering mass-market products (e.g., Netscape's Internet browser), the question is whether the protection would also cover the kind of encryption program the court upheld in Bernstein.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the ACLU welcomed the Burns bill as a positive step toward eliminating unconstitutional restrictions on a developing industry that promises to enhance free speech and privacy for everyone in the Information Age.

Senator Burns, as chair of the subcommittee on telecommunications, has scheduled a hearing on the Pro-CODE bill for March 11, with possible action by the full Senate Commerce Committee as early as the following week.

"In both this Congress and the last one, Senator Burns has consistently championed free speech and privacy in the encryption debate," said the ACLU's Don Haines. "He deserves our support and full cooperation in moving this bill, and we look forward to working with him to resolve our concerns."

Haines warned that more restrictive proposals are already waiting in the wings, with provisions that would take a first step toward establishing mandatory controls on domestic encryption and requiring encryption "keyholders" to share their keys with the government.

"In addition to supporting Pro-CODE, we are closely monitoring all new encryption legislation. The ACLU will vigorously oppose any scheme that calls for key escrow, key recovery, or takes a step toward mandatory controls on encryption," Haines said.

* ACLU Moves to Protect Netizens From Prosecution Under New York Cybercensorship Law

Despite two lower court rulings protecting Internet users from prosecution under the federal Communications Decency Act, "netizens" are still in danger of criminal charges under a New York law that restricts free speech in cyberspace, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.

Moving to protect netizens, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal district court, saying that their plaintiffs (and all Internet users) could face prison sentences of up to four years under the law. The federal CDA is currently awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Governor Pataki may say that he is trying to protect minors, but the sad fact is that this law does not and cannot protect children," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney specializing in cyberspace issues. "The only immediate harm on the horizon is to the millions of Internet users, including our plaintiffs, who face criminal prosecution for exercising their right to free speech."

"Parents, not the government, should control what their children see online," Beeson added. "This can be more effectively and less restrictively accomplished through the use of blocking software and the development of other technology that allows for voluntary screening."

Because New York State has refused to stay prosecution while the Supreme Court considers the federal law, the case is now moving forward to a courtroom hearing, scheduled to begin on April 3. The hearing is expected to last from three to five days and will likely include a live demonstration of the Internet as well as testimony from expert witnesses and plaintiffs.

The brief also includes the assertion that the Act violates the CommerceClause of the United States Constitution because it regulates communications outside the state of New York and subjects Internet users to a confusing babel of conflicting state laws.

"A librarian in Illinois will now think twice before sending information to a fellow librarian in New York, or will not 'link' to a website in New York for fear that New York authorities will charge them under this confusing statute," said Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom.

"Despite the fact that this is a New York statute, given the reality of the Internet, anyone who accesses information from outside New York is also impacted by this law. This is clearly unacceptable for any Internet user," she added.

Citing opinions that struck down the federal CDA, the ACLU said that the New York law contains the same "fatal constitutional flaws." A chart appended to the brief shows, point by point, the similarities -- including, in some cases, identical language -- between the two laws. A favorable decision by the high court would provide powerful ammunition against the New York law, the ACLU said.

"We are surprised and disappointed that the State of New York is rushing to judgment on an issue of critical importance, when everyone knows that the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the related federal case two weeks from now," said Norman Siegel, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Reno v. ACLU on March 19. A decision is expected to be handed down by the end of the term, in June or July.

ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor:
Lisa Kamm (kamml@aclu.org)
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036

To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body.

The Cyber-Liberties Update is archived at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html

For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. PGP keys can be found at http://www.aclu.org/about/pgpkeys.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMx8RqvF6vdl9Zp5lAQFLoAP8DlzC8oUsCQxCsWEI1mKfMvsGu0pN0cj3 1n7fCRy0TVpZxKQ1Zr1miRSg45d4Pg181dVZWA+yyqOTAmOjqfxm5YGNCvlOaVqb WGuE4W0FzOgaeSGmHnrZzeyYSSPIy4JlJ/r7lIJKD0tR5kgAI7i20oqKLg2xoj+t f/uS+/CnMGM= =0jNz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This Message was sent to cyber-liberties

---
Origin: N1BEE BBS +1 401 944 8498 V34/VFC/V32bis/HST16.8 (1:323/107)

DIFFERENCES: FIDONET/INTERNET
By Pete Snidal (C) 1997
sysop, Fidonet 1:354/910

Have you heard of the Internet? It's doubtful there's anyone alive on the planet who hasn't, but have you heard of Fidonet? Fidonet has been around and functioning as long as the Internet, and is still alive and well, thank you, but for some reason, we don't hear of it every time we turn on the tv or pick up a magazine.

Fidonet is also a resource available to anyone with a computer and a modem, and following is a comparison of it and the much-touted internet:

FIDONET

Is a system of hobbyist-operated bulletin boards, spanning the world, which connect and exchange data regularly, usually on a nightly schedule. There are 28,000 Fidonet nodes on Earth, 9400 in North America, and 16,000 in Europe.

INTERNET

Is a system of server computers, also spanning the world, which are virtually connected to one another at all times.

FIDONET

Offers the local user a series of conference areas, which host discussions on specific subjects, such as alternative medicine, home schooling, bicycling, etc. There are over 1000 such "Fidoechoes," and few fidonet bbs's carry them all. But your "local" can usually be convinced to carry the ones you want. The "Noise/signal ratio" of these echoes is quite low, and the atmosphere is generally very folksy, friendly, and casual. "Fidoecho" traffic is carried from the originating bbs's to bbs' all over the world which carry that echo, so discussion is facilitated between people on an ongoing basis who are separated by thousands of miles.

INTERNET

Discussion of various subjects is carried by USENET NEWS. There are many UN areas, such as rec.motorcycle, or alt.space.aliens.ufo, but there is usually a very high "noise/signal" ratio on Usenet, and the areas are hard to read and post in. There is also much hostility, or "flaming" on Internet UN discussion areas.

FIDONET

Most Fidonet bbs's have a Files Area, from which the user may download a number of programme files, all of which will be "shareware," or "freeware." In some cases, files of particular interest may even be "File Requested" from other systems. Many Fidonet systems also carry a large number of information, or text files, and some picture files, sound files, etc.

INTERNET

Gives access to thousands of "FTP sites," which are repositories for files by the millions. They are invaluable if you know what files you want and where they are located, but finding them amongst all the dross is often very time-consuming and requires a fair bit of experience and expertise.

FIDONET

Lets users send "netmail" to users of other fidonet bbs's around the world. This is private mail, accessible only at the destination bbs, and readable only by the addressee and the sysops through whose systems it passes. It is not instant, nor is it guaranteed, but it usually gets there, and faster than normal surface mail, as well as .43 cents cheaper. Sending of commercial messages in Fidonet is prohibited, and "Spamming" - electronic junk-mail - is impossible.

INTERNET

Provides "email" - probably it's best function. Email travels from origin ISP to destination ISP very quickly, usually within an hour or less. It also costs nothing to send, other than the price of subscription to the ISP (Internet Service Provider.) "Spamming" - the sending of electronic junkmail to your personal email box - is seriously frowned upon, and sort of prohibited, but the fight with those who would capitalize on this resource in this way is ongoing.

INTERNET

Allows access to the "World Wide Web." Access to Web Pages is an eye-opening experience, and allows virtually anyone to give the world access to their advertising, opinions, etc., on virtually any subject. Comparable to leafing through an inexhaustible supply of electronic magazine pages - complete with full graphics, and "hyper-text" ability to jump from subject to subject, and to follow "threads" of subject material with a click of the mouse. An awesome information source, but with a scary potential for wasting time and money (once your monthly maximum contract time has been consumed.)
A special note to teachers and parents: In fairness, it must be noted that web access is not always a good thing. Since the "web" is a constantly growing, almost living thing, there is no way to check just what your charges - students or children (or both) will have access to. Or just what will have access to them. Thus, pages are presented which invite children to join the Crips, for instance, or which espouse drug use, pornography, violence, and many other things which the intelligent leader of children would not support. As such pages can be on any server computer anywhere in the world, there is little in the way of accountability for those who present this objectionable material.

FIDONET

Access is provided to various text and graphic files, but the machine on which the data is mounted is locally accessible, and full accountability is thus ensured. Furthermore, the supervising adult can access the same system his/herself, and be satisfied as to the level of objectionability provided. And if there is a serious objection, the operator of the system is someone in your local calling area, who can be contacted, and if necessary, taken to task. Fidonet gives no direct access to server computers "somewhere" on the worldwide web.

FIDONET

Has no parallel to the web. The web is truly awesome technology, but its phenomenal entertainment value soon wears thin.

FIDONET

Costs the user nothing. Free basic access is a fundamental given on all Fidonet systems. User support is sometimes encouraged, but never demanded.

FIDONET

Encourages the use of Pre-Windows computers, or "dosboxes." There is a plethora of software available for Fidonet technology, from that for the most basic user online, through offline mail readers, to node and bbs software, as well as Internet gating mail feeders, all of which run fine in Dosboxes such as 286's and even XT's, with small hard drives, or no hard drives, and with memory as low as the basic 640K.

INTERNET

Service Providers whose systems don't require Windows software for access are few and far between. They require a "Winsock" in order to connect, and they the user needs to have such software as Eudora Mailer, and Netscape or some other hi-tech "browser." These are fine software for the user with a minimum 4 Meg 386 running Windows 3.x or over, but the prospective user with the earlier computer is just out of luck.

INTERNET

"No tickee, no launlee" is the motto of the ISP. The Internet is a strictly commercial, no-bones money- making proposition. It's explosion in recent years is due only to an ever-increasing interest by free- enterprise capitalism to do just that - capitalize on this new and expanding technology. In many cases, people are getting their money's worth, but the Internet is nobody's hobby, and it is naive not to look for a gimmick in every box.

SUMMARY:

Both these fine networks have been in existence for over ten years now. Each has its strengths, and its weaknesses. The fortunate part is that nobody has to make a choice over one of the other. Both are available to the computer user with a modem and a phone line, and both have much to offer. If you're presently using neither, you might like to check out the less expensive one first. Free is always the least expensive, and that is Fidonet. For the number of the fidonet bbs nearest you (there is likely one in your town,) consult your local computer outlet or computer paper. For details on hooking up to the internet, consult your yellow pages.

Beware the Ides of March...
by Ken Reaverson, 1:133/1004 / ablood@juno.com

You can tell the Ides are drawing near... the doomsayers are out in full force. :)

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Ken. I've only been a nodelisted sysop on Fido since the beginning of the year, but I've been lurking around for a few years. I could bore you with my struggles to obtain a node number, but I won't. ;)

At any rate, I picked up a feed, and started paying attention to some of the sysop and adminstrative echoes.. and I've noticed alot of people a tad upset, or exasperated. I've listened to more than one sysop moan about how Fido is in it's death throes. I've read FidoNews and watch the amount of nodes drop. It kind of surprises me.

My experiences on Fido have been varied over the years... my first impressions was a collection of people babbling on endlessly. Sometimes I'd find an echo I liked and spend some time posting, but then I'd start getting notices from the sysop saying that my account had expired, and that if I wanted to continue using their system, I had to pay them money. :) Like any headstrong sysop, I dropped the BBS from my dialing directory. :) I spend too much money on my own BBS, I'll be damned if I'm paying someone else to run theirs.

Then I became a little more familiar with Fido-style networking in general, and alot of my complaints disappeared. I understood why sysops wanted money, because pulling in echomail and FDN's takes money. It was during this learning period that some Fido echoes became helpful to me, as some helpful people put up with a newcomers questions and made things a little clearer for me. My opinion of Fido started to change, I didn't automatically dismiss it as a gaggle of loudmouths. :)

These days, I like Fido. It's an immensely helpful tool.. I get questions answered quickly, and completely. If it weren't for Fido, I wouldn't be able to provide my users with access to Internet email or USENET groups through the BBS.

Today, my main impression of Fido is a mixed one. I've had fun, and there have been a few things that have ticked me off (the next time a moderator tells me to cut my two line sig down to one line because I'm wasting bandwidth, I'm going to scream. :) ), but it seems that there are two types of Fido-style people; those that sincerely care and try to help the network and other sysops, and those that are concerned with their own personal ambitions.

I think I've been lucky. Since picking the net up in early January, I've run into mostly people of the first type... my RC, my nets NEC, and our new NC are all very dedicated and helpful people. One of the nodes acts as a UUCP gate free of charge to the nets members. If it weren't for these guys, I probably would have long since grown disgusted by some of the infighting I see.

I can't understand why, when people like them are around, people are hearing FidoNet's death knell. The net's losing nodes. So what, BBS's are dropping like flies. :) It's not really a surprise. Eventually, the people that do care, and the people that are dedicated to the network will be the ones that are left, and I would hope that if anyone could turn the network around, it would be them.

I can't help but wonder if Fido would be in such 'dire straits' if the same people that are busy tolling the bell were busy working to make Fido a place that the vanishing sysops would want to stay.

Lighten up guys. This is supposed to be a hobby, after all. :)

-Ken

Zone 2 Excommunicates Tom Jennings
by Zorch Frezberg 1:205/1701

The following nodelist segment was submitted to the International Nodelist by Z2C, Ward Dossche.

It is confirmed in the ZONE2.LD3 "ZSeg" for the nodelist, available in the FDN titled ZSEGS.

Please note...Ward Dossche has unilaterally removed Tom Jennings' name and copyright from Fido in Zone 2.

While it did not go beyond the Zone 2 confines, it would seem that Ward is saying on behalf of Zone 2 Sysops that intellectual property rights can be confiscated at whim, since he has effectively stolen both the copyright and registered trademark which Tom Jennings has graciously allowed us to use without fees or royalties all these years.

Is this a precursor to someone trying to take the copyright for their own, and start charging us those royalties they might feel that they deserve?

Other than a single brief message, as of March 12, Ward has issued no other explanation than that he feels the new wording 'best reflects reality' as he sees it.

Mind you, this is also the same man who wants to be your new International Coordinator.

Think on it.

;A FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, March 14, 1997 -- Day number 073 :37533 ;A
;A The FidoNet Nodelist, a listing of the systems within FidoNet.
;A
;A .. The FidoNet NodeList is compiled so that computer systems within FidoNet
;A may communicate with each other. Use and intra-FidoNet distribution
;A rights are granted to all FidoNet system operators for the purposes of
;A communication within FidoNet or applying for a FidoNet node number.
;A
;A .. This is a compilation of individual nodelist segments contributed by the
;A drafters and compilers of those segments. Contribution of these segments
;A to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the contributors.
;A
;S
;S

# 30 #

The More Things Change,
The More They Stay The Same
by Zorch Frezberg, 1:205/1701

Regional EchoMail Coordinators are the unwitting victims of a particularly nasty hoax...one that their innocent blindness is keeping them from seeing as it really is.

Most of you have seen the message by now that the ZEC, Bruce Bodger, has mandated that your Region be consulted on whether or not he should retain his post as ZEC.

What you may not realize is that the entire call for election is all a hoax, a blind, a cover for what is the true nature of the situation.

You see, Bruce Bodger also holds the position of "Overseer of BackBone Operations", or OBO, a shadowy position that he created for himself and imposed on Fido when he, as Zone EchoMail Coordinator, revoked the prior BackBone Operations Policy (BOP).

This BOFAQ, while holding no real authority or power under the FidoNet Policy, FidoNet Technical Standards, nor any accepted vote or consensus of FidoNet members or Coordinators, has been quietly implemented and accepted as the 'guiding authority' on how EchoMail is handled.

Moreso when the person who created the OBO and OBOFAQ is himself the Zone EchoMail Coordinator, the highest authority on EchoMail issues in Zone 1.

So long as the illusion of authority has been maintained, the illusion of real power to impose these "guidelines" has been observed in the EchoMail hierarchy, and so few OBO decisions have ever been challenged successfully.

However, the latest copy of his replacement document, BOFAQ703.TXT, clearly shows that the OBO is not answerable to any authority in Fido or the EchoMail hierarchy.

Most of these same points have existed in previous versions, but that the ZEC is calling for the choice of either a 'vote of confidence' or an election to replace him makes it necessary to refer to the latest set of BOFAQ "guidelines".

Please get a copy of BOFAQ703.TXT and look at the document...specifically, look at the "definitions" area for the details.

{modified to fit FIDONEWS specs and extracted to specifics}

> O.B.O. - Overseer of Backbone Operations - Person responsible for
> maintenance of this help file and its associated
> distribution documents.
> The position has customarily been occupied by the Zone 1
> EchoMail Coordinator (identified by the 1:1/200 address in
> the FidoNet nodelist). Ultimately responsible for all
> decisions regarding EchoMail distribution on the North
> American Backbone.

Note the three elements...

1. The OBO is responsible for the BOFAQ document.
2. The OBO is responsible for *all* decisions on EchoMail distribution.

and, most importantly,

3. There is no *requirement* that the OBO be the ZEC.

But, let's continue...

> O.B.O. Council - A group of people representing the EchoMail
> interests of the Zone, assembled for the purpose of
> providing input and perspective to the O.B.O. The Council
> consists of the 10 Region EchoMail Coordinators.

Please note...nowhere in this definition, indeed, in the entire BOFAQ document, is there any *requirement* that the OBO _act_ on any decisions of the OBO Council...even if it were to call for removal of the OBO.

> Zone Echolist - As it relates to the Backbone, a database
> containing a list of echoes distributed by, or aspiring to
> be distributed by, the Backbone. The format of this
> monthly distributed database is at the discretion of the
> ZEC, however customarily contains echo names, moderator
> names and addresses, and descriptions of the echoes.

Here we have a conundrum...which "ZEC" is being referred to in this definition?

Traditionally, the handling of echoes being listed is the province of the Zone Echo_LIST_ Coordinator, while the Zone Echo_MAIL_ Coordinator has been responsible for the smooth operation of the various BackBones in Zone 1, usually under the BackBone Operations Policy.

Now, however, with the BOFAQ, these distinctions are blurred beyond any form of clarity.

> Zone EchoList Coordinator - Person responsible for the maintenance
> and production of the Zone EchoList.

Note the smooth but subtle difference...

Currently, Bruce Bodger is the Zone Echo_MAIL_ Coordinator...it's Adrian Walker who is the Zone Echo_LIST_ Coordinator.

With this, the Zone Echo_MAIL_ Coordinator is effectively removed from having any authority whatsoever in BackBone operations.

So how does this "authority" to perpetrate this hoax come about?

It came about by the Regional EchoMAIL Coordinator Council failing to act a while back when the ZEC revoked the BOP. Without any clear action by the REC Council, the BOFAQ was slipped into place despite individual protests from various sysops.

As stated in the BOFAQ itself:

> Q1 ====
> What is the purpose of this help file?
>
> This help file has been assembled as a means to provide answers to
> frequently asked questions regarding how the Backbone operates and
> to provide an insight into its internal administration.

"...how the BackBone operates..."

"...an insight into its internal administration."

These are comments which clearly indicate that while there is some formal set of rules to its operations, that same set of rules and/or agreements is not to be made available to the public.

Moreover, the subtlety of the separation of power between the OBO and the ZEC becomes even more apparent as you read the BOFAQ:

> Q2 =====
> Who appoints the Hubs?
>
> Hubs at the Zone level, commonly referred to as "Stars", are
> appointed by the O.B.O.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> Q11 ====
> How does one go about getting an echo added to North American
> Backbone distribution?
>
> The O.B.O. generally adds a conference to the Backbone when all of
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> these requirements are met:
>
> 2) The moderator sends a request to the O.B.O., or preferably
> ^^^^^^^^^

> Q12 ====
> When does the Backbone remove an echo from its distribution
> system?
>
> The O.B.O. generally drops a conference when any of these
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> situations occur:
>
> 7) When the O.B.O. considers that the distribution of an echo
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> is no longer in the best interest of the Backbone.

Seems that the OBO carries more weight and authority than either the Zone EchoMAIL or the Zone EchoLIST Coordinators...

Most important of all, however, is that the OBO is a self-reliant entity, requiring and recognizing no other authority than itself.

> Q16 =====
> What is the update procedure for this document?
>
> The O.B.O. may update this help file anytime that he/she feels that
> it would be in the best interest of the Backbone and those people
> it voluntarily serves in order to more accurately reflect its
> current operation.

I would strongly urge that the Regional EchoMail Coordinator Council consider these words and information before allowing this hoax to continue.

If it is the will of the REC Council to call for an election to replace Bruce Bodger as Zone EchoMail Coordinator, then it would seem to be best for them to see how far down they'll need to dig to uproot him from that post.

# 30 #

R19 activity?

-+- Forwarded message follows: -+-

> Message #7839 [R19SYSOP: Region 19 Sysop]
> From: Bruce Bodger
> Posted: 16 Mar 97 11:56
> To : All
> Subj: ZEC / RC Election
>
> Cross Posted into R19COORD:
>
> Last week I cross posted a message here (and in many other
> places) which I had
> originally written to the RECs of Zone 1. The message
> instructed them to:
>
> "... conduct a survey of their respective Regions to
> determine if they, the
> Regions, would prefer either another (ZEC) election being
> conducted or an
> affirmation and acceptance of my willingness to serve
> another term (as ZEC)."
>
> I asked them to come back to me with one of the following 2
> statements;
>
> My Region would like an election to be conducted =or= My
> Region would like you
> to stay on for another term.
>
> I set the earliest date for replies to Mar. 24 and required
> that they survey
> their Regions.
>
>
> Shortly before I wrote the above message I had been
> nominated to run for the
> postion of Region Coordinator of Region 19. I accepted the
> nomination.
> Knowing my own schedule committments I felt that I could
> handle both positions
> without allowing them to interfere with each other.
> However, there is
> something that I failed to consider and that is that I owe
> my Region more than
> just a part time committment as their Region Coordinator.
>
> I have been a member of Region 19 for about 9 years. The
> Region has been good
> to me, supporting me in all of my campaign bids including 2
> terms as their
> REC, through the past ZEC election, as well as the current
> REC polling process.
>
> Region 19 is about to lose on of the best Region
> Coordinators that it has ever
> had, James Ray. Jamey (:-)) has served 2 outstanding terms
> as R19C but has
> decided to allow his family to get to know him for a while
> :-) Had it not
> been for James' decision to "retire", I would never have
> accepted the
> nomination for R19C.
>
> In order to afford my Region the attention it deserves, I
> have decided to
> cancel what's come to be known as the "vote of confidence"
> and will begin
> organizing an election for the postion of Zone 1 EchoMail
> Coordinator. I will
> not be one of the candidates.
>
> If the Region allows me the honor of serving as its
> Coordinator I will do my
> best to follow in James Ray's footsteps. We have worked
> very well together
> through the years and he has set an excellent example for
> his successor.
>
>
> AllTheBest,
> Bruce
>
> ---
> * Origin: ** the TruckStop BBS ** Tulsa, OK (918)
> 254-6618 (1:170/400)