[ga-abuse] Complaint Against Eric Dierker

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Complaint Against Eric Dierker
Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
(a)    That the Chair is called Danny and the co-Chair Corliss
(b)    That I am in some way deserving of attack
(c)    That I am hiding things which are not "in the open"
(d)    That my administration is illegitimate.

Regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to Danny


> Well, that was extremely well laid out and I appreciate the work that
> went into
> it.  My "shouting" is due to the urgency of our situation. The
> Congressman and
> the DoC are being lobbied plenty hard to come up with an alternative.
> The most
> important factor being looked at is legitimacy.  BoD and staff keep
> pointing to
> all of our imput but these guys on the hill are hearing a different tune
> and it
> rings truer.
>
> Legitimacy is the reason for attacking Corliss and getting it all out in
> the
> open.  It also is the reason for the constant attacks on due process, or
> should
> I say lack thereof.
>
> We don't have to stop everything in order to establish a good process
> but we at least must do it simultaneously and very quickly.  Anything we
> accomplish before this is done will lead to more questionable results
> and give the NC and BoD reasons to ignore it.
>
> Please establish one list for development, design and implimentation of
> GA
> rules.
> Ethics,
> voting,
> list rules,
> disqualifiers from office,
> privacy versus transparency,
> monitors,
> secretariat function,
> translation or not and when,
> motions,
> calls and requests.
>
> I agree let us not be distracted by due process give it a list of it's
> own.
>
> Of course I will work with you to get this done.
>
> Ultreya,
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Dear Eric,
> >
> > Please accept my apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy
> > dissertation in response to your numerous posts to the GA list.  Let me
> > begin by quoting the adage, "Rome wasn't built in a day".  It has not even
> > been two weeks since the election rankings were posted, yet you appear to
be
> > rankled by the fact that we have still not completely overhauled the rules
> > and procedures that guide the General Assembly.
> >
> > You and I have had the benefit of participating in the Review Working
Group.
> > I recall an observation by Roger Cochetti that is particularly apt; he
> > stated:  "Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused on procedures,
> > administrative practices, and matters that are more related to its own
> > process than to substantive matters."  The same comment might equally come
> > to be made about the GA should we choose to travel down this path.
> >
> > I have chosen to focus my attention upon domain name policy issues.  This
> > is, after all, why we are all here.  I will outline my understanding of
our
> > mission for the benefit of any newcomers to the ICANN process:
> >
> > The GA is one of two bodies within an organization (the DNSO) that has
been
> > established to provide consensus-based domain name policy guidance to the
> > ICANN Board.
> >
> > While the Names Council of the DNSO is organized as a collection of
> > constituencies, the GA is organized as a collection of individuals (open
to
> > all participants who have a knowledge of and an interest in issues
> > pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and
> > who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of
the
> > DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
> > items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
> > drafting committees and working groups).
> >
> > As such, the GA is an open forum that is designed to ultimately generate
> > substantive work-product (documents for consideration by the Board), that
> > stem from a consensus-based decision-making process.
> >
> > These documents are central to any decision by the Board to adopt a new
> > policy as a "consensus policy"; thus, the work of the GA is critically
> > important.
> >
> > "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
> > stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
> > adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
recommendation
> > that the policy should be adopted,
> > by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting
> > Organization to which the matter is delegated, and (3) a written report
and
> > supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to
the
> > Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
> > extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents
> > the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of
the
> > views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the
> > nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed
> > policy.
> >
> > It is the membership of the GA that provides the research and commentary
> > behind this written report and supporting materials.
> >
> > A domain name consensus policy is implemented by way of language written
> > into contracts with accredited registrars and registries.  This is the
only
> > true "power" that ICANN has.  An example of a future domain name policy
> > might be a decision taken to require registrars
> > to establish a 30-day grace period for expired domain names (there is no
> > single industry standard at the moment), and all such policies must
> > establish the need for such a "uniform" policy to exist (as opposed to
> > merely allowing for market dynamics to determine that which is in the best
> > interest of the consumer).
> >
> > As the DNSO is not charged with the responsibility of preparing contract
> > language (this is the function of the ICANN staff), the DNSO must work in
> > advance of contract creation to lay the groundwork for the policy that the
> > Board may eventually adopt.
> >
> > This obligation to work well in advance forces the GA membership to listen
> > to the concerns of the public, to determine whether there exists a need
for
> > a uniform policy, and requires the GA membership to not only engage in
> > outreach to potentially impacted parties, but also to fully consider,
> > evaluate and document the extent of opposition and support for any
proposed
> > future policy.
> >
> > It was the recognition of this need to work well in advance that prompted
me
> > to exercise my rights under the ByLaws to petition the NC to consider a
> > policy with respect to the upcoming prospect of collisions in namespace.
> > Should the NC agree to consider this matter, the GA will be called upon to
> > participate in some fashion.  I have recommended to the NC Chair the
> > establishment of a working group (which by tradition is provided with its
> > own mailing list).
> >
> > Understanding that the GA will need to focus on domain name policy matters
> > in a more efficient manner, I have written to both the DNSO Secretariat
and
> > to the NC Chair requesting assistance in the establishment of topical
> > mailing lists for the open committees that the GA will soon come to
> > establish.
> >
> > The creation of additional mailing lists will hopefully result in a
> > task-oriented focus that will tend to limit the amount of acrimony that
the
> > GA list has had to endure.  I am sure that you will agree that there were
> > very few incidents of "flaming" on the Review WG list (as the demand to
get
> > the job done within a limited time frame clearly took precedence).
> >
> > It is now time to determine our agenda for the immediate future.  Several
> > good suggestions have been made so far with regard to the types of issues
we
> > may first wish to confront.  We may decide to work in parallel to the NC
and
> > create lists for WHOIS/Privacy, UDRP, evaluating the new TLD rollout,
> > evaluating the Multilingual domain name test-bed operations, ongoing DNSO
> > Review.  We may instead decide to forge our own path and look at domain
name
> > pre-registration activities, allegations of domain name hoarding, etc.
The
> > choice is ours to make.
> >
> > Eric, within the Review WG your contributions were highly valued.  You
chose
> > a topic area and provided all of us with a new understanding and
> > appreciation of the issues involved.  I am similarly looking forward to
your
> > involvement in the GA as we move ahead to tackle some difficult areas.
> > Within the Review WG, rules were almost non-existent, yet we managed to
get
> > the job done, on time, and in a thorough manner (and the Board responded
to
> > our effort).
> >
> > I would ask you to set aside your personal differences with myself and
> > Patrick, and to join us in making the GA an effective instrument for
change.
> > You have strength of character, drive, initiative, and we would all count
> > ourselves fortunate to have your support.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>