Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #8
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 22 2000          Volume 01 : Number 008

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:30:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Now that the list is a quiet place to work, it would be a shame if we still
> couldn't get any work done.......
>
> the immediate questions confronted by the GA (and therefore valid items for
> discussion on the GA list) are:
>
> - Who are the GA members?

  I believe this has already been determined when folks subscribed to the
DNSO GA list or the DNSO Announce list.  This was also already announced
on the DNSO Announce list as well if I recall.

>
>    - What is the definition of a GA member?

  See above.

>
>    - How do we check that people conform to the definition?

  Read the subscriber list already available.

>
> - How does the GA decide?

  Already been done.

>
>    - How is a decision (or alternate decisions) proposed to the GA?
>    - How does the GA choose to make (or not make) a decision?

  Now, these are valid questions that may not have answers presently.
But we do have some background from the past two elections, don't we?  >;)

>
>
> And lastly, the inevitable:
>
> - Given that we have the two problems above solved, how can we use this
>    solution to get a permanent set of rules for the GA mailing list?

  Again several good suggestions have been provided.  Roelands and
David Jensons, if I recall correctly.  In addition there are always
alternatives,
one of which would be a "Voting Booth" similar to what the IDNO has
presently.

>
>
> I think that's the right order..... we'll have a meeting in Cairo (I
> think), which will be well positioned to garner input from the committed
> ICANNistas who show up there; this list will garner input from the list
> members.
>
> What do you think?

  See above...

>
>
>                     Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:02:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rehibilitation of the DNSO GA form it's Ill repute status

All Assembly Members,

  As you know the past few months have been tumultuous to say
the least.  There has been several instances of fraudulent behavior
and fraudulent action regarding several instances.  Some of these
have been duly recorded in the archives of this list as well as with
the appropriate government authorities.

  It is time now to address how as assembly members we together
can restores some assemblance of honesty integrity and creditability
in the DNSO, so as to make it a viable entity or support organization
for ICANN and the stakeholder community to partake and participate
in and equitable and fair upstanding manner.

  Several very worth while previous participants have left the DNSO
in disgust or became disillusioned due to the actions of a few assembly
members in positions of questionable validity.  Some of these valuable
and worthy ex-participants left due to "Rules" that were not mandated
in a honest way, and therefore impose upon the assembly members
unjustly and lacking creditability as such.  Others have been judged
without due process or consideration of any legal or honest way so
as to be temporarily selectively censored.  I was one of those, others
are still in a state of improperly and unduly selectively censored
still, but yet interested in participating and being members.

  There has been and still remains a decision as to how, and what
DNSO GA list rules need or should be implemented.  There is little
time in which to do this before the Cairo meeting.  But it still can
be accomplished if all of us work together in good faith and in the
sprit of inclusiveness.  So I propose that the following steps be taken
in the following order:

1.) Establish and determine what method of voting in order to make
     decisions on resolutions that effect this body (Assembly Members)
     by the assembly members themselves.  Existing facilities or methods

     have already been suggested by Assembly members and ex-members
     that should be a good starting point.

2.) That for the time being any rules that are currently being imposed
      be discarded or put "On hold" until permanent rules can be
determined
      by the Assembly members together through a resolution process.
      Any existing member may submit resolutions for this purpose.
      Amendments to those resolutions may also be submitted as well
      by any member.

3.) All ex-members or members under current questionably valid
      imposed penalties be temporarily lifted so that they may
participate
     openly and freely as "Interested" parties.

4.) A request from the DNSO list admin from the members resolution
      be addressed under the old rules (Pre Aug.'99) for all members
      whom have left to rejoin under no deress or previous condition
      of servitude so as to mend the wounds that have been grievously,
      and with obvious malice, inflicted upon them and this Assembly.

5.) Develop a method or means of identification that does not infringe
     upon a persons personal privacy in any manor and do so in a
     secure fashion providing for and "Opt-Out" provision should that
     individual choose to utilize no allowing any of that information to

     be decimated without his/her expressed written permission.
     (Several methods have already been suggested here).

6.) Hold and election once steps 1 thru 5 have been completed or are
     nearing completion.  # 5 must be complete.  This election should
     also include any and all stakeholders that choose to participate
     to elect a Chair and Co-Chair.  Duties and responsibilities of
     these two positions must also be clearly delineated as well as part

     of this election.

7.)  Hold a runoff election on current crop of resolutions submitted
where by
      each resolution recieves a 2/3 majority mandate by the Assembly
members
      under the to be established election rules and identification
requirements
      established.  This step should be repeated weakly so as to
determine
      resolutions and amendments have satisfied the 2/3 majority of the
      assembly members.

In closing:

  This should get this Assembly started down the right path to
rehabilitation
and restoration of creditability.

  Constructive comments anyone?

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:32:26 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

At 12:30 21.02.00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Harald and all,
>
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > Now that the list is a quiet place to work, it would be a shame if we still
> > couldn't get any work done.......
> >
> > the immediate questions confronted by the GA (and therefore valid items for
> > discussion on the GA list) are:
> >
> > - Who are the GA members?
>
>   I believe this has already been determined when folks subscribed to the
>DNSO GA list or the DNSO Announce list.  This was also already announced
>on the DNSO Announce list as well if I recall.

I think we need to nail it down a bit further than that.

Some of the members of the DNSO GA and Announce list are list 
redistribution points or archivers. Those functions obviously don't have 
any ambition about being members, but some of the people who read list 
traffic via those mechanisms might want to be counted as members, even 
though they aren't on the list.

I take it we all agree that the GA members are human beings, acting for 
themselves (no corporations as GA members, one man = one vote)?
And that we accept the risk that some organization with ten thousand 
members might want to sign them all up to the GA and "take it over" - that 
it's so unlikely this would happen that we don't see a reason to guard 
against it?
(or - that if this happened, they would be welcome to it?)

                      Harald A

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:29:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Burdon of Proof Was:Re: [ga] Warning: [email-masked] is sending directly

David and all,

  Agreed David.  Hopefully the assembly will be able to deal with this
amongst other problem soon.

[email-masked] wrote:

> James, Joe and all remaining Assembly members,
>
>   Of course all of us in the United States realize that James
> is without a doubt correct.  Harald has acted yet again not
> in accordance with US law and has damaged individuals
> as a result.  I think the term is Lible.
>
> David "Dude" Jenson,
> INEGRoup-West Director
>
> In a message dated 2/20/00 7:29:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
> << Joe, Harald and all remaining Assembly members,
>
>    Joe is essentially correct.  Proof that some one does not exist is
>  incumbent on the accuser, not the accused in the U.S.  As Harald
>  is not a U.S. Citizen that I know of, I can excuse his ignorance to
>  a degree.  But he should have checked with a lawyer in the proper
>  jurisdiction before making such claims.  David, myself, Bob, Jeff
>  and Dillon have tried to assist Harald, to little of no avail.  His command
>  of the english language from what I have heard in recording of conversations
>  is not good.  His knowledge as to how, and where to obtain independent
>  information regarding individual identity is limited or nonexistent in the
>  U.S. from my understanding.  He has sought to ask David and Dillon
>  to do this research for him, they of course are under no obligation to do
>  so, and may or may do so as they choose.
>
>    He, Harald, has yet to provide a secure method by which anyone could
>  or should provide personal and private information about their person as
>  requested by myself and Bob.  There is also no "Privacy Policy" provided
>  by Harald, of the ICANN itself.  To my knowledge Harald is not a
>  employee of the DNSO or ICANN.  Hence no one should be required
>  to provide such personal information with out some protections and
>  proper policies in place to insure their safety and security of such
>  personal information to which Harald seems to wish to collect or desire
>  based on a rule that is of a questionable nature in the first place.
>
>  James Touton
>  Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
>  INEGRoup (Stakeholder)
>
>  !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>  > Once again Harald - this has been tried - it has failed.  dnsipv6 is in my
>  > books as real as anyone else here and they have the right to
>  > participate.  Until such time as this assembly properly vet's the people
>  > here I won't be satisfied with your claims of bogus people.  You have no
>  > proof.
>  >
>  > Regards
>  > Joe Baptista
>  >
>  > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>  >
>  > > At 06:04 17.02.00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>  > >
>  > > >won't work - been tried - failed.  Also he has the right to appeal to
> the
>  > > >membership.  He is a member .. and god bless them all for it.
>  > >
>  > > Correction: Jeff Williams is a member. dnsipv6 is a false front.
>  > >
>  > >               Harald
>  > >
>  > > --
>  > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>  > > [email-masked]
>  > >
>  > >>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:32:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rehibilitation of the DNSO GA from it's Ill repute status

David and all,

  Thank you David.  And I also agree that it would be better for
Harald and Roberto to "Come Clean" on their well documented
and potentially fraudulent activities.  Stepping down would be
best for all concerned.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   Very well done here Jeff.  I also am in agreement with your
> outline for this much needed rehabilitation of the DNSO.
>
>   I would also consider a couple of other more direct points to
> which you indirectly are commenting to here.  I would say that
> it would be healthy and reasonable for Harald and Roberto to
> stand down immediately in their current questionably acquired
> positions.  Under the circumstances I think this step would
> go a long way towards "Clearing the Air".....
>
> David "Dude" Jenson
> INEGRoup-West Director
>
> In a message dated 2/21/00 12:29:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [email-masked] writes:
>
> << ll Assembly Members,
>
>    As you know the past few months have been tumultuous to say
>  the least.  There has been several instances of fraudulent behavior
>  and fraudulent action regarding several instances.  Some of these
>  have been duly recorded in the archives of this list as well as with
>  the appropriate government authorities.
>
>    It is time now to address how as assembly members we together
>  can restores some assemblance of honesty integrity and creditability
>  in the DNSO, so as to make it a viable entity or support organization
>  for ICANN and the stakeholder community to partake and participate
>  in and equitable and fair upstanding manner.
>
>    Several very worth while previous participants have left the DNSO
>  in disgust or became disillusioned due to the actions of a few assembly
>  members in positions of questionable validity.  Some of these valuable
>  and worthy ex-participants left due to "Rules" that were not mandated
>  in a honest way, and therefore impose upon the assembly members
>  unjustly and lacking creditability as such.  Others have been judged
>  without due process or consideration of any legal or honest way so
>  as to be temporarily selectively censored.  I was one of those, others
>  are still in a state of improperly and unduly selectively censored
>  still, but yet interested in participating and being members.
>
>    There has been and still remains a decision as to how, and what
>  DNSO GA list rules need or should be implemented.  There is little
>  time in which to do this before the Cairo meeting.  But it still can
>  be accomplished if all of us work together in good faith and in the
>  sprit of inclusiveness.  So I propose that the following steps be taken
>  in the following order:
>
>  1.) Establish and determine what method of voting in order to make
>       decisions on resolutions that effect this body (Assembly Members)
>       by the assembly members themselves.  Existing facilities or methods
>
>       have already been suggested by Assembly members and ex-members
>       that should be a good starting point.
>
>  2.) That for the time being any rules that are currently being imposed
>        be discarded or put "On hold" until permanent rules can be
>        determined by the Assembly members together through a resolution
> process.
>        Any existing member may submit resolutions for this purpose.
>        Amendments to those resolutions may also be submitted as well
>        by any member.
>
>  3.) All ex-members or members under current questionably valid
>        imposed penalties be temporarily lifted so that they may
>        participate openly and freely as "Interested" parties.
>
>  4.) A request from the DNSO list admin from the members resolution
>        be addressed under the old rules (Pre Aug.'99) for all members
>        whom have left to rejoin under no deress or previous condition
>        of servitude so as to mend the wounds that have been grievously,
>        and with obvious malice, inflicted upon them and this Assembly.
>
>  5.) Develop a method or means of identification that does not infringe
>       upon a persons personal privacy in any manor and do so in a
>       secure fashion providing for and "Opt-Out" provision should that
>       individual choose to utilize no allowing any of that information to
>       be decimated without his/her expressed written permission.
>       (Several methods have already been suggested here).
>
>  6.) Hold and election once steps 1 thru 5 have been completed or are
>       nearing completion.  # 5 must be complete.  This election should
>       also include any and all stakeholders that choose to participate
>       to elect a Chair and Co-Chair.  Duties and responsibilities of
>       these two positions must also be clearly delineated as well
>       as part of this election.
>
>  7.)  Hold a runoff election on current crop of resolutions submitted
>       where by each resolution recieves a 2/3 majority mandate by
>       the Assembly members under the to be established election
>       rules and identification requirements established.  This step
>       should be repeated weakly so as to determine resolutions
>       and amendments have satisfied the 2/3 majority of the
>        assembly members.
>
>  In closing:
>
>    This should get this Assembly started down the right path to
>  rehabilitation  and restoration of creditability.
>
>    Constructive comments anyone?
>
>  Regards,
>
>  --
>  Jeffrey A. Williams
>  Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
>  CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>  Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>  E-Mail [email-masked]
>  Contact Number:  972-447-1894
>  Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>  -- >>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:35:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Recent news concerning ICANN membership

David and all,

  Yes I read this from another list David, the IFWP list as a matter of
fact.
Things are not looking good for ICANN in many sectors, as you and many
others know.  I am sure this will make Cairo interesting....

[email-masked] wrote:

> All assembly remaining assembly members,
>
>   It seems that there is growing disillusionment with ICANN and
> 'it's membership formation.
> See: http://webreview.com/wr/pub/2000/02/18/platform/index.html
>
>   Given some of the actions on the part of the NC, and the questionable
> positions of Harald and Roberto, this article does not seem overly
> surprising, but yet does emphasize the growing concern in the Internet
> community.
>
> David "Dude" Jenson
> INEGRoup-West Director

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:10:46 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> And that we accept the risk that some organization with ten thousand
> members might want to sign them all up to the GA and "take it over" - that
> it's so unlikely this would happen that we don't see a reason to guard
> against it?

This was discussed in connection with ICANN membership.  It was proposed that the
membership application affirm that the person is  signing up in their own behalf
and not in a representative capacity and that they would exercise independent
judgment as to the merits of the propositions they vote upon.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:34:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 12:30 21.02.00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Harald and all,
> >
> >Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > Now that the list is a quiet place to work, it would be a shame if we still
> > > couldn't get any work done.......
> > >
> > > the immediate questions confronted by the GA (and therefore valid items for
> > > discussion on the GA list) are:
> > >
> > > - Who are the GA members?
> >
> >   I believe this has already been determined when folks subscribed to the
> >DNSO GA list or the DNSO Announce list.  This was also already announced
> >on the DNSO Announce list as well if I recall.
>
> I think we need to nail it down a bit further than that.

  Ok.

>
>
> Some of the members of the DNSO GA and Announce list are list
> redistribution points or archivers. Those functions obviously don't have
> any ambition about being members, but some of the people who read list
> traffic via those mechanisms might want to be counted as members, even
> though they aren't on the list.

  Archivers?  What is that exactly in your mind?  Is this a "Label"? or
definition of a member's status, perhaps?  I am just not familiar with
the term "Archiver" in this context.  Please advise or expand.

  I agree that there are many that do read the Archives, but are not members
of the GA list may want to be members.  Due, as you well know, the recent
questionable activities and missive comments, there have been many that have
left the fold.  This could be discouraging to others form joining.  That is a shame

or otherwise unfortunate.  So, seeking definitions on how the DNSO membership
can be expanded I also believe should be encouraged.  However it may be a wise
thing to not do other things to discourage this, Harald....

>
>
> I take it we all agree that the GA members are human beings, acting for
> themselves (no corporations as GA members, one man = one vote)?

  In as much as this is possible realistically, yes.  In that many form certain
organizations may be members of like thought and ideas, maybe not.  So,
this would depend on a definition or context of your question I would suppose

>
> And that we accept the risk that some organization with ten thousand
> members might want to sign them all up to the GA and "take it over" - that
> it's so unlikely this would happen that we don't see a reason to guard
> against it?

  To guard against "Interested Parties", regardless of their other affiliations
would be a form of censorship and would disenfranchise those people that may
have independent interests for being a member.  So what would we be potentially
guarding against, really?

>
> (or - that if this happened, they would be welcome to it?)

  I don't think it is a question of welcoming something or a potential
situation as you suggest (See your comments above), but rather being
open to everyone of whom has an interest, and want's to contribute.

>
>
>                       Harald A
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:38:33 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

At 22:32 21/02/00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>Some of the members of the DNSO GA and Announce list are list 
>redistribution points or archivers. Those functions obviously don't have 
>any ambition about being members, but some of the people who read list 
>traffic via those mechanisms might want to be counted as members, even 
>though they aren't on the list.
>

The way to deal with that is to broadcast via those distribution points
that the voters' roll of the GA is being built and that all genuine <g>
human beings that care to use their rights to vote in the GA should contact
you, Roberto or another volunteer and register their name and an email
address to be used for ballotting.

>I take it we all agree that the GA members are human beings, acting for 
>themselves (no corporations as GA members, one man = one vote)?

Yes.

>And that we accept the risk that some organization with ten thousand 
>members might want to sign them all up to the GA and "take it over" - that 
>it's so unlikely this would happen that we don't see a reason to guard 
>against it?

Yes. The risk of a takeover (or destruction) by a very tiny minority is
demonstrably greater.

>(or - that if this happened, they would be welcome to it?)
>
As long as all those individuals signed up individually, yes.  
You'd be lucky if 30% of them actually used their voting rights.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:26:53 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

At 16:34 21.02.00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

> > Some of the members of the DNSO GA and Announce list are list
> > redistribution points or archivers. Those functions obviously don't have
> > any ambition about being members, but some of the people who read list
> > traffic via those mechanisms might want to be counted as members, even
> > though they aren't on the list.
>
>   Archivers?  What is that exactly in your mind?  Is this a "Label"? or
>definition of a member's status, perhaps?  I am just not familiar with
>the term "Archiver" in this context.  Please advise or expand.

A program that takes incoming mail and puts it into an archive.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:37:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Matters to discuss

Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
 > - Who are the GA members?
 >    - What is the definition of a GA member?

The DNSO GA shall consist of individuals who apply to be recognized as
members.  The member recognition process must attempt to weed out
"personas" from real people.  The basic recognition process must
associate a specific e-mail address with a specific, verifiable person.
The only way to do this currently is to use a PKI certificate signed by
a recognized signer which validates physical identity before creating
the certificate.  That means that someone has to be able to see the
identity behind the certificate and make sure the person is not using
other e-mail addresses.  This raises the level of fraud to that of
forging standard identification documents, but it also adds to the
administrative overhead for the DNSO.  Do we have a budget to support
this process?  If we do not have the budget, then we might as well give
up on validated membership right now.

 >    - How do we check that people conform to the definition?

Someone associated with the DNSO has to validate membership.  Does a
budget exist within ICANN to support this?

 > - How does the GA decide?
 >    - How is a decision (or alternate decisions) proposed to the GA?

Questions are posed via a "public comments" Web page.  Questions posed
must be seconded via the same mechanism within 3 days.  Seconding
requires 1% (of the defined GA membership) favorable response to the
question.  Seconded questions are debated on the GA mailing list.  I
would really like it if we could define some sort of consensus
procedure, but I have the feeling that the DNSO GA will be just too
divided on many issues to be anything more than a straight democracatic
body.  Calling a question is a difficult decision.  How do you determine
that enough debate has taken place?  Time limit?  Straw poll?

 >    - How does the GA choose to make (or not make) a decision?

Once a question is on the floor, so to speak, it has to eventually be
tabled or voted on.  Voting will be done through e-mail ballot
notification and recorded on a web site.  Kent Crispin's vote bot seems
like a good choice.

I can imagine several different methods to validate members and propose
questions for discussion.  I have a very hard time figuring out how to
fairly limit debate and call a question.  How much voting will people
want to do?  Vote on every item?  Vote multiple times per day?  I only
read my personal e-mail in the evening, and the GA is personal e-mail
and not work-related.  Therefore, people who read at work, and who work
in similar time-zones may get one idea of how a debate is going until
those in other time-zones or who do not read at work enter the debate.
For that reason, it would not work to have multiple ballots per day or
even per week.  I can see requiring a ballot within two weeks of posing
a question to see if debate should continue, but if you really need
something decided sooner than that, I just don't see a realistic way to
do it.

I am really stuck on the member validation until we know whether and how
much administrative support the DNSO GA has.

/Joe
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:28:13 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

Joe and all,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
>  > - Who are the GA members?
>  >    - What is the definition of a GA member?
>
> The DNSO GA shall consist of individuals who apply to be recognized as
> members.  The member recognition process must attempt to weed out
> "personas" from real people.

 Of course, what you are suggesting would be a shift or change from what has

already been done or is in effect currently with the exception of some
actions
that certain members have taken to in violation of the current documented
and obviously excepted method.

If a change in this policy is warranted or desired I offer the following
response
to your suggestions Joe:

  Of course this should be done in as much as it is possible.  In some
countries
this not feasible however.  Many of us here know this.

>  The basic recognition process must
> associate a specific e-mail address with a specific, verifiable person.
> The only way to do this currently is to use a PKI certificate signed by
> a recognized signer which validates physical identity before creating
> the certificate.

  This is true in most countries and is available in some 80+ countries,
but leaves out quite a few others presently where PKI technology is
either not available or not legal to use as a means of electronically
identifying some "Interested" parties.  Therefore is can be used,
for some, but as the ONLY method of identification, leaves out
others which is disenfranchising them unfairly and unduly.

>  That means that someone has to be able to see the
> identity behind the certificate and make sure the person is not using
> other e-mail addresses.  This raises the level of fraud to that of
> forging standard identification documents, but it also adds to the
> administrative overhead for the DNSO.  Do we have a budget to support
> this process?  If we do not have the budget, then we might as well give
> up on validated membership right now.

  Budget can be obtained if the DNSO does not have it presently.
Independent
other organizations I am sure, such as ours INEGRoup would be willing to
help provide and acquire the necessary funding if the method is all
inclusive
for ANYONE that wishes to participate or want's to be a member.

>
>
>  >    - How do we check that people conform to the definition?
>
> Someone associated with the DNSO has to validate membership.  Does a
> budget exist within ICANN to support this?
>
>  > - How does the GA decide?
>  >    - How is a decision (or alternate decisions) proposed to the GA?
>
> Questions are posed via a "public comments" Web page.  Questions posed
> must be seconded via the same mechanism within 3 days.  Seconding
> requires 1% (of the defined GA membership) favorable response to the
> question.  Seconded questions are debated on the GA mailing list.  I
> would really like it if we could define some sort of consensus
> procedure, but I have the feeling that the DNSO GA will be just too
> divided on many issues to be anything more than a straight democracatic
> body.  Calling a question is a difficult decision.  How do you determine
> that enough debate has taken place?  Time limit?  Straw poll?

  Time limit method would be best to be decided for resolutions and
amendments for each business or proposal offered, possibly even
groups of resolutions and amendments.  But again this must be decided
by the Assembly members together, ALL of them.

>
>
>  >    - How does the GA choose to make (or not make) a decision?
>
> Once a question is on the floor, so to speak, it has to eventually be
> tabled or voted on.  Voting will be done through e-mail ballot
> notification and recorded on a web site.  Kent Crispin's vote bot seems
> like a good choice.

  Kents Vote Bot has met with some serious problems presently on the
NCDNHC constituency as votes have been mysteriously "Lost".  Kents
Vote Bot also suffers from the lack of secret ballot, therefore is a
violation
of present US Privacy laws as well.

>
>
> I can imagine several different methods to validate members and propose
> questions for discussion.  I have a very hard time figuring out how to
> fairly limit debate and call a question.  How much voting will people
> want to do?  Vote on every item?  Vote multiple times per day?  I only
> read my personal e-mail in the evening, and the GA is personal e-mail
> and not work-related.  Therefore, people who read at work, and who work
> in similar time-zones may get one idea of how a debate is going until
> those in other time-zones or who do not read at work enter the debate.
> For that reason, it would not work to have multiple ballots per day or
> even per week.  I can see requiring a ballot within two weeks of posing
> a question to see if debate should continue, but if you really need
> something decided sooner than that, I just don't see a realistic way to
> do it.

  Some members will be pressed to participate in voting on every resolution
or amendment.  Dedicated and strongly interested members will find the time.

>
>
> I am really stuck on the member validation until we know whether and how
> much administrative support the DNSO GA has.
>
> /Joe
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #8
**********************