Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1008
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, January 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1008

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:40:24 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Resellers or Individuals --- Which Sandpit to Play In ??

In a message dated 1/18/2002 10:12:00 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< riday, Friday, January 18, 2002, 6:57:51 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
 
 > In other words, spend your energy forming a separate party in the IDNO or a
 
 Why should I do that?  The majority of the IDNO seems more inclined to
 support my view of what it is and should be than yours.
 
 > Work to build, not to vandalize.
 
 I have been.  You, on the other hand, have been using underhanded
 tactics on the IDNO to try and made members standing up for election
 and in elected positions look bad simply because they do not go along
 with what you think should be done.  And the vast majority of those
 participating in the IDNO are siding with them, and not with your
 view.
 
 I'm not the one vandalizing, Joop.  For the first time in over 2 years
 progress is being made in the IDNO.  This progress happened as a
 result of the motion I wrote, which barely failed, but did succeed it
 setting an agenda for radical change in the way things were being run
 in the IDNO, and created an environment where you are not getting your
 way in doing whatever it is you think is best, regardless of the rest
 of the opinions.
 
 The only vandalization going on is by you, as you tried to vandalize
 the reputation of those standing for election whom you didn't approve
 of.
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
 William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
 -- >>
William .. the bad environment was created by you and your hate.   Why don't 
you leave it out of the GA list now!

It serves no purpose and you only hurt yourself. 
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:48:23 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Year-End State of the Domain

Hello,

- --- Mason Cole <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm attaching the most recent edition of State of the Domain -- in
> addition
> to an expanded set of data, this month's issue also includes a large
> section
> devoted to the merits of the WLS.  If you're not already a subscriber
> to
> this free monthly publication, you can subscribe with a blank e-mail
> to
> [email-masked].

Before sending out 600K attachments to the list again, you should think
twice. In particular, the rules of the GA list say that most posts
should be kept under 10K. See:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

Next time, it might be better to post a link to the PDF file on the
web, instead of attaching the entire file.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:25:49 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Resellers or Individuals --- Which Sandpit to Play In ??

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
|> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 2:40 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Resellers or Individuals --- Which 
|> Sandpit to Play In ??
<snip>
|>  -- >>
|> William .. the bad environment was created by you and your 
|> hate.   Why don't 
|> you leave it out of the GA list now!
|> 
|> It serves no purpose and you only hurt yourself. 

Jess, please learn to quote correctly, if not possible with your current
ISP, please change to one that allows such freedom.  How you expect to
be taken seriously is beyond me when you continuously misquote and don't
follow common conventions.

While you are at it, you might like to suggest some positive changes
instead of asking others to not contribute.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:46:01 -0500
From: "Eric Schneider" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

> > COMPETITION
> > Just because WLS, if implemented, may stifle other secondary market
> > models
> > does not mean in the slightest that WLS stifles competition amongst
> > registrars.  Currently, secondary market models and proposals other
>
> Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
> get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
> being allowed to innovate as they are now.

One competing proposal is that of an auction model.  Tell me, how will
auctioning be stifled from WLS.  End-users don't have to wait for a domain
name to expire to make a bid.

Competition has emerged by developing solutions in response to an expiration
event.  If a competitor was truly innovative they would've realized that
there would be merit in providing services to consumers at any time without
waiting around for the condition of an expiration event.

It is precisely because competitors are as you say "innovating as they are
now" the reason why they have not seen that there could be other solutions.
You snooze, you lose.  After a company ramps up a new service, they tend to
make innovation less of a priority and possibly fall asleep at the wheel.
Those companies who innovate unconditionally 24/7 are the ones that will
emerge from the herd and lead with new products/services in new markets and
new directions.

New technologies emerge everyday that can shift marketshares in an instance.
That's what business and competition is all about.  I have no pity for a
competitor that could not see the forest from the trees.

> > Personally, I think that the first-time purchase of a back-order
> > should be treated as a fixed expense of sorts.  There should be no
> > price competition between registrars for the initial purchase with
> > the price set at $100 for anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  By so
> > doing all constituencies including ICANN, Registry, and Registrar
> > get paid fairly.
>
> You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
> centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
> communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
> rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
> competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
> a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
> is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
> marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
> a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
> registrars co-ordinating to price-fix).

You are taking this out of context and are commenting on only one component
of the proposed pricing model.  The intention of my initial comments was an
attempt to be more creative of how a service such as a WLS might be priced.
Most subscription pricing models are time based by charging some kind of
periodic rate ($69 per year).  The point is that by proposing a price model
that is EVENT BASED rather than TIME BASED, there would be the advantages of
a FIXED RISK at the time of purchase.

Regards,
Eric Schneider

- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:46:07 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

Assembly, Thomas,

On Friday 18 January 2002 11:29 am, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> There was no vote which could have disappeared.  Also, I still do
> not see what benefite a discussion on a separate list would have
> over a discussion on this list.

There was a "vote" going on, eitehr initiaed by Patrick or by Jeff,  
Furthermore, it is not the question whether you can see the benefit, but if a 
number of people on this GA list can see the benefit, juding by most 
reactions and the ineptness in creating a consensus, which until now has been 
shown here, I would say that a chair, whos firtst task it is to try and reach 
a consensus, would encourage any initiative to reach such, or otherwise take 
initiatives himself, instead of telling people it cna not be done.

Also a trial would not hurt the GA in any way as far as i can see.

> However, may I suggest that you just go into document production
> mode yourself over the week-end, and try to write down a brief (one
> page) summary of what you believe to be the consensus of the GA on
> the WLS and secondary market topics?

I fail to see when i was appointed chair, however i do notice consent on a 
number of points,  so reaching consensus on this one should not be the 
hardest part of our lives.

> You could submit this to the GA as a draft which can then go through
> some iterations of debate and consensus-finding.
>
> I wish you much luck with this, and I'm really looking forward for
> your results.

Your sarcasm fails, it is the task of the chair to seek consensus, or to hand 
th GA the tools to find it, not mine, I am but a mere vote but if this is the 
best you can do then in my opinion that is not enough.

> (I tried last week and gave up - I was not able to find any
> substantial consensus beyond an apparently wide-spread perception
> that WLS is somehow "bad", and beyond some points about which
> consensus even included Chuck Gomes. In particular, I was not able
> to isolate a consistent set of requirements for a possible new
> process, which is what Rick Wesson requested. I then ended up with
> the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to continue
> my general ga-summary series.)

Is this meant to be a statement of incapability ? I can hardly imagine, but 
let's split the topic in two parts (based on Rick's e-mail) and try and reach 
consensus on them one by one, it might help.
Part one, The position of the GA in reference to the VGRS / Snapnames 
proposal and 
part 2. The GA's proposal for deletion problems

I am sure that a workgroup on delete could do more faster and bettert then 
the full GA, who also have other post to consider and are limited to 5 posts 
a day, but it is your opinion we should not have workgroups open or closed.

abel wisman

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:08:39 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] concerning WLS proposal

We are yet to reach consensus on the proposed WLS.

I have "tasted" several flavours of approach to this, and i still think we 
should create our "own" answer in a seperate group that can swiftly and 
"sans" limitations create such a draft, but since the chair wont move, we 
have to move ourselves.

It is clear that most are in agreement on the fact that the given proposal is 
not accpetable.

Grounds for this are;

VGRS creates a new monopoly
Non-renewals are made more lucrative
No "open" bid was made towards creating the system
Competition between registrars is fading
The legality of ths system is doubtfull 
DN holders rights are ignored
This is not the solution to the delete problem.
Pricing of the service is not made on cost but market preparedness
Pricing is in fact a pricelift of domain-registration

Further more i think we agree on the fact that the delete problem should be 
solved first.

In order to solve the delete problem, or to have GA input on that, we have a 
great post from RWR 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html

let that document be a lead for proposals that make some sense

regards

abel

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:18:09 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

Assembly, 

Several posts on this list, have asked for a workgroup to be formed to 
discuss the topic of DELETE.
It sems that there are very few against it and a gerat deal more afore.

The creation of the workgroups could not be realized because NC has to 
release maillists was one argument, I countered that by offering to supply 
such lists.

The advantages of such a group (or groups) can be numerous;
it would take the noise of this list
it would gather ppl who would like to give their input on the subject and not 
clutter ppl who prefer to talk about other topics on the list
it would not have limited postings so a discussion could go faster

ti cold then prepare a "draft" for the GA to discuss , re-draft and have the 
GA vote on the draft as a final proposal.

This workgroup would not have limitations on participation, so anyone who 
wants to share an opinion on the subject would be welcomed.

It is my opinion that such a group should be formed to start with the 
workgroup DELETE. mainly in order to produce proposals in accordance with the 
request as worded in the mail from RWR 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html

I kindly to submit to the chair to endorse such a group, either through the 
NC or through own initiative (as above proposed) .
If the chair so pleases A vote on the desirability of such (a) workgroup(s) 
could be organized on short term, albeit that time is pressing.

regards

abel wisman

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:25:29 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] concerning seperate "reseller" group

Assembly, 

It somehow seems weird to me that everyone with an opinion needs to be put in 
a little box where he or she is best represented.
It is my opinion that no one represents oneself better then oneself.

Where would one go if one A. does busines not related to registration or isp 
but also pretends to be ISP and reseller in domains?

ISP ?
business ?
resellers ?

or should one becomes accredited registrar and join registrars ?

or  as domainnameholder should one join that group ?

perhaps we shuld create a group "non of the above"  that might be a solution 
too for those less willing to "come out".

If the GA showed more signs of structurised constituency we might even become 
a real constituency with our own council and prepresentation, perhaps that is 
the goal we would like to work towards.

I submit we don't judge anyone here but just try and reach a workable 
environment that can be recognized by NC and ICANN as a clear representation 
for those that chose to be part of it and do nto feel at home n any of the 
other constituencies.

with regards

abel

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:36:04 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] concerning seperate "reseller" group

Saturday, Saturday, January 19, 2002, 2:25:29 PM, Abel Wisman wrote:

> If the GA showed more signs of structurised constituency we might even become 
> a real constituency with our own council and prepresentation, perhaps that is 
> the goal we would like to work towards.

The GA is the assembly of all the recognized constituencies (who get
to elect members to the Names Council, which in turn elect board
members) and those who are not in any constituency.

The GA can't become a constituency, so to get an equal voice in the
system, one must either fit into an existing constituency, or seek to
form a new one where appropriate.

I think that a registration service providers constituency could
easily generate enough interest to gain several hundred active
members. As a group, I think we could easily organize.

More details to follow, as well as answers to Ross's excellent points,
after the weekend.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:39:10 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] WLS input

Saturday, Saturday, January 19, 2002, 1:46:07 PM, Abel Wisman wrote:

> I am sure that a workgroup on delete could do more faster and bettert then 
> the full GA, who also have other post to consider and are limited to 5 posts 
> a day, but it is your opinion we should not have workgroups open or closed.

I strongly disagree, and the chair has already made his decision on
this subject anyway.

Time to move on, Abel.  His suggestions about coming up with what you
think the consensus points are is a good one, one you would have to do
on a workgroup anyway, and no, it is not only the job of the chair to
do that.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:50:39 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:18:09 +0000, Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Assembly, 
>
>Several posts on this list, have asked for a workgroup to be formed to 
>discuss the topic of DELETE.
>It sems that there are very few against it and a gerat deal more afore.
>
>The creation of the workgroups could not be realized because NC has to 
>release maillists was one argument, I countered that by offering to supply 
>such lists.

Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.

>The advantages of such a group (or groups) can be numerous;
>it would take the noise of this list

Noise is stuff which is off topic.  The GA list is designed exactly
for discussing proposals such as WLS.

>It is my opinion that such a group should be formed to start with the 
>workgroup DELETE. mainly in order to produce proposals in accordance with the 
>request as worded in the mail from RWR 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html
>
>I kindly to submit to the chair to endorse such a group, either through the 
>NC or through own initiative (as above proposed) .

I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue.  If the NC
agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.

If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
dedicated mailing list.  We already have seven of these and they have
all been defunct for three months or more.  If people want to they can
use one of those but history has shown us most people continue to use
the main GA list.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:32:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS input

All assembly members,

  As a matter of protocol and accepted and historical practice
I disagree with WXW's assessment.  WG's for the DNSO GA
are determined by the participating GA assembly members.
It is incumbent upon the Chair to acknowledge and except
the wishes of the participating assembly members.  Failure
to do so negatively impacts the DNSO GA in a number of ways.

  I believe that DNSO GA archives, the Poll that Patrick put
forward, and the predominance of the activity on the Delete
and WLS issues (Also closely related) would clearly indicate
that a WG is called for if not necessary for the GA to conduct.

  So I hope that the Chair will move in a positive direction and
request/require of the DNSO secretariat and the NC to
set up a WG ML so that this work by the GA members
can commence in a open, transparent and concerted
was as soon as possible...

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, January 19, 2002, 1:46:07 PM, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > I am sure that a workgroup on delete could do more faster and bettert then
> > the full GA, who also have other post to consider and are limited to 5 posts
> > a day, but it is your opinion we should not have workgroups open or closed.
>
> I strongly disagree, and the chair has already made his decision on
> this subject anyway.
>
> Time to move on, Abel.  His suggestions about coming up with what you
> think the consensus points are is a good one, one you would have to do
> on a workgroup anyway, and no, it is not only the job of the chair to
> do that.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:34:10 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

Dave and all assembly members,

  Thank you Dave for speaking up on supporting a WG for
the Delete issue.  >:)

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:18:09 +0000, Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> >Assembly,
> >
> >Several posts on this list, have asked for a workgroup to be formed to
> >discuss the topic of DELETE.
> >It sems that there are very few against it and a gerat deal more afore.
> >
> >The creation of the workgroups could not be realized because NC has to
> >release maillists was one argument, I countered that by offering to supply
> >such lists.
>
> Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
> want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
>
> >The advantages of such a group (or groups) can be numerous;
> >it would take the noise of this list
>
> Noise is stuff which is off topic.  The GA list is designed exactly
> for discussing proposals such as WLS.
>
> >It is my opinion that such a group should be formed to start with the
> >workgroup DELETE. mainly in order to produce proposals in accordance with the
> >request as worded in the mail from RWR
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html
> >
> >I kindly to submit to the chair to endorse such a group, either through the
> >NC or through own initiative (as above proposed) .
>
> I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue.  If the NC
> agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.
>
> If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
> dedicated mailing list.  We already have seven of these and they have
> all been defunct for three months or more.  If people want to they can
> use one of those but history has shown us most people continue to use
> the main GA list.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:10:45 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

>
> Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
> want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.

There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
hosted on the dnso.org domain.

- -rwr

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:01:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> >
> > Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
> > want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
>
> There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
> hosted on the dnso.org domain.

  Ross and Dave are of course quite correct.  However is such a WG
were formed that is DNSO business are hosted anywhere else without
the consent of the DNSO GA members, recognized by the NC, and
announced by the DNSO Secretariat at the expressed request from
the chair of the DNSO GA or a GA member, would not carry the
appropriate recognition of the DNSO GA, the NC or the ICANN
BoD and staff.  Ergo, such an endeavor would be of limited use
to that extent.

  This said of course, it is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that
a Delete WG from within the GA is strongly desired.

>
>
> -rwr
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:00:39 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:10:45AM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
> > want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
> 
> There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
> hosted on the dnso.org domain.

No, there is not.  However, the results of any private group will 
suffer a legitimacy gap -- anyone who doesn't like the result will 
simply say "it wasn't part of the standard ICANN process, and 
therefore, I didn't pay any attention to it, and therefore it is 
useless because it doesn't contain my input."  And there is some 
justification in that.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:08:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

yOn Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:10:45AM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > >
> > > Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
> > > want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
> >
> > There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
> > hosted on the dnso.org domain.
>
> No, there is not.  However, the results of any private group will
> suffer a legitimacy gap -- anyone who doesn't like the result will
> simply say "it wasn't part of the standard ICANN process, and
> therefore, I didn't pay any attention to it, and therefore it is
> useless because it doesn't contain my input."  And there is some
> justification in that.

You've just described the majority of "standard ICANN process."

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                     Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
                          http://www.stealthgeeks.net
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:19:47 -0800
From: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

At 12:00 AM 1/20/2002 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:10:45AM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>> >
>> > Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
>> > want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
>> 
>> There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
>> hosted on the dnso.org domain.
>
>No, there is not.  However, the results of any private group will 
>suffer a legitimacy gap -- anyone who doesn't like the result will 
>simply say "it wasn't part of the standard ICANN process, and 
>therefore, I didn't pay any attention to it, and therefore it is 
>useless because it doesn't contain my input."  And there is some 
>justification in that.
>
>-- 
>Kent Crispin  

Meanwhile, time marches on....
While you guys figure out all the nuances of forming a committe, some of us
are actually doing something, like writing to ICANN, the DoC, the DoJ,
Congress, etc.  While I make no claim that this will be more effective than
your WG (once you finally make one) I will say it once again: "Just DO it"
is not just a Shoe Commercial.

Harold
Harold Whiting
- --
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 Jan 2002 00:46:59 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 01:10:45 -0500, "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>
>> Then it is not a DNSO WG but a private one hosted by you.  If people
>> want private ones we could use Yahoo Groups.
>
>There are no requirements to conduct DNSO business on mailing lists that are
>hosted on the dnso.org domain.

No but in terms of what influence they will have it is a factor.  If
the NC agrees to a WG then the consensus opinion of that WG will have
a certain amount of sway with the NC.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 #1008
*************************