Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1044
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, February 19 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1044

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

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:47:43 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Structure TF

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B893.9AB41140
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Philip,
 
It certainly does not contain input provided by the gTLD Registry
Constituency.  What am I missing here?  
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:27 AM
To: GA List
Cc: NC (list); NC Structure
Subject: [ga] Structure TF

I am surprised at the comments of Mr Younger with respect to the on-going
work of the Structure task force.
 
Scope
The TF agreed to first comment on at-large. We intend to move on to comment
on a proposal for a possible cc SO once such a proposal is presented - as
explained in the TF terms of reference.
 
Content of current work
The current draft reflects input from all constituencies that have chosen to
make input along with the GA. Indeed the GA rep to this TF has made a useful
and constructive contributions to date and that input is reflected through
out the report.
 
Philip Sheppard

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B893.9AB41140
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=579274615-18022002>Philip,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=579274615-18022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=579274615-18022002>It 
certainly does not contain input provided by the gTLD Registry 
Constituency.&nbsp; What am I missing here?&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=579274615-18022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=579274615-18022002>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Philip Sheppard 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 18, 2002 3:27 
  AM<BR><B>To:</B> GA List<BR><B>Cc:</B> NC (list); NC 
  Structure<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Structure TF<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>I am surprised at the comments of Mr Younger with respect to 
  the on-going work of the Structure task force.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Scope</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>The TF agreed to first comment on at-large. We intend to 
  move on to comment on a proposal for a possible cc SO once such a proposal is 
  presented - as explained in the TF terms of reference.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Content of current work</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>The current draft reflects input from all constituencies 
  that have chosen to make input along with the GA. Indeed the GA rep to this TF 
  has made a useful and constructive contributions to date and that input is 
  reflected through out the report.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B893.9AB41140--
- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 12:09:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure TF

Chuck and all assembly members,

  Indeed.  It also doesn't contain much in the way of input from
the GA either as Danny rightly noted...

  It would seem more obvious that this TF was a predetermined
"Study"...  Lacks honesty IMHO...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>    Philip,
>
> It certainly does not contain input provided by the gTLD Registry
> Constituency.  What am I missing here?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:27 AM
> To: GA List
> Cc: NC (list); NC Structure
> Subject: [ga] Structure TF
>
>
> I am surprised at the comments of Mr Younger with respect to the
> on-going
> work of the Structure task force.
>
> Scope
> The TF agreed to first comment on at-large. We intend to move on to
> comment
> on a proposal for a possible cc SO once such a proposal is presented -
> as
> explained in the TF terms of reference.
>
> Content of current work
> The current draft reflects input from all constituencies that have
> chosen to
> make input along with the GA. Indeed the GA rep to this TF has made a
> useful
> and constructive contributions to date and that input is reflected
> through
> out the report.
>
> Philip Sheppard
>
>
>

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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:29:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

With respect, I think more is called for.  

The Names Council has manipulated the TF/WG process beyond the bounds of
good taste.  Since Working Groups were too hard to control, it abandoned
them, and created Task Forces where it could control membership and
chairmanship.  In the case of one notorious TF -- the one on 'structure'
and thus the one with the greatest danger of doing something that might
break the current capture by a faction on the NC -- the NC chair arranged
to have himself appointed himself the chair of the TF, wrote a report
supporting his interests and essentially ignoring dissenters.  That report
will then go to ... the NC for approval.  That NC may well be run by the
same person whose term is currently in danger being extended in violation
of the previously existing rules of the NC.  (Control at any price?)

In light of this history and your past personal commitment on this issue,
the topic deserves its own separate agenda item, and guaranteed time for
focussed discussion, not a relatively vague "expectation" that it may
"fall with the range" or **possible** discussion (and/or get crowded out
by other things).  The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
especially lack of editing granted to live participants.  

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, vint cerf wrote:

> although the agenda is still somewhat fluid the question of 
> organizational structure will be on the table since we must
> make decisions at least with regard to the proposed At Large
> Support Organization. I expect the discussion will range beyond
> that and DNSO matters strike me as falling within the range
> of possible discussion.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 01:14 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Cerf,
> >
> >On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would 
> >be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on 
> >the agenda for Accra?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Danny Younger
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 13:40:43 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF

Dear Mr. Sheppard,

I note that in your response you have once again ignored the restructuring 
proposal duly voted upon and passed by the membership of the General 
Assembly.  This proposal was submitted to the ICANN Board, submitted to the 
Council, and submitted to your Structure TF.  

If you cannot set aside your BC bias long enough to begin discussions on such 
proposals, perhaps you would consider stepping aside and allowing the TF to 
elect its own neutral Chair.
- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 14:05:34 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> 
> The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
> easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
> whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
> discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
> support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
> to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
> especially lack of editing granted to live participants.

Something tells me there will be NO remote participation
set-up for Accra (most _especially_ not for the DNSO
meeting).  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 14:39:41 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Online attendance

Dear NC Chair,

Our Bylaws provide that "The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible 
in conjunction with regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum 
extent practicable, all meetings should be available for online attendance as 
well as physical attendance."  

In your letter to the Council you wrote:  "Due to a change in arrangements I 
understand that the DNSO meetings will not be webcast if we fail to find 
sponsors. However, secretarial services, writing of minutes (and possibly an 
audio recording of the Names Council meeting) will be provided as a minimal 
service."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00161.html

Please advise if it is your intent to honor the Bylaws, and to provide for 
online attendance for members of the GA.

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 12:02:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

This statement is very valid, from my point of view.

It is a disservice to the hosting country that we can not plan to attend because of
no firm agenda.

It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.

If this is the Boards intent they are doing it very well.

If not then further explanation is certainly warranted.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> With respect, I think more is called for.
>
> The Names Council has manipulated the TF/WG process beyond the bounds of
> good taste.  Since Working Groups were too hard to control, it abandoned
> them, and created Task Forces where it could control membership and
> chairmanship.  In the case of one notorious TF -- the one on 'structure'
> and thus the one with the greatest danger of doing something that might
> break the current capture by a faction on the NC -- the NC chair arranged
> to have himself appointed himself the chair of the TF, wrote a report
> supporting his interests and essentially ignoring dissenters.  That report
> will then go to ... the NC for approval.  That NC may well be run by the
> same person whose term is currently in danger being extended in violation
> of the previously existing rules of the NC.  (Control at any price?)
>
> In light of this history and your past personal commitment on this issue,
> the topic deserves its own separate agenda item, and guaranteed time for
> focussed discussion, not a relatively vague "expectation" that it may
> "fall with the range" or **possible** discussion (and/or get crowded out
> by other things).  The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
> easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
> whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
> discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
> support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
> to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
> especially lack of editing granted to live participants.
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>
> > although the agenda is still somewhat fluid the question of
> > organizational structure will be on the table since we must
> > make decisions at least with regard to the proposed At Large
> > Support Organization. I expect the discussion will range beyond
> > that and DNSO matters strike me as falling within the range
> > of possible discussion.
> >
> > vint
> >
> > At 01:14 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >Dear Mr. Cerf,
> > >
> > >On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would
> > >be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on
> > >the agenda for Accra?
> > >
> > >Best wishes,
> > >Danny Younger
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 15:44:55 -0500
From: "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

It is hard to understand why ICANN does not have an agenda for such an
important meeting - its less than 3 weeks away. This does not seem like good
business practice Could someone from the ICANN board again explain this? Do
the bylaws specify when an agenda should be available? If not, perhaps they
should be amended to indicate such.

Regards,  

Michael

Michael Gendron. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, February 18, 2002 3:03 PM
To:	Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Cc:	vint cerf; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

This statement is very valid, from my point of view.

It is a disservice to the hosting country that we can not plan to attend
because of
no firm agenda.

It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.

If this is the Boards intent they are doing it very well.

If not then further explanation is certainly warranted.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> With respect, I think more is called for.
>
> The Names Council has manipulated the TF/WG process beyond the bounds of
> good taste.  Since Working Groups were too hard to control, it abandoned
> them, and created Task Forces where it could control membership and
> chairmanship.  In the case of one notorious TF -- the one on 'structure'
> and thus the one with the greatest danger of doing something that might
> break the current capture by a faction on the NC -- the NC chair arranged
> to have himself appointed himself the chair of the TF, wrote a report
> supporting his interests and essentially ignoring dissenters.  That report
> will then go to ... the NC for approval.  That NC may well be run by the
> same person whose term is currently in danger being extended in violation
> of the previously existing rules of the NC.  (Control at any price?)
>
> In light of this history and your past personal commitment on this issue,
> the topic deserves its own separate agenda item, and guaranteed time for
> focussed discussion, not a relatively vague "expectation" that it may
> "fall with the range" or **possible** discussion (and/or get crowded out
> by other things).  The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
> easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
> whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
> discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
> support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
> to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
> especially lack of editing granted to live participants.
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>
> > although the agenda is still somewhat fluid the question of
> > organizational structure will be on the table since we must
> > make decisions at least with regard to the proposed At Large
> > Support Organization. I expect the discussion will range beyond
> > that and DNSO matters strike me as falling within the range
> > of possible discussion.
> >
> > vint
> >
> > At 01:14 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >Dear Mr. Cerf,
> > >
> > >On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns
would
> > >be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be
placed on
> > >the agenda for Accra?
> > >
> > >Best wishes,
> > >Danny Younger
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> 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

- --
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
- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 15:46:23 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

the meeting will be webcast.

I believe provision is being made for online questions
during the meetings - ICANN staff will need to confirm.

The agenda should be firmer by the beginning of next week.

vint

At 12:02 PM 2/18/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 16:58:55 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

i am very pleased to hear this vint..

ken stubbs
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

> the meeting will be webcast.
>
> I believe provision is being made for online questions
> during the meetings - ICANN staff will need to confirm.
>
> The agenda should be firmer by the beginning of next week.
>
> vint
>
>
> At 12:02 PM 2/18/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 18:30:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Online attendance

Danny and all assembly members,

  It is obvious and has been for some time now that the NC along with the
ICANN BoD and staff, including especially vinton Cerf, that a undertone
of desire from certain sectors within the DNSO and the ICANN BoD
are very interested if eliminating the GA and severally limiting the
DNSO as to participation.  The same is of course true of the
At-Large.  Many of us have seen this systematically happening and
have spoken out against such a direction.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear NC Chair,
>
> Our Bylaws provide that "The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible
> in conjunction with regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum
> extent practicable, all meetings should be available for online attendance as
> well as physical attendance."
>
> In your letter to the Council you wrote:  "Due to a change in arrangements I
> understand that the DNSO meetings will not be webcast if we fail to find
> sponsors. However, secretarial services, writing of minutes (and possibly an
> audio recording of the Names Council meeting) will be provided as a minimal
> service."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00161.html
>
> Please advise if it is your intent to honor the Bylaws, and to provide for
> online attendance for members of the GA.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:34:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

Vint and all assembly members,

  That's better Vint, but still not good enough.  The lack of responsible
leadership skills that seem to be becoming pervasive is getting too
obvious...  Please try to redouble your personal efforts.

vint cerf wrote:

> the meeting will be webcast.
>
> I believe provision is being made for online questions
> during the meetings - ICANN staff will need to confirm.
>
> The agenda should be firmer by the beginning of next week.
>
> vint
>
> At 12:02 PM 2/18/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >It is a grave disservice that we cannot count on remote participation.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:43:27 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

On 23:05 18/02/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > The current 'fluidity' of the agenda makes doing this
> > easy....although of course the same fluidity means that no one can plan
> > whether to attend or not based on firm expectations of the topics to be
> > discussed -- something which underscores the importance of high-quality
> > support for remote participation, and the ability for remote participants
> > to pass comments subject to the same flexible time constraints and
> > especially lack of editing granted to live participants.
>
>Something tells me there will be NO remote participation
>set-up for Accra (most _especially_ not for the DNSO
>meeting).

Something tells me that Accra will be somewhat very dangerous for the DNS. 
I just read the agenda.I fail to understand what Realname has to do there. 
Realname is no DNS and is competitor to the DNS concept. New.net for most 
is a plus for the DNS, for some no, but it is within the DNS.
There are 30 years we fight the Realname flat "added value".

- --
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, 18 Feb 2002 21:35:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

Thank you. Does this apply to the dnso as well? i.e. the NC? the GA? Or is
"the meeting" just the meeting of the Board?

In any case, my main point wasn't simply or even primarily about access,
but about your personal role in agenda-setting and the importance of
setting aside time for focus on this important issue of NC manipulation of
the TF/WG rules.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> i am very pleased to hear this vint..
> 
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
[....]
> 
> > the meeting will be webcast.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 19 Feb 2002 12:23:37 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Forwarded from the ALSC list

Subj:    [ALSC-Forum] (Fwd) Joe Sims organizing a clandestine Operation
Date:   2/19/02 11:17:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
From:   [email-masked] (Jeanette Hofmann)
Sender: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

Hi, everyone. I forward the following message on Andy's  behalf. 

Date sent:          Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:01:40 +0100
From:               Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
Subject:            Joe Sims organizing a clandestine Operation

I just got a call from a source in the European
Commission (Department for Information Society). Joe
Sims was today in Brussel for some kind of a closed door
meeting with Chrisopher Wilkinson and some other
people of the European Commission (my source did not attend
the meeting).

Sims presented plans for a complete restructuring of the
ICANN board, without the at large. If I understood correct
with governmental representatives in the board and with
complete different set of ASO, PSO and parts of the DNSO.

I just reached Christopher Wilkinson on the phone who seemed
astonished about my knowledge on _that_ Sims had been
there. I asked for details of what Sims presented and only
got the sentence from Wilkinson, that "he is not sure if
Sims presented this as a position of the board or his own."

To his understanding, this will be presented to the board
at Saturday and he told me, that he would be more happy
if I could get the details from the board. 

Short: he told me to piss off and not disturb the conspiracy.

shocked,

A.

- --
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 #1044
*************************