Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1053
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 28 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1053

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:07:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

Wednesday, Wednesday, February 27, 2002, 2:54:25 AM, DPF wrote:
> Am I the only one this suspicious?

Actually that's kinda funny, someone else I was talking about it to
said the same thing.

I don't know if it is or not, but nothing surprises me anymore.

- -- 
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:01:09 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal

Hello Jefsey,

At 27.02.2002 01:49, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Thank you Elisabeth,
>The last photo of Andy speaks a lot: it shows that Transparency will boil down to two public Board meetings a year at the semi-annual public meetings. So they save on meeting costs ... and on transparency.

this is really a difficult one. I think that reducing
the travelling meetings to two would be fine, if and
only if transparency is enhanced considerably. 

I'm sure that e.g. the Accra meeting is of great value 
for the African Internet community -- ccTLD, AfriDNS, 
AFRINIC and other efforts. On the other hand, you don't 
have to wait for ICANN to come to your region, and I 
would be surprised if less than 3/4 of the participants
were "usual suspects". You don't need three or four
meetings per year for this.

I agree with Bret Fausett that having an Ombudsperson 
and a Manager of Public Participation sounds like a
good idea. 
(http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/02/24.html#a187)
It's really not that easy to gather meaningful public
participation, and having a dedicated and responsible
person for this would definitely be an improvement.
But it is equally necessary to ensure public 
participation not only personally (by making it 
someones' job), but also structurally (by making it
part of the ICANN process and structure).

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:39:50 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Pros and cons of the Lynn plan

Looking at the excellent diagram at
http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf of the proposal (says
something that the volunteer GA Alt Chair produces info in a much more
useful format that then $10 mil/year actual ICANN) I've got some
thoughts on the Lynn proposal.

Firstly taking the effects of the proposals as a whole I have to agree
with Karl Auerbach that it actually creates an ICANN II which will
have little to do with ICANN I except the same staff and possibly a
DOC contract.

Basically ICANN II would be a benign dictatorship.  The Board would
effectively appoint itself.  Now this is not automatically bad and a
number of organisations do this.  Examples include the IOC, the
Catholic Church and the ICRC.  The theory behind this usually is to
protect an organisations from nationalistic politics so it seems
strange to have govt reps on there.

The main problem with so called benign dictatorships is that they
rarely stay that way.  With the best intentions in the world, the lack
of representativeness and accountability to some sort of electorate
fosters arrogance and aloofness.  A basic test of democracy is does
one have the ability to remove a board which is not performing.  Under
ICANN II it would be nigh impossible and would rely on the Board to
clean itself up.

This is not a theoretical situations.  A couple of years ago there
were major problems within .nz and things just got worse and worse
until the internet community basically rose up and sacked the vast
majority of the board and council of the registry and its owner.  If
the community had not had the ability to do so then the deplorable
situation we had back then would probably still be in place today.

But looking at the details of the proposal there are some interesting
aspects which are worth commenting on.

Abolishing Protocol Council - good - does nothing

In GNPC the suggestion that there is no specialist IP council rep is
good - as is having an individuals grouping and a small business one

Also the idea of not having formal constituencies is one Karl A has
pushed - just have informal groupings.  

Very bad is the idea of making ICANN into a mini UN.  If one does this
I can almost guarantee that mission creep will become mission sprint.
Any thoughts of limited co-ordination is out the window.

Also bad is that having tried to bully, stall, and blackmail the
ccTLDs (we will not change your contact details in the database unless
you sign a non negotiable contract) ICANN now turns to government
coercion rather than ever having given meaningful negotiations a
chance.  

Ombudsman and Manager of Public Participation are very good ideas if
given resources and authority.  However not a fair swap for removing
at large representation.

Asking Govts to fund ICANN is basically turning it into a semiUN
quango.  Why would it not be more efficient to have the ITU take over?
Quite seriously where is the cost benefit study?

Cutting down on the expensive travel the world meetings is a good idea
but keeping all others meetings secret is not.

Claiming one needs US$33 million to run ICANN is just out of this
world.  The sad thing is if ICANN II does go ahead I can guarantee
that even this amount within a couple of years will be found to be too
small and ICANN will grow massively year after year.

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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:51:56 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

At 23:54 27/02/02 +1300, DPF wrote:
>I may be overly cynical and may have spent too many years in politics
>but few other people have suggested this so I might as well.
>
>My impression of the Lynn plan is that it may in fact be merely a red
>herring.  It is one of the oldest political tricks in the world to
>propose something so extreme and controversial that when you finally
>withdraw it the masses are so happy they didn't get Proposal A they
>don't complain so much about Proposal B.

I have thought along the same lines.
As an added effect I see an increased and angry interest to sign up as at 
Large members, which , if the Board goes along with it, will give ICANN a 
bit of the legitimacy it needs to survive.

>Am I the only one this suspicious?

No.

- --Joop

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:37:56 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

DPF wrote:
> 
>
> 
> Am I the only one this suspicious?

Nope.

As you say, it's a common enough political tactic.

- -- 
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:45:50 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] whois task force progress

I have just posted a revised draft of what may become a report from 
the WHOIS task force, see
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/pdf00001.pdf>.

Note that the findings and summary sections are guesstimates of what 
the task force may agree upon, and may still be subject to change.

Comments and corrections are, of course, highly welcome.

While I'm on it, I believe that a public "thank you" to Abel Wisman 
and Kristy McKee is overdue.  You're both doing a great job on this 
task force.  Thank you!

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

Dave and all assembly members,

  ALthough I respect this point of vies that you are suggesting,
I think it is obvious that Stuart Lynn/Louis Touton/Joe Simms
are quite serious about this most recent proposal.  Otherwise
I don't think they would be touting it to the EU, at that Aspen
"Club" retreat and also to some congressmen/women...

DPF wrote:

> I may be overly cynical and may have spent too many years in politics
> but few other people have suggested this so I might as well.
>
> My impression of the Lynn plan is that it may in fact be merely a red
> herring.  It is one of the oldest political tricks in the world to
> propose something so extreme and controversial that when you finally
> withdraw it the masses are so happy they didn't get Proposal A they
> don't complain so much about Proposal B.
>
> Lets face it up until a few days ago the debate was mainly on 6 vs 9
> at large board spots and the size of the fee.  Now the debate has been
> shifted to should there be any at large at all and I will not be
> surprised if in six months we learn "Okay you do get to have an at
> large with six members" - you should be grateful for small mercies.
>
> It will be fascinating to observe what happens to the original 4 board
> members who terms expire this year when no replacements can probably
> now be elected on in time.
>
> In another post I plan to examine the pros and cons of the Lynn
> proposal in detail but for now I am sceptical that it is a plan
> proposed with any real intent to have it succeed.
>
> One of the main reasons I am thinking this is because effectively the
> Lynn proposal would make ICANN a variant of a UN quango.  Getting
> governments to agree on this sort of thing (and I mean actual Govts
> not the minor bureaucrats who often attend GAC) is something which
> takes years not months.  The proposal would beyond any doubt attract
> massive congressional scrutiny, almost universal opposition from media
> and NGOs let alone individuals so unless Lynn is very very naive I
> suspect he knows the proposal is not a realistic option.  Hence I
> suspect it is an attempt to move the debate parameters.
>
> Am I the only one this suspicious?
>
> 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:26:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois task force progress

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Is there a HTML or text version of this somewhere?

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I have just posted a revised draft of what may become a report from
> the WHOIS task force, see
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/pdf00001.pdf>.
>
> Note that the findings and summary sections are guesstimates of what
> the task force may agree upon, and may still be subject to change.
>
> Comments and corrections are, of course, highly welcome.
>
> While I'm on it, I believe that a public "thank you" to Abel Wisman
> and Kristy McKee is overdue.  You're both doing a great job on this
> task force.  Thank you!
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:53:01 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icann 2.0

Read David Johson and Susan Crawford's Article on the  management- proposed 
reforms.
http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/022602-johnson-crawford-icann2.htm

- --Joop

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:59:28 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Input needed

M. Stuart Lynn has put forward a restructuring plan.  While I vehemently 
oppose his particular plan, I find myself asking, "What other overall 
restructuring plans have been put forth that the Board is in a position to 
evaluate?"

Frankly, I haven't seen many, have you?   

At the Marina del Rey session the Board resolved [01.132] that a Committee of 
the Board is hereby established, to be known as the Committee on 
Restructuring, to monitor and provide reports to the Board on these issues, 
and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board concerning any specific 
proposals or applications to the Board that would or could affect the 
structure of ICANN or the composition of the Board.

So far, how have we as members of the General Assembly contributed to solving 
the organizational/structural issues that the ICANN faces?  We're great at 
"reacting" to the proposals of others, but where are our own proposals or 
counter-proposals that the Committee on Restructuring could evaluate?  

David Farrar has done a valiant job within the Council's Structure TF 
attempting to represent our views, but candidly, we haven't given him much to 
work with, have we?

Our time is severely limited as the Accra session is almost upon us.  If 
anyone has any thoughts as to how the ICANN could better be designed, now is 
the time to speak... otherwise, feel free to accept the consequences of Board 
action.  The continued existence of the GA and the DNSO is at risk.  

Give the Board another option, or kiss it all goodbye.

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:14:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Input needed

Danny and all assembly members,

  The ICANN BOD and staff have known about other options
from the beginning.  Many have been put forth.  Most of them
were before you were actively involved in the process however.
Perhaps some more in-depth research into the archives of various
forum venues would be a good exercise for you to again
delve into in more depth.  For instance the archives of the
[email-masked] and [email-masked] would be
very good starting areas.

  In addition the Structure TF was a closed effort.  As such
ideas could not be articulated or provided in a transparent
fashion.  Given that, it is difficult to adequately provide for
different alternatives in any meaningful manner.  This is one
reason why we [INEGroup] were very adamant about having
WG's (Working Groups] Within the GA and other forums
so as to facilitate a much more consensus (Measured of course
by voting) based process.  Again, without good process,
no good product can be the result.  This is an axiom of good
management and anyone that has been involved in management
technique know instinctively or by experience..

 Just today though Danny another alternative is being floated,
See: http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/022602-johnson-crawford-icann2.htm
for example.  I have only done a quick read and it is lacking some
practical and process details that need to be delineated more specifically.
But overall it looks pretty fair..  One must understand that this is
and Essay however...

  So Danny, in conclusion other approaches to the restructuring of
ICANN, the SO's and other specific areas of ICANN have been
delineated in great detail on a number of occasions from a
fairly diverse number of interested parties or groups.  It is just
that the ICANN BOD and staff have ignored them for reasons
yet to be known....

[email-masked] wrote:

> M. Stuart Lynn has put forward a restructuring plan.  While I vehemently
> oppose his particular plan, I find myself asking, "What other overall
> restructuring plans have been put forth that the Board is in a position to
> evaluate?"
>
> Frankly, I haven't seen many, have you?
>
> At the Marina del Rey session the Board resolved [01.132] that a Committee of
> the Board is hereby established, to be known as the Committee on
> Restructuring, to monitor and provide reports to the Board on these issues,
> and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board concerning any specific
> proposals or applications to the Board that would or could affect the
> structure of ICANN or the composition of the Board.
>
> So far, how have we as members of the General Assembly contributed to solving
> the organizational/structural issues that the ICANN faces?  We're great at
> "reacting" to the proposals of others, but where are our own proposals or
> counter-proposals that the Committee on Restructuring could evaluate?
>
> David Farrar has done a valiant job within the Council's Structure TF
> attempting to represent our views, but candidly, we haven't given him much to
> work with, have we?
>
> Our time is severely limited as the Accra session is almost upon us.  If
> anyone has any thoughts as to how the ICANN could better be designed, now is
> the time to speak... otherwise, feel free to accept the consequences of Board
> action.  The continued existence of the GA and the DNSO is at risk.
>
> Give the Board another option, or kiss it all goodbye.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:23:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] AtLargeStudy.ORG website...

If you cannot reach the at large study website, but get a parking page
from registrars.com, this is because DNS is messed up. If you must see the
website, your only option is (as far as I can see) to use

209.126.146.3

as nameserver in your /etc/resolv.conf or the corresponding Windows(TM)
setting in network/dial up.

There is no need to tell that you can still see it. I can too, on one
machine, which runs named and apparently cached the 'correct' IP. This
will expire, however.

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:42:39 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

DPF wrote:
>
>
>
> Am I the only one this suspicious?

Hello everyone,

Don't forget that Stuart's position is untenable if his plan fails and in
fact, he hinted yesterday he would go if that is the case. So for your
theory to be correct, he would have to want to leave under a cloud, which
doesn't make sense, to me anyway.

http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200202/msg00258.html

BTW, part two of this thread, Michael Froomkin's reply, is also well worth a
read.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:48:20 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Input needed

Joop,

Susan and David's proposal explores the creation of a cross-Supporting 
Organization (which in my view seems to be no more than a new label for a 
General Assembly removed from the DNSO).    Additionally, they seek 
"substantial" Board representation "to reflect the views of those who are 
contractually bound by or very likely directly impacted by ICANN’s policies" 
(read this as registries, registrars and resellers).  

Commercial interests already have too much power within ICANN.  I cannot 
support proposals which would substantially enhance such interests even 
further at the expense of registrants and the broader user community.  

As a long-time participant in the ICANN process, what structural model would 
you endorse?
- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:00:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icann 2.0

Joop and all assembly members,

  Very interesting essay/article.  Also see:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=571&mode=&order=&thold=
for our initial response/comments...

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Read David Johson and Susan Crawford's Article on the  management- proposed
> reforms.
> http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/022602-johnson-crawford-icann2.htm
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:14:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AtLargeStudy.ORG website...

Marc and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> If you cannot reach the at large study website, but get a parking page
> from registrars.com, this is because DNS is messed up. If you must see the
> website, your only option is (as far as I can see) to use
>
> 209.126.146.3

  This however doesn't resolve to ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
So I am not seeing your point here...

>
>
> as nameserver in your /etc/resolv.conf or the corresponding Windows(TM)
> setting in network/dial up.
>
> There is no need to tell that you can still see it. I can too, on one
> machine, which runs named and apparently cached the 'correct' IP. This
> will expire, however.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:42:59 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Input Needed

Jefsey,

While policies, plans, and tools (your ICP-5, Registrars Rescue, and online 
management method) are important to the equation, what is still lacking is a 
channel by which any given interest group can effectively communicate with 
the decision-makers on the Board.

Simply declaring SOs as open to any organized "constituency" does little to 
ensure that minority views won't be summarily voted down by the entrenched 
interests that currently dominate the process.

In my view, the constituency/council structure is at the root of the DNSO's 
difficulties.  Within the GA, everyone is accorded a voice, all have the 
opportunity to vote, and consensus manages to emerge.  Would you support 
eliminating the Names Council and restructuring the DNSO as a large Assembly 
on the basis of one-man/one-vote? 
- --
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:42:47 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Input needed

At 15:59 27/02/02 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>M. Stuart Lynn has put forward a restructuring plan.  While I vehemently
>oppose his particular plan, I find myself asking, "What other overall
>restructuring plans have been put forth that the Board is in a position to
>evaluate?"
>
>Frankly, I haven't seen many, have you?

There is only one "plan" that has come from the bottom up and that is a 
desperate last-minute attempt to organize the At Large, so that the Board 
can at least evaluate if it is going to give its "blessing" to an At large 
representation.

The numbers will be of importance.

Shout it from the rooftops and all mailing lists that you know about: there 
is now an opportunity to sign up as a "potential" at Large member.
www.iccannatlarge.com
There is also a web based discussion forum where structural proposals can 
be discussed and built-up in an orderly fashion.

Individuals, please sign up. There are twelve days left to make an impression.

- --Joop

- --
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:44:09 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icannatlarge.com

The At Large Membership signup website has gone live today.
www.icannatlarge.com

- --Joop

- --
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:20:42 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

> The At Large Membership signup website has gone live today.
> www.icannatlarge.com

Well done - a nice site.

DPF

- --
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:57:11 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] AtLargeStudy.ORG website...

At 23:23 27/02/02 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>If you cannot reach the at large study website, but get a parking page
>from registrars.com, this is because DNS is messed up. If you must see the
>website, your only option is (as far as I can see) to use

Only Jefsey has control over the .org site.  I have discussed pointing his 
domain to the new site, but he may prefer to set up his own at Large 
site.  The live website is at www.icannatlarge.com

- --Joop

- --
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More on ICANNATLARGE.COM  or Imachination Ltd./Imachination.com?

All assembly members,

  ICANNATLARGE.COM is being hosted by one of JoopT's
companies.  This seems a bit odd when free hosting was offered
by Hi-Tek and Fitug.  Is this than to be a commercial organization?
Joop, could you please advise?

  Will donations be going to Imachination Ltd.?  Or will there be
a separate Atlarge account set up for such donations and
potential membership fees?  JoopT, can you please advise?

Thank you for your cooperation and future response in advance...

Registration Information on Imachination Ltd. or Imachination.com
listed below:

 Registrant:
  Imachination Ltd.
  422b Beach road, Mairangi Bay
  Auckland, n/a 1309
  NZ

  Domain Name: IMACHINATION.COM

  Administrative Contact:
     Teernstra, Joop  [email-masked]
     422b Beach road, Mairangi Bay
     Auckland, n/a 1309
     NZ
     6494798110

  Technical Contact:
     Direct, Domain  [email-masked]
     96 Mowat Avenue
     Toronto, Ontario M6K 3M1
     CA
     1-416-535-0123

  Billing Contact:
     Teernstra, Joop  [email-masked]
     422b Beach road, Mairangi Bay
     Auckland, n/a 1309
     NZ
     6494798110

  Registration Service Provider:
     Domain Direct, [email-masked]
     1-416-531-2084
     http://www.domaindirect.com

  Record last updated on 21-Feb-2002.
  Record expires on 12-Nov-2003.
  Record Created on 13-Nov-1996.

  Domain servers in listed order:
     NS.HOST4U.NET   209.150.128.30
     NS2.HOST4U.NET   209.150.129.3

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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:37:22 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

(I am posting this to the GA because the ALSC forum list has been killed.)

Dear Marilyn,

I notice you have just signed up as an individual member and domain name
holder of the new At Large Members Organization at
http://www.icannatlarge.com. In what capacity may I ask?

As you know, the At Large Organization is being set up primarily to lobby
ICANN for representation of those who are currently not able to participate
in the process through membership of other groups, specifically individual
domain name registrants, users and the public in general.

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a professional Internet and
Government lobbyist in fulltime employ with AT&T, a Telco. In that capacity
you are a member of the DNSO Business Constituency and represent that group
(some 33 Businesses) on the Names Council. You Chair two of the NC's Task
Forces, namely the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task Force, and will be
speaking on behalf of both of those groups (representing the views of all 7
constituencies) at the forthcoming Names Council Meeting in Accra
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html. Furthermore, you
have some unspecified involvement with the IDN Task Force
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html which still leaves
time for you to be an active member of the DNSO General Assembly. This
amounts to your representing every single member of each constituency of the
DNSO at one time or another in the current process.

Now, are we to understand that in addition to this, you now seek for your
voice to be heard in the formation of this new bottom-up organization? If
so, would this be on a level playing field with every other individual,
including the possibility of standing for election as an officer of the At
Large? Or are we to understand that you have joined simply to make a (no
doubt generous) pledge on behalf of AT & T, with no desire to expand your
role into areas such as seeking election as a representative of At Large
Members within the ICANN process?

Thank you for the clarification.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #1053
*************************