Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1058
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 1 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1058

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:13:52 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Webcasting the DNSO session

I have the received the following reply from ICANN staff clarifying matters 
with respect to webcasting the DNSO session in Accra:

Danny - Stuart asked me to respond to your e:mail.  I'm sorry it has taken
me a while - I've been trying to get some specific information on the costs.
You are correct in your statement that since our webcasting costs will be
lower in Ghana, the costs to the DNSO would be lower.  Because we are
utilizing local resources, the webcasting costs will vary from meeting to
meeting.  In Ghana, the cost to webcast the DNSO sessions will be
incremental to our overall costs.  For this meeting only, any cost to
webcast the DNSO sessions, wlll be paid by ICANN.  We will need to review
this on a meeting by meeting basis - and I will try to get the information
to you early enough that a decision can be made and sponsorship found if it
is required.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Diane Schroeder
- --
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 21:26:07 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Well, it's my fault for not paying much attention.     I was thinking of
a DNSO constituency (where participation on more than one constituency
is a problem)... and this is the at large voting thing.....   Sorry for
wasting bandwidth.  jl

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Whiting" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

> At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.  It is that
they
> >have a special constituency already.    How many times should the
> >registry/registrar interests vote?   The NCDNHC had several people
> >voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
> >registry or registar interests, and even people working as
consultants
> >to ICANN.    I don't think this makes ICANN look good.  Maybe we
should
> >just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote
for
> >the DNSO.  If you really want everyone to be treated fairly, lets
give
> >everyone exactly the same number of votes.    Jamie
> >
>
> IMO, ANYONE should be eligible for membership in the At Large
constituency.
>  We cannot exclude people from individual voting rights for arbitrary
> reasons, including who they work for or what thier business is.  This
is
> akin to not allowing a US Government employee have personal voting
rights
> because of thier employment position, that is insane.  Those people
live in
> the country too, just as Registrars and thier employees also have
personal
> interests in the workings of the internet.
>
> While we are free to disagree with whatever "position" others may take
on
> various issues, that is exactly what makes this a fair process -
everyone
> gets a vote.  As a businessman, Rick gets a vote in the Registrar's
> Constituency as well but it needs to be pointed out that that
> constituency's position on a topic is taken as a group, i.e. the
> Registrar's Constituency as a whole states a position on the topic
after
> the members of that constituency vote.  Wouldn't the At Large
Constituency
> operate in much the same manner?  After all, it is not like we are
each
> individually are getting a "vote" at ICANN, it is only the
constituency
> itself that gets representation.
>
> Perhaps I am missing something here, but it definitely seems wrong to
be
> excluding anyone for any reason, just as it would be wrong to exclude
> people that live in countries that do not "conform" to some
"standards"
> that someone arbitrarily sets.
>
> --HJW--
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>
> >To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jamie,
> >>
> >> I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
> >domains
> >> that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like to
be
> >able
> >> to represent those interests too.
> >>
> >> Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
> >support
> >> the at-large efforts and post often to the GA.
> >>
> >> I could not support any organization that removed individual
> >partipation
> >> even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
> >registrar.
> >> after all we aren't evil or something....
> >>
> >> -rick
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:
> >>
> >> > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
> >> >
> >> > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
> >> > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registry should vote in
any
> >other
> >> > constituency.
> >> >
> >> >   Jamie
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> >> > To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs"
> ><[email-masked]>
> >> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
> >> > > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar should vote in
> >any other
> >> > > constituency.
> >> > >
> >> > >   Jamie
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > To: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM
> >> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Ken,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you insist that all the tough questions are taken offline
and
> >dealt
> >> > > with
> >> > > > in private, then we might as well all pack up.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director needs to
> >participate
> >> > in
> >> > > > order to communicate with their electorate. That deals with
> >Karl's
> >> > > > membership.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It was not my intention to single out anybody, or to
> >"intimidate" you,
> >> > but
> >> > > > Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I have the
highest
> >regard
> >> > for
> >> > > > her professional acumen and know full well she anticipated
this
> >line of
> >> > > > questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether on or
offlist,
> >and IMHO,
> >> > > > these kinds of issues should be aired in public, not least
> >because the
> >> > At
> >> > > > Large is intended to advocate the public interest and it is
> >important
> >> > not
> >> > > to
> >> > > > beg the question "who is defining the public interest?",
> >(largely the
> >> > > point
> >> > > > raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum list).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group
> >cannot work
> >> > > > both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or
not
> >they are
> >> > a
> >> > > > domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly
> >welcome,
> >> > > isn't
> >> > > > it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as
an
> >advocate
> >> > of
> >> > > > their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even
> >joining a
> >> > > > "provider" class of membership that would have special value
to
> >the
> >> > > > organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty
evaluating
> >the
> >> > weight
> >> > > > of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as
> >opposed to
> >> > > giving
> >> > > > ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for AT
&
> >T in a
> >> > > > subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar
> >with her
> >> > > > position. It seems to me this would be a workeable
relationship
> >to
> >> > > engender
> >> > > > the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I apologize for raising this issue on the GA list, and would
not
> >have
> >> > done
> >> > > > so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared without
advance
> >notice,
> >> > > (due
> >> > > > to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process perhaps).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In addition to the above, I would also mention that there is
no
> >> > provision
> >> > > on
> >> > > > the website for corporate pledges, which is missing an
> >opportunity to
> >> > > raise,
> >> > > > say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support and
resources,
> >that a
> >> > > > separate category of membership would allow to occur, with
> >different
> >> > > levels
> >> > > > of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing out.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural clutter, so let's
to
> >cut to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground rule. While
the
> >DNSO
> >> > > > continues to operate as currently structured, no officers of
the
> >DNSO
> >> > > shall
> >> > > > be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Joanna
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
> >> > > > > To: Joanna Lane
> >> > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > joann & others...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > i would hope that as an individual i would be able to
> >participate in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > icann-at-large without any concern of being "intimidated"
into
> >not
> >> > > > > participating .
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > correspondence of this sort is not constructive. if you
have
> >concerns
> >> > > > > joanna, i personally feel  you should take them DIRECTLY to
> >> > > > > Marilyn instead
> >> > > > > of trying to make a public 'thing" out of it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > this is not a good way to start out here.. many of us work
for
> >> > companies
> >> > > > > which may already be participating in some way in one or
> >another
> >> > > > > constituancy or already be part of a specific "interest
group"
> >(i
> >> > > believe
> >> > > > > that Karl Auerbach has some financial relationship with
Cisco
> >and no
> >> > one
> >> > > > > questions his right to participate)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > suggest you "back it down a notch or two"  here
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > regards
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ken stubbs
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>;
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
> >> > > > > 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
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> 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: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:02:27 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A positive development

The Intellectual Property Constituency has launched a publicly archived 
mailing list:  http://ipc.dnso.icann.org/comments-archive/

This effort to support transparency in the ICANN process is to be applauded.
- --
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 22:36:37 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure Task Force Teleconference

David,

Can you find out if there will be listen-only ports for the upcoming 
Structure TF teleconference?  Also, might you know if the Secretariat will 
provide webcasting for this meeting?  

Several constituencies has already indicated that they will not endorse the 
current draft report.  Have you arrived at a decision?  I believe that 
comments are due today.
- --
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 19:45:37 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

- --------------D04A10B6630CE0BE0CE6C26A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Methinks one can neither exclude nor segregate any class of persons
who have an interest in ICANN's activities from being a member of
ICANN-AT-LARGE, should that entity come into official existence,
and that ranges from the innocent user who does not even have a
domain name to the registrars, etc.  Persons belonging to the one
class or the other have one thing in common -- they each get one
vote in whatever it may be that ICANN-AT-LARGE has taken up.
It might be that a bunch of registrars might gang up and make a
bloc vote on something, but if there's even 20 of them, that's only
20 votes. The "hoi polloi" of the Internet vastly outnumber any such
"special interest" grouping, hence so long as the individuals are
paying attention and voting on what counts, any such "clique"
voting will be like a drop in the bucket.

A vote is a vote, and the fact that a particular ballot  was cast by
someone who in another context (some constituency) carries a lot
of weight, in the ICANN-AT-LARGE voting that vote is still just
one vote.  Machs nichts, de nada, and all that.

People should worry instead about getting their own vote cast.

Bill Lovell

Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.  It is that they
> >have a special constituency already.    How many times should the
> >registry/registrar interests vote?   The NCDNHC had several people
> >voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
> >registry or registar interests, and even people working as consultants
> >to ICANN.    I don't think this makes ICANN look good.  Maybe we should
> >just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote for
> >the DNSO.  If you really want everyone to be treated fairly, lets give
> >everyone exactly the same number of votes.    Jamie
> >
>
> IMO, ANYONE should be eligible for membership in the At Large constituency.
>  We cannot exclude people from individual voting rights for arbitrary
> reasons, including who they work for or what thier business is.  This is
> akin to not allowing a US Government employee have personal voting rights
> because of thier employment position, that is insane.  Those people live in
> the country too, just as Registrars and thier employees also have personal
> interests in the workings of the internet.
>
> While we are free to disagree with whatever "position" others may take on
> various issues, that is exactly what makes this a fair process - everyone
> gets a vote.  As a businessman, Rick gets a vote in the Registrar's
> Constituency as well but it needs to be pointed out that that
> constituency's position on a topic is taken as a group, i.e. the
> Registrar's Constituency as a whole states a position on the topic after
> the members of that constituency vote.  Wouldn't the At Large Constituency
> operate in much the same manner?  After all, it is not like we are each
> individually are getting a "vote" at ICANN, it is only the constituency
> itself that gets representation.
>
> Perhaps I am missing something here, but it definitely seems wrong to be
> excluding anyone for any reason, just as it would be wrong to exclude
> people that live in countries that do not "conform" to some "standards"
> that someone arbitrarily sets.
>
> --HJW--
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>
> >To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jamie,
> >>
> >> I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
> >domains
> >> that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like to be
> >able
> >> to represent those interests too.
> >>
> >> Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
> >support
> >> the at-large efforts and post often to the GA.
> >>
> >> I could not support any organization that removed individual
> >partipation
> >> even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
> >registrar.
> >> after all we aren't evil or something....
> >>
> >> -rick
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:
> >>
> >> > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
> >> >
> >> > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
> >> > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registry should vote in any
> >other
> >> > constituency.
> >> >
> >> >   Jamie
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> >> > To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs"
> ><[email-masked]>
> >> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
> >> > > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar should vote in
> >any other
> >> > > constituency.
> >> > >
> >> > >   Jamie
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > To: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM
> >> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Ken,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you insist that all the tough questions are taken offline and
> >dealt
> >> > > with
> >> > > > in private, then we might as well all pack up.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director needs to
> >participate
> >> > in
> >> > > > order to communicate with their electorate. That deals with
> >Karl's
> >> > > > membership.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It was not my intention to single out anybody, or to
> >"intimidate" you,
> >> > but
> >> > > > Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I have the highest
> >regard
> >> > for
> >> > > > her professional acumen and know full well she anticipated this
> >line of
> >> > > > questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether on or offlist,
> >and IMHO,
> >> > > > these kinds of issues should be aired in public, not least
> >because the
> >> > At
> >> > > > Large is intended to advocate the public interest and it is
> >important
> >> > not
> >> > > to
> >> > > > beg the question "who is defining the public interest?",
> >(largely the
> >> > > point
> >> > > > raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum list).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group
> >cannot work
> >> > > > both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or not
> >they are
> >> > a
> >> > > > domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly
> >welcome,
> >> > > isn't
> >> > > > it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as an
> >advocate
> >> > of
> >> > > > their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even
> >joining a
> >> > > > "provider" class of membership that would have special value to
> >the
> >> > > > organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty evaluating
> >the
> >> > weight
> >> > > > of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as
> >opposed to
> >> > > giving
> >> > > > ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for AT &
> >T in a
> >> > > > subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar
> >with her
> >> > > > position. It seems to me this would be a workeable relationship
> >to
> >> > > engender
> >> > > > the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I apologize for raising this issue on the GA list, and would not
> >have
> >> > done
> >> > > > so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared without advance
> >notice,
> >> > > (due
> >> > > > to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process perhaps).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In addition to the above, I would also mention that there is no
> >> > provision
> >> > > on
> >> > > > the website for corporate pledges, which is missing an
> >opportunity to
> >> > > raise,
> >> > > > say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support and resources,
> >that a
> >> > > > separate category of membership would allow to occur, with
> >different
> >> > > levels
> >> > > > of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing out.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural clutter, so let's to
> >cut to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground rule. While the
> >DNSO
> >> > > > continues to operate as currently structured, no officers of the
> >DNSO
> >> > > shall
> >> > > > be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Joanna
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
> >> > > > > To: Joanna Lane
> >> > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > joann & others...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > i would hope that as an individual i would be able to
> >participate in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > icann-at-large without any concern of being "intimidated" into
> >not
> >> > > > > participating .
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > correspondence of this sort is not constructive. if you have
> >concerns
> >> > > > > joanna, i personally feel  you should take them DIRECTLY to
> >> > > > > Marilyn instead
> >> > > > > of trying to make a public 'thing" out of it.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > this is not a good way to start out here.. many of us work for
> >> > companies
> >> > > > > which may already be participating in some way in one or
> >another
> >> > > > > constituancy or already be part of a specific "interest group"
> >(i
> >> > > believe
> >> > > > > that Karl Auerbach has some financial relationship with Cisco
> >and no
> >> > one
> >> > > > > questions his right to participate)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > suggest you "back it down a notch or two"  here
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > regards
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ken stubbs
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>;
> >> > > > > <[email-masked]>
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
> >> > > > > 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
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> 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

- --------------D04A10B6630CE0BE0CE6C26A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Methinks one can neither exclude nor segregate any class of persons
<br>who have an interest in ICANN's activities from being a member of
<br>ICANN-AT-LARGE, should that entity come into official existence,
<br>and that ranges from the innocent user who does not even have a
<br>domain name to the registrars, etc.&nbsp; Persons belonging to the
one
<br>class or the other have one thing in common -- they each get <i>one</i>
<br>vote in whatever it may be that ICANN-AT-LARGE has taken up.
<br>It might be that a bunch of registrars might gang up and make a
<br>bloc vote on something, but if there's even 20 of them, that's only
<br>20 votes. The "hoi polloi" of the Internet vastly outnumber any such
<br>"special interest" grouping, hence so long as the individuals are
<br>paying attention and voting on what counts, any such "clique"
<br>voting will be like a drop in the bucket.
<p>A vote is a vote, and the fact that a particular ballot&nbsp; was cast
by
<br>someone who in another context (some constituency) carries a lot
<br>of weight, in the ICANN-AT-LARGE voting that vote is still just
<br>one vote.&nbsp; Machs nichts, de nada, and all that.
<p>People should worry instead about getting their <i>own</i> vote cast.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Harold Whiting wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
<br>>Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.&nbsp; It is
that they
<br>>have a special constituency already.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How many times
should the
<br>>registry/registrar interests vote?&nbsp;&nbsp; The NCDNHC had several
people
<br>>voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
<br>>registry or registar interests, and even people working as consultants
<br>>to ICANN.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think this makes ICANN look good.&nbsp;
Maybe we should
<br>>just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote
for
<br>>the DNSO.&nbsp; If you really want everyone to be treated fairly,
lets give
<br>>everyone exactly the same number of votes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie
<br>>
<p>IMO, ANYONE should be eligible for membership in the At Large constituency.
<br>&nbsp;We cannot exclude people from individual voting rights for arbitrary
<br>reasons, including who they work for or what thier business is.&nbsp;
This is
<br>akin to not allowing a US Government employee have personal voting
rights
<br>because of thier employment position, that is insane.&nbsp; Those people
live in
<br>the country too, just as Registrars and thier employees also have personal
<br>interests in the workings of the internet.
<p>While we are free to disagree with whatever "position" others may take
on
<br>various issues, that is exactly what makes this a fair process - everyone
<br>gets a vote.&nbsp; As a businessman, Rick gets a vote in the Registrar's
<br>Constituency as well but it needs to be pointed out that that
<br>constituency's position on a topic is taken as a group, i.e. the
<br>Registrar's Constituency as a whole states a position on the topic
after
<br>the members of that constituency vote.&nbsp; Wouldn't the At Large
Constituency
<br>operate in much the same manner?&nbsp; After all, it is not like we
are each
<br>individually are getting a "vote" at ICANN, it is only the constituency
<br>itself that gets representation.
<p>Perhaps I am missing something here, but it definitely seems wrong to
be
<br>excluding anyone for any reason, just as it would be wrong to exclude
<br>people that live in countries that do not "conform" to some "standards"
<br>that someone arbitrarily sets.
<p>--HJW--
<p>>----- Original Message -----
<br>>From: "Rick H Wesson" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>To: "James Love" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>Cc: &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM
<br>>Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>>
<br>>> Jamie,
<br>>>
<br>>> I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
<br>>domains
<br>>> that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like
to be
<br>>able
<br>>> to represent those interests too.
<br>>>
<br>>> Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
<br>>support
<br>>> the at-large efforts and post often to the GA.
<br>>>
<br>>> I could not support any organization that removed individual
<br>>partipation
<br>>> even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
<br>>registrar.
<br>>> after all we aren't evil or something....
<br>>>
<br>>> -rick
<br>>>
<br>>>
<br>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:
<br>>>
<br>>> > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
<br>>> >
<br>>> > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
<br>>> > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registry should vote in
any
<br>>other
<br>>> > constituency.
<br>>> >
<br>>> >&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie
<br>>> >
<br>>> > ----- Original Message -----
<br>>> > From: "James Love" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > To: "Joanna Lane" &lt;[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs"
<br>>&lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > Cc: &lt;[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM
<br>>> > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>>> >
<br>>> >
<br>>> > > IMO, with regarding to the DNSO.
<br>>> > >
<br>>> > > 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
<br>>> > > 2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar should vote
in
<br>>any other
<br>>> > > constituency.
<br>>> > >
<br>>> > >&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie
<br>>> > >
<br>>> > > ----- Original Message -----
<br>>> > > From: "Joanna Lane" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > To: "Ken Stubbs" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > Cc: &lt;[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM
<br>>> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>>> > >
<br>>> > >
<br>>> > > > Ken,
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > If you insist that all the tough questions are taken offline
and
<br>>dealt
<br>>> > > with
<br>>> > > > in private, then we might as well all pack up.
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director needs to
<br>>participate
<br>>> > in
<br>>> > > > order to communicate with their electorate. That deals with
<br>>Karl's
<br>>> > > > membership.
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > It was not my intention to single out anybody, or to
<br>>"intimidate" you,
<br>>> > but
<br>>> > > > Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I have the highest
<br>>regard
<br>>> > for
<br>>> > > > her professional acumen and know full well she anticipated
this
<br>>line of
<br>>> > > > questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether on or offlist,
<br>>and IMHO,
<br>>> > > > these kinds of issues should be aired in public, not least
<br>>because the
<br>>> > At
<br>>> > > > Large is intended to advocate the public interest and it is
<br>>important
<br>>> > not
<br>>> > > to
<br>>> > > > beg the question "who is defining the public interest?",
<br>>(largely the
<br>>> > > point
<br>>> > > > raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum list).
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > A person who is a paid advocate for a special interest group
<br>>cannot work
<br>>> > > > both sides of the fence in my personal opinion, whether or
not
<br>>they are
<br>>> > a
<br>>> > > > domain name registrant or not. While the support is certainly
<br>>welcome,
<br>>> > > isn't
<br>>> > > > it better for them to participate in the At Large debate as
an
<br>>advocate
<br>>> > of
<br>>> > > > their special interest group, transparently, perhaps even
<br>>joining a
<br>>> > > > "provider" class of membership that would have special value
to
<br>>the
<br>>> > > > organization. In this way, we would have no diffulty evaluating
<br>>the
<br>>> > weight
<br>>> > > > of contributions and give them the merit they deserve, as
<br>>opposed to
<br>>> > > giving
<br>>> > > > ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was lobbying for
AT &amp;
<br>>T in a
<br>>> > > > subversive fashion, and confusing those who are not familiar
<br>>with her
<br>>> > > > position. It seems to me this would be a workeable relationship
<br>>to
<br>>> > > engender
<br>>> > > > the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > I apologize for raising this issue on the GA list, and would
not
<br>>have
<br>>> > done
<br>>> > > > so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared without advance
<br>>notice,
<br>>> > > (due
<br>>> > > > to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process perhaps).
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > In addition to the above, I would also mention that there
is no
<br>>> > provision
<br>>> > > on
<br>>> > > > the website for corporate pledges, which is missing an
<br>>opportunity to
<br>>> > > raise,
<br>>> > > > say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support and resources,
<br>>that a
<br>>> > > > separate category of membership would allow to occur, with
<br>>different
<br>>> > > levels
<br>>> > > > of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing out.
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural clutter, so let's
to
<br>>cut to
<br>>> > > the
<br>>> > > > chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground rule. While
the
<br>>DNSO
<br>>> > > > continues to operate as currently structured, no officers
of the
<br>>DNSO
<br>>> > > shall
<br>>> > > > be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > Regards,
<br>>> > > > Joanna
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
<br>>> > > > > From: Ken Stubbs [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
<br>>> > > > > To: Joanna Lane
<br>>> > > > > Cc: [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra
<br>>> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > joann &amp; others...
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > i would hope that as an individual i would be able to
<br>>participate in
<br>>> > the
<br>>> > > > > icann-at-large without any concern of being "intimidated"
into
<br>>not
<br>>> > > > > participating .
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > correspondence of this sort is not constructive. if you
have
<br>>concerns
<br>>> > > > > joanna, i personally feel&nbsp; you should take them DIRECTLY
to
<br>>> > > > > Marilyn instead
<br>>> > > > > of trying to make a public 'thing" out of it.
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > this is not a good way to start out here.. many of us work
for
<br>>> > companies
<br>>> > > > > which may already be participating in some way in one or
<br>>another
<br>>> > > > > constituancy or already be part of a specific "interest
group"
<br>>(i
<br>>> > > believe
<br>>> > > > > that Karl Auerbach has some financial relationship with
Cisco
<br>>and no
<br>>> > one
<br>>> > > > > questions his right to participate)
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > suggest you "back it down a notch or two"&nbsp; here
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > regards
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > ken stubbs
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
<br>>> > > > > From: "Joanna Lane" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > > > To: &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > > > Cc: &lt;[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" &lt;[email-masked]>;
<br>>> > > > > &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
<br>>> > > > > Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > (I am posting this to the GA because the ALSC forum list
has
<br>>> > > > > been killed.)
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > Dear Marilyn,
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > I notice you have just signed up as an individual member
and
<br>>domain
<br>>> > > name
<br>>> > > > > > holder of the new At Large Members Organization at
<br>>> > > > > > <a href="http://www.icannatlarge.com">http://www.icannatlarge.com</a>.
In what capacity may I ask?
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > As you know, the At Large Organization is being set up
<br>>> > > > > primarily to lobby
<br>>> > > > > > ICANN for representation of those who are currently not
able
<br>>to
<br>>> > > > > participate
<br>>> > > > > > in the process through membership of other groups,
<br>>specifically
<br>>> > > > > individual
<br>>> > > > > > domain name registrants, users and the public in general.
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are a
<br>>professional
<br>>> > > Internet
<br>>> > > > > and
<br>>> > > > > > Government lobbyist in fulltime employ with AT&amp;T,
a Telco.
<br>>In that
<br>>> > > > > capacity
<br>>> > > > > > you are a member of the DNSO Business Constituency and
<br>>represent
<br>>> > that
<br>>> > > > > group
<br>>> > > > > > (some 33 Businesses) on the Names Council. You Chair two
of
<br>>the
<br>>> > > > > NC's Task
<br>>> > > > > > Forces, namely the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task
<br>>> > > > > Force, and will
<br>>> > > > > be
<br>>> > > > > > speaking on behalf of both of those groups (representing
the
<br>>> > > > > views of all
<br>>> > > > > 7
<br>>> > > > > > constituencies) at the forthcoming Names Council Meeting
in
<br>>Accra
<br>>> > > > > > <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html</a>.
<br>>> > > Furthermore,
<br>>> > > > > you
<br>>> > > > > > have some unspecified involvement with the IDN Task Force
<br>>> > > > > > <a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html</a>
<br>>which
<br>>> > still
<br>>> > > > > leaves
<br>>> > > > > > time for you to be an active member of the DNSO General
<br>>Assembly.
<br>>> > This
<br>>> > > > > > amounts to your representing every single member of each
<br>>> > constituency
<br>>> > > of
<br>>> > > > > the
<br>>> > > > > > DNSO at one time or another in the current process.
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > Now, are we to understand that in addition to this, you
now
<br>>> > > > > seek for your
<br>>> > > > > > voice to be heard in the formation of this new bottom-up
<br>>> > > > > organization? If
<br>>> > > > > > so, would this be on a level playing field with every
other
<br>>> > > individual,
<br>>> > > > > > including the possibility of standing for election as
an
<br>>> > > > > officer of the At
<br>>> > > > > > Large? Or are we to understand that you have joined simply
<br>>to make a
<br>>> > > (no
<br>>> > > > > > doubt generous) pledge on behalf of AT &amp; T, with no
desire
<br>>to
<br>>> > > > > expand your
<br>>> > > > > > role into areas such as seeking election as a representative
<br>>of At
<br>>> > > Large
<br>>> > > > > > Members within the ICANN process?
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > Thank you for the clarification.
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > Regards,
<br>>> > > > > > Joanna
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > > > --
<br>>> > > > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>>> > > > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>>> > > > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>>> > > > > > Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>> > > > > >
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > > >
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > > --
<br>>> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>>> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>>> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>>> > > > Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > > >
<br>>> > >
<br>>> >
<br>>> > --
<br>>> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>>> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>>> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>>> > Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>> >
<br>>>
<br>>> --
<br>>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>>> Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>>>
<br>>>
<br>>
<br>>--
<br>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<p>Harold Whiting
<br>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------D04A10B6630CE0BE0CE6C26A--

- --
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 #1058
*************************