Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1059
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 1 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1059

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 20:28:34 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Structure Task Force Teleconference

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:36:37 EST, [email-masked] wrote:

>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?  

No I don't but I will enquire forthwith.

>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.

I do not believe I have a mandate to do so at this stage but more to
the point the Lynn proposal also may change things a lot.

My intention is after the call to post a summary to the GA and seek
feedback and/or specific endorsements on some key issues.

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: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 02:21:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcasting the DNSO session

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

  Good luck!

>
> 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.

  Why would they vary?

> 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

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: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 02:41:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A note on Lynn's paper

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> [This is Thomas speaking only for himself, not in his capacity as
> the GA chair.]
>
> Here's just a short list of some issues I have with Lynn's proposal.
> I'm afraid it's too late (and I'm too sleepy) to produce a more
> coherent text.
>
> 1. Lynn talks about "Internet-speed" effectivity.  ICANN is supposed
> to be effective at what job precisely?  Policy development in most
> cases shouldn't require "Internet-speed" effectivity.

  Of course policy decisions should not be at internet speed.
But all due but prudent haste should be taken.

>
>
> 2. He seems to consider government participation a cure to all the
> problems he perceives with at large elections, including that
> considerations other than the stability and security of the net
> could influence voters.

  Isn't this where the ICANN Experiment started.  It was government
that felt that this effort/experiment should be taken over by private
industry back in '97 -'98...    I don't think that private industry
will desire this approach, and government is not suited nor want's
it back either.

> However, there's no reason why governments
> should behave any better.  In fact, the absurdities around the
> selection of the presidency of the European Central Bank point in
> the opposite direction, as do some experiences with the 2000 at
> large elections - at least in Germany, the national argument was (in
> my recollection) mostly used by persons and groups close to the
> administration, and likely to influence governmental appointments to
> an ICANN board.
>
> 3. Governments are supposed to pay for their participation.  They
> are also supposed to pay their fees to the United Nations, and we
> all know what, for instance, the US do there.

  Yes the US was late in paying it's UN dues.  Not surprising in that
the US accounts for about 70% of the UN's budget...

>  Now, what do you
> believe happens if .kids finds some more congressmen supporting that
> idea, and some of these congressmen sit in the right committee?

  So far from our inquiries this is not a consideration.

>  It
> will be fun to watch how some of the more powerful nations may be
> excluded from the GAC, and what happens then.  Also, the board
> structure is kind of balanced.

  The Board is far from balanced presently.  That is why an At-Large
in sorely needed where 51% or 9 seats on the board are elected
by that At-Large...

> How realistic is the idea that
> government appointees on the board could be overriden on a somewhat
> regular basis?  How much is this "balance" really worth?

  It would not be a balance either.  Therefore it would have little worth

in that sense.  However the worth or well entrenched government
contractors in big industry would tip the balance even further
but perhaps slightly differently in the favor of the supply side or
big international business interests.

>
>
> 4. ICANN is supposed to focus on a certain mission.  As illustrated
> by the .kids example, it seems illusorical to believe that direct
> government involvement with the board would prevent mission creep.
> Just the opposite seems likely to happen.

  The example of the .KIDS TLD bill before congress is not a good
example.  Rather that bill, which INEGRoup supports is one that
would aid in restoring balance in several well articulated and
documented ways.

>
>
> 5. Process.  Current process is considered a problem for
> effectivity.  Well, quite frankly, there are a few simple changes
> which could make current process a whole lot more efficient (Johnson
> and Crawford suggest some, including _reasonable_ deadlines for
> consensus development [these are sorely lacking, in practice either
> being "yesterday" or "when it's done"]; staff support in drafting
> documents may be another one).  Implementation errors don't mean
> that the principles of current process are all that bad.

  The current process's have been and remain terribly skewed
if not non existent.  Implementation as well of the already
improperly determined policies such as the UDRP and
Registry and Registrar contracts are stark and well
articulated terrible examples.

>
>
> 6. As has been noticed by many already, the board would be mostly
> self-selecting (indirectly, but still).  Someone (I think it was
> Dave Farrar) compared it to the IOC.  Well, we all know the
> corruption scandals in that particular committee.  A self-selecting
> board is about the worst tool we can find if the objective is to
> find high-quality individuals.

  Agreed.  However we already have a BoD that still has the
"Boardsquatters" still seated, a board that's last elections
were terrible managed and thereby some recent BoD members
are seated that have a questionable legitimacy.

>  In particular, a board as powerful
> as the one suggested by Lynn can not be expected to be open for
> possibly necessary future reform and critical reassessment, since
> there are few incentives for such activities.  Also, it would
> continue to strive for more power.

  Good point here.  Sounds allot like more of the same as we have
now, except perhaps much worse...

>
>
> 7. Independent review. It's, quite frankly, outrageous how the
> planned independent review panel is denoted as a "waste" in Lynn's
> paper.  When there are no workable mechanisms for the internet
> community at large to replace members of the board performing badly,
> and when the board can cast policy as it likes to, such a panel is
> more necessary than ever before.  Because, otherwise, the internet
> community may end up in a situation where the only thing which can
> be done is to deliberately ignore ICANN policy.  In fact,
> independent review and reconsideration mechanisms are a _necessity_
> to assure that ICANN is "effective" in casting not just some, but
> the right kind of policy, in a fair and reasonable manner, following
> whatever process is ultimately established.
>
> Finally, let me note that a lot of good observations can be found in
> the Johnson & Crawford paper published by icannwatch.org.  Read it,
> it's worth the itme.

  I did.  It was pretty good, but lacked adequate detail on the
determination of what consensus really is and how it is determined...
This is a fairly critical omission...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> ALSC forum fall-back address:         <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman 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: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:04:00 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

- --=====================_11675162==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Bill,
You cannot ask ALSC people to contradict themselves. You cannot ask Joop 
Teernstra not to consider registrants firsts. You cannot ask Mike Roberts 
to disregard if people bring money or not.

Pindar Wang, Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, etc.. are people we strongly 
opposed for very good reasons and for a long while. Because - among others 
- - they created the problem with the mission creep, creating the ALSC and 
starting calling the Govs in. We supported a lot Joop Teernstra endeavors, 
but not his approach.

Esther and Pindar belong to the ALSC which defend positions they do not 
disapprove and we formally disapprove. We are bother objected by the BoD 
and Stuart, this make them temporary allies, but differences remains 
because their objectives are not ours. This may change but let not confuse 
early enthusiasm and objective interest. Let be grown boys, otherwise, BoD 
and Staff will be quick at considering this as a manipulation.

IMHO @large are first real people. And real people are in a country, with a 
real NIC, with a real Gov, with real Media, with real consumer 
organizations, with a real culture. And this carries much more weight than 
Stuart's and BoD's unrealistic plans or uncertainty.

We should certainly pragmatically support our today bed fellows.
They want to be accepted back by the ICANN which dropped them out.
We should remember we want ultimately to commonly own the ICANN.so it 
servers us instead of blocking and may be in the future directnig us.
Jefsey

on 04:45 01/03/02, William S. Lovell said:
>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]>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --=====================_11675162==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Bill,<br>
You cannot ask ALSC people to contradict themselves. You cannot ask Joop
Teernstra not to consider registrants firsts. You cannot ask Mike Roberts
to disregard if people bring money or not.<br><br>
Pindar Wang, Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, etc.. are people we strongly
opposed for very good reasons and for a long while. Because - among
others - they created the problem with the mission creep, creating the
ALSC and starting calling the Govs in. We supported a lot Joop Teernstra
endeavors, but not his approach.<br><br>
Esther and Pindar belong to the ALSC which defend positions they do not
disapprove and we formally disapprove. We are bother objected by the BoD
and Stuart, this make them temporary allies, but differences remains
because their objectives are not ours. This may change but let not
confuse early enthusiasm and objective interest. Let be grown boys,
otherwise, BoD and Staff will be quick at considering this as a
manipulation.<br><br>
IMHO @large are first real people. And real people are in a country, with
a real NIC, with a real Gov, with real Media, with real consumer
organizations, with a real culture. And this carries much more weight
than Stuart's and BoD's unrealistic plans or uncertainty. <br><br>
We should certainly pragmatically support our today bed fellows. <br>
They want to be accepted back by the ICANN which dropped them out.<br>
We should remember we want ultimately to commonly own the ICANN.so it
servers us instead of blocking and may be in the future directnig
us.<br>
Jefsey<br><br>
on 04:45 01/03/02, William S. Lovell said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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 &quot;hoi polloi&quot; of the Internet vastly outnumber any
such <br>
&quot;special interest&quot; grouping, hence so long as the individuals
are <br>
paying attention and voting on what counts, any such &quot;clique&quot;
<br>
voting will be like a drop in the bucket. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
People should worry instead about getting their <i>own</i> vote cast.
<br><br>
Bill Lovell <br>
&nbsp; <br><br>
Harold Whiting wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 07:44 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, James
Love wrote: <br>
&gt;Rick, it isn't that registrars or registrars are evil.&nbsp; It is
that they <br>
&gt;have a special constituency already.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How many times
should the <br>
&gt;registry/registrar interests vote?&nbsp;&nbsp; The NCDNHC had several
people <br>
&gt;voting in our constituency that were doing so to protect various
<br>
&gt;registry or registar interests, and even people working as
consultants <br>
&gt;to ICANN.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think this makes ICANN look
good.&nbsp; Maybe we should <br>
&gt;just scrap the constituencies, and give everyone who wants one vote
for <br>
&gt;the DNSO.&nbsp; If you really want everyone to be treated fairly,
lets give <br>
&gt;everyone exactly the same number of votes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie
<br>
&gt; <br><br>
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. <br><br>
While we are free to disagree with whatever &quot;position&quot; 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 &quot;vote&quot; at ICANN, it is only the
constituency <br>
itself that gets representation. <br><br>
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 &quot;conform&quot; to some
&quot;standards&quot; <br>
that someone arbitrarily sets. <br><br>
- --HJW-- <br><br>
&gt;----- Original Message ----- <br>
&gt;From: &quot;Rick H Wesson&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;To: &quot;James Love&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;Cc: &lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM <br>
&gt;Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; Jamie, <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; I work for many registrars and one one too. I also have several
<br>
&gt;domains <br>
&gt;&gt; that have nothing to do with my registrar business and I'd like
to be <br>
&gt;able <br>
&gt;&gt; to represent those interests too. <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; Either we have to learn to cooperate or nothing will get done. I
<br>
&gt;support <br>
&gt;&gt; the at-large efforts and post often to the GA. <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; I could not support any organization that removed individual
<br>
&gt;partipation <br>
&gt;&gt; even if one of the participants was working for a registry or
<br>
&gt;registrar. <br>
&gt;&gt; after all we aren't evil or something.... <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; -rick <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Love wrote: <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; IMO, with regarding to the DNSO. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 1. No one should be voting in more than one constituency.
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 2. No one who works for a registrar or registry should vote
in any <br>
&gt;other <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; constituency. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; From: &quot;James Love&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; To: &quot;Joanna Lane&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;;
&quot;Ken Stubbs&quot; <br>
&gt;&lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Cc: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;; &quot;Joop Teernstra&quot;
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:52 PM <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; IMO, with regarding to the DNSO. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; 1. No one should be voting in more than one
constituency. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; 2. No one who works for a registrar or registrar
should vote in <br>
&gt;any other <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; constituency. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jamie <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; From: &quot;Joanna Lane&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; To: &quot;Ken Stubbs&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Cc: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;; &quot;Joop Teernstra&quot;
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:23 PM <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of
interest <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Ken, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; If you insist that all the tough questions are
taken offline and <br>
&gt;dealt <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; with <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; in private, then we might as well all pack up.
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; No doubt you will agree that an At Large Director
needs to <br>
&gt;participate <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; in <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; order to communicate with their electorate. That
deals with <br>
&gt;Karl's <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; membership. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; It was not my intention to single out anybody, or
to <br>
&gt;&quot;intimidate&quot; you, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; but <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Marilyn brought the questions upon herself. I
have the highest <br>
&gt;regard <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; for <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; her professional acumen and know full well she
anticipated this <br>
&gt;line of <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; questioning, whether from me, or Danny, whether
on or offlist, <br>
&gt;and IMHO, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; these kinds of issues should be aired in public,
not least <br>
&gt;because the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; At <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Large is intended to advocate the public interest
and it is <br>
&gt;important <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; not <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; beg the question &quot;who is defining the public
interest?&quot;, <br>
&gt;(largely the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; point <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; raised by Esther a few days ago on the ALSC forum
list). <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; A person who is a paid advocate for a special
interest group <br>
&gt;cannot work <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; both sides of the fence in my personal opinion,
whether or not <br>
&gt;they are <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; a <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; domain name registrant or not. While the support
is certainly <br>
&gt;welcome, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; isn't <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; it better for them to participate in the At Large
debate as an <br>
&gt;advocate <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; of <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; their special interest group, transparently,
perhaps even <br>
&gt;joining a <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;provider&quot; class of membership that
would have special value to <br>
&gt;the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; organization. In this way, we would have no
diffulty evaluating <br>
&gt;the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; weight <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; of contributions and give them the merit they
deserve, as <br>
&gt;opposed to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; giving <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ammunition to those who would say Marilyn was
lobbying for AT &amp; <br>
&gt;T in a <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; subversive fashion, and confusing those who are
not familiar <br>
&gt;with her <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; position. It seems to me this would be a
workeable relationship <br>
&gt;to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; engender <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the trust we so badly need if all are amenable.
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I apologize for raising this issue on the GA
list, and would not <br>
&gt;have <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; done <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; so had the ALSC forum not suddenly disappeared
without advance <br>
&gt;notice, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; (due <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to some flaw in the Registrar transfer process
perhaps). <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; In addition to the above, I would also mention
that there is no <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; provision <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; on <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the website for corporate pledges, which is
missing an <br>
&gt;opportunity to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; raise, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; say, $100,000 in matching funds for staff support
and resources, <br>
&gt;that a <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; separate category of membership would allow to
occur, with <br>
&gt;different <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; levels <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; of status. Just a thought that needs fleshing
out. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I am mindful to avoid unecessary procedural
clutter, so let's to <br>
&gt;cut to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; chase. It is my suggestion to agree one ground
rule. While the <br>
&gt;DNSO <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; continues to operate as currently structured, no
officers of the <br>
&gt;DNSO <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; shall <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; be eligible to stand for office in the At Large.
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Regards, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Joanna <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original Message----- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; From: Ken Stubbs
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:03 AM
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; To: Joanna Lane <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Cc: [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com -
conflict of interest <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; joann &amp; others... <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; i would hope that as an individual i would
be able to <br>
&gt;participate in <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; icann-at-large without any concern of being
&quot;intimidated&quot; into <br>
&gt;not <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; participating . <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; correspondence of this sort is not
constructive. if you have <br>
&gt;concerns <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; joanna, i personally feel&nbsp; you should
take them DIRECTLY to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Marilyn instead <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; of trying to make a public 'thing&quot; out
of it. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; this is not a good way to start out here..
many of us work for <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; companies <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; which may already be participating in some
way in one or <br>
&gt;another <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; constituancy or already be part of a
specific &quot;interest group&quot; <br>
&gt;(i <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; believe <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; that Karl Auerbach has some financial
relationship with Cisco <br>
&gt;and no <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; one <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; questions his right to participate) <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; suggest you &quot;back it down a notch or
two&quot;&nbsp; here <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; regards <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ken stubbs <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ----- Original Message ----- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; From: &quot;Joanna Lane&quot;
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; To: &lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Cc: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;; &quot;Joop
Teernstra&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &lt;[email-masked]&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:37 AM
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of
interest <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; (I am posting this to the GA because
the ALSC forum list has <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; been killed.) <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Dear Marilyn, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; I notice you have just signed up as an
individual member and <br>
&gt;domain <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; name <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; holder of the new At Large Members
Organization at <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
<a href="http://www.icannatlarge.com">http://www.icannatlarge.com</a>. In
what capacity may I ask? <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; As you know, the At Large Organization
is being set up <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; primarily to lobby <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ICANN for representation of those who
are currently not able <br>
&gt;to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; participate <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; in the process through membership of
other groups, <br>
&gt;specifically <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; individual <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; domain name registrants, users and the
public in general. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Now, please correct me if I'm wrong,
but you are a <br>
&gt;professional <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Internet <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; and <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Government lobbyist in fulltime employ
with AT&amp;T, a Telco. <br>
&gt;In that <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; capacity <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; you are a member of the DNSO Business
Constituency and <br>
&gt;represent <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; that <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; group <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; (some 33 Businesses) on the Names
Council. You Chair two of <br>
&gt;the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; NC's Task <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Forces, namely the Transfer Task Force
and the Whois Task <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Force, and will <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; be <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; speaking on behalf of both of those
groups (representing the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; views of all <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; 7 <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; constituencies) at the forthcoming
Names Council Meeting in <br>
&gt;Accra <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00210.html</a>.
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Furthermore, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; you <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; have some unspecified involvement with
the IDN Task Force <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00036.html</a>
<br>
&gt;which <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; still <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; leaves <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; time for you to be an active member of the DNSO General <br>
&gt;Assembly. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; This <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; amounts to your representing every single member of each <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; constituency <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; of <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; DNSO at one time or another in the current process. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Now, are we to understand that in addition to this, you now <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; seek for your <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; voice to be heard in the formation of this new bottom-up <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; organization? If <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; so, would this be on a level playing field with every other <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; individual, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; including the possibility of standing for election as an <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; officer of the At <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Large? Or are we to understand that you have joined simply <br>
&gt;to make a <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; (no <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; doubt generous) pledge on behalf of AT &amp; T, with no desire <br>
&gt;to <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; expand your <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; role into areas such as seeking election as a representative <br>
&gt;of At <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Large <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Members within the ICANN process? <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Thank you for the clarification. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Regards, <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Joanna <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; -- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; (&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message). <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a> <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; -- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; (&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message). <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a> <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; -- <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; (&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message). <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a> <br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; -- <br>
&gt;&gt; This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
&gt;&gt; Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
&gt;&gt; (&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message). <br>
&gt;&gt; Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a> <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;-- <br>
&gt;This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
&gt;Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
&gt;(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message). <br>
&gt;Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a> <br><br>
Harold Whiting <br>
- -- <br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. <br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe <br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; 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></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_11675162==_.ALT--

- --
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 #1059
*************************