Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1061
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 2 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1061

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:51:05 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

At 23:03 28/02/02 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2002, at 15:49, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>Icannatlarge is about self organization and support for the At Large 
>membership. As
>things stand, we can be happy about everyone who signs up. The more 
>people, the better.
>
>Also, I would like to leave it to the voters' discretion to decide  who 
>they would want
>to see in office.
>
>jeanette
> > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I would go a bit further and stipulate that "no present or
> > past officers, or committee appointees, of the DNSO or
> > ICANN shall be eligible to stand for office in the At
> > Large."  If what is sought is bottom-up legitimacy, then
> > the top is not where we start looking for officials of the
> > AtLarge IMHO.

It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list and move it 
where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread 
"Charter".

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:31:14 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 2:51:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list and move it 
> where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread 
> "Charter".

Can't agree here, Joop.  Email, the lowest common denominator, should
be used for all discussions.

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

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:36:01 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 2:51:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list and move it
> > where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread
> > "Charter".
> 
> Can't agree here, Joop.  Email, the lowest common denominator, should
> be used for all discussions.

I like the new forum!  I'm not surprised you don't
William, you will certainly be a lot less disruptive on
such a board.  Pity.

I've joined the AtLarge Discussion Forum and I am willing
to engage in any and all constructive discussion at
http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/

My Inbox will love me for it!

Thanks for the new medium Joop.  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:57:58 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 7:36:01 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 2:51:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> 
>> > It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list and move it
>> > where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread
>> > "Charter".
>> 
>> Can't agree here, Joop.  Email, the lowest common denominator, should
>> be used for all discussions.

> I like the new forum!  I'm not surprised you don't
> William, you will certainly be a lot less disruptive on
> such a board.  Pity.

Always quick to attack people by assuming their motives and engaging
in personal attacks, just as always Sotiris.

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

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 20:06:49 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 7:36:01 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> > William X Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >> Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 2:51:05 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>
> >> > It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list and move it
> >> > where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread
> >> > "Charter".
> >>
> >> Can't agree here, Joop.  Email, the lowest common denominator, should
> >> be used for all discussions.
> 
> > I like the new forum!  I'm not surprised you don't
> > William, you will certainly be a lot less disruptive on
> > such a board.  Pity.
> 
> Always quick to attack people by assuming their motives and engaging
> in personal attacks, just as always Sotiris.

There's nothing assumed here Willie.  Your track record
speaks for itself.  

Please be advised William, that this is the last email
message of yours that I will be responding to on this List
(unless you actually shock me with something constructive
and substantive, which I'm not betting on at this point). 
Heretofore, I will be shifting my attention to the online
AtLarge Forum and you can try to get my attention there if
you like William.  But I won't respond to your usual
drivel there either...  

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: 02 Mar 2002 01:16:37 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

with all due respect, this doesn't satisfy one bit.

in a democracy, and i am considering at-large such, it is the vote of
the majority that makes a decision not the individual with or without a
grudge.

abel wisman

On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 02:20, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Anyway, why shouldn't a former board member "stand for office" in an
> > ALSO?
> 
> 1) it will appear to the public as if nothing's really
> changed, that an AtLarge with ex-BoD members is nothing
> more than a token gesture etc.
> 2) all *former* ICANN BoD members were _appointees_ (i.e.
> top down), whereas the AtLarge is about "bottom-up"
> representation, so it's a little hard to see any of the
> past directors as representative of AtLarge
> interests/concerns/issues per se
> 3) all former BoD members were/are responsible for the
> current state of affairs and should not be given another
> opportunity to meddle with the AtLarge.
> 
> I hope these reasons satisfy.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 	Hermes Network Inc.
> 	Toronto, Canada
> 
> ----
> direct: 416.422.1034
> 
> icq: 34564103
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:12:24 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

> > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I would go a bit further and stipulate that "no present or
> > > past officers, or committee appointees, of the DNSO or
> > > ICANN shall be eligible to stand for office in the At
> > > Large."  If what is sought is bottom-up legitimacy, then
> > > the top is not where we start looking for officials of the
> > > AtLarge IMHO.

http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI
Section 4. ELIGIBILITY

No person shall serve simultaneously as (i) a member of any Supporting
Organization Council or other body that is directly responsible for the
selection of Directors by that Supporting Organization and (ii) a Director
or a member of any other Supporting Organization Council. If a member of any
such Supporting Organization Council or such other body accepts a nomination
to be considered to serve on the Board, such member shall not, following
such acceptance, participate in any discussion of, or vote by, such
Supporting Organization Council or other body relating to the selection of
Directors by such Council or other body.

Regards,
Joanna

No person shall serve simultaneously

You can't be on the Names Council
>
> It would be a good idea to take this discussion off the GA list
> and move it
> where it belongs. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/  under the thread
> "Charter".
>
>
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
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, 1 Mar 2002 21:11:45 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Jeff:

1. The "setting up" only took us a few hours, not a few days!
The discussion about where, how, and who would manage took a month.

2. I did not realiuze that Verisign just announced that they will NOT be
matching what already has been paid in. Did I miss something somewhere?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:04 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I do not agree about "worthless pledges".

  Of course I am not surprised that you don't agree...

>
>
> I was /am on the Names Council, and Budget committee, and went thru 
> the entire process. The fact is, that at least 6 months have gone by 
> with no contributions to that fund.

  This is mainly because the GA was not allowed to set up it's own fund
or collect it's own funds that may have contributed
later or at the same time by the NC.   That was a very bad
tactical and strategic error that seem to now be coming home
to roost.

>
>
> The offer was made in good faith, and a lot of time spent on the 
> admistrative machinations about how to accept and manage the fund. Was

> that time wasted? Who knows.

  Looks like it was wasted, without a doubt IMHO...

> If we had not done everything necessary to
> "prepare to accept money", we could not now be at this stage - which 
> is simply that no one is coming forward with donations to be matched.

  INEGroup uses as part of our funding a matching fund method. Setting
up to receive those funds took all of about two days.

>
>
> I DO expect Verigign will match the donations to date, as small as 
> they may be.

  Well they have just announced that they will NOT be...  Again so much
for *Pledges*...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
> .VI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff 
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn
>
> Danny and all assembly members,
>
>   I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has. Not 
> really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the ..ORT/.NET 
> divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
> *Pledges* idea...
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Forwarded from the Council list: 
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
> >
> > Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'"

> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
> >
> > Philip,
> >
> > Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations 
> > made to support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting 
> > Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of 
> > this note is to advise you, with some regret, that the offer is 
> > hereby
>
> > withdrawn.
> >
> > We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the 
> > DNSO and the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased

> > resources, while not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would

> > go a long way towards ensuring the competent functioning of the 
> > Council and the provision to it of more and better-researched 
> > information.  In particular, we thought that increased resources
> > would:
> > * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in developing and

> > implementing well defined processes and procedures to facilitate its

> > consensus management role
> > * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount of 
> > measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> > * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees, 
> > constituencies, etc.
> > * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role of 
> > managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create 
> > increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
> >
> > To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made 
> > by any company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the 
> > offer was first made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount 
> > of work was actually done by Names Council committees to design a 
> > neutral structure to administer whatever funds were received.
> >
> > Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received 
> > except from a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  
> > This is all the more disappointing given the fact that quite a few 
> > companies who are several times larger than VeriSign have employees 
> > who sit on the Names Council and participate in most of its 
> > committees; and that there are now nearly 100 gTLD registrars, eight

> > gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators, and hundreds 
> > of ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name 
> > registration
>
> > services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite large, so

> > their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been 
> > clear.
> >
> > Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a 
> > result of organizations not being willing or able to make them but 
> > rather a result of the fact that the NC itself never promoted this 
> > offer.  It is our opinion that it is critical to create and 
> > implement processes and procedures to facilitate the NC's consensus 
> > management role in an objective manner.  So it seems unfortunate 
> > that the NC has never taken any meaningful action to establish 
> > objective, community-wide consensus management processes.
> >
> > After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost

> > two years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not

> > work.
> >
> > Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> > Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> > VeriSign Global Registry Services
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

- --
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 21:27:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff:
>
> 1. The "setting up" only took us a few hours, not a few days!
> The discussion about where, how, and who would manage took a month.

  When I say set up I meant the whole enchilada!  Creating the account,
management of the account, who and how...

>
>
> 2. I did not realiuze that Verisign just announced that they will NOT be
> matching what already has been paid in. Did I miss something somewhere?

  Yes you did right on this thread..

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:04 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > I do not agree about "worthless pledges".
>
>   Of course I am not surprised that you don't agree...
>
> >
> >
> > I was /am on the Names Council, and Budget committee, and went thru
> > the entire process. The fact is, that at least 6 months have gone by
> > with no contributions to that fund.
>
>   This is mainly because the GA was not allowed to set up it's own fund
> or collect it's own funds that may have contributed
> later or at the same time by the NC.   That was a very bad
> tactical and strategic error that seem to now be coming home
> to roost.
>
> >
> >
> > The offer was made in good faith, and a lot of time spent on the
> > admistrative machinations about how to accept and manage the fund. Was
>
> > that time wasted? Who knows.
>
>   Looks like it was wasted, without a doubt IMHO...
>
> > If we had not done everything necessary to
> > "prepare to accept money", we could not now be at this stage - which
> > is simply that no one is coming forward with donations to be matched.
>
>   INEGroup uses as part of our funding a matching fund method. Setting
> up to receive those funds took all of about two days.
>
> >
> >
> > I DO expect Verigign will match the donations to date, as small as
> > they may be.
>
>   Well they have just announced that they will NOT be...  Again so much
> for *Pledges*...
>
> >
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> > .VI
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> > Williams
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn
> >
> > Danny and all assembly members,
> >
> >   I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has. Not
> > really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the ..ORT/.NET
> > divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
> > *Pledges* idea...
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarded from the Council list:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
> > >
> > > Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'"
>
> > > <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
> > >
> > > Philip,
> > >
> > > Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations
> > > made to support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting
> > > Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of
> > > this note is to advise you, with some regret, that the offer is
> > > hereby
> >
> > > withdrawn.
> > >
> > > We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the
> > > DNSO and the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased
>
> > > resources, while not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would
>
> > > go a long way towards ensuring the competent functioning of the
> > > Council and the provision to it of more and better-researched
> > > information.  In particular, we thought that increased resources
> > > would:
> > > * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in developing and
>
> > > implementing well defined processes and procedures to facilitate its
>
> > > consensus management role
> > > * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount of
> > > measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> > > * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
> > > constituencies, etc.
> > > * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role of
> > > managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
> > > increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
> > >
> > > To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made
> > > by any company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the
> > > offer was first made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount
> > > of work was actually done by Names Council committees to design a
> > > neutral structure to administer whatever funds were received.
> > >
> > > Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received
> > > except from a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.
> > > This is all the more disappointing given the fact that quite a few
> > > companies who are several times larger than VeriSign have employees
> > > who sit on the Names Council and participate in most of its
> > > committees; and that there are now nearly 100 gTLD registrars, eight
>
> > > gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators, and hundreds
> > > of ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name
> > > registration
> >
> > > services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite large, so
>
> > > their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been
> > > clear.
> > >
> > > Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a
> > > result of organizations not being willing or able to make them but
> > > rather a result of the fact that the NC itself never promoted this
> > > offer.  It is our opinion that it is critical to create and
> > > implement processes and procedures to facilitate the NC's consensus
> > > management role in an objective manner.  So it seems unfortunate
> > > that the NC has never taken any meaningful action to establish
> > > objective, community-wide consensus management processes.
> > >
> > > After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost
>
> > > two years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not
>
> > > work.
> > >
> > > Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Chuck Gomes
> > > Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> > > VeriSign Global Registry Services
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> 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
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:41:41 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

At 15:23 28/02/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>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.

Joanna,

Please post a usable clause to that effect under the Charter thread in the 
Forum.
It will be one of the many building blocks.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:27:15 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:46:53 EST, [email-masked] wrote:

>Thanks to Bret Fausett for posting the RIPE NCC's response to the ICANN 
>reform proposal document:   
>http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/icann-reform.html
>
>RIPE's concluding remarks:  "Seeing that you are proposing fundamental 
>changes to ICANN and the principles behind the ICANN - RIR MoU, signed in 
>1999, we believe that in the interest of our members, we have to thoroughly 
>re-assess our relationship with ICANN."

Good on them.

I am now rapidly approaching the opinion that the ccTLDs should carry
on forming their own peer association and then negotiate directly with
the US Department of Commerce to take over ICANN's role with regards
to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root.

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 23:04:32 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Again, and for heaven's sake, how many votes would ex-BoD members have?
Just as many as there were ex-BoD members who joined icannatlarge, no more.
If the cumulative membership (now passing 100) were unable to avoid electing

an ex-BoD member to office, if that is what it fears, then the organization
would
probably deserve what it fears to get.  As Abel Wisman says, "it is the vote
of
the majority that makes a decision not the individual."

Bill Lovell

Abel Wisman wrote:

> with all due respect, this doesn't satisfy one bit.
>
> in a democracy, and i am considering at-large such, it is the vote of
> the majority that makes a decision not the individual with or without a
> grudge.
>
> abel wisman
>
> On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 02:20, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, why shouldn't a former board member "stand for office" in an
> > > ALSO?
> >
> > 1) it will appear to the public as if nothing's really
> > changed, that an AtLarge with ex-BoD members is nothing
> > more than a token gesture etc.
> > 2) all *former* ICANN BoD members were _appointees_ (i.e.
> > top down), whereas the AtLarge is about "bottom-up"
> > representation, so it's a little hard to see any of the
> > past directors as representative of AtLarge
> > interests/concerns/issues per se
> > 3) all former BoD members were/are responsible for the
> > current state of affairs and should not be given another
> > opportunity to meddle with the AtLarge.
> >
> > I hope these reasons satisfy.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >       Hermes Network Inc.
> >       Toronto, Canada
> >
> > ----
> > direct: 416.422.1034
> >
> > icq: 34564103
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1061
*************************