Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1062
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 2 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1062

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:13:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Joop,

Are you in charge of the Icannatlarge? As a member, I object to your
attempt at rule making.

As others have stated, if the will of the membership elect someone then
its the will of the members -- there should be no artificial barriers.

Your directive, quoted below, is fashioned out of the same greed for power
as other ICANN affiliates have expressed. If you desire to retain an
ounce of democratic intentions I suggest you withdraw you direction to
Joanna.

- -rick

On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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
>

- --
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, 2 Mar 2002 06:51:41 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

There have been no donations made to date that I am aware of.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:12 PM
To: 'Jeff Williams'
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn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
- --
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 13:27:55 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - please give it a chance!

Dear all,

I have now seen several mails about Icannatlarge.com:

- -- Some people object to some people becoming members,
- -- some people object to some people in the group
   which Thomas Roessler ironically called "cabal".

About the first:
We not only have to be inclusive, we /want/ to be
inclusive, don't we? I'm *very* happy to have e.g. 
Marilyn Cade, Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts on the 
membership list. That doesn't mean that you have to 
agree with them -- it shows that they take it serious.
It's exactly what we need for the Accra meeting: 
A list of people which shows that there is serious 
interest in a self-organized At Large. 

About the second:
  | cabal: [Webster dictionary]
  | the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons 
  | secretly united to bring about an overturn or 
  | usurpation especially in public affairs; also : 
  | a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues

This is exactly what the Icannatlarge.com steering group
tries to do, except that the group works in the open and 
doesn't want to overturn or usurp. ;) The list is archived
publicly and *all* the Icannatlarge.com steering group
tries to do is to help Joop by putting the responsibility
on more shoulders: The group has e.g. just recommended that 
the membership list (default view) should not differentiate 
between domain holders and non domain holders. (Please give
Joop some time to implement it! Like most involved in the 
effort, he's just a human being.) In fact, everyone of that 
group agreed.

If you are not happy with any of the features of the
site, please contribute ideas and/or code! We are **NOT** 
the leaders of the At Large, we are just helping with
the website.

The bottom line:
This is our chance to show that At Large /can/ self-organize.
Let's not waste this chance. The Accra meeting is coming up,
and we have by now all read the writing on the wall. If we
don't manage to get it started, there will probably never be
an ICANN At Large.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:27:32 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

On 07:27 02/03/02, DPF said:
>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.

At last :-) But I am afraid this is too late because of ".us" expected size 
and signed agreements with au and jp which will be delaynig. Also the 
differences among the ccTLDs. And basically because the ccTLDs share the 
IANA functions with the gTLDs, the DoC havnig no particular priviledege 
except running its own root server system. IANA (once restored) should 
serve as a source of master root file for every global root server system.

The only way is to have the ccTLD Managers participaing to their National 
Internet Conference boards (NIC). These NIC will  gather national@large 
[for legtimacy, dynamism and innovation], consumer organizations, ISPs, 
content providers, user association, GAC representative, etc..

The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like] 
and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract will 
then be replaced by a voted global ICANN  NIC Membership equal to all. This 
Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups of a 
NIC will participate to.

This is the normal international structure system/ National structures 
gather into a joint international structure of equivalent format. Each with 
its own budget. There is no objection to the RIPE and others to enter into 
an MoU over that, since it is their own structure.

Jefsey

- --
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 08:21:28 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Public forum for comments?

Dear Stuart,

Would you please let us know when we can expect the public forum to be
available for comments on your proposal, after all, it is now nearly a week
since you told the world you were looking forward to public discussion and
debate. How can you expect anybody to take you seriously when your actions
do not follow through?

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:50 PM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Subject: Re: Public forum for comments?
>
>
> Dear Joanna:
>
> We will be setting one up in the next few days. As I am sure you can
> imagine, this has been a rather hectic week.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> >Dear Stuart,
> >
> >In your proposal for ICANN reform,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm,
> you state: "I
> >offer this analysis and these recommendations with the hope of
> stimulating
> >public discussion and debate. [...] I look forward to your comments and
> >suggestions."
> >
> >Question: Has ICANN set up a forum where the public may comment
> on, discuss
> >and debate this proposal? It seems odd that there isn't one set
> aside in the
> >usual place on ICANN's website, don't you think?
> >
> >http://forum.icann.org/
> >
> >Regards,
> >Joanna
>
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [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

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

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:30:00 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Chuck

I believe that "Other donations" item of 9050 USD in 2000
is a donation for matching funds. I vaguelly recall that Roger
have been mentioning this as such - to be verified however,
it was quite a long time ago.

Cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011231.ICANN-DNSO-finances.html

Elisabeth
- --

> 
> There have been no donations made to date that I am aware of.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:12 PM
> To: 'Jeff Williams'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
> --
> 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: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 08:54:28 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> 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."

If a proper outreach effort were instituted (i.e.
incorporating the original AtLarge Membership contact
lists), I would have no problem with it.  HOWEVER, if what
we're going to end up with is the silent IP Lawyer crowd
etc., from the GA which always has a habit of voting for
the status quo and its reps then I am vehemently opposed.  

- -- 
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: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:31:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Public forum for comments?

Meanwhile, there's http://www.icannwatch.org  :>

On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Dear Stuart,
> 
> Would you please let us know when we can expect the public forum to be
> available for comments on your proposal, after all, it is now nearly a week
> since you told the world you were looking forward to public discussion and
> debate. How can you expect anybody to take you seriously when your actions
> do not follow through?
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:50 PM
> > To: Joanna Lane
> > Subject: Re: Public forum for comments?
> >
> >
> > Dear Joanna:
> >
> > We will be setting one up in the next few days. As I am sure you can
> > imagine, this has been a rather hectic week.
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
> > >Dear Stuart,
> > >
> > >In your proposal for ICANN reform,
> > >http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm,
> > you state: "I
> > >offer this analysis and these recommendations with the hope of
> > stimulating
> > >public discussion and debate. [...] I look forward to your comments and
> > >suggestions."
> > >
> > >Question: Has ICANN set up a forum where the public may comment
> > on, discuss
> > >and debate this proposal? It seems odd that there isn't one set
> > aside in the
> > >usual place on ICANN's website, don't you think?
> > >
> > >http://forum.icann.org/
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Joanna
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __________________
> > Stuart Lynn
> > President and CEO
> > ICANN
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > Tel: 310-823-9358
> > Fax: 310-823-8649
> > Email: [email-masked]
> >
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:19:04 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Public forum for comments?

On 2002-03-02 10:31:25 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>Meanwhile, there's http://www.icannwatch.org :>

... and, of course, the GA. ;-)

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:43:19 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Spreading the word

The people we need to be contacting to spread the word are those whom the
public already know and trust, such as Lou Dolinar.
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/health/ny-pilou2603048feb26.story
If there's a sudden influx from here, you might want a copy of what I sent
him...:-)

Joanna

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:22:38 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

- --------------8B72FC433CAE1EE84D2C6BBD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?" All of the ccTLDs
are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
and during that time a truly international authoritative root server could
be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.

An organization is formed by X number of countries, and those not there
initially have the choice of whether to join or not.  China has finally got
itself into the WTO, and Iran has just decided to join the Patent
Cooperation Treaty. If a truly workable system that is in fact centered
on the technical aspects of running a global internet, and stays out of
any presumption about managing domain names (did you know that
one can have an internet that has no domain names?) is developed by
the NIC (National Internet Conference), there would be no reason why
any country (ccTLD) would not want to be a part of it, and thereby all
the hassles brought about by ICANN's actions would disappear, along
with ICANN.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 07:27 02/03/02, DPF said:
> >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.
>
> At last :-) But I am afraid this is too late because of ".us" expected size
> and signed agreements with au and jp which will be delaynig. Also the
> differences among the ccTLDs. And basically because the ccTLDs share the
> IANA functions with the gTLDs, the DoC havnig no particular priviledege
> except running its own root server system. IANA (once restored) should
> serve as a source of master root file for every global root server system.
>
> The only way is to have the ccTLD Managers participaing to their National
> Internet Conference boards (NIC). These NIC will  gather national@large
> [for legtimacy, dynamism and innovation], consumer organizations, ISPs,
> content providers, user association, GAC representative, etc..
>
> The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like]
> and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract will
> then be replaced by a voted global ICANN  NIC Membership equal to all. This
> Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups of a
> NIC will participate to.
>
> This is the normal international structure system/ National structures
> gather into a joint international structure of equivalent format. Each with
> its own budget. There is no objection to the RIPE and others to enter into
> an MoU over that, since it is their own structure.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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

- --------------8B72FC433CAE1EE84D2C6BBD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
<br>Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?" All of the ccTLDs
<br>are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
<br>now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
<br>up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
<br>like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
<br>that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
<br>and during that time a truly international authoritative root server
could
<br>be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.
<p>An organization is formed by X number of countries, and those not there
<br>initially have the choice of whether to join or not.&nbsp; China has
finally got
<br>itself into the WTO, and Iran has just decided to join the Patent
<br>Cooperation Treaty. If a truly workable system that is in fact centered
<br>on the <i>technical</i> aspects of running a global internet, and stays
out of
<br>any presumption about managing domain names (did you know that
<br>one can have an internet that has no domain names?) is developed by
<br>the NIC (National Internet Conference), there would be no reason why
<br>any country (ccTLD) would not want to be a part of it, and thereby
all
<br>the hassles brought about by ICANN's actions would disappear, along
<br>with ICANN.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On 07:27 02/03/02, DPF said:
<br>>I am now rapidly approaching the opinion that the ccTLDs should carry
<br>>on forming their own peer association and then negotiate directly
with
<br>>the US Department of Commerce to take over ICANN's role with regards
<br>>to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root.
<p>At last :-) But I am afraid this is too late because of ".us" expected
size
<br>and signed agreements with au and jp which will be delaynig. Also the
<br>differences among the ccTLDs. And basically because the ccTLDs share
the
<br>IANA functions with the gTLDs, the DoC havnig no particular priviledege
<br>except running its own root server system. IANA (once restored) should
<br>serve as a source of master root file for every global root server
system.
<p>The only way is to have the ccTLD Managers participaing to their National
<br>Internet Conference boards (NIC). These NIC will&nbsp; gather national@large
<br>[for legtimacy, dynamism and innovation], consumer organizations, ISPs,
<br>content providers, user association, GAC representative, etc..
<p>The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like]
<br>and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract
will
<br>then be replaced by a voted global ICANN&nbsp; NIC Membership equal
to all. This
<br>Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups
of a
<br>NIC will participate to.
<p>This is the normal international structure system/ National structures
<br>gather into a joint international structure of equivalent format. Each
with
<br>its own budget. There is no objection to the RIPE and others to enter
into
<br>an MoU over that, since it is their own structure.
<p>Jefsey
<p>--
<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>

- --------------8B72FC433CAE1EE84D2C6BBD--

- --
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 #1062
*************************