Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1090
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1090

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:20:49 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------FF4424F04C4E052AA7BEC4A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

vint cerf wrote:

> Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
> director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
> all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.

I question whether that was, indeed, the intent behind the current structure.
Instead, I "understood" that  the reason for (s)electing directors from different
stakeholder groups or segments of the community was (as in most governance models)
to assure all interests a seat at the table.  As with "beauty," the best interests
of the community are in the eyes of the beholders.

- --------------FF4424F04C4E052AA7BEC4A0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Eric Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.821.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg
end:vcard

- --------------FF4424F04C4E052AA7BEC4A0--

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:28:00 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Jamie,

thanks for this additional input which I will share with the other
board members. If you have some specific ideas about alternative
structures that will both solve the apparent problems and work
better than the strawman proposal, please do continue to work on
them and share with others.

vint

At 10:12 AM 3/18/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>Vint,
>
>I understand the Stuart Lynn spent a lot of time talking about Public
>Private Partnerships PPPs, which are something I know about from my work in
>health care.   PPPs are the instrument of choice for big pharma, because
>they believe it will provide a mechanism to manage and control public health
>policy, while socializing the costs, and reducing the influence of civil
>society on policy making.  The public pays, but the big pharma companies
>control how the money is spent.  At least, that is what they want.  There
>are also some who think this is the best way to get the private sector to do
>good works, with an emphasis on the incentives to the firms, coupled with
>moral suasion.   And there are also some PPPs that are led more by private
>donors or NGOs, and seek a cooperative relationship with companies on
>specific issues.  Indeed, I was in NYC during Accra on a meeting to create a
>new PPP called DNDi, a non-profit corporation to develop drugs for neglected
>diseases (an effort that I am supportive of, being coordinated by the Nobel
>prize winning MSF).  One thing that should be clear is the wide diversity of
>structures for all of these PPPs.  You can look at info on 78 of them at
>http://www.ippph.org , see the big pharma view here:
>http://www.ifpma.org/PublicPrivate.htm , and some typical NGO criticism
>here: http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/PPI/PPIs%20introduction.html.    Among
>the typical criticisms are too little transparency, too much corporate
>control, and that the public does not obtain sufficient benefits from its
>investments.   But of course, some are thought to work well, some poorly.
>What strikes me about the ICANN proposal is how inappropriate is the model
>of having governments choose the board members.  If the ICANN staff and
>board really want a large staff and a big budget and can't pay for it from
>private sector funding, there is no reason to assume you have to turn ICANN
>into a PPP regulator gizmo.  This is pretty much the worst way to structure
>this.  One can imagine a treaty dealing with the ICANN functions, and one
>can imagine a private sector group tying to do it, but putting the two
>together begs the question of what type of a new governance system is being
>created.   We aren't talking about funding R&D into TB or sleeping sickness.
>We are talking about enormous potential power to control the Internet.  If
>it looks like fascism to some it is because it looks a lot like fascism.
>I'm not sure this is the way you want to go.  Why not something a little
>more tame like contracts for services?  Is this because some in ICANN don't
>like the idea that the contracts could ever be rebid to a different group?
>
>    Jamie

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:32:45 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

no I can't because the board's view was that elections were infeasible
at the moment. The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.

vint

At 09:03 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
>component, and given that the current AtLarge
>Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
>as to the proposed time frame for said election component
>to be announced? 

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:40:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [admin] Attacks and offensive words

Both are completely descriptive and fully usable in proper American
English discussion.

Do not impose the Queen's English on an American South westerner.
Further more Vint Cerf is a public figure and hence subject to higher
criticism in any country in the WTO world. That is called open and
transparent and all UN countries are supposed to follow that mandate.

Censorship is offensive so you are engaging in offensive language by
more than word but by deed.

Your one man sensibilities need to grow up a bit.  Or was getting rid of
JW and I part of your
ten K package deal.  

And what is with a warning when quite clearly I did not exceed the 5
post limit in my 24 hour period?

You are scaring me. JW gets 2 months for his one recalcitrant act in 24
hours and now you come after me without cause.  If you continue with
this you will find that it is a bad path to go down if you want to
survive the upcoming hearings. And by you I mean Vint and Ester and you.

Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> please refrain from personal attacks ("Ivory tower twit")
> and offensive words ("bullshit").
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >The following rules apply to content of messages on the GA list:
> >
> >- The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> >- The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> >  - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> >  - Not using offensive language
> >- If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber of posts
> >  per person per day, this must be respected
> >- The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be a VERY good
> >  reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> >From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
> >To: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
> >CC: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >        [email-masked], Don Evans <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization
> >Sender: [email-masked]
> >
> >Mr. Cerf,
> >
> >Surely you jest?
> >
> >You have the audacity to suppose what is best for users.  You are an Ivory tower twit.  I read in an article just last week you cannot even hook up your own
> >internet at home.  You stated that you would have someone run a t1 line to your home. You are so far removed and vacated from real users that Worldcom should
> >elevate you to saint so you are assured of living with your own kind.
> >
> >The U.S. already has millions of online voters.  Why can't you people do the same world wide.  You cry the same old tyrant song, "we cannot have elections to
> >replace me because I cannot make them fair" Bullshit!
> >
> >Never, Never never assume that you can make decisions for us users because you are an abuser and have no decency for us users.
> >
> >Have a nice day!
> >Eric
- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:41:48 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Vint, I appreciate you taking the time to write; however you have added 
nothing to our conversation and have not even attempted to answer the 
question asked.

Only your private little group believes the At Large was a one time 
thing.  No one in the general public has that understanding.

I do understand the ICANN staff, like the board members are technically 
challenged, especially in terms of handling databases.

Perhaps you could reach inside yourself and provide us with a truthful 
response.

Thanks,

~k

At 10:32 AM 3/18/2002 -0500, vint cerf wrote:
>no I can't because the board's view was that elections were infeasible
>at the moment. The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
>seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
>the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.
>
>vint
>
>At 09:03 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
> >component, and given that the current AtLarge
> >Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
> >as to the proposed time frame for said election component
> >to be announced?

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:16:39 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [admin] Attacks and offensive words

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:40 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: [admin] Attacks and offensive words

> Both are completely descriptive and fully usable in proper American
> English discussion.
>
> Do not impose the Queen's English on an American South westerner.
> Further more Vint Cerf is a public figure and hence subject to higher
> criticism in any country in the WTO world. That is called open and
> transparent and all UN countries are supposed to follow that mandate.
>
> Censorship is offensive so you are engaging in offensive language by
> more than word but by deed.
>
> Your one man sensibilities need to grow up a bit.  Or was getting rid of
> JW and I part of your
> ten K package deal.
>
> And what is with a warning when quite clearly I did not exceed the 5
> post limit in my 24 hour period?
>
> You are scaring me. JW gets 2 months for his one recalcitrant act in 24
> hours and now you come after me without cause.  If you continue with
> this you will find that it is a bad path to go down if you want to
> survive the upcoming hearings. And by you I mean Vint and Ester and you.
>
> Eric
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>

I agree with Eric on this. Stifling debate is a big part of what you do when
you want to shut out the people from having a say in the decision making
process. You are wrong to criticize Eric for his post - he was making a
valid, on-topic post. As for calling names,  "if the shoe fits...". Also,
some strong language sometimes serves to wake folks up and get their
attention.

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:16:14 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Doesn't the MoU require this representation?

Monday, March 18, 2002, 9:32:45 AM, vint cerf <[email-masked]> wrote:
vc> no I can't because the board's view was that elections were infeasible
vc> at the moment. The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
vc> seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
vc> the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.

vc> vint

vc> At 09:03 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
>>component, and given that the current AtLarge
>>Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
>>as to the proposed time frame for said election component
>>to be announced? 

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:19:46 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Vint,

I would first ask the GAC to consider if it could address its concerns
through the vehicle of a contract, rather than putting people on the board.
The GAC concerns should be about policies and tasks, not about people.
The advantages of the contract is that it is more transparent in terms of
mission, and denies ICANN the aura of government authority, and I think
these are both positives.    Since this seems to be mostly about money and
authority, and I would ask the GAC if there is anything it expects or wants
out of ICANN that it cannot put into a contract, and I would ask GAC what it
is willing to pay for the services it wants.  Right now there is much
dissatisfaction among non-US actors with the USG's sole control.  So, I
would ask the GAC if it can agree on an alternative body to sign the
contract.   If the GAC can't do this, the next step would seem to be ask the
USG if it was interested in a joint contract with like minded governments
that it was willing to share power with, and if it had any money to put into
ICANN.

Next, I would accept the fact that ICANN itself is not a loved institution
among the Internet commnity, and I would respond to legitimate concerns over
the power ICANN seems to be seeking, and do much more to inspire trust.  It
doesn't help to have well compensated ICANN employees demanding to vote in 2
DNSO constitutencies, while ICANN is about to strip the NCC of its voting
rights.   It doesn't inspire trust to abandon the independent review panel,
and have Louie propose an ADR system for complaints that will cost the
public more than $5,000 just to raise an issue of governance.   It doesn't
inspire confidence to have no exit rules regarding staff or board making
money on ICANN related business after they leave.   It doesn't inspire
confidence to use a "beauty contest" to decide who gets a multimillion .org
registry contract, and not listen to NGOs who use .org domains.  It doesn't
inspire confidence to increasingly put a high price tag on having a voice in
ICANN.  It doesn't inspire confidence to terminate the few elected board
members now, before a new system is in place, just because the board can't
tolerate two (of 19) critics.   It doesn't inspire confidence to litigate
whether or not board members can see the books (what is anyone hidding?).

Before the DOC just dumps ICANN, I would appoint a committee of its
respected critics to proposal an alternative to the Lynn proposal, and see
if they can come up with something  better.  There are lots of good ideas,
but perhaps so many that none gets the attention that the deeply flawed Lynn
proposal gets.    I would put truly independent critics and outsiders on
this counter proposal committee, rather than load it up with past ICANN
insiders.   Specifically, I would exclude anyone who has served on the ICANN
board, who works for a registry or registrar, or who has done an paid for
for ICANN.   And let the board decide which "reform" proposal to use as its
baseline for discussions.

  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> Jamie,
>
> thanks for this additional input which I will share with the other
> board members. If you have some specific ideas about alternative
> structures that will both solve the apparent problems and work
> better than the strawman proposal, please do continue to work on
> them and share with others.
>
> vint
>

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:06:43 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

At 10:48 AM +0200 3/18/02, Charles Shaban wrote:
>Well I think this is gone too far, remember that without the work of
>Mr. Cerf (and his colleague) there will not have been an Internet and
>we could not negotiate like we are doing now, you know Internet runs
>on the TCP/IP protocol which Mr. Cerf made available.

Yes. And Adolf Hitler used to be a nice young lad who did errands for his
mum, and went to church every Sunday.

Power corrupts....

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:15:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Godwin's law[1] cited.

Cut it out folks.

[1] http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:22:35 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Monday, Monday, March 18, 2002, 9:15:51 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Godwin's law[1] cited.

> Cut it out folks.

> [1] http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html

Only applies to Usenet.

- -- 
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:22:58 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

At 9:41 AM -0600 3/18/02, Kristy McKee wrote:
>Vint, I appreciate you taking the time to write; however you have 
>added nothing to our conversation and have not even attempted to 
>answer the question asked.
>
>Only your private little group believes the At Large was a one time 
>thing.  No one in the general public has that understanding.

This is clearly incorrect, and well documented in press reports after 
Cairo, the registration website, numerous emails, and numerous public 
statements by me, other Board members, Andrew and other staff members.

The system was built on a shoestring, operated by an incredibly 
overworked and loyal contract project manager on a $200,000 budget, 
of which over $100,000 went into postal charges for the pin letters. 
It was a one off system held together by bailing wire.  The 
alternative would have been no election at all in 2000.  The 
statement in the pin letters "keep this letter" which went on to 
explain that the membership account could not be activated without 
the enclosed pin, was to try to ensure that people did not toss the 
letter and then find themselves unable to activate and vote. 
Despite this warning, lots of people did toss the letter and did not 
get a replacement pin in time to vote.  None of this sequence of 
communications was ever characterized as including any activities, 
rights or privileges after the conclusion of the vote.

Beyond the issue of historical revisionism, dredging this stuff up 
serves no purpose at this time.  The Board has clearly stated in its 
Accra resolution that

"Whereas, the Board wishes to move forward with energy and enthusiasm 
to build a meaningful structure for informed participation by the 
full range of Internet users, and seeks avenues to achieve these 
objectives that are bottom-up, self-organized, and self-sustaining;"

The phrase " bottom-up, self-organized, and self-sustaining"  means 
exactly that.  If At Large can not demonstrate substantial progress 
toward that goal in the next several months, then the death sentence 
for an At Large organization with representation on the ICANN Board 
will undoubtedly be carried out.

Due to Joop's hard work and the encouragement of lots of others, we 
have a nucleus AL organization.  Let's build on that base, making 
necessary changes as we go.

- - Mike

- -- 
- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:24:27 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

At 12:15 PM -0500 3/18/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Godwin's law[1] cited.
>
>Cut it out folks.

I'm sorry, but given the circumstances, I felt it was warranted.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:37:22 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

At 9:20 AM -0600 3/18/02, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>vint cerf wrote:
>
>>  Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
>>  director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
>>  all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.
>
>I question whether that was, indeed, the intent behind the current structure.
>Instead, I "understood" that  the reason for (s)electing directors 
>from different
>stakeholder groups or segments of the community was (as in most 
>governance models)
>to assure all interests a seat at the table.  As with "beauty," the 
>best interests
>of the community are in the eyes of the beholders.

Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there 
was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, 
protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three 
other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at 
large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt 
organization boards.

But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors 
bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and 
the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected 
parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, 
in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening 
the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a 
consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.

- - Mike
- -- 
- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:42:52 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [admin] Attacks and offensive words

On 2002-03-18 10:16:39 -0600, John Palmer wrote:

>As for calling names, "if the shoe fits...". Also, some strong 
>language sometimes serves to wake folks up and get their
>attention.

The language used by Eric was indeed a bit less inappropriate than 
the (even indirect) comparison someone else just made between Mr. 
Cerf and Adolf Hitler.  But that doesn't make it acceptable.

Alexander's job as the list monitor is to ensure that those who are 
not able to stick to some elementary rules of respect and good 
manners (plus some more specific rules such as the posting limit, 
upon which the GA agreed earlier) do not get an opportunity to 
misbehave on this list.

It's really that simple: Behave, and you won't have problems with 
either Alexander or myself, regardless of whether or not you like 
ICANN, the at-large membership, or alternate roots.  Misbehave, and 
you get warned. Misbehave repeatedly, and you get kicked out of this 
list for some time.

- -- 
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:54:48 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Mike,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

We clearly disagree.

:)

~k

At 09:22 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
>At 9:41 AM -0600 3/18/02, Kristy McKee wrote:
>>Vint, I appreciate you taking the time to write; however you have added 
>>nothing to our conversation and have not even attempted to answer the 
>>question asked.
>>
>>Only your private little group believes the At Large was a one time 
>>thing.  No one in the general public has that understanding.
>
>This is clearly incorrect, and well documented in press reports after 
>Cairo, the registration website, numerous emails, and numerous public 
>statements by me, other Board members, Andrew and other staff members.
>
>The system was built on a shoestring, operated by an incredibly overworked 
>and loyal contract project manager on a $200,000 budget, of which over 
>$100,000 went into postal charges for the pin letters. It was a one off 
>system held together by bailing wire.  The alternative would have been no 
>election at all in 2000.  The statement in the pin letters "keep this 
>letter" which went on to explain that the membership account could not be 
>activated without the enclosed pin, was to try to ensure that people did 
>not toss the letter and then find themselves unable to activate and vote. 
>Despite this warning, lots of people did toss the letter and did not get a 
>replacement pin in time to vote.  None of this sequence of communications 
>was ever characterized as including any activities, rights or privileges 
>after the conclusion of the vote.
>
>Beyond the issue of historical revisionism, dredging this stuff up serves 
>no purpose at this time.  The Board has clearly stated in its Accra 
>resolution that
>
>"Whereas, the Board wishes to move forward with energy and enthusiasm to 
>build a meaningful structure for informed participation by the full range 
>of Internet users, and seeks avenues to achieve these objectives that are 
>bottom-up, self-organized, and self-sustaining;"
>
>The phrase " bottom-up, self-organized, and self-sustaining"  means 
>exactly that.  If At Large can not demonstrate substantial progress toward 
>that goal in the next several months, then the death sentence for an At 
>Large organization with representation on the ICANN Board will undoubtedly 
>be carried out.
>
>Due to Joop's hard work and the encouragement of lots of others, we have a 
>nucleus AL organization.  Let's build on that base, making necessary 
>changes as we go.
>
>- Mike
>
>--
>--
>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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:08:11 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
responsibility to Internet as a whole.

vint

At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
>Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
>
>But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:54:26 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

vint cerf wrote:

> it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
> argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
> groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
> responsibility to Internet as a whole.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> >
> >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:04:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

There in lies the problem.  You understand it on a theoretical basis.  But you do not understand the users.  Someone elected by them would presumeably understand them far better, cases on point are Andy and Karl.  One cannot be holistic if one only knows one end of the spectrum.

Eric

vint cerf wrote:

> it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
> argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
> groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
> responsibility to Internet as a whole.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> >
> >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:28:27 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
responsibility. Trying to balance the wide range of interests seems
more responsible than taking a narrow perspective based on the
"origin" of a board seat. that does not mean to neglect the portion
of the community from which a board seat emanates but rather to 
treat that segment with equal respect as the others.

vint

At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

- --
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:38:07 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

vint cerf wrote:
> 
> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. 

Excuse me once again Dr. Cerf, but which areas are those
exactly (i.e. for which ICANN has policy responsibility)? 
I was under the impression that ICANN's mandate was that
of a technical coordination body.  Am I mistaken? 

> 
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

- -- 
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:41:22 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

On 18 Mar 2002, at 8:09, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 
> vint cerf wrote:
> > 
> > I am not sure I can dig out the information from archives but the
> > whole voting process was considered a one-shot effort, to be followed by
> > evaluation, which has now been done. 
> 
> With all due respect, Dr. Cerf, if you cannot dig out such
> informaton from the archives why should we accept the idea
> that the whole voting process was considered a one-shot
> effort at the time of its inception?  From what I
> remember, there was no talk whatsoever of the last
> election being a one-shot deal until well after the event
> itself (approx. one year later).  I'm sure many of us
> (tens of thousands, in fact) would appreciate any effort
> you might make in actually producing the relevant
> information you cite above.
> 
> >For privacy and convenience,
> > ICANN committed to limiting the use of the voting mailing list to
> > election matters only. 
> 
> Well, the term of the current AtLarge Directors is
> expiring, it would appear as if an election is in order. 
> Especially given the fact that there has been no effort to
> restructure ICANN in any way to date.  Why should the
> AtLarge Membership be the only appendage of the
> Corporation to be treated in such a singular manner?
> 
> >The proposals from ALSC suggest a new structure
> > for at-large participation and that is why the invitation has been
> > issued. There is no direct connection between the one-shot voting
> > subset of interested parties and the invitation to create a new
> > at-large structure.

There isn't?  The hundred fifty thousand plus people who took the time 
to attempt to register might disagree.  As Barbara suggested, those 
who did so should not have to register for an at-large twice.  I think it is 
quite obvious that most, if not all, of those who did register intended that 
registration to be for an at-large membership and NOT just for a single 
election.

You have stated that the at-large must organize, but deny the fledgling 
organization the list of registered members.  This is a rather obvious 
deliberate attempt to discourage the very organization the board 
demands by making it as difficult as possible to gather those who have 
already been disenfranchised after attempting to participate.  If ICANN is 
not going to assist this organization in terms of funding or staff, it must 
at least provide it with its initial membership roster.

I would suggest that Mr. Love or some other participant bring this issue 
to the Congress members so that it may come up in the hearings.

> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that what we
> are witnessing currently is the implementation of the
> ALSC's reccommendations.  Can you please point out the
> Board resolution which ratifies the ALSC proposal?

Not a chance, obviously.  It was not ratified.

> 
> -- 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>  Hermes Network Inc.
>  Toronto, Canada
> 

Leah
- --
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 #1090
*************************