Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1095
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1095

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:31:41 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

You really shouldn't cross post such messages or send them to such a
wide range of personal addresses.  Comments in the text.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Sotiris Sotiropoulos
|> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:10 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Esther Dyson; Thomas Roessler; Roberto Gaetano; 
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
|> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
|> 
|> Not only were you proven WRONG about Joanna's statements
|> (wrong is actually the incorrect term, you were being
|> intentionally misleading as per your tactics on these
|> lists), but you are definitely WRONG here.  Alexander
|> Svensson has shown everyone how "inclusive" minded he is
|> by handing out an excessive two month suspension from the
|> GA list to Jeff Williams for exceeding a posting limit! 

Given Jeff Williams track history and the number of warnings he has had
I find it hard to believe anyone would find the suspension excessive.
It does also not prove any "inclusive" intentions.  

|> Whatever else he may be, Mr. Svennson has shown us he is
|> not inclusive minded, and therefore not the sort of
|> staffer the AtLarge requires, I'm afraid...  Furthermore,
|> if Mz. Dyson wishes to manipulate the AtLarge by attaching
|> strings to her pledge of financial support (i.e. the
|> unilateral appointment of A. Svennson by herself) then
|> we're better off without her "challenge" and its
|> condition(s).  

How is it any different to any of the other pledges that nearly all have
some strings attached?  You have supported a pledge where the pledge was
spent with only an assumption of agreement and no discussion, which is
far worse IMHO.

|> Self-determination is the only way for the
|> AtLarge to proceed.  Mz. Dyson and her ALSC are part of
|> the problem(s) and NOT the solution(s).  Too bad for Alex
|> that he was associated with her in this context.  If she
|> had some tact, she'd have let someone else nominate him. 
|> But, she jumped the gun and got the (dis)credit she
|> deserves.

The point being there isn't an AtLarge at present, the existance has
been denied.  So it is not an entity at this time.  All contributions
for forming one should be given weighty consideration and not blown out
of proportion to the intent.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:37:53 -0800
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: [ga] Who reigns ABOVE ICANN?]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------57161860B8E4568AABD1937E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

why the heck was not this posted for over 2 hours?

Eric

- --------------57161860B8E4568AABD1937E
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="nsmailFM.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="nsmailFM.TMP"

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:29:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Hi-Tek.com.vn
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harold Whiting <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Who reigns ABOVE ICANN?
References: <[email-masked]>
	 <[email-masked]>
	 <[email-masked]>
	 <a05100307b8bd4d4030c9@[192.156.200.2]>
	 <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Self righteous indignation is bad unless it is right and you are right on here
Harold.

Here is a kick in the pants; go to www.oig.doc.gov  That would be the Office of
Investigator General for the DoC.  Funny what happens when you go there to file a
complaint. They would be the folks to monitor the DoC.  I am afraid the DoC may
be more of a mess then ICANN.

We are really lucky that the "bad guys" like the internet to work also, otherwise
it would be dead.
We are also really lucky that our Internet engineers like to make things work not
break like our BoD.

Eric

Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 03:26 PM 3/19/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
> <snip>
> So let's not assume one way or the other that elements of the plan are cast
> in concrete until the Board actually proposes changes to the bylaws and
> posts them for public comment as they are required to do.
> </snip>
>
> Comment which they will likely ignore, as always.
>
> <snip>
> The direct election option is gone, regardless of our individual opinions
> of its fairness, cost, etc.
> </snip>
>
> Really?
> Not only is the election gone, but the OPTION is gone as well?
>
> Isn't this in direct violation of the contracts with the DoC?

<snip>

- --------------57161860B8E4568AABD1937E--

- --
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:36:01 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Dassa wrote:
> 
> You have supported a pledge where the pledge was
> spent with only an assumption of agreement and no discussion, which is
> far worse IMHO.

How about some specifics so we all know what exactly
you're referring to?  

- -- 
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:35:43 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Sotiris and William,

[cc list cut]
>
>Not only were you proven WRONG about Joanna's statements
>(wrong is actually the incorrect term, you were being
>intentionally misleading as per your tactics on these
>lists), but you are definitely WRONG here.  Alexander
>Svensson has shown everyone how "inclusive" minded he is
>by handing out an excessive two month suspension from the
>GA list to Jeff Williams for exceeding a posting limit!
>Whatever else he may be, Mr. Svennson has shown us he is
>not inclusive minded, and therefore not the sort of
>staffer the AtLarge requires, I'm afraid...  Furthermore,
>if Mz. Dyson wishes to manipulate the AtLarge by attaching
>strings to her pledge of financial support (i.e. the
>unilateral appointment of A. Svennson by herself) then
>we're better off without her "challenge" and its
>condition(s).  Self-determination is the only way for the
>AtLarge to proceed.  Mz. Dyson and her ALSC are part of
>the problem(s) and NOT the solution(s).  Too bad for Alex
>that he was associated with her in this context.  If she
>had some tact, she'd have let someone else nominate him.
>But, she jumped the gun and got the (dis)credit she
>deserves.
>

At this point in time, I don't think it is useful to determine who is right 
and who is wrong in interpreting Joanna's words.
Esther has asked whether Joanna would accept the position.
From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer 
to a simple question: "AtLarge membership and eligibility to office will be 
open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of 
rules given for the 2002 AtLarge elections. Agree/Disagree?"

As for Alexander's decision about suspension, either we believe that he has 
applied the rules, including the one increasing the duration of the 
suspension for repeated offense, and therefore we stop complaining, or we 
point out which rule has been misapplied, and we appeal to the Chair for 
reconsideration.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:49:51 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

Mike,
According to my perception, the support for AtLarge has been so overwhelming 
from the Internet Community that if this cannot be called consensus, very 
few if any of the other recommendations in the whole lifecycle of ICANN 
could.
Two proposals that were even seen as conflictual have merged to ensure that 
this is seen even more as a consensus.
Now your solution is for NC to go back to the drawing board to come up with 
a new "thing". (Incidentally, why only NC for something that trascends the 
domain names competence?)
My question is simple. Supposing that the NC will come up with a consensus 
solution for an AtLarge membership, what is the guarantee that the Board 
will go 180 degrees and accept it? Maybe you have elements that we don't 
know, and then please share them with us, but with all due respect to Philip 
and all the others, including Thomas, I don't see how they can succeed where 
former Prime Minister Bilt has failed. And this, IMHO, not because of lack 
of capacity, competence, expertise, willingness, from their part, but 
because the Board will not take into consideration this proposal, unless 
forced by a superior authority.

My alternative proposal is to accept the fait-accompli and, as a first step, 
to grant the Boardsquatters a lifetlong seat on the Board.
The bad thing is that this proposal stinks, but the good thing is that it is 
likely to be accepted.

Best regards
Roberto

>From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:26:47 -0800
>
>At 10:34 PM +0100 3/19/02, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>
>>Let's, for a moment, assume that - whatever structure one may come
>>up with for policy-making (which is interesting by itself) - we'll
>>ultimately have a board which can, in reality, ignore input from the
>>policy-making process if it believes that this is the best thing for
>>the corporation.
>>
>>How can such a board be controlled?  What kind of feed-back can be
>>provided to such a board?  There is no market which can operate as a
>>feed-back channel, like in the case of a normal business.  Thus,
>>external feed-back channels have to be added.  The single largest
>>problem with the Lynn proposal is that it _eliminates_ such
>>channels; even more so if even the governmental appointees have to
>>go through the NomComm filter.  All feed-back channels which are
>>left over can be ignored by the board.
>>
>>The problem we should try to address is what such channels should
>>look like: How can the public provide feed-back to ICANN which (1)
>>can't be ignored (like an ombudsman who gives non-binding
>>recommendations), and (2) does not have a possible breakdown of
>>Internet stability as its side-effect (like the introduction of
>>competing roots on the sides of AOL and Microsoft)?
>>
>>--
>>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>I don't detect support for the Lynn plan from any significant
>stakeholder group thus far, and the Board has bent over backward not
>to endorse the plan.  So let's not assume one way or the other that
>elements of the plan are cast in concrete until the Board actually
>proposes changes to the bylaws and posts them for public comment as
>they are required to do.
>
>All the significant stakeholders in ICANN are represented in the DNSO
>constituencies and the GA except governments and the other two SO's,
>which are busy developing their own responses to the CEO's proposals
>- assuming that the GA holds something of a proxy for at large until
>there is viable critical mass of an AL organization in being.  So the
>forthcoming NC meetings bring a substantial breadth of experience to
>bear on discussions of restructuring.
>
>The members of the NC, including Thomas ex officio, have basically
>said they are going to put their day jobs on hold for the next month
>or two in order to work as committee of the whole to come up with a
>constructive, thoughtful response to Stuart's paper.  That is a
>considerable sacrifice.
>
>With respect to Thomas's specific question above re Director
>representation and accountability, we have three years of experience
>in which nomination, selection and seating of the Directors from the
>names, protocols and address areas has functioned better than one
>might expect from a new, private sector consensus organization with
>worldwide constituencies and responsibilities.  Those who object to
>the politics that have occurred in selecting Directors from one SO or
>another can find much worse versions of democracy in their own
>electoral backyards.  Let's not be in a rush to jettison structures
>that are getting the job done, especially those, such as the DNSO,
>that are showing considerable recent improvement in quality and
>process.
>
>This leaves us with issues related to governments and to individuals.
>The Board, in Accra, faced with implacable refusal of the far right
>and the far left to compromise on public representation, could easily
>have said, "A pox on both your houses, there won't be an At Large
>until the warring factions compromise."  To their credit, they didn't
>do this, they left a door open for an initiative from the community
>that meets the minimum test of "bottom up, self-organizing and
>self-sustaining."  If there are those on this list who are not
>prepared to accept this peace offering for what it is, then I guess
>all there is to say is good luck Don Quixote.
>
>I spent ten years in Washington from 1987-1996 doing technology
>policy work on behalf of higher education.  I can assure you that
>there is no satisfactory intermediary position between government
>control and government hands off.  No, nada, nyet.   Back in 1997, a
>liberal Democratic President told his Secretary of Commerce,
>"Privatize the DNS."  Does anyone really think a conservative
>Republican President is going to say, "Federalize it." ?  Not as long
>as the sun comes up in the morning in the east.   Does anyone
>seriously think that an ultra-conservative Republican House of
>Representatives, which originates all budget and appropriations bills
>in the American system, is going to appropriate tax payer funds for a
>tax-exempt private company - an unprecedented event - without
>bringing it within the boundaries of the Controlled Corporations
>Act,about which Michael Froomkin has written so extensively?  Which
>trashes the whole concept of a transnational private entity
>exercising quasi-governmental powers under the sufferance of the
>affected governments?
>
>Stuart needs to be given credit for attempting to find a middle
>ground between direct control by popularly elected governments as  a
>means to represent the public interest, and the present
>unsatisfactory situation.  I personally think that Vint's analogy to
>the IETF nomcom procedure, however worthy as an example of a
>non-electoral accountability mechanism, is completely unworkable as a
>matter of practical political objectives and mechanisms.  IETF nomcom
>works because of the high degree of homogeneity of the IETF
>population.  If ICANN had population demographics even remotely
>resembling the IETF, it would have long since found a compromise on
>At Large and ceased fighting over it.
>
>Leaving aside for the moment the suggestions about monetizing and
>federalizing the root servers, which are an extremely ill-considered
>insult to a group of the hardest working and most competent
>engineering volunteer professionals in the entire Internet community,
>the only reason for a more prominent role for governments in ICANN is
>to deal with the impasse over At Large.
>
>If you ask, how have organizations commonly fulfilled a wish or
>obligation to have the public interest represented on their boards,
>the answers (in American corporations) have typically included an
>annual election by members after a nominating process, election by
>the Board itself after a nominating process, and the creation of
>ex-offio seats for representatives of organizations which themselves
>are deemed to fairly represent the public interest.  I have served on
>Boards with all three mechanisms and each is workable.  The quality
>of result depends more on the people involved than on the mechanism.
>
>So I think, in response to Thomas's question, that the GA needs to
>think carefully about proxy mechanisms to represent the public
>interest.
>
>The direct election option is gone, regardless of our individual
>opinions of its fairness, cost, etc.
>
>Is it through a self-organizing, self supporting group of At Large,
>probably numbering in the thousands, whose franchise is to represent
>the hundreds of millions of users is by virtue of their commitment of
>time and money and interest?
>
>Is it through assuming that nine Directors from three different SO
>areas will pick good people not of their own constituencies?
>
>Is it better indeed to support Stuart's suggestion that elected
>legislatures detail their Executives to appoint such people? [Vint
>has observed that this is not exactly what Stuart had in mind, but in
>the grand scheme of things, whatever ICANN's Board may propose,
>governments in their imperial wisdom will dispose.  Let's just assume
>they will make the call the way they wish to.]
>
>Finally, there is a way to bring all this crashing down on our heads.
>That is to behave in such a way as to destroy the coalition of
>technical, business and public interest leaders who provided the
>political will and support in 1998 to induce the US and other
>governments that the experiment proposed in the White Paper was in
>fact doable and a desirable means of dealing with a difficult
>international problem.  A lot of these people are now on the fence,
>watching the actions of the Board and ICANN's constituent
>organizations.  There is only one message that will give us the
>opportunity to continue to be active in ICANN.  Which is that ICANN
>isn't broken, that it is getting its fundamental job done albeit with
>lots of startup pains, and that the confidence of those who have
>important national security and national economic interests in the
>continued good functioning of the DNS is warranted.
>
>Let's get to work.
>
>- 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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:10:42 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Reminder: posting limit

This is a reminder to everyone: There is a limit of 5 postings per 
day to the GA list.  Please make sure that you respect it.  Repeated 
trespassers risk a temporary suspension of their posting rights.

- -- 
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:26:14 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive   challenge

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
> Do you deny she said it?  I am using her own words.

I am denying the slant you wish to give her words, and she
has denied it as well.  Now cut the crap, we all know you
and your tactics by now.

- -- 
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:41:49 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

Roberto,

Since the board has already pulled at least one "180" (and perhaps more that I
missed since after the first one I have to admit that I was not watching as
closely) why not have more faith?

If they came up with the "clean slate" in response to the report of the MAC
(which I served on), who is to say they won't come up with something equally
vertiginous in response to your proposal of gluing the boardsquatters to their
seats for life. I think you might need to flesh that idea out with some sort of
mechanism for sustainability since *life* is not forever even in internet terms,
(perhaps direct succession to the male heir?). Who knows, if you formalize your
proposal, it might give them something to act on and they might come up with....

who knows?????????

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Mike,
> According to my perception, the support for AtLarge has been so overwhelming
> from the Internet Community that if this cannot be called consensus, very
> few if any of the other recommendations in the whole lifecycle of ICANN
> could.
> Two proposals that were even seen as conflictual have merged to ensure that
> this is seen even more as a consensus.
> Now your solution is for NC to go back to the drawing board to come up with
> a new "thing". (Incidentally, why only NC for something that trascends the
> domain names competence?)
> My question is simple. Supposing that the NC will come up with a consensus
> solution for an AtLarge membership, what is the guarantee that the Board
> will go 180 degrees and accept it? Maybe you have elements that we don't
> know, and then please share them with us, but with all due respect to Philip
> and all the others, including Thomas, I don't see how they can succeed where
> former Prime Minister Bilt has failed. And this, IMHO, not because of lack
> of capacity, competence, expertise, willingness, from their part, but
> because the Board will not take into consideration this proposal, unless
> forced by a superior authority.
>
> My alternative proposal is to accept the fait-accompli and, as a first step,
> to grant the Boardsquatters a lifetlong seat on the Board.
> The bad thing is that this proposal stinks, but the good thing is that it is
> likely to be accepted.
>
> Best regards
> Roberto
>
> >From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
> >To: [email-masked]
> >CC: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board
> >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:26:47 -0800
> >
> >At 10:34 PM +0100 3/19/02, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >>
> >>Let's, for a moment, assume that - whatever structure one may come
> >>up with for policy-making (which is interesting by itself) - we'll
> >>ultimately have a board which can, in reality, ignore input from the
> >>policy-making process if it believes that this is the best thing for
> >>the corporation.
> >>
> >>How can such a board be controlled?  What kind of feed-back can be
> >>provided to such a board?  There is no market which can operate as a
> >>feed-back channel, like in the case of a normal business.  Thus,
> >>external feed-back channels have to be added.  The single largest
> >>problem with the Lynn proposal is that it _eliminates_ such
> >>channels; even more so if even the governmental appointees have to
> >>go through the NomComm filter.  All feed-back channels which are
> >>left over can be ignored by the board.
> >>
> >>The problem we should try to address is what such channels should
> >>look like: How can the public provide feed-back to ICANN which (1)
> >>can't be ignored (like an ombudsman who gives non-binding
> >>recommendations), and (2) does not have a possible breakdown of
> >>Internet stability as its side-effect (like the introduction of
> >>competing roots on the sides of AOL and Microsoft)?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> >
> >I don't detect support for the Lynn plan from any significant
> >stakeholder group thus far, and the Board has bent over backward not
> >to endorse the plan.  So let's not assume one way or the other that
> >elements of the plan are cast in concrete until the Board actually
> >proposes changes to the bylaws and posts them for public comment as
> >they are required to do.
> >
> >All the significant stakeholders in ICANN are represented in the DNSO
> >constituencies and the GA except governments and the other two SO's,
> >which are busy developing their own responses to the CEO's proposals
> >- assuming that the GA holds something of a proxy for at large until
> >there is viable critical mass of an AL organization in being.  So the
> >forthcoming NC meetings bring a substantial breadth of experience to
> >bear on discussions of restructuring.
> >
> >The members of the NC, including Thomas ex officio, have basically
> >said they are going to put their day jobs on hold for the next month
> >or two in order to work as committee of the whole to come up with a
> >constructive, thoughtful response to Stuart's paper.  That is a
> >considerable sacrifice.
> >
> >With respect to Thomas's specific question above re Director
> >representation and accountability, we have three years of experience
> >in which nomination, selection and seating of the Directors from the
> >names, protocols and address areas has functioned better than one
> >might expect from a new, private sector consensus organization with
> >worldwide constituencies and responsibilities.  Those who object to
> >the politics that have occurred in selecting Directors from one SO or
> >another can find much worse versions of democracy in their own
> >electoral backyards.  Let's not be in a rush to jettison structures
> >that are getting the job done, especially those, such as the DNSO,
> >that are showing considerable recent improvement in quality and
> >process.
> >
> >This leaves us with issues related to governments and to individuals.
> >The Board, in Accra, faced with implacable refusal of the far right
> >and the far left to compromise on public representation, could easily
> >have said, "A pox on both your houses, there won't be an At Large
> >until the warring factions compromise."  To their credit, they didn't
> >do this, they left a door open for an initiative from the community
> >that meets the minimum test of "bottom up, self-organizing and
> >self-sustaining."  If there are those on this list who are not
> >prepared to accept this peace offering for what it is, then I guess
> >all there is to say is good luck Don Quixote.
> >
> >I spent ten years in Washington from 1987-1996 doing technology
> >policy work on behalf of higher education.  I can assure you that
> >there is no satisfactory intermediary position between government
> >control and government hands off.  No, nada, nyet.   Back in 1997, a
> >liberal Democratic President told his Secretary of Commerce,
> >"Privatize the DNS."  Does anyone really think a conservative
> >Republican President is going to say, "Federalize it." ?  Not as long
> >as the sun comes up in the morning in the east.   Does anyone
> >seriously think that an ultra-conservative Republican House of
> >Representatives, which originates all budget and appropriations bills
> >in the American system, is going to appropriate tax payer funds for a
> >tax-exempt private company - an unprecedented event - without
> >bringing it within the boundaries of the Controlled Corporations
> >Act,about which Michael Froomkin has written so extensively?  Which
> >trashes the whole concept of a transnational private entity
> >exercising quasi-governmental powers under the sufferance of the
> >affected governments?
> >
> >Stuart needs to be given credit for attempting to find a middle
> >ground between direct control by popularly elected governments as  a
> >means to represent the public interest, and the present
> >unsatisfactory situation.  I personally think that Vint's analogy to
> >the IETF nomcom procedure, however worthy as an example of a
> >non-electoral accountability mechanism, is completely unworkable as a
> >matter of practical political objectives and mechanisms.  IETF nomcom
> >works because of the high degree of homogeneity of the IETF
> >population.  If ICANN had population demographics even remotely
> >resembling the IETF, it would have long since found a compromise on
> >At Large and ceased fighting over it.
> >
> >Leaving aside for the moment the suggestions about monetizing and
> >federalizing the root servers, which are an extremely ill-considered
> >insult to a group of the hardest working and most competent
> >engineering volunteer professionals in the entire Internet community,
> >the only reason for a more prominent role for governments in ICANN is
> >to deal with the impasse over At Large.
> >
> >If you ask, how have organizations commonly fulfilled a wish or
> >obligation to have the public interest represented on their boards,
> >the answers (in American corporations) have typically included an
> >annual election by members after a nominating process, election by
> >the Board itself after a nominating process, and the creation of
> >ex-offio seats for representatives of organizations which themselves
> >are deemed to fairly represent the public interest.  I have served on
> >Boards with all three mechanisms and each is workable.  The quality
> >of result depends more on the people involved than on the mechanism.
> >
> >So I think, in response to Thomas's question, that the GA needs to
> >think carefully about proxy mechanisms to represent the public
> >interest.
> >
> >The direct election option is gone, regardless of our individual
> >opinions of its fairness, cost, etc.
> >
> >Is it through a self-organizing, self supporting group of At Large,
> >probably numbering in the thousands, whose franchise is to represent
> >the hundreds of millions of users is by virtue of their commitment of
> >time and money and interest?
> >
> >Is it through assuming that nine Directors from three different SO
> >areas will pick good people not of their own constituencies?
> >
> >Is it better indeed to support Stuart's suggestion that elected
> >legislatures detail their Executives to appoint such people? [Vint
> >has observed that this is not exactly what Stuart had in mind, but in
> >the grand scheme of things, whatever ICANN's Board may propose,
> >governments in their imperial wisdom will dispose.  Let's just assume
> >they will make the call the way they wish to.]
> >
> >Finally, there is a way to bring all this crashing down on our heads.
> >That is to behave in such a way as to destroy the coalition of
> >technical, business and public interest leaders who provided the
> >political will and support in 1998 to induce the US and other
> >governments that the experiment proposed in the White Paper was in
> >fact doable and a desirable means of dealing with a difficult
> >international problem.  A lot of these people are now on the fence,
> >watching the actions of the Board and ICANN's constituent
> >organizations.  There is only one message that will give us the
> >opportunity to continue to be active in ICANN.  Which is that ICANN
> >isn't broken, that it is getting its fundamental job done albeit with
> >lots of startup pains, and that the confidence of those who have
> >important national security and national economic interests in the
> >continued good functioning of the DNS is warranted.
> >
> >Let's get to work.
> >
> >- 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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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

- --
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:13:36 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Future of the DNSO

I have posted additional comments on process and structure to 
http://www.icannworld.org/proposal3.htm

Perhaps Thomas can advise whther there will be available listen-only ports 
for tomorrow's NC Structure teleconference, and whether the GA Chair and 
Co-Chair have been invited to participate.  It would also be nice to know if 
the session will be webcast.
- --
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: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:48:52 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ALSC-Forum] Revised charter proposal for elections of aninterim at large panel

I support this proposal with the exception of reference to age criteria in
the selection process, which I suspect is unlawful. Laws pertaining to
discrimination apply to age just the same as sex, race, color etc., so I
would delete the last part of that sentence and end at "...then the same by
country".
Also, I hope one of the existing Panel members will accept Bill's proxy.
Thanks for doing this.

Regards
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Stephen Waters
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:31 AM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Revised charter proposal for elections of
aninterim at large panel

I like your proposal. Let's run with it.
- -s

On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 07:03, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> here is the interim panel election charter proposal revised with all
> comments and suggestions I've received up to now (thanks!). Please
> send more comments and suggestions or at least an expression of
> support.
>
> A nice coloured versions with changes highlighted is available on the
> web at http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=246#246. Main
> changes include:
> - an initial statement about what kind of panel members we'd like to
> have
> - reduction from 9 to 7 panel members
> - rewording and clarifications in the mandate
> - a provision about a confirmation vote by the members if the mandate
> cannot be achieved in three months
> - moving the dates a couple of days forward (time is ticking...)
> - allowing three days for the vote rather than one
> - clarifying the mechanism of voting and picking the elected
> candidates, including a minimum threshold of 15 votes and a tie
> resolution method (questionable, but hopefully not really important)
>
> Discussion is still ongoing, so there might be more changes, but the
> target is to finalize this charter in a couple of days.
>
>
> ----
> ELECTIONS OF AN INTERIM PANEL FOR ICANNATLARGE.COM
>
> Following the discussions on the ALSC Forum list, the icannatlarge.com
> website, and other lists, an election for an interim panel for the
> icannatlarge.com effort is now starting.
>
> The purpose is to select a group of members that represent different
> views, cultures and geographical areas inside the At Large movement,
> have some technical and organizational skills, and are willing to
> devote a significant amount of their time to this effort in the next
> few months.
>
>
> MANDATE OF THE INTERIM PANEL
>
> The panel shall be composed of seven members of the icannatlarge.com
> effort.
>
> The mandate of the panel will be limited to:
>
> 1. guiding an outreach campaign so that the highest possible number of
> active users of the Internet who might want to participate in ICANN
> are informed of the effort and can register on icannatlarge.com if
> they wish, and that the membership grows to a point where it can be
> considered sufficiently representative of such users;
>
> 2. guiding the public and open discussion of Bylaws for a new At Large
> Membership organization, trying to gather consensus, consider all
> inputs, unify all efforts, and put together, after no more than two
> months from its election, one or more proposals of Bylaws to be then
> submitted and approved by a majority vote of the membership;
>
> 3. establishing a secure voting system for the Bylaws to be approved
> and subsequently for the first election of the officers of the new
> organization, and managing to hold such two votes before its
> expiration term;
>
> 4. managing the icannatlarge.com website, directly and/or by
> appointing webmasters.
>
> The panel shall expire and conclude its work after three months from
> its election, or after the officers of the new organization have been
> elected, whichever comes first. In case that the officers' election
> cannot be held before the expiration date, a general majority vote of
> the membership will decide whether to extend the panel's term by three
> more months, or to elect a new interim panel according to this
> charter.
>
>
> OPERATIONAL DETAILS AND TIMEFRAME
>
> All persons registering on icannatlarge.com before the end of Friday 5
> April 2002 (GMT) will be entitled to vote. By April 9 all enrolled
> persons will receive by e-mail their login data for the voting system
> and the instructions about how to vote.
>
> Members who subscribe this charter and thus want to candidate
> themselves to the interim panel will have to express their intention
> to do so by posting a message to the "Candidacies" thread in the
> "Elections" forum of the icannatlarge.com website, by the end of
> Friday 5 April 2002 (GMT). Only members that do so will be allowed to
> be voted.
>
> A public debate about the candidates will be hold in the "Elections"
> forum of the icannatlarge.com website on April 6-9. The electoral
> campaign will then stop.
>
> Voting will occur between Wednesday 10 April and Friday 12 April 2002
> (GMT).
>
>
> VOTING SYSTEM
>
> Each voter will be allowed to endorse up to three names taken from the
> list of the candidates. The seven candidates who receive the highest
> number of votes will be elected, provided that they have received at
> least 15 votes; if there are not seven candidates above this
> threshold, the number of members of the panel will be reduced
> accordingly.
>
> Ties (if any) will be solved by ordering names by the number of
> candidates of the same ICANN Region (as amended per ALSC proposal)
> that received more votes than the tied ones (the lowest first, so to
> help diversity among regions), then the same by country, and then by
> age (the oldest first).
>
> At this stage, it is impossible to provide anything more than a simple
> online voting system, or to strictly verify the real identity of the
> people who registered. Though we are aware of these problems, we think
> that it is necessary to bootstrap this effort to be then able to set
> up systems with a higher degree of authentication and security. It is
> necessary for all those who participate to trust the current
> organizers of the icannatlarge.com effort about the fact that
> elections will be conducted in a fair manner.
> --
> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
>
> DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by
the
> addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.

- --
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 #1095
*************************