Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1096
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 21 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1096

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:32:40 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:26:47 -0800, Mike Roberts
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.

The Board has not specifically endorsed the Lynn plan but it has
ignored the findings of its own ALSC (and other groups) and with
barely a pause has killed off any at large board elections which were
a major part of the Lynn plan.

I can't say I get too excited over whether this new ICANN will have
the Board appoint itself or have Govts appoint some of the Board when
the primary decision to wipe out at large representation has already
been taken.

DPF

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:37:21 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Roberto wrote:-
From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer
to a simple question: "At Large membership and eligibility to office will be
open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of
rules given for the 2002 At Large elections. Agree/Disagree?"

________________________________________________________

I disagree to the extent that, as a practical matter, there is no point in
electing an individual that ICANN cannot accept for reason of its own
Bylaws, or those of a successor agency whichever is applicable. However, all
things considered, I thought the 2000 elections were a success. I had never
heard of ICANN prior to those elections, yet I not only heard about them, I
was able to familiarize myself with candidates, learn about various issues,
candidate positions, given the ability to interact with them directly and
make an informed choice. I personally had no problems registering on the
site, obtaining my pin and voting. Would I vote for repeating the procedure
even if nothing was changed? Sure, I would. Would I change some things given
the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-

1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of people
like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working Group
for the At Large, a practical effort that one would think might result in a
person sitting on a local Committee of some sort in due course, that in
turn, could lead to State, then Federal Committees and ultimately the top
job, an At Large Director for the North American region. (This is an
example, not a pitch for anything!)  However, as a British citizen and
permanent resident of the United States, under current election rules, I can
only stand for election as representative of the European Union (which in
fact I did last year), where I cannot even have a photo opportunity at the
ballot box casting my own vote. Not only can I not stand for election in the
same region in which I cast my vote, I cannot vote in the region in which I
have citizenship. This does not fit with normal voting rights in the real
world, is a barrier to entry, and all the more unacceptable when one
considers that the rule only came about for ICANN's convenience, (it was
deemed too difficult to verify residency of a candidate),
http://www.icann.org/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm, My sense is that a
person who works tirelessly for a particular At large Region over a number
of years and understands the issues thoroughly is more than sufficiently
qualified and verified to climb the ladder as high as they would want to go.

2. At Large Directors must be able to communicate with their electorate:
This is vital, and would extend to candidates, who need access to the email
addresses of those who contact them with questions during the election
cycle. The structure of the message Boards last time denied that ability, it
was a frustration on both sides and it showed.

Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure whether
I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:15:39 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of the DNSO

On 2002-03-20 13:13:36 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>Perhaps Thomas can advise whther there will be available 
>listen-only ports for tomorrow's 

AFAIK, that should be "Friday's".

>NC Structure teleconference, and whether the GA Chair and Co-Chair 
>have been invited to participate.  

They have.

>It would also be nice to know if the session will be webcast.

I'll forward most of your questions to Philip.

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:20:06 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-10

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
discussions and news between March 13, 2002, and March 20, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

Note that, once again, no claims of completeness of this summary are 
made.  A lot was said during the time covered, and a lot of this is 
left out of this summary.  However, I hope that this summary can 
provide readers with a helpful collection of starting points for 
their own reading of the list archives.  If you believe that I 
missed a significant position or sub-thread, please don't hesitate 
to follow up with your own summary of that.

			   List Monitoring

The posting rights of Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> have 
been suspended by the list monitor for eight weeks because of 
repeated violation of the list rules; the suspension was announced 
on Monday, March 18.  No appeal was received by the GA's chairman as 
of today, March 21. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01569.html>

				Topics

(i) WLS.  Verisign announced the publication of a collection of 
comments received regarding the WLS proposal at 
<http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html>.  At the point of time at 
which this announcement was made, the registrars' constituency had, 
however, not yet submitted its commentary. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01503.html>

They submitted their comments (and posted them to the GA list as 
well) two days later. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01524.html>

(ii) Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS data.  George 
Kirikos pointed out that, for the domain auction-barn.com, the whois 
data as accessible at whois.networksolutions.com does not contain an 
expiration date.  (As of this writing, the expiration date is still 
not given; T.R., 2002-03-21, 00:15 CET.) 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01533.html>

In a follow-up, Rick Wesson pointed out that the Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement _requires_ registrars to include the 
expiration date in their whois database.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01535.html>

No explication for the lack of the information has, so far, been 
provided by Verisign.

(iii) Accra meeting documents posted.  The DNSO secretariat has 
posted a collection of URLs and notes relating to the ICANN meetings 
in Accra at 
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020311.ICANNaccra-related-documents.html>. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01629.html>

(iv) "Substance over rhetoric." ICANN's former chairman Esther Dyson 
suggested that ICANN should hire GA co-chair Alexander Svensson "to 
manage At-Large outreach for the next year," and offered to 
contribute to the funding; her pledge is supposed to be "matched by 
institutions such as Harvard's Berkman Center [...], Markle, 
Bertelsmann, and the like." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01512.html>

This suggestion caused considerable debate on the mailing list.

During that discussion, Barbara Simons noted that "the number of 
'instant' at-large members would be a six digit figure if you count 
everyone who registered and five digits if you just count those who 
confirmed their registration."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01870.html>

In her response, Esther Dyson mentioned that the ALSC had asked for 
the list of at-large members, "to no avail."  Asked by Barbara who 
turned down the ALSC's request, Esther noted that "Denise Michel
would know the details, but it was staff (since the board did not 
meet to consider the request)."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01895.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01934.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01937.html>.

In a different branch of this thread, current ICANN chairman Vint 
Cerf noted that "the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, 
except for the election component, should be on the website 
already." (It certainly is now.) Michael Froomkin commented: "Other 
than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" to which Vint responded: 
"Please also note the verbatim board discussion in which a number of 
directors expressed the hope that elections might be possible 
if/when the deficiencies documented in the ALSC report and elsewhere 
can be overcome." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01594.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01596.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01600.html>.

(v) "Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization." Danny Younger posted 
some "comments on the funding aspects of ICANN's problems." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01552.html>

Peter de Blanc commented that the proposal that ICANN should charge 
each ccTLD $ 7,200 was "a disturbing concept," and pointed out that 
some ccTLDs have few registrants (with, in part, less than 500 names 
registered).  "Those ccTLDs can hardly afford US $ 7,200.  In fact 
in one of the countries I am referring to, a special permit is 
required to convert local cash to US $," Peter continued.  He then 
reported about a conversation with Josh Eliot, who used to "perform 
the IANA function" prior to ICANN, and now works for a company which 
"provides DNS as a paid service to large clients [...].  They do 
this for a fee based on the number of 'DNS inquiries' they get 
[...].  Josh's company gives incredible QoS (Quality of Service) 
level guarantees," Peter writes.  With root server operations in 
mind, he suggests that it "will be interesting to see what fees 
Josh's company will charge."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01553.html>

Another note by Danny, stating that "perhaps we can obtain necessary 
funding without the need to actually seat governments on the board 
of ICANN," provoked a response from Vint Cerf, who stated that "the 
proposal that Stuart made would not put government employees on the 
board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose among a 
slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee." To this, 
Jon Weinberg responded that the proposal as published leaves the 
nomination process of board members to the governments.  Vint 
replied that his statement reflects "the evolution of thinking since 
January 24." "The nominations process was one area that Stuart left 
kind of loose, not knowing what he might hear from the GAC," Vint 
writes.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01555.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01559.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01561.html>.

James Love suggested a "much different model for the governments" 
than the one imagined by Vint: "Giving (some) governments a direct 
role [...] will blur issues such as the legal authority of the 
entity and its accountability to the public." Also, Jamie asks, 
"what are you going to tell China?" In his reply, Vint conceded that 
"you may well be right that this won't work - which is one of the 
reasons we have asked the GAC to respond with its own ideas." Jamie 
then focused on the model of public-private partnerships used by 
Stuart Lynn, and commented that the structure suggested by the Lynn 
proposal "is pretty much the worst way to structure this." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01566.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01590.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01599.html>.

(vi) "Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board."  Danny 
Younger proposed a "vote of no confidence in the board." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01663.html>

In the subsequent debate, some agreed, some didn't.

Mike Roberts (ICANN's former president and CEO) pointed out that he 
doesn't "detect support for the Lynn plan from any significant 
stakeholder group thus far." The "Board has bent over backward not 
to endorse the plan," he notes.  With respect to director 
representation and accountability, he notes that there are "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." "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," he writes.  Concerning at-large elections, 
he notes that the board "left a door open for an initiative." He 
then goes on to comment on various points of the Lynn proposal, and 
opinions raised in the recent debate.  I suggest you just read these 
comments in Mike's own words.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01681.html>

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:14:44 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Successor agency. (was: Substance over rhetoric )

At 18:37 20/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure whether
>I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
>arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
>radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?

The struggle for representation of the governed (and the taxed) is going to 
be just as tough in the successor agency as it was in ICANN.
If not tougher.
The same players will be there.

We flocked to ICANN (then NewCo) because of its initial Bylaws that held 
out certain promises.  This it itself had been the result of a political 
struggle and concessions from both sides.
The formation of the DNSO with its "constituencies" has been a political 
struggle. Brute power decided the outcome and the "Paris Draft" concept lost.

Do you have any illusion that brute financial and lobbying power is not 
going to define the structures of a successor agency?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:36:07 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] test message-please disregard

told you so...

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:23:50 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

Joanna,

Thank you for your long speech, but my question did not imply in any way 
that the election mechanism could not be improved. It was just meant to be 
an opportunity to clarify to the community if you would accept membership 
rules by which a "lobbyst of ATT", for instance, could become member and run 
for office (provided, of course, that he/she solves potential 
incompatibilities in the Bylaws, if this were the case).

Regards
Roberto

>From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
>To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:37:21 -0500
>
>Roberto wrote:-
>From my part, before providing an opinion, I would like to have her answer
>to a simple question: "At Large membership and eligibility to office will 
>be
>open to any individual, with no additional restriction versus the set of
>rules given for the 2002 At Large elections. Agree/Disagree?"
>
>________________________________________________________
>
>I disagree to the extent that, as a practical matter, there is no point in
>electing an individual that ICANN cannot accept for reason of its own
>Bylaws, or those of a successor agency whichever is applicable. However, 
>all
>things considered, I thought the 2000 elections were a success. I had never
>heard of ICANN prior to those elections, yet I not only heard about them, I
>was able to familiarize myself with candidates, learn about various issues,
>candidate positions, given the ability to interact with them directly and
>make an informed choice. I personally had no problems registering on the
>site, obtaining my pin and voting. Would I vote for repeating the procedure
>even if nothing was changed? Sure, I would. Would I change some things 
>given
>the choice? Yes, that also, including but not limited to:-
>
>1) Citizenship/ Residency Anomaly - the internet community is full of 
>people
>like myself and Joop, whose citizenship and residency fall into different
>regions. Currently, I have started to co-ordinate the New York Working 
>Group
>for the At Large, a practical effort that one would think might result in a
>person sitting on a local Committee of some sort in due course, that in
>turn, could lead to State, then Federal Committees and ultimately the top
>job, an At Large Director for the North American region. (This is an
>example, not a pitch for anything!)  However, as a British citizen and
>permanent resident of the United States, under current election rules, I 
>can
>only stand for election as representative of the European Union (which in
>fact I did last year), where I cannot even have a photo opportunity at the
>ballot box casting my own vote. Not only can I not stand for election in 
>the
>same region in which I cast my vote, I cannot vote in the region in which I
>have citizenship. This does not fit with normal voting rights in the real
>world, is a barrier to entry, and all the more unacceptable when one
>considers that the rule only came about for ICANN's convenience, (it was
>deemed too difficult to verify residency of a candidate),
>http://www.icann.org/committees/elcom/recs-07jul00.htm, My sense is that a
>person who works tirelessly for a particular At large Region over a number
>of years and understands the issues thoroughly is more than sufficiently
>qualified and verified to climb the ladder as high as they would want to 
>go.
>
>2. At Large Directors must be able to communicate with their electorate:
>This is vital, and would extend to candidates, who need access to the email
>addresses of those who contact them with questions during the election
>cycle. The structure of the message Boards last time denied that ability, 
>it
>was a frustration on both sides and it showed.
>
>Finally, I am not avoiding Esther's question, but I'm still not sure 
>whether
>I want anything more to do with ICANN. David Farrar makes some compelling
>arguments for working towards a successor agency, and he is by no means a
>radical. Can anybody convince me one way or the other?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:03:07 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed

- --=====================_15625993==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Vint Cerf: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex and 
tense, it is the time to
move carefully.

Alejandro: Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me your 
main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the issues 
and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid half-baked 
ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation or about the 
past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on them.

Charles Shaban: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree with you, I 
think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is only parts of 
the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should define its 
functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I agree with you. 
It depends on what you name ICANN).

David Harnand: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely agree with 
you that what is needed are "concrete, workable, integral proposals" to 
solve the current problems with DNS governance.

Bruce Young: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on separate 
point papers outside of
the At Large proper, I have no problem with that. In fact I for one welcome 
as many parallel efforts as possible, as long as they don't overshadow or 
attempt to replace our At Large efforts.

Dear all,
from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have got 
two of them. I suggest we proceed in order.

1. first consensus (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the present 
ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are.

2. second consensus: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn are not 
workable as such and that we need to work on them.

3. third (needed) consensus: we need to agree on our target. I propose it 
is "a consensus on the ICANN missions and organization". With the two 
consensuses above anything below that (even a BoD vote on a BoD committee 
proposition) will not be accepted in real life. The key is "consensus" not 
the proposition in itself.

4. forth (needed) consensus: we need to agree on a consensus among who and 
how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to be 
associated to it.

It has to be an Internet Community Pact.

This is why I suggest three things.

- - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and 
feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy 
*every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the 
ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.

- - to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In 
protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore called 
on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified stakeholders through 
any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT to select lists/positions 
but to be sure people have shown they are concerned and who they physically 
are. At lowest cost.

- - to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one 
single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method consists 
in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon. This is the 
only way to build, confront and reduce into a single consensus serious yet 
opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are the debates) but are *no* 
votes. What is important is the change in the polls. These changes will 
help progressive, step by step debates and agreements. The real "votes" are 
by the position writers: in writing eventually a common document. There 
must be no loser. This has to be a win/win situation for all.

5. ultimate (needed) consensus: what are the ICANN mission, organization 
and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus.

We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what we 
*already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the consensus is 
uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that conditions. So please 
let proceed step by step.

1. consensus number three (now): do we agree that to reach a stable 
situation we need a global consensus involving  all the stake holding 
positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual manner? that such a 
consensus will be a part of the solution?

2. consensus number four (after three is uncovered): do we agree that we 
want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by step from clean 
sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely concerned even if 
opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture and of disruption? 
using a method permitting the clear presentation of the different positions 
and their reduction into a common agreement? that such an agreement will 
most probably depend on actions we will have to discuss, to agree upon and 
to undertake? and not to be at anyone's expense?

3. Ultimate consensus (not to be discussed now): I do believe it does exist 
(otherwise why to give it a try). I could document my vision, as others 
could also do with their own today vision. We "just" have to adjust our 
visions.

I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us, at 
a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns than 
"mission creep" and a much larger involvement of absentees, in fostering 
innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests while 
permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop. It will 
also permit very large steps ahead in term of network architecture, social 
acceptance and economy development.

This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO, in 
this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only are 
human, it may be complex!

Jefsey

- --=====================_15625993==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<b>Vint Cerf</b>: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex
and tense, it is the time to<br>
move carefully.<br><br>
<b>Alejandro:</b> Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me
your main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the
issues and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid
half-baked ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation
or about the past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on
them.<br><br>
<b>Charles Shaban</b>: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree
with you, I think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is
only parts of the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should
define its functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I
agree with you. It depends on what you name ICANN).<br><br>
<b>David Harnand</b>: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely
agree with you that what is needed are &quot;concrete, workable, integral
proposals&quot; to solve the current problems with DNS
governance.<br><br>
<b>Bruce Young</b>: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on
separate point papers outside of<br>
the At Large proper, I have no problem with that. In fact I for one
welcome as many parallel efforts as possible, as long as they don't
overshadow or attempt to replace our At Large efforts.<br><br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have
got two of them. I suggest we proceed in order.<br><br>
1. <b>first consensus</b> (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the
present ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are.<br><br>
2. <b>second consensus</b>: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn
are not workable as such and that we need to work on them. <br><br>
3. <b>third (needed) consensus</b>: we need to agree on our target. I
propose it is &quot;a consensus on the ICANN missions and
organization&quot;. With the two consensuses above anything below that
(even a BoD vote on a BoD committee proposition) will not be accepted in
real life. The key is &quot;consensus&quot; not the proposition in
itself.<br><br>
4. <b>forth (needed) consensus:</b> we need to agree on a consensus among
who and how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to
be associated to it. <br><br>
It has to be an Internet Community Pact.&nbsp; <br><br>
This is why I suggest three things.<br><br>
- - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and
feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy
*every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as &quot;we are
the ICANN&quot; as Mike Roberts truly said.<br><br>
- - to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In
protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore
called on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified
stakeholders through any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT to
select lists/positions but to be sure people have shown they are
concerned and who they physically are. At lowest cost.<br><br>
- - to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one
single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method
consists in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon.
This is the only way to build, confront and reduce into a single
consensus serious yet opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are the
debates) but are *no* votes. What is important is the change in the
polls. These changes will help progressive, step by step debates and
agreements. The real &quot;votes&quot; are by the position writers: in
writing eventually a common document. There must be no loser. This has to
be a win/win situation for all.<br><br>
5. <b>ultimate (needed) consensus</b>: what are the ICANN mission,
organization and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus.
<br><br>
<br>
We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what
we *already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the
consensus is uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that
conditions. So please let proceed step by step. <br><br>
<br>
1. <b>consensus number three <u>(now)</u></b>: do we agree that to reach
a stable situation we need a global consensus involving&nbsp; all the
stake holding positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual
manner? that such a consensus will be a part of the solution?<br><br>
2. <b>consensus number four (<u>after three is uncovered</u>)</b>: do we
agree that we want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by
step from clean sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely
concerned even if opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture
and of disruption? using a method permitting the clear presentation of
the different positions and their reduction into a common agreement? that
such an agreement will most probably depend on actions we will have to
discuss, to agree upon and to undertake? and not to be at anyone's
expense?<br><br>
3.<b> Ultimate consensus (<u>not to be discussed now</u>)</b>: I do
believe it does exist (otherwise why to give it a try). I could document
my vision, as others could also do with their own today vision. We
&quot;just&quot; have to adjust our visions. <br><br>
I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us,
at a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns than
&quot;mission creep&quot; and a much larger involvement of absentees, in
fostering innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests
while permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop.
It will also permit very large steps ahead in term of network
architecture, social acceptance and economy development. <br><br>
This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO,
in this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only
are human, it may be complex!<br><br>
Jefsey<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
</html>

- --=====================_15625993==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:21:17 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of the DNSO

Wednesday, Wednesday, March 20, 2002, 10:13:36 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

Any listener with a voice modem and Windows98 or higher and a copy of
Winamp can help having this webcast live via streaming mp3 format by
streaming to my server.

Contact me off list if interested.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:11:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed

[individual cc's removed.  If they are reading the groups they don't need
the cc's; if they are not reading the groups we don't need them.]

Please remain open to the idea that many of the functions currently under
the ICANN/IANA rubrics should be split off and handed to other groups,
either new or existing.  Too many different functions under one roof
requires too great a combination of skill sets, and also creates a real
monster if it gets out of control.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 
> - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and 
> feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy 
> *every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the 
> ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:20:15 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Successor agency. (was: Substance over rhetoric )

On 03:14 21/03/02, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 18:37 20/03/02 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Do you have any illusion that brute financial and lobbying power is not 
>going to define the structures of a successor agency?

No. This is why we have to structure a consensus where that is structurally 
*prevented*. IMO it is possible, but it calls on constitutionalism and what 
I see on the lists with people thinking first about elections, committee, 
control, etc... seems so much out dated and irrealistic that I wander if 
this is only amateurism or if it is part of the human international nature.
But who knows?
jfc

- --
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:04:38 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconference agenda 22 March 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 22 March 2002 - Agenda

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

21 March 2002.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v4.0.html

Date, time, phone numbers

The Names Council teleconference will be held on 28 February 2002 at the
following time:

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 23:00 Japan/Korea, 01:00 (next day)
Melbourne)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between November and end March, WINTER in the NORTHERN
hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         14:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Auckland, New Zealand                      UTC+12+1DST 03:OO Friday
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+ODST  16:00
    California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST   6:00
    Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST   8:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST   8:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST   9:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  10:00
    Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+1DST  11:00
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  11:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  14:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  15:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  23:00
    Tokyo,Japan                                UTC+9+0DST  23:00
    Melbourne, Australia                       UTC+10+1DST 01:00 Friday
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The Conference telebridge will be through WorldCom Conferencing

USA Toll Number: +1-610-769-9240

PASSCODE: Names Council
LEADER: Philip Sheppard

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html
DNSO Secretariat, ICANN Officers: Louis Touton, Theresa Swinehart

The secretary, Glen de St. Gery, will take notes

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Philippe Renaut

Agenda

Philip Sheppard will chair the NC teleconference.

Running time for meeting - 120 mins
15.00 to 17:00 Paris time
Allocated time - 120 mins.

Agenda:

1. Agreement to revised terms of reference for DNSO response to the case for
reform.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-tor-DNSO-response-ICANN-reform.v2.htm
l

2. Discussion on functions and principles of ICANN:

Q1: Do we agree with this posted list (link below) of ICANN's functions?

Q2: Do we want to delete anything from this list?

Q3: Do we want to add anything to this list?
http://www.icann.org/general/toward-mission-statement-07mar02.htm
ICANN Staff Draft: Toward a Statement of the ICANN Mission

3. AOB

 Next NC teleconference will be held on 4 April 2002, 15:00 CET, 13:00 UTC.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from:
 © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 #1096
*************************