Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1108
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, March 28 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1108

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:59:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel

I do not believe this is a good strategy.  The proceeding should not be
adverserial.  And the applicant shouldn't have to pay the decider's fees.  
Also the panelists should be consistent so they gain experience with the
ICANN process, which is often counter-intuitive.

Also, given that the by-laws are subject to california law, the people
selected should primarily be those who have familiarity with it, or with
very similar systems.

Better to try to produce a list of people willing to serve.  No, wait, we
did that.  All that has to be done is to choose from that list and get
going.

Perhaps, then, we should figure out a way to choose an IPR ourselves from
the names already on the table, empanel it, and ask it to open up shop?

The list of nominees is at: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=376
It is over-inclusive.  For example, it includes my name, and I asked that
my name be withdrawn since my involvement as an activist would require
recusal too often to make me an effective member of the tribunal.

The action plan would be:

1. debate and discuss a means of selection
2. contact each name on the list to find out if they are interested in
participating in a shadow IPR
3. apply the method in (1)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> We need to get moving on proposals to constitute the IRP, and to
> submit recommendations to the Evolution and Reform Committee.  One
> possibility is to convene a panel drawn from International Dispute
> Resolution Providers such as:
> 
> Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre 
> CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution 
> The National Arbitration Forum 
> Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
> U.K. Centre for Dispute Resolution
> Comisión Interamericana de Arbitraje Comercial 
> The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia 
> The St Petersburg International Commercial Arbitration Court 
> The Court of Arbitration established within the Italian Association for 
> Arbitration 
> The Danish Institute of Arbitration 
> International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce 
> Commercial Arbitration Centre for the States of the Co-operation Council for 
> the Arab States of the Gulf 
> Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration  
> The Singapore International Arbitration Centre  
> Vietnam International Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and 
> Industry of Vietnam  
> The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission 
> Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration  
> Center for Conciliation and Arbitration of Tunis  
> Santiago Arbitration and Mediation Center 
> 
> Is this the direction that we want to take, or are there other suggestions 
> that might be more valid?
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot 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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:39:28 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would be a good idea to
first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.  I still contend that that has
never happened.  It would require a substantial investment in first of all
establishing documented and objective processes and procedures that would
guide the consensus development process.  That has never happened although
there have been a few brief starts.

As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
particular issues.  It should not be at all surprising that, in the diverse
global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit all.
That is perfectly okay.  That allows for diversity in the marketplace and
gives consumers choices.  It's a shame that there is so much fear of a free
market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The
concept 
of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted

voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart
Lynn 
has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and 
consent, has been shown to be impractical.  

This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If 
so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain 
groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with 
voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such
a 
move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?  

ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring 
consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete 
membership?  More questions than answers at this point...

for Karl's treatise, see:  
http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf

- --
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:34:56 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

- --------------B6AFD09D198C2936D56B4003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would be a good idea to
> first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.  I still contend that that has
> never happened.  It would require a substantial investment in first of all
> establishing documented and objective processes and procedures that would
> guide the consensus development process.

Another excellent definition of the Best Practices process.  See
http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm.

Due to be initiated in mid-April with a Call For Action, as soon as we
can get the web page set up.  The related discussion will take place in
the icannatlarge.com Forum, under the bottom topic Best Practices . . . "

Your comments below concerning the nature of consensus, when it
is achieved and when it is not, are well taken. Certain areas of the
globe aside, civilization does exist on this globe, and it need only be
honored in the consensus-seeking process. Everything major can
be handled, or if not, our claim to have developed a civilized global
community will have to be reconsidered.

Bill Lovell

>  That has never happened although
> there have been a few brief starts.
>
> As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
> particular issues.  It should not be at all surprising that, in the diverse
> global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit all.
> That is perfectly okay.  That allows for diversity in the marketplace and
> gives consumers choices.  It's a shame that there is so much fear of a free
> market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Consensus on consensus?
>
> Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The
> concept
> of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted
>
> voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart
> Lynn
> has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and
> consent, has been shown to be impractical.
>
> This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If
> so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain
> groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with
> voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such
> a
> move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?
>
> ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring
> consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete
> membership?  More questions than answers at this point...
>
> for Karl's treatise, see:
> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf
>
> --
> 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

- --------------B6AFD09D198C2936D56B4003
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would
be a good idea to
<br>first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.&nbsp; I still contend that
that has
<br>never happened.&nbsp; It would require a substantial investment in
first of all
<br>establishing <i>documented and objective processes and procedures that
would</i>
<br><i>guide the consensus development process</i>.</blockquote>
Another excellent definition of the Best Practices process.&nbsp; See
<br><A HREF="http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm">http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm</A>.
<p>Due to be initiated in mid-April with a Call For Action, as soon as
we
<br>can get the web page set up.&nbsp; The related discussion will take
place in
<br>the icannatlarge.com Forum, under the bottom topic Best Practices .
. . "
<p>Your comments below concerning the nature of consensus, when it
<br>is achieved and when it is not, are well taken. Certain areas of the
<br>globe aside, civilization <i>does</i> exist on this globe, and it need
only be
<br>honored in the consensus-seeking process. Everything major can
<br>be handled, or if not, our claim to have developed a civilized global
<br>community will have to be reconsidered.
<p>Bill Lovell
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;That has never happened although
<br>there have been a few brief starts.
<p>As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
<br>particular issues.&nbsp; It should not be at all surprising that, in
the diverse
<br>global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit
all.
<br>That is perfectly okay.&nbsp; That allows for diversity in the marketplace
and
<br>gives consumers choices.&nbsp; It's a shame that there is so much fear
of a free
<br>market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.
<p>Chuck
<p>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: [email-masked] [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
<br>To: [email-masked]
<br>Cc: [email-masked]
<br>Subject: [ga] Consensus on consensus?
<p>Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:&nbsp;
"The
<br>concept
<br>of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on
counted
<p>voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Stuart
<br>Lynn
<br>has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus
and
<br>consent, has been shown to be impractical.
<p>This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?&nbsp;
If
<br>so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates
certain
<br>groups automatically to minority status?&nbsp;&nbsp; ICANN seems to
be enamoured with
<br>voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will
such
<br>a
<br>move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?
<p>ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring
<br>consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete
<br>membership?&nbsp; More questions than answers at this point...
<p>for Karl's treatise, see:
<br><a href="http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf">http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf</a>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a>
<br>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------B6AFD09D198C2936D56B4003--

- --
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, 27 Mar 2002 08:52:48 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

Sotiris:

I think if you trotted yourself down to your friendly neighborhood library and
checked out the book cited below you'd change your mind.  As a matter of
fact, most of the things that we do every day of our lives are based on consensus,
among neighbors, friends, local authority, the folks at church, etc., etc.  Especially
in the last of those listed there is soon developed great reluctance to try to carry
out "gang rule" (though some will try, as in any "local politics"), given the context
and the moral climate that the parties function within and are expected to honor.

icannatlarge.com, incidentally, is all about setting the appropriate moral climate
and mind set as to what the members have a right to expect from one another,
and so far it is doing quite well.

The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement
prepared by The Consensus Building Institute (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi, 1999), Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, Jennifer Thomas-
Larmer, Eds.

It sets out one of the basic premises of Best Practices, and all of these can be seen at http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > David Johnson, I might add, does understand what "consensus" means:
> > "It's not about empowering a new regulatory structure. It's about talking
> > (hopefully, mostly, online) until we can figure out what most of those
> > involved DO agree upon. It's about... consensus."
>
> "Consensus" is about gang rule: the most organized gangs rule [period].
>  Anyone dreaming that "consensus" is a viable and valid form of decision
> making is either deluding him/herself or trying to delude others.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Toronto, Canada
>
> --
> Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy.
>
> -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
> the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:18:15 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Transfers Task Force

Danny, thanks for the post. You are quite right that the Transfer TF has
been quiet... but I believe that is changing. I will post a draft
questionnaire for outreach, which we will need help from the GA on... I hope
to get it cleaned up for comment and posted tonight.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:09 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Transfers Task Force

Marilyn,

When can we expect to see the Transfers Task Force making some progress?  In

the last month there have only been three comments posted to your TF list
and 
I see little indication that there is any forward movement at all.  

Registrants are counting on you to resolve the issue.  
- --
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, 27 Mar 2002 13:37:57 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Letter from Louis Touton

To the Names Council:

At the ICANN Board meeting held in Accra on 14 March 2002, the Committee
on ICANN Evolution and Reform was charged with consulting with the
community concerning reform proposals and reporting back with
recommendations to be considered by the Board at its Bucharest meeting
on 28 June 2002.  As part of its work to meet this challenge, today the
Evolution and Reform Committee made the following announcement to the 
community.  The Committee looks forward to working with the Names 
Council in developing a sound approach to meeting the challenges that 
face the entire ICANN community.

Louis Touton
ICANN Secretary

==================================================================
  Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform Seeks Public Submissions

The Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform welcomes public input from
all interested persons or entities on the presently ongoing review of 
ICANN's mission, structure, and processes. The earlier the input, the 
more useful it will be in helping the Committee, so it encourages all 
input as soon as possible. The Committee will of course consider all 
comments received, but the expedited schedule that the Committee is 
required to meet means that earlier comments will inevitably be more 
useful than later ones. Any comments received after 29 April 2002 are 
likely to be significantly less useful than those received by that date.

While the Committee has not reached any conclusion that the proposal put
forth by Stuart Lynn is in whole or in part the most appropriate way to
meet this goal, it believes that proposal can serve as a useful point 
of reference for analysis and discussion. Thus, it would be helpful for 
comments to make reference to that document, and point out areas of 
agreement and disagreement. The Committee would particularly benefit 
from hearing views on:

   (1) What is or should be ICANN's mission? In this regard, please use
the recent staff posting as your starting point, and tell us (a) which
if any of the activities listed there should not be part of ICANN's
mission, (b) whether there are additional activities not listed that
should be part of ICANN's mission, and (c) what mechanisms are
available, once ICANN's mission statement is finalized, to minimize the
risk that ICANN will stray beyond those boundaries.

   (2) Are the issues raised in Stuart Lynn's report a correct
perception of the problems facing ICANN? If not, why not? What are the
real problems?

   (3) Are the specific suggested reforms set forth in that report
appropriate, and likely to be workable and effective? If not, why not?
What are your ideas for workable and effective alternatives?

   (4) Assuming you believe that structural and procedural reforms are
necessary to ensure that ICANN carries out its mission, what transition
mechanisms or approaches should be used to migrate from the status quo
to the future environment? Over what time period should this migration
take place? 

In addition to receiving and reviewing public input, the Committee plans
to engage in an intense effort to gather all relevant information
(including public comments past and future), consider all options that
are consistent with ICANN accomplishing its mission and remaining true
to its core values, reach out to those in the ICANN community that it
believes can be helpful, and make recommendations to the ICANN Board on
a schedule that will allow the Board to post whatever it sees fit no
later than 31 May 2002.

Comments can be forwarded to the Committee in three different ways:

   1. Substantive submissions can be made to [email-masked].
All submissions made will be reviewed, sorted by subject, indexed, and
posted on the ICANN forum web site. This mechanism is intended to
promote thoughtful community discussion of the issues involved in the
ICANN reform process.

   2. The Committee has also established an e-mail address
([email-masked]) which can be used for direct communications to the
Committee, including both inquiries and comments regarding the
Committee's report and proposals for the Committee's consideration.
Submissions to this address will not be routinely posted.

   3. Finally, the existing web-based forum on President Lynn's proposal
will remain available to all who wish to use it. This forum is
automatically updated and will not be sorted in any way.

The Committee encourages all interested parties to offer their views on
the important and complicated subject of ICANN evolution and reform. It
will appreciate all the help it can get in formulating recommendations.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00004.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:16:01 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Dear Chuck,
don't be afraid. The Internet *is* a consensus by the Internet Participants 
to use the TCP/IP protocol set together with the IP and naming plans.

Where there is no consensus is on the way to rule it. Don't worry they will 
never agree on that because you cannot rule a consensus: you can only serve 
it.

Look at all these talks, propositions, etc. they are about top-down 
authority vs bottom-up power. The Internet is just interested in 
net-keeping assistance. When you want to rule a consensus, it happens what 
happens to the ICANN right now, the consensus goes away and drop you.

Look at Lynn. He is and reacts like a guy who discovers that his girl is 
going away. He wants to force her back calling on his dad's money and on 
her dad's help. She is just bored. His dad is not sure he is worth the 
investment and her dad looks for a more interesting son in law.
jfc

On 17:39 27/03/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would be a good idea to
>first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.  I still contend that that has
>never happened.  It would require a substantial investment in first of all
>establishing documented and objective processes and procedures that would
>guide the consensus development process.  That has never happened although
>there have been a few brief starts.
>
>As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
>particular issues.  It should not be at all surprising that, in the diverse
>global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit all.
>That is perfectly okay.  That allows for diversity in the marketplace and
>gives consumers choices.  It's a shame that there is so much fear of a free
>market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Consensus on consensus?
>
>
>Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The
>concept
>of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted
>
>voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart
>Lynn
>has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and
>consent, has been shown to be impractical.
>
>This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If
>so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain
>groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with
>voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such
>a
>move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?
>
>ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring
>consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete
>membership?  More questions than answers at this point...
>
>for Karl's treatise, see:
>http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:53:59 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Announcement

On 20:18 27/03/02, [email-masked] said:
>When I read the announcement posted today
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27mar02.htm by the Evolution
>and Reform Committee, I came away with the impression that they are
>essentially asking the Community to focus on telling the Committee what's
>wrong with the Lynn Plan (so that they can fix it and present to the Board
>that which the Staff really wants -- a modified version of the same plan).
>Did anyone else come to the same conclusion?

Yeap. Response is easy: everything.

Democracy is:
- - rise the problem
- - analyse the problem
- - debate of the problem
- - have the people providing arbitration

Concensus is:
- - rise the problem
- - analyse the problem
- - find the differences in the proposed solutions
- - debate the possiblity to match the differences should some conditions be met
- - decide who and how will reduce the differences

Lynn has risen the problem
We have to analyse de problem not one solution.

What they do is to kill the ICANN ... their responsiblity
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, 28 Mar 2002 09:46:37 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

At 08:22 27/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Athens had slaves.  Women were not enfranchised.  We can do better than
>that.

So, not *everybody* had a say in *everybody's* regulation. We can do better 
indeed.

But, you said that the principle was a bad idea, if I heard you well.

- --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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:54:51 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

According to the archives of the Business Constituency, Ross Rader made a 
presentation to the BC on the issue of Transfers in Marina del Rey and "The 
BC expressed support for the proposed solution to this problem and directed 
its representative to the Names Council transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) to 
advocate this view."
http://www.bizconst.org/archive/BCLA11-01.doc

That Marilyn pretends to be a neutral Chair on this TF while being directed 
to advocate a particular solution comes as no surprise to anyone, nor were we 
surprised when Ross was the first to nominate Marilyn as Chair for the 
Transfers TF.  But now Ross, who tells us in the Heathrow Declaration that 
"Consensus-based decision-making may not always be appropriate where 
commercial interests conflict," declares that "Unless there is an alternate 
proposal that provides the depth, roots in consensus and clarity that the 
Registrar position has, it is our preference that we move to closure and 
recommendation back to the NC before April 30th, 2002."  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

According to Ross, we can quickly move past the need to hear from registrants 
because, "In the year that I have been working this issue, I have not seen 
any dissonance with the goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."  

What we are looking at is an attempt to railroad process, and to impose a 
solution that these two parties have mutually pre-agreed upon.  

There has been no respect for the consensus process within this TF since the 
day that it was formed.  The views of potentially impacted parties have not 
been solicited, registrants are not represented in the TF, and absolutely no 
outreach has been conducted.  Discussion among list members has been at a 
bare minimum, and Ross's portrayal of the September Inter-Registrar Transfers 
Document as a product of consensus among the registrars is a contention 
subject to dispute.

So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly 
state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the 
requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail 
exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements.  

 
- --
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, 27 Mar 2002 22:38:08 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

[email-masked] wrote:

>
>So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly 
>state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the 
>requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail 
>exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements. 
>

The Greeks have a proverb:

"Don't bother to knock on a deaf man's door".

- -- 
Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy.

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:38:30 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

[email-masked] wrote:

>
>So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly 
>state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the 
>requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail 
>exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements. 
>

The Greeks have a proverb:

"Don't bother to knock on a deaf man's door".

- -- 
Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy.

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:45:00 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

According to Ross, we can quickly move past the need to hear from
registrants
because, "In the year that I have been working this issue, I have not seen
any dissonance with the goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."

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

False. As a Registrant, I provided feedback to the Registrars through Ross
Radar over a period of time before this final paper was published, and in
particular objected to the proposed clause relating to the Registrar's
ability to conduct a bankruptcy search on the Registrant, that allows the
Registrar to deny a transfer for this reason, notwithstanding that the
Registrars have no clue how to conduct a bankruptcy search in every nation
on the globe. Furthermore, not one single person in the community has ever
stated any useful purpose for this clause. This is a matter of invasion of
privacy that I doubt any Registrant would voluntarily agree, yet is being
completely overlooked by the Registrars.

Secondly, I made stringent efforts to be included on this task force as a
Registrant representative, mindful to ensure the Registrant community was
included in deliberations, but was thrown off (literally) by Marilyn Cade,
who silenced my voice by denying my posting privileges. Some time later, a
GA Representative was appointed, since when there has been no work done.

These are the facts.

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, 28 Mar 2002 02:49:58 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Danny,

While your rhetoric and misplaced theories may excite some, my actual
statements are far less impressive.

"The work of this task force thsus far has focused on points number 1
through
5 in the Final Terms of Reference document...

At this point I would like to propose that we turn our attention to point #6
"...develop recommendations to the Names Council for guidance to the ICANN
Board of Directors concerning any amendment of existing contractual
agreements, where such changes are needed to correct any identified clauses
which require policy guidance or clarification , should the Names Council
determine that consensus support for said recommendations exists, as
specified in section 2.d of the ICANN bylaws." pending the receipt of the
feedback required by point #4.

I firmly believe that there will be no surprises from the registrants that
would derail any efforts put towards achieving the goals of point #6. At
worst, I expect that we may have to undertake minor modifcations pending
receipt of this feedback, but that this will largely be mitigated by the
current user groups that are participating in this task force. The needs of
the various user stakeholders are largely complementary as it relates to
transfers. Of course, the Registrar Constituency cannot pretend to speak on
behalf of this community, we do have excellent exposure to their interests,
needs and challenges through our economic dealings with them. In the year
that I have been working this issue, I have not seen any dissonance with the
goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."[1]

Further, while you state elsewhere that "we don't get it", the registrar
constituency *has* achieved constituency on the best practices document that
I have tabled. The very fact that this document was accepted by all but two
registrar members (one abstaining, one against - the one that abstained
helped me draft this document) is perfect evidence of this consensus. If
this isn't a reasonable demonstration of consensus then perhaps I don't get
it.

To the rest, I can only offer that perhaps you gain a better understanding
of the differences between work planning, tabled propositions and final
recommendations. Each of which are very specifically and appropriately dealt
with in my proposal to the TF.

- -rwr

[1] For those of you that wish to inform yourselves, the complete post can
be found at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

> According to the archives of the Business Constituency, Ross Rader made a
> presentation to the BC on the issue of Transfers in Marina del Rey and
"The
> BC expressed support for the proposed solution to this problem and
directed
> its representative to the Names Council transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) to
> advocate this view."
> http://www.bizconst.org/archive/BCLA11-01.doc
>
> That Marilyn pretends to be a neutral Chair on this TF while being
directed
> to advocate a particular solution comes as no surprise to anyone, nor were
we
> surprised when Ross was the first to nominate Marilyn as Chair for the
> Transfers TF.  But now Ross, who tells us in the Heathrow Declaration that
> "Consensus-based decision-making may not always be appropriate where
> commercial interests conflict," declares that "Unless there is an
alternate
> proposal that provides the depth, roots in consensus and clarity that the
> Registrar position has, it is our preference that we move to closure and
> recommendation back to the NC before April 30th, 2002."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html
>
> According to Ross, we can quickly move past the need to hear from
registrants
> because, "In the year that I have been working this issue, I have not seen
> any dissonance with the goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."
>
> What we are looking at is an attempt to railroad process, and to impose a
> solution that these two parties have mutually pre-agreed upon.
>
> There has been no respect for the consensus process within this TF since
the
> day that it was formed.  The views of potentially impacted parties have
not
> been solicited, registrants are not represented in the TF, and absolutely
no
> outreach has been conducted.  Discussion among list members has been at a
> bare minimum, and Ross's portrayal of the September Inter-Registrar
Transfers
> Document as a product of consensus among the registrars is a contention
> subject to dispute.
>
> So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly
> state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the
> requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail
> exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements.
>
>
>

- --
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 #1108
*************************