Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1150
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 2 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1150

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

Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:16:36 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] teleconference / discussion fodder (from: [email-masked])

fyi.  Of course, you're welcome to take up the discussion fodder, 
too. ;-)
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 18:41:25 +0200
Subject: [council] teleconference / discussion fodder
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]

I may not be able to participate in tomorrow's telephone  
conference.

However, I'd like to give you some discussion fodder for tomorrow:  
Please pay attention to the interaction between the beneficiaries of 
ICANN, the policy-making process, and the enforceability of  
policies.

Basically, there are two models:

1. A cooperative effort between registrars, registries, and  
registrants, for the mutual benefit of all these parties.  This is  
the description of ICANN which Roger Cochetti asked to be included  
with recommendation 1 during one of the earlier calls.  In such an  
ICANN, there is basically neither a need for policy enforcement, nor 
a need for a robust consensus process: Policy would only be made in  
win-win situations for all the parties involved, and there would be  
obvious economical incentives to adhere to policy.  In such an  
environment, the current consensus-based process is no problem at  
all: Consensus could easily be reached on policies which are for  
the benefit of all parties involved, and it would never be reached  
for policies which are not beneficial for any one of the parties  
involved.  Such policy-making would have to happen outside the  
ICANN policy-development process - either formally, or by ignoring  
process.  (*) Such an ICANN could work as designed, but it would  
leave lots of interests unsatisfied, and it would certainly not be  
"effective."

The current structure and processes are quite close to this  
approach.

(*) More precisely: The registrants are in an inherently weaker  
situation in this setting. Registrars and registries may be able to  
establish [inside _and_ outside the process!] policy which is  
slightly detrimental to registrants if they can hope that the gain  
from such policy outweighs the cost of registrant dissatisfaction.  
Parties which can create a credible thread of generating outside  
costs (through litigation or lobbying) may find this approach  
attractive, just like registrars and registries.

2. An ICANN which can, if needed, impose policy on some players when 
it's for the benefit of the public, or of users - even when such  
policy would _not_ be for the benefit of some of the parties  
involved.  Obviously, such policy will hardly be made in a true  
consensus-based process: Either, there would be open disagreement,  
or there would be more or less hidden attempts to otherwise prevent  
the process from coming to an end - think about filibustering,  
re-iterating procedural questions, and so on.  I'm rather sure that  
most of you know what I'm talking about.  Such an ICANN needs two  
things: (a) A policy-making process which is able to deal with  
players who actually don't want policy to be established.  Such a  
process must create an incentive for those parties.  Tight deadlines 
("either you collaborate, or it will look worse for you than it has  
to") can be one incentive of this kind.  As stated before, such a  
process could _not_ be truly consensus-based. (b) Credible  
policy-enforcement mechanisms.  If policy which is not for the  
benefit of those who have to implement it is not enforced, it's  
ignored.

Note that the Lynn plan apparently tries to address these problems,  
and suggests an ICANN which is actually able to enforce policy.  
Also note that it's rather natural for (at least!) the gTLD 
registries to resist such a structure, while it may be more 
attractive to registrant-oriented constituencies.

I'd suggest that, before you start discussing individual policy  
development mechanisms, you come to some agreement on what kind of  
ICANN you are talking about. It may, in fact, be helpful to  
investigate structures for both kinds of ICANNs, and to clearly  
indicate which of these approaches bears greater benefits for which  
constituencies.  In particular, it's nonsense to discuss robust  
policy-making in a purely consensus-based setting, just like it's  
nonsense to suggest self-interested, consensus-based policy-making 
in an environment where policy is supposed to be imposed on some of 
those who participate.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[email-masked]>

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 1 May 2002 16:26:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

For the benefit of the Council, yesterday I posted a summary of the problems 
outlined by Stuart Lynn.  Today I attempt to assess those problems and to 
arrive at conclusions.  Your conclusions might differ, but it's worth a 
look...

Document at http://www.icannworld.org/evaluation.htm

- --
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, 01 May 2002 18:16:08 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

". it's a question of integrity.  These are folks that don't keep their
word, and yet call themselves the stewards of the public trust.  It's time
to recommend re-bidding the ICANN contracts and allowing another group to
take over. "

About time you reached this conclusion, but do you mean it this time? If so,
why are you volunteering to work with Denise Michele whose remit is to
bolster ICANN's claim of public representation while keeping the At large
disempowered?

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]@cetp.ipsl.fr; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]@neulevel.biz; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]@melbourneit.com.au;
> [email-masked]@[email-masked].
> il
> Subject: [ga] Problems/Conclusions
>
>
> For the benefit of the Council, yesterday I posted a summary of
> the problems
> outlined by Stuart Lynn.  Today I attempt to assess those problems and to
> arrive at conclusions.  Your conclusions might differ, but it's worth a
> look...
>
> Document at http://www.icannworld.org/evaluation.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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, 1 May 2002 18:46:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

Joanna asks why I am volunteering to work on the At-Large Organizing 
Committee if I believe that ICANN contracts should be re-bid.

Recommending a re-bid does not at all guarantee that the DoC will consider 
this option, let alone invoke it.  There is a certain value in being 
pragmatic, and in recognizing that if one approach fails to come to fruition, 
other options yet remain that might further one's interests.

My interest is in establishing a structure for the At-Large so that the 
voices of those not represented by the Supporting Organizations may be heard. 
 Such an At-large would include a myriad number of groups (from user 
associations like CECUA, to smaller groups like PFIR, to groups that 
represent the registrant interest).  To organize such a structure takes a 
fair amount of work which I don't wish left in the hands of ICANN staff 
alone.  That's why I volunteered.
- --
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, 01 May 2002 20:56:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

There is a certain value in being
> pragmatic, and in recognizing that if one approach fails to come
> to fruition,
> other options yet remain that might further one's interests.

That's called "sitting on the fence".

> My interest is in establishing a structure for the At-Large so that the
> voices of those not represented by the Supporting Organizations
> may be heard.

So why recommend a rebid if you think this is still possible within the Lynn
Plan framework?

>  Such an At-large would include a myriad number of groups (from user
> associations like CECUA, to smaller groups like PFIR, to groups that
> represent the registrant interest).

Atlarge.com is noted by its absence in this list. Why would those who have
signed up to AtLarge.com endorse you as a member of the At Large Committee
if you do not even mention them as part of the plan?

To organize such a structure takes a
> fair amount of work which I don't wish left in the hands of ICANN staff
> alone.  That's why I volunteered.
>

Exactly, but whose support do you have for your position?

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, 02 May 2002 12:05:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] teleconference / discussion fodder (from: [email-masked])

At 19:16 1/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>I'd suggest that, before you start discussing individual policy
>development mechanisms, you come to some agreement on what kind of
>ICANN you are talking about.

That is a sensible suggestion to the NC members.
But even if followed, the problem that I can see is that an agreement (a 
majority vote?) among the members of the NC on the kind of ICANN that they 
want to see emerge from the reform process, still does not bind the 
internet community, least of all the registrants, who are largely excluded 
from this NC.
Before all else, and before deciding on how to measure "some agreement" the 
Names Council should start to examine its own representativity.
Perhaps it will conclude that under the current circumstances only a 
unanimous vote will do.

- --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, 1 May 2002 23:56:17 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA proceedures

1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?

Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 2 May 2002 00:32:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

Joanna,

We've had this debate before on other forums at other times, but if you 
believe there is some benefit in further discussing these points on the GA 
list then I will be happy to join you in further dialogue.

You have asked, "Why would those who have signed up to AtLarge.com endorse 
you as a member of the At Large Committee if you do not even mention them as 
part of the plan?"  I wasn't aware that I needed either their endorsement or 
nomination.  If David Farber or Ralph Nader or Hillary Clinton decided to 
answer the call for volunteers to join the At-Large Organizing Committee, 
would you turn around and say "I'm frightfully sorry, but the members of a 
group called icannatlarge.com have not endorsed your participation...  I'm 
sorry that you weren't told that this was a prerequisite for engaging in this 
charitable work, but without our endorsement you simply can't be a 
volunteer."  Rather elitist attitude, isn't it?  Sort of reminds me of a 
Board that thinks that only they are entitled to make nominations.

You wonder why I haven't mentioned icannatlarge.com in my last note.  
Frankly, I didn't see the necessity.  Groups like CECUA and PFIR, among 
others, have made public statements on ICANN Reform.  icannatlarge.com 
hasn't.  Their membership hasn't even had the initiative to forward a 
structural plan that included the At-Large component for consideration.  I 
can just imagine the next Resolution from the Board:

Whereas in Resolution 02.23 the Board strongly encouraged comments and 
suggestions relating to ICANN evolution and reform from all stakeholders to 
the Committee as soon as possible;
Whereas no substantive comments or reform plans pertaining to the At-Large 
were submitted by any representatives of the At-large community prior to the 
deadline established by the Committee on Evolution and Reform;
Whereas the ICANN Board is concerned by this lack of input and believes that 
such lack of commentary is demonstrative of the futility of further pursuing 
the concept of At-Large representation;
It is hereby Resolved that the At-Large shall not be constituted as a 
"structure" within ICANN, but rather as a participatory "mechanism" to be 
administered by the President and his Staff.

No, I don't hold the non-contributory efforts of the icannatlarge.com 
membership in high esteem.  Yes, the organization may have other merits, but 
putting together a plan to properly constitute the At-Large within the ICANN 
organizational plan doesn't appear to be among their skill-sets.  I don't 
recall noting any suggestions as to how directors are to be selected in the 
absence of global online elections, nor any recommendations on how other 
organizations that are equally part of the At-Large will be integrated into 
the mix.  In short, I have seen very little substantive commentary from the 
membership of that group, and the mere fact that a bunch of people signed up 
on a list without having to tender any cash doesn't impress me all that much. 
 I have seen much longer lists of names and a great deal more dialogue just 
by perusing SLASHDOT on a daily basis.  How many comments does the forum get 
a day?  Perhaps three, if you're lucky?  Big deal.  Maybe you're enamoured 
with this degree of interaction...  I am not.

An Organizing Committee for the At-Large will be convened by ICANN staff 
under the administration of Denise Michel.  It is not a certainty that either 
I or Eric Dierker will have our request to participate accepted -- we don't 
set the rules, we simply have to abide by them.  ICANN will make some kind of 
decision as to which volunteers will be on this committee and which will be 
excluded.  I might well fall into the latter category.  In any event, at 
least we volunteered to attempt to do something constructive... how many 
members of icannatlarge.com have done the same?  

If you don't want to do the work yourself, why are you attempting to get in 
the way of those that are willing to make an effort on behalf of the 
At-Large?  What is your agenda?

- --
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, 1 May 2002 21:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

On Wed, 1 May 2002, James Love wrote:

> 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
> 2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
> of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
> consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?

3. Does it make any difference?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 2 May 2002 01:09:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Challenge

Alejandro,

Thank you for the prompt feedback.  Yes, it's true that I have been candid 
about my mistrust of ICANN's current management, but I am certainly open to 
changing my opinion should new circumstances warrant such a reassessment.  We 
must all be prepared to be reasonable.  Your willingness to permit others to 
independently evaluate the submissions received by your Committee (and to 
tender an analysis based on those submissions) is certainly indicative of the 
fact that reason can prevail, and that recommendations forwarded won't 
necessarily be tainted by a lack of objectivity.   

I look forward to further cooperative efforts.
- --
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, 02 May 2002 01:31:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA proceedures

If this is a motion, I second it.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James
> Love
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:56 PM
> To: General assembly list
> Subject: [ga] GA proceedures
>
>
> 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
> 2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
> of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
> consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?
>
> Jamie
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 02 May 2002 01:47:36 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

What is your agenda?

Stated here:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc01/msg00015.html and it
has not changed:-

Under-representation of any group of affected stakeholders strikes at the
very heart of public trust in the internet and undermines ICANN1s ability to
engage proper consensus building procedures that empower its policy
coordination.

As a team player, I will gladly represent the entire DNSO membership on the
Board, and as a European, have a particular interest in ccTLDs. At the same
time, I have and I will continue to stand for the people who are currently
under-represented within this organization - including those who have spent
months, and in some cases years, of effort trying to improve existing
operations, only to witness their talents repeatedly crushed by those with a
vested interest in perpetuation of the status quo.

To support the cause of individual domain name registrants/ owners/ holders,
I have submitted a number of papers in recent months, and in particular,
have advocated privacy rights on behalf of all individual domain name
registrants in the 15 member nations of the European Union. Individuals are
adversely affected with respect to the Whois, also UDRP and Registrar
transfers, amongst other issues, but this group does not have a
constituency, or any vote in the policy recommendations passed to BoD
through the NC and its Task Forces. It can be argued therefore that direct
representation for individual registrants at the highest level is entirely
appropriate, commensurate with any other group. A seat on the Board will do
nicely.

When the DNSO undergoes structural change in due course, the people who made
an honest attempt to contribute something positive will still be here. I
consider myself such a person. If you look towards the future, where fair
play and proper consideration of all affected stakeholders is weighed
heavily in any determination of policy, then your endorsement of my
candidacy will not be misplaced.

This is a vote for conscience.

And here's a list of those who endorsed it:
http://www.dnso.org/nominees/2001.jla.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: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:49:09 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

At 00:32 2/05/02 -0400, [email-masked] spent time to slam the only 
just started icannatlarge.com:
><snip>
>An Organizing Committee for the At-Large will be convened by ICANN staff
>under the administration of Denise Michel.  It is not a certainty that either
>I or Eric Dierker will have our request to participate accepted -- we don't
>set the rules, we simply have to abide by them.  ICANN will make some kind of
>decision as to which volunteers will be on this committee and which will be
>excluded.  I might well fall into the latter category.  In any event, at
>least we volunteered to attempt to do something constructive... how many
>members of icannatlarge.com have done the same?

The 293 who voted.

And the people who contributed to an election charter and the organizing tools.
And the 20 candidates who volunteered to be elected.
The first thing they have done is subject themselves to a vote of the 
membership so that their representation is actually legitimized by the 
membership.

This is a necessary first step, if you believe in legitimacy based on 
democracy.

Seven members have been elected
Vittorio Bertola, Italy (Europe)
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Denmark (Europe)
Richard Henderson, United Kingdom (Europe)
James Love, USA (NorthAm)
Sotiris Sotiropoulos, Canada (NorthAm)
Izumi Aizu, Japan (AsiaPac)
Satyajit Gupta, India (Asia)

Trying to self-organize in response to the Board resolution is just as much 
a constructive response as trying to answer Stuart Lynn's letter  with 
original ideas.
As it is, most of what could be said has been said.

The likelyhood that any of it  will be actually followed is even smaller 
than I rated the chances of the ICANN financed ALSC study.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   interim webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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, 2 May 2002 02:04:46 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

You miss the point Joop.  Only Eric Dierker and I have sent a note to Denise 
Michel volunteering to participate in the activities of the At-large 
Organizing Commitee as per ICANN's announcement:

Denise Michel will help ICANN take initial steps to support the formation of 
At-Large organizations, including: creating an informal, volunteer At-Large 
Organizing Committee to assist in guiding preliminary at-large efforts.  
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24apr02.htm

None of your 293 voting members (other than Eric) have volunteered in this 
capacity, and certainly none of your elected officials has volunteered either 
for duty on the ALOC being organized by Denise.   So toot your horn as much 
as you like, but don't try to con us into believing that volunteers have come 
forth.  
- --
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, 01 May 2002 23:09:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

Oh be serious!

TR won't call for a vote on anything.
It takes away from his dictatorial power.
He would rather write his summaries and leave out what us dissenters point
out.
he hates Walsh and Williams and Myself because we do not tow his party line.

The GA is captured by TR and we merely await a new election.

Sorry,
Eric

James Love wrote:

> 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
> 2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
> of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
> consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?
>
> Jamie
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> --
> 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, 01 May 2002 23:11:54 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

Joanna,

You know that TR will not call for a vote.

He and ester are of the same ilk;  Only they know what is best for us.

Eric

Joanna Lane wrote:

> If this is a motion, I second it.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James
> > Love
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:56 PM
> > To: General assembly list
> > Subject: [ga] GA proceedures
> >
> >
> > 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
> > 2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US Department
> > of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> > abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom up
> > consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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, 01 May 2002 23:25:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

Right on brothers and sisters,

We held the first election and we did good.  We elected top notch first rate folks
and they are doing a bang up kick em in the ass job.  They are bottom up an open
and transparent and the give a good damn about my dotcommoners.  Most of my posts
are not worthy of their consideration but I am very proud of our SC.

We did poorly in some areas of representation, like SouthEast Asia and Women, but
we will rally and these good people will listen.  It is a time of empowerment.  I
also hope Jim and Jeff and Ellen and Judith and Joe will lower themselves to our
level and help lead us in the right direction.

With these leaders we have a chance and they are legitimate and good.

Eric

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 00:32 2/05/02 -0400, [email-masked] spent time to slam the only
> just started icannatlarge.com:
> ><snip>
> >An Organizing Committee for the At-Large will be convened by ICANN staff
> >under the administration of Denise Michel.  It is not a certainty that either
> >I or Eric Dierker will have our request to participate accepted -- we don't
> >set the rules, we simply have to abide by them.  ICANN will make some kind of
> >decision as to which volunteers will be on this committee and which will be
> >excluded.  I might well fall into the latter category.  In any event, at
> >least we volunteered to attempt to do something constructive... how many
> >members of icannatlarge.com have done the same?
>
> The 293 who voted.
>
> And the people who contributed to an election charter and the organizing tools.
> And the 20 candidates who volunteered to be elected.
> The first thing they have done is subject themselves to a vote of the
> membership so that their representation is actually legitimized by the
> membership.
>
> This is a necessary first step, if you believe in legitimacy based on
> democracy.
>
> Seven members have been elected
> Vittorio Bertola, Italy (Europe)
> Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Denmark (Europe)
> Richard Henderson, United Kingdom (Europe)
> James Love, USA (NorthAm)
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos, Canada (NorthAm)
> Izumi Aizu, Japan (AsiaPac)
> Satyajit Gupta, India (Asia)
>
> Trying to self-organize in response to the Board resolution is just as much
> a constructive response as trying to answer Stuart Lynn's letter  with
> original ideas.
> As it is, most of what could be said has been said.
>
> The likelyhood that any of it  will be actually followed is even smaller
> than I rated the chances of the ICANN financed ALSC study.
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>    interim webmaster
> www.icannatlarge.com
> Sign up and spread the word.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 02 May 2002 01:56:01 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] i do not know abot this

I think that i am now covered at my new address;
[email-masked]

Ah it probably won't resolve!

funny how that domain thing works.

I do not think it should work that way at all, what the heck!

it is fun.

eric

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

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

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 02:07:52 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

Yeah,

I am a little concerned here also.

But more concerned that we hurry, and that Denise has refused to acknowledge
volunteers.
OTOH I am kind of the old nigger at the old country club so I can kind of
understand her reluctance.
I do not hold it against her.  It is just the culture she comes from, she
probably would not be all that welcome in my grand uncles' hogan, or my daughters
grandfathers' place in Saigon, or for that matter the internet cafe bar I will
attend in Tijuana on Friday.

Hey but she should attend my other daughter confirmation in the righteous
Episcopal Church on Sunday, we accept all self righteous hypocritical one day a
week redeemers there.

Just kidding, I am sure that they don't intend to segregate what type of
volunteers they allow.

Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> You miss the point Joop.  Only Eric Dierker and I have sent a note to Denise
> Michel volunteering to participate in the activities of the At-large
> Organizing Commitee as per ICANN's announcement:
>
> Denise Michel will help ICANN take initial steps to support the formation of
> At-Large organizations, including: creating an informal, volunteer At-Large
> Organizing Committee to assist in guiding preliminary at-large efforts.
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24apr02.htm
>
> None of your 293 voting members (other than Eric) have volunteered in this
> capacity, and certainly none of your elected officials has volunteered either
> for duty on the ALOC being organized by Denise.   So toot your horn as much
> as you like, but don't try to con us into believing that volunteers have come
> forth.
> --
> 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: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:02:40 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

Danny,

I have been reported your following quote taken from this list:

>>You wonder why I haven't mentioned icannatlarge.com in my last note.
>>Frankly, I didn't see the necessity.  Groups like CECUA and PFIR, among
>>others, have made public statements on ICANN Reform.  icannatlarge.com
>>hasn't.  Their membership hasn't even had the initiative to forward a
>>structural plan that included the At-Large component for consideration.

I repeat what I already told you days ago about this point. I would
find it quite weird if an organization which still has no Bylaws, no
formal processes, and up to yesterday, not even a Board and a Chair,
had been able to submit anything official before last Monday. The
maximum we could do was to submit comments as individuals or on behalf
of other efforts we were already working for - and even if you might
imagine how busy we were in the last weeks, some of us actually did.

You can read the contribution from Izumi Aizu (icannatlarge.com panel
member, and just chosen as Alt Chair) here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/pdf00006.pdf

You can read CPTech's contribution, submitted by James Love (panel
member), here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00072.html

and another personal contribution from him here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/msg00043.html

Finally, you can read my own contribution here:

http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/pdf00012.pdf

On last Monday evening I worked until 2am to finish that document, so
please excuse if it does not address all open issues, or it is not
particularly clear or bright, or it looks more like a brainstorming
than like a rational analysis and proposal, but I guess it says
something about why we should have an At Large inside ICANN.

Now, if this for you means that icannatlarge.com is not doing anything
to participate in the ICANN Reform process, I really don't understand
what you want us to do. But anyway, if you want to have
icannatlarge.com behave in a different way, simply join us and
participate.
- -- 
.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 #1150
*************************