Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1151
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 2 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1151

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

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 05:57:26 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

I volunteer.  Please let the record show that I have offered my 
assistance to the efforts of ICANN's Denise Michel AtLarge liason.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

[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 00:45:28 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

Heck yes,

If we could just get a vote on something. But TR will not do it.

Eric

Patrick wrote:

> 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

- --
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 06:57:49 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i do not know abot this

Why don't you get an address at [email-masked] - it will resolve in
upwards of
25% of the internet and works right away.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:56 AM
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
>
>

- --
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 14:46:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] i do not know abot this

> Why don't you get an address at [email-masked] - it will resolve in
> upwards of
> 25% of the internet and works right away.
please give us a proof. others say 5% or 10%, some say less than 1%. I think it is all hot air. Olease give us a proof for your assertion.

Thanks
Simon
http://nic.info
http://nic.pro
http://nic.info.xs2.net
http://nic.pro.xs2.net
- --
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 07:59:39 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] i do not know abot this

Proof is that based on the stats on our ORSC root server. Number of users
can be
calculated based on number of hits to the server.  Traffic to inclusive
namespace
servers has tripled in the past few months. Taiwan and China no longer use
USG
roots.  Its over. People are on to ICANN. Just give it up.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] i do not know abot this

> > Why don't you get an address at [email-masked] - it will resolve
in
> > upwards of
> > 25% of the internet and works right away.
> please give us a proof. others say 5% or 10%, some say less than 1%. I
think it is all hot air. Olease give us a proof for your assertion.
>
> Thanks
> Simon
> http://nic.info
> http://nic.pro
> http://nic.info.xs2.net
> http://nic.pro.xs2.net
>

- --
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 15:44:54 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Problems/Conclusions

- --=======4D2042C1=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-24631C15; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I am sorry, I have too, on behalf of france@large and in support of 
german@large ( http://at-large.de  )
You only have been more lucky than me in receiving a response from Denise. jfc

At 08:04 02/05/02, [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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======4D2042C1=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-24631C15
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======4D2042C1=======--

- --
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 10:29:43 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Ok, I make this as a motion, as follows:

"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not
the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the
services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale for asking for a rebid is
that ICANN has dramatically changed the intitial terms of refence for ICANN,
and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition
in the Internet community.   The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.
The vote should be taken within 10 days."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:31 AM
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
>
>
>

- --
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 10:39:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I will second the motion by James Love.
- --
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 15:46:02 +0100
From: "Derrick Austin - Super Verticals GmbH BIZ" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Welcome to ga

This is my first post to the DNSO list so please be gentle with me! ;)

The reason for this post in the community comes by way of referral given that registrar peers subscribed to this list for a recent
problem that has transpired with the ICANN accredited registrar eNOM (http://www.enom.com) in particular for the pre-registration
bidding of .US domains and their allocation upon being allotted to the successfully registrar during the round robin phase.

My grievance is that an apparent top bid for a high profile domain in .US was first "won" by enom for their client and assigned a
temporary holding account with the domain manager at enom similar to other held accounts during the first few days. Upon asking for
this account to be modified to the top bidder's details (my own), the account was duly transferred and billed for. However, enom
retracted the changes some time later as being an error on their part and modified the account to what they considered the real
"registrant" who was in fact the same person (DNS Manager) at a different location (my best guess is a home address). Does this
sound fishy, or what ?
They probably didn't realise that I connected both whois' as being the same person (enom employed) albeit different location.

enom to date have declined to provide further details and will be "chased" again today during office hours by phone to supply
relevant auction audits and clarify the suspicious activity on their part regarding acquirement of a client's domain for their own
usage.

My question is:
Have any other registrants had similar problems at auction where a top bid appears to have been repossessed for themselves a
registrar or in particular by enom ?
The whole question of giving 'exclusive trust' to individuals at registrar companies makes for interesting speculation in what could
likely be a real can of worms. I can say without doubt that I won the domain in dispute and that enom need to be held accountable
for their actions and clarify details of suspicious internal activities.

Thank you for any input you can give or any other case studies.
Derrick Austin

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:20 PM
Subject: Welcome to ga

> --
>
> Welcome to the ga mailing list!
>
> Please save this message for future reference.  Thank you.
>
> If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list,
> you can send mail to <[email-masked]> with the following
> command in the body of your email message:
>
>     unsubscribe ga
>
> or from another account, besides "Derrick Austin - Super Verticals GmbH BIZ" <[email-masked]>:
>
>     unsubscribe ga "Derrick Austin - Super Verticals GmbH BIZ" <[email-masked]>
>
> If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list,
> (if you have trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the
> list itself) send email to <[email-masked]> .
> This is the general rule for most mailing lists when you need
> to contact a human.
>
>  Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to,
>  in case you don't already have it:
>
> Bienvenue sur le serveur [email-masked].
>
> Thank you for joining the public mailing list, [email-masked].
>
> This list was established for the General Assembly
> of the DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN).
>
> In order to provide a useful forum for the exchange of information and
> opinion, this list will be governed by the following guidelines:
>
> --Limit comments to those related to the topic of the DNSO
> --Consider this list precious, and take care of it.
> --Consider time necessary to read all comments, especially
>   for non native English speakers.
> --Respect other participants, do not insult anybody.
> --Do not cross-post messages.
> --Do not post advertisements.
>
> Anybody can subscribe to this list, however, the Names Council reserves
> the right to remove disruptive subscribers from the list.
>
> The [email-masked] is archived on the web site
>
> We hope you will find this list usefull.
>
>

- --
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 11:23:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

Vittorio,

You have been in the ICANN environment long enough to understand the negative 
consequences of recommendations that are formulated at too high a level of 
generality.  As the saying goes... the devil is in the details.  The Board, 
in Resolution 02.22, has asked to be provided with "specifics" such as: 

1.  the ways the different components of any proposed structure will function 
together and interact;
2.  the system of checks and balances that will ensure both the effectiveness 
and the openness of the organization.
3.  the ways in and conditions under which essential components of any 
proposed structure that may not be able to be fully incorporated at the start 
of the reform process will be included when appropriate; and 
4.  a description of a proposed transition process from the current structure 
to any recommended new structure, including a description of how the present 
components of ICANN relate to the new proposed structure, and the anticipated 
timetable for that transition;

Specifics have not been articulated in most of the comments submitted thus 
far.  Instead, most comments tend to take the form of  "I don't have a 
specific suggestion to offer, but I can tell you that I don't like this part 
of Stuart's plan."  The implication is that the Board Committeee should just 
come up with something else.  

Do you trust the Board and Staff sufficiently to settle upon whatever they 
propose?  Why then are you leaving it in their hands, rather than 
individually or collectively drafting a comprehensive counter-proposal that 
at least offers the same degree of granularity that is to be found in 
Stuart's plan?  You and your fellow activists have been waging the At-large 
War for several years now.  This is not the time to allow yourselves to be 
reduced to a "mechanism" by some Board Committee when representational issues 
are at stake, and when the future structure of ICANN and its Board 
composition are on the line...  

You state:  I really don't understand what you want us to do.  Let me be 
clear... I am expecting those that sincerely believe in the At-Large to come 
up with a highly-detailed comprehensive proposal that addresses the 
"specifics" that the Board has requested, and to do it in a timely fashion so 
that such input can be considered by the group that is now formulating their 
specific recommendations to the Board, the Evolution and Reform Committee.  

You are in the final minutes of the game with the goal line in view.  Now is 
not the time to fumble the ball.  Surely among your many associates, there is 
a sufficiently large enough brain trust and commitment to get the job done.  

If you fail to put such a comprehensive plan on the table, then you will have 
to live with the fact that the "specifics" advanced by others (such as ICANN 
Staff) prevailed in the absence of your detailed input.  The choice is yours 
to make.

- --
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 17:25:31 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:

>"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on 
>whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open 
>competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale 
>for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the 
>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further 
>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet 
>community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider 
>alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet 
>resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."

_Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an  
entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at  
this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the  
entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence  
would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence 
the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA 
would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for  
_suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)

If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask  
for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_ 
radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's  
_fundamental_ _principles_.

There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a  
vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA  
wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN  
actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it  
already has done so.)

There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no  
guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the  
current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask  
for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid 
would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to 
you, James.

- -- 
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, 2 May 2002 11:31:14 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas,

I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am asking for a
vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this issue.      The GA
doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it can let people know what
its members (not only its chair) think.   I am asking for a vote.  We can
address what is on the ballot if we can agree that there will be a vote.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
> >whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
> >competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
> >for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> >intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> >changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> >community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
> >alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
> >resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."
>
> _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
>
> If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> _fundamental_ _principles_.
>
> There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> already has done so.)
>
> There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> you, James.
>
> --
> 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, 2 May 2002 12:01:42 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

Danny, the icannatlarge.com panel hasn't even been in place 1 full week yet.
It's main job is to set the stage for a more permanent governing structure.
The panel's term ends in less than 90 days.   It does not have a very broad
manadate to make policy.   It's about a year or two late, but so what.   You
think the last 5 days haven't produced enough results?

 Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

> Vittorio,
>
> You have been in the ICANN environment long enough to understand the
negative
> consequences of recommendations that are formulated at too high a level of
> generality.  As the saying goes... the devil is in the details.  The
Board,
> in Resolution 02.22, has asked to be provided with "specifics" such as:
>
> 1.  the ways the different components of any proposed structure will
function
> together and interact;
> 2.  the system of checks and balances that will ensure both the
effectiveness
> and the openness of the organization.
> 3.  the ways in and conditions under which essential components of any
> proposed structure that may not be able to be fully incorporated at the
start
> of the reform process will be included when appropriate; and
> 4.  a description of a proposed transition process from the current
structure
> to any recommended new structure, including a description of how the
present
> components of ICANN relate to the new proposed structure, and the
anticipated
> timetable for that transition;
>
> Specifics have not been articulated in most of the comments submitted thus
> far.  Instead, most comments tend to take the form of  "I don't have a
> specific suggestion to offer, but I can tell you that I don't like this
part
> of Stuart's plan."  The implication is that the Board Committeee should
just
> come up with something else.
>
> Do you trust the Board and Staff sufficiently to settle upon whatever they
> propose?  Why then are you leaving it in their hands, rather than
> individually or collectively drafting a comprehensive counter-proposal
that
> at least offers the same degree of granularity that is to be found in
> Stuart's plan?  You and your fellow activists have been waging the
At-large
> War for several years now.  This is not the time to allow yourselves to be
> reduced to a "mechanism" by some Board Committee when representational
issues
> are at stake, and when the future structure of ICANN and its Board
> composition are on the line...
>
> You state:  I really don't understand what you want us to do.  Let me be
> clear... I am expecting those that sincerely believe in the At-Large to
come
> up with a highly-detailed comprehensive proposal that addresses the
> "specifics" that the Board has requested, and to do it in a timely fashion
so
> that such input can be considered by the group that is now formulating
their
> specific recommendations to the Board, the Evolution and Reform Committee.
>
> You are in the final minutes of the game with the goal line in view.  Now
is
> not the time to fumble the ball.  Surely among your many associates, there
is
> a sufficiently large enough brain trust and commitment to get the job
done.
>
> If you fail to put such a comprehensive plan on the table, then you will
have
> to live with the fact that the "specifics" advanced by others (such as
ICANN
> Staff) prevailed in the absence of your detailed input.  The choice is
yours
> to make.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 18:52:41 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

On Thu, 2 May 2002 11:23:56 EDT, you wrote:

>If you fail to put such a comprehensive plan on the table, then you will have 
>to live with the fact that the "specifics" advanced by others (such as ICANN 
>Staff) prevailed in the absence of your detailed input.  The choice is yours 
>to make.

Now that we are a little more organized (and please allow for some
more days to settle all details about final mailing lists, web hosting
etc.) we will work on the issue which is part of our mandate: the
structure and mission of our organization. This will necessarily mean
that we will work out something far more specific on the actual
structure of the At Large and its interactions with ICANN, and we will
be more than happy to interact with the Reform Committee, the ALOC,
and other branches of ICANN.

Anyway, I don't see anything bad in submitting only a set of
recommendations on specific points, rather than very detailed
solutions on everything. The Reform Committee is expected to work out
practical solutions that reflect the overall consensus in the
community. It's their job, not ours. While I'll do my best to help
them and reduce the amount of work put on them, I don't think that we
should either rewrite ICANN Bylaws on our own or be considered as
non-constructive people.

Moreover, if ICANN thought that possible solutions about the
practicalities of implementing an At Large membership have to be
submitted now or never, why in the hell would it be at the same time
setting up an At Large Organizing Committee to foster the process of
working out such practicalities?
- -- 
.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

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

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:01:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

Vittorio writes:  "The Reform Committee is expected to work out practical 
solutions that reflect the overall consensus in the community. It's their 
job, not ours."

That's putting a lot of faith in the same set of people that haven't 
recognized a consensus on seating nine elected At-Large directors, that 
haven't been able to recognize a consensus to establish an individuals 
constituency, that didn't recognize the consensus on the VeriSign contract 
renegotiations, and that haven't recognized the consensus in the .org Task 
Force recommendations.  Their track record for reflecting overall community 
consensus is horrible, and you are willing to blindly put your trust in them?

Does the phrase "sheeps to the slaughter" resonate at all?

- --
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 13:36:13 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

Danny,  As far as I understand, the interm panel for atlarage.com, which I'm
a member of,  hasn't been asked to speak for the at large on these issues.
It has a 90 day mandate to get a structure for itself in place, and hold
another election for a more durable governance stucture.  That's about all
it can do, and if it can do that I'll be happy.   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger's opinion about icannatlarge.com

> Vittorio writes:  "The Reform Committee is expected to work out practical
> solutions that reflect the overall consensus in the community. It's their
> job, not ours."
>
> That's putting a lot of faith in the same set of people that haven't
> recognized a consensus on seating nine elected At-Large directors, that
> haven't been able to recognize a consensus to establish an individuals
> constituency, that didn't recognize the consensus on the VeriSign contract
> renegotiations, and that haven't recognized the consensus in the .org Task
> Force recommendations.  Their track record for reflecting overall
community
> consensus is horrible, and you are willing to blindly put your trust in
them?
>
> Does the phrase "sheeps to the slaughter" resonate at all?
>
>
> --
> 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, 2 May 2002 19:39:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-02 11:31:14 -0400, James Love wrote:

>I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am  
>asking for a vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this  
>issue.  The GA doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it  
>can let people know what its members (not only its chair) think.   
>I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if  
>we can agree that there will be a vote.

You seem to be seriously mistaken about how things work.

First, you produce a reasonable motion.  You don't do this alone,  
but you do this by way of discussion on this very list. Second, you  
try to generate substantial support.  Third, you get the vote.

You are just about to begin with step one of this process.

- -- 
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, 02 May 2002 11:34:23 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

- --------------080606090508090902030300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In normal practice, and for what it's worth, I would agree with Thomas 
here.  The Best
Practices procedure developed by Joanna Lane and myself is indeed 
specifically designed
to preclude rushing to a vote on anything.

However, Best Practices also has the provision that just about anyone 
can ask for a poll
at just about any time.  The difference, of course, is that a poll has 
no "legal effect," but is
more in the way of "testing the waters" to get the sense of a group, and 
thereby can be
quite useful in guiding future Discussion and ultimately Debate that 
might well develop
into a formal "Vote."  James Love is seeking, in his words, "to 
establish how the GA
members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of query that 
simple polls
are designed to answer, and they need no formal sequence of steps to get 
established.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 11:31:14 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>> I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am  
>> asking for a vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this  
>> issue.  The GA doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it  can 
>> let people know what its members (not only its chair) think.   I am 
>> asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if  we can 
>> agree that there will be a vote.
>
>
> You seem to be seriously mistaken about how things work.
>
> First, you produce a reasonable motion.  You don't do this alone,  but 
> you do this by way of discussion on this very list. Second, you  try 
> to generate substantial support.  Third, you get the vote.
>
> You are just about to begin with step one of this process.
>

- --------------080606090508090902030300
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
In normal practice, and for what it's worth, I would agree with Thomas here.
&nbsp;The Best <br>
Practices procedure developed by Joanna Lane and myself is indeed specifically
designed <br>
to preclude rushing to a vote on anything.<br>
<br>
However, Best Practices also has the provision that just about anyone can
ask for a <i>poll</i> <br>
at just about any time. &nbsp;The difference, of course, is that a poll has no
"legal effect," but is<br>
more in the way of "testing the waters" to get the sense of a group, and
thereby can be <br>
quite useful in guiding future Discussion and ultimately Debate that might
well develop <br>
into a formal "Vote." &nbsp;James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish
how the GA <br>
members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of query that
simple polls<br>
are designed to answer, and they need no formal sequence of steps to get
established.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Thomas Roessler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
On 2002-05-02 11:31:14 -0400, James Love wrote: <br>
  <br>
  <blockquote type="cite">I don't mind you having any opinion you want on
this.&nbsp; But I am&nbsp;  asking for a vote, to estabish how the GA members feel
about this&nbsp;  issue.&nbsp; The GA doesn't have the power to force decisions, but
it&nbsp;  can let people know what its members (not only its chair) think.&nbsp;&nbsp;  I
am asking for a vote.&nbsp; We can address what is on the ballot if&nbsp;  we can agree
that there will be a vote. <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
You seem to be seriously mistaken about how things work. <br>
    <br>
First, you produce a reasonable motion.&nbsp; You don't do this alone,&nbsp;  but you
do this by way of discussion on this very list. Second, you&nbsp;  try to generate
substantial support.&nbsp; Third, you get the vote. <br>
    <br>
You are just about to begin with step one of this process. <br>
    <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>

- --------------080606090508090902030300--

- --
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 #1151
*************************