Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1160
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 4 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1160

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

Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 00:23:01 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] this list stinks

why do posts not automatically get posted to the list.

Who monitors this and checks it before it goes out?

That is trash and ugly.

Every other list is automated except this censored list.

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: Sat, 04 May 2002 10:44:17 +0200
From: GA List Monitor <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder: List rules!

Dear all,

several people have been ignoring the posting limit
on the General Assembly list in the last days:
Danny Younger (6), James Love (6), Joanna Lane (6), 
William Walsh (8).

I understand that we are currently debating a very
contentious issue, but I also understand the people
who have written to me asking for an enforcement of
the list rules: Five postings per day, calculated 
according to the time zone of the sender.
(See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html)

Let's not be unfair to those who play by these rules.

Best regards,
/// Alexander (wearing the List Monitor hat) 

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 11:48:54 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Registrars' draft paper on reform

For those who haven't seen in on ICANNwatch:
http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/registrar-draft35-restructure.doc

(Interestingly, they recommend preliminarily retaining the current 
At Large directors.)

/// Alexander

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 13:18:28 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On Fri, 03 May 2002 05:37:05 +0200, you wrote:

>I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this motion 
>to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such a vote.

Unfortunately we do not have formal means to do it yet - however, for the
time being, you could simply post this in the "ICANN Reform" forum on our
website, where any forum user is allowed to start a poll.
 
>May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC list to be 
>closed? 

We have just set up a general discussion mailing list - also on request of
many of our members who didn't like the web forums - for this purpose. I am
announcing it separately in another message.
- -- 
.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: Sat, 04 May 2002 13:18:31 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Announce: New icannatlarge.com mailing lists

The newly elected panel for icannatlarge.com has set up a mailing list
for general discussion about the At Large issues, open not just to its
members but to anyone interested. That mailing list aims to be a
prompt replacement of the current ALSC Forum list, which will close in
a few weeks from now, and to host the same kind of fruitful discussion
that has been characterizing it in the last two years.

We encourage you to subscribe now to the new list by sending an empty
message to [email-masked] . Archives may be
found at http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/ .

At the same time, the panel has set up two other lists:
- - an announcement list for internal communication to all icannatlarge
com members who opted in at registration;
- - a panel list for internal discussion and voting among panel members.

Both lists are publicly archived on the web at:
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-announce/
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/

The panel kindly thanks FITUG e.V. for setting up and hosting these
mailing lists.
- -- 
.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: Sat, 4 May 2002 14:08:32 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

Due to time constraints at the secretariat, the most reasonable window 
for beginning a vote is the week between May 13 and May 17.

I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible 
resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN 
functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For 
the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only 
differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote 
per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is 
accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2) 
preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with 
the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)

For a proposed resolution to be included with the ballot, the following 
three conditions must be fulfilled:  (1) It should be a statement on 
ICANN structure, mission, and a possible re-bid.  (2) There should be 
ten supporters.  (3) The resolution's final text, and the list of 
supporters, should be posted to this list no later than May 10.

I would welcome it very much if we'd see, in addition to Jamie's 
resolution calling for a re-bid, a more reasonable text on the ballot.

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

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:03:04 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Jonathan Weinberg's said that the motion on the DoC rebid concerns "which
*forum* should be deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged crisis."
Some persons on and off list have expressed concern over a forum that is US
based.  The DoC contracts are currently the only leverage over ICANN.  DoC
wants to get out from under the ICANN mess, and the EU, Japan, China and
others don't want a US only solution either.  The motion could be modified
to make it clear that a rebid should seek an international (not US only)
solution.

- -----modified motion text------------
"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, provided that the new competition would
address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
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."
- -----end of modified motion text----------

The rationale for the motion is, as suggested by Professor Weinberg, to
shift the forum for reform to the DoC, in the short term.   Those who
support the motion believe the Committee on ICANN reform will not embrace
the types of changes that are needed, in terms of accountability to the
Internet community.

To inform this debate further, I can report that the DoC is committed to a
private sector solution, will not support turning ICANN over to the ITU, and
in general is quite responsive to many of the civil society concerns that
have been expressed.  On the other hand, the DoC probably needs a push to
get involved.   ICANN is not a high priority at DoC, and most people see
involvement in ICANN as low yield for the time involved.  A GA motion would
be helpful and timely.

With regard to Thomas R's concerns regarding how such a vote would influence
the ICANN' board's decisions regarding the future of the GA, I agree that if
the GA proves to be extremely docile and unwilling to criticize the board on
important points, it may rise in the eyes of those board members who cannot
tolerate criticism.  It will also lose respect among those who see the GA as
a forum for telling truth to power.  People will have different views on how
to make the tradeoff.   People who disagree with the motion can vote against
it.  At this point, a decision to not permit a vote will be interpreted,
perhaps wrongly, that the ICANN leadership, including the GA Chair, believe
the motion would pass.  In fact, I have no idea if the motion would pass or
fail.  Finally, Thomas's comments make it clear that the motion doesn't
suffer from lack of procedure, but is opposed on the grounds that it crosses
the line in terms of what is considered acceptable discourse.  So this
debate is both about the substance of the motion, and the issue of where (or
how) this line is drawn.

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: Sat, 4 May 2002 09:11:22 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

Thanks to Thomas for moving this forward.  I support his proposal.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

> Due to time constraints at the secretariat, the most reasonable window 
> for beginning a vote is the week between May 13 and May 17.
> 
> I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible 
> resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN 
> functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For 
> the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only 
> differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote 
> per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is 
> accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2) 
> preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with 
> the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)
> 
> For a proposed resolution to be included with the ballot, the following 
> three conditions must be fulfilled:  (1) It should be a statement on 
> ICANN structure, mission, and a possible re-bid.  (2) There should be 
> ten supporters.  (3) The resolution's final text, and the list of 
> supporters, should be posted to this list no later than May 10.
> 
> I would welcome it very much if we'd see, in addition to Jamie's 
> resolution calling for a re-bid, a more reasonable text on the ballot.
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 06:32:50 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Amendment/impeachment/call to vote

Awesome work here TR.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I would welcome it very much if we'd see, in addition to Jamie's
> resolution calling for a re-bid, a more reasonable text on the ballot.

Yes I would like to see some kind of motion to amend our rules.
After you flippant remark the other day I wasted my most non valuable
time researching a quirk.

One of those people that work doggedly and are the only reason that
ICANN exists
sent me this;

"
The ICANN Bylaws determine the existence of the GA and the annual
election of GA Chair by the Names Council. For the first election
the NC prepared the procedures with the GA
:http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991111.DNSO-GAchair-nominations.html
==> se the link above, it quotes the initial Bylaws.

During that first vote everybody agreed that it would be a good idea to
have
an Alternate chair, and we ended up with two people:
Alvestrand and Roberto Gaetano, the first Alternate and Chair.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html

Roberto and Harald 's first job was to establish some rules
on the GA lists, as well as an election method (Instant Runoff).
It took a whole year of work, and concluded in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules.html

I suppose because the mandate for GA Chair and Alternate is one year, it
was
not necessary to set up "impeachement rules"

Why don't you call for an amendment of the rules which can be done under
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

If the amendment passes, then you will be able to use the amended rules
to
"impeach the chair and call for a vote of impeachement for the current
chair."

So I do not want a motion to impeach but I want to amend the rules to
allow it and formulate a proviso that if ten people want a vote or poll
we get one NOW.

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: Sat, 04 May 2002 15:26:06 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] test

- --=======24EE4C60=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

sorry, but I switched to another provider as Wanadoo seems to be filtered 
out. Would that one too?
jfc

- --=======24EE4C60=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3
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

- --=======24EE4C60=======--

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 06:45:03 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Well sir you have made a fine analysis in this closing section;

But I must dwell on more than TRs social responsibility.

US participants have a larger role here and should step up to the plate and take
it.

We have failed our World Brethren by letting our government act irresponsibly,
and that
means we have.  Here in the US we have no right to blame our government, only
ourselves, if
right is not accomplished.

Months ago I joined your Democracy group, not because I agree with you, but
because it
sends chills up my spine in pride that you have a right to say it and do it.

But with that right comes a huge Koffeltian responsibility and us "Americans"
have not fulfilled our
obligations in that regard.

Ultreya,
Eric

James Love wrote:

>
> With regard to Thomas R's concerns regarding how such a vote would influence
> the ICANN' board's decisions regarding the future of the GA, I agree that if
> the GA proves to be extremely docile and unwilling to criticize the board on
> important points, it may rise in the eyes of those board members who cannot
> tolerate criticism.  It will also lose respect among those who see the GA as
> a forum for telling truth to power.  People will have different views on how
> to make the tradeoff.   People who disagree with the motion can vote against
> it.  At this point, a decision to not permit a vote will be interpreted,
> perhaps wrongly, that the ICANN leadership, including the GA Chair, believe
> the motion would pass.  In fact, I have no idea if the motion would pass or
> fail.  Finally, Thomas's comments make it clear that the motion doesn't
> suffer from lack of procedure, but is opposed on the grounds that it crosses
> the line in terms of what is considered acceptable discourse.  So this
> debate is both about the substance of the motion, and the issue of where (or
> how) this line is drawn.

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:38:45 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

- --=======2A846ACC=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3; boundary="=====================_9598068==_.ALT"

- --=====================_9598068==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Asaad,
proposing a response to a 4 years old question, when half the problem has 
been identified by Lynn as actually the wording of the question, calls for 
the question to be reworded. There is today no response to Lynn by the BoD.

There is absolutely no interest in providing any response until the final 
question has not been worded. Also, once reworded in today's wording, there 
will be a need to check that the ICANN format is appropriate or not. We are 
not interested, IMHO, in the ICANN interests, but in having the job 
properly done to our own best interests. I only wish that the ICANN 
no-members share that target and that our common interests are also their 
interest: today I have no element telling this is not the case.

But we all have elements showing us that the situation is confuse: only a 
clean sheet restart may permit us to work efficiently. ICANN loyally tried 
it with the ALSC. Lynn has acknowledged it was not enough. The only 
escalation is the DoC. We need the DoC to speak-up, clearly. Only a rebid 
can oblige them to that.

The alternative is simple: the ICANN will carry no more interest. As one of 
the best support of the ICANN policy put it in the NCC: the complexity is 
not to manage the DNS, but to make believe they are entitled to do it. The 
ICANN is like a King living in selling nobility titles. To make a living it 
has to be credible enough and get support from it allies. If the DoC does 
not endorse it.... The Rebid is also a vote of Trust. There is a big 
difference between reconducting an agreement no one is pleased with, and 
granting a new agreement.
jfc

On 09:29 03/05/02, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:

>I agree with Marilyn & disagree with the vote as presented to us, all this 
>is obstruction of our ongoing work.
>
>If anyone is sincere enough, then first we should have a series of 
>discussions and second the recommended ballot should have first included 
>couple well thought alternatives, well thought implementation plan, 
>management feasibility study, planned funding plan, action items, 
>solutions, management structure & background qualification and so forth in 
>order to justify why that any new body will be better than ICANN, more 
>qualified or can be up to the global challenges.
>
>Further, the timeline posted is not reasonable at all and seems as bad as 
>the vote ballot itself.
>
>Maybe many of you don't agree with ICANN policy or strategy, maybe we have 
>grievances, some of us ccTLD managers have problems with ICANN's 
>decisions, but no one on the GA so far have even offered a logical ICANN 
>alternative or even suggested a qualified body to take on the task from 
>ICANN without disturbing our DNS operations.
>
>It is always very easy to blame others and start red herrings to obstruct 
>advancements, but it is very hard to recommend and deliver suitable 
>alternatives.
>Best Regards,
>
>Asaad Alnajjar
>CEO Millennium Inc.
>Executive Director AINC (<http://www.arabicdomainname.org>Arabic Internet 
>Names Consortium)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:[email-masked]>Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>John Palmer ; <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 PM
>Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>I disagree with the vote and think this a diversion from doing useful 
>work. Marilyn Cade
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Palmer [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:54 PM
>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>Ok Tom - thats 9 - Whats the magic number?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:[email-masked]>jefsey
>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this 
>motion to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such a 
>vote. May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC 
>list to be closed? This a real occasion if everyone shares in it. Like for 
>Plan B.
>jfc
>
>On 02:14 03/05/02, Joanna Lane said:
>
>>PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE  BELOW.
>>Mr. James Love, a member in good standing  of the DNSO's General 
>>Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically stating:
>>  "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 initial terms of reference 
>> 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."
>>Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger.
>>Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a Vote:-
>>    * James Love (Proponent)
>>    * John Palmer (Second)
>>    * Danny Younger (Second)
>>    * Jeanette Hoffman
>>    * Joanna Lane
>>    * Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>    * Karl Auerbach
>>    * .
>>    * .
>>
>>Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a Vote:-
>>
>>
>>---
>>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
>
>
>----------
>
>---
>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
>
>
>---
>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

- --=====================_9598068==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Dear Asaad,<br>
proposing a response to a 4 years old question, when half the problem has
been identified by Lynn as actually the wording of the question, calls
for the question to be reworded. There is today no response to Lynn by
the BoD. <br><br>
There is absolutely no interest in providing any response until the final
question has not been worded. Also, once reworded in today's wording,
there will be a need to check that the ICANN format is appropriate or
not. We are not interested, IMHO, in the ICANN interests, but in having
the job properly done to our own best interests. I only wish that the
ICANN no-members share that target and that our common interests are also
their interest: today I have no element telling this is not the case.
<br><br>
But we all have elements showing us that the situation is confuse: only a
clean sheet restart may permit us to work efficiently. ICANN loyally
tried it with the ALSC. Lynn has acknowledged it was not enough. The only
escalation is the DoC. We need the DoC to speak-up, clearly. Only a rebid
can oblige them to that.<br><br>
The alternative is simple: the ICANN will carry no more interest. As one
of the best support of the ICANN policy put it in the NCC: the complexity
is not to manage the DNS, but to make believe they are entitled to do it.
The ICANN is like a King living in selling nobility titles. To make a
living it has to be credible enough and get support from it allies. If
the DoC does not endorse it.... The Rebid is also a vote of Trust. There
is a big difference between reconducting an agreement no one is pleased
with, and granting a new agreement.<br>
jfc<br><br>
On 09:29 03/05/02, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. said:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">I
agree with Marilyn &amp; disagree with the vote as presented to us, all
this is obstruction of our ongoing work.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">If anyone is sincere
enough, then first we should have a series of discussions and second the
recommended ballot should have first included couple well thought
alternatives, well thought implementation plan, management feasibility
study, planned funding plan, action items, solutions, management
structure &amp; background qualification and so forth in order to justify
why that any new body will be better than ICANN, more qualified or can be
up to the global challenges.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">Further, the timeline
posted is not reasonable at all and seems as bad as the vote ballot
itself.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">Maybe many of you
don't agree with ICANN policy or strategy, maybe we have grievances, some
of us ccTLD managers have problems with ICANN's decisions, but no one on
the GA so far have even offered a logical ICANN alternative or even
suggested a qualified body to take on the task from ICANN without
disturbing our DNS operations.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">It is always very
easy to blame others and start red herrings to obstruct advancements, but
it is very hard to recommend and deliver suitable alternatives.
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">Best
Regards,</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">Asaad
Alnajjar</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">CEO Millennium
Inc.</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#800080">Executive Director
AINC (<a href="http://www.arabicdomainname.org">Arabic Internet Names
Consortium</a>)</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- 
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">Cade,Marilyn S - LGA</a> 
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">John Palmer</a> ;
<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> 
<dd>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:24 PM
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract<br><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">
<dd>I disagree with the vote and think this a diversion from doing useful
work. Marilyn Cade</font><font face="tahoma" size=2>
<dd>-----Original Message-----
<dd>From:</b> John Palmer
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<dd>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:54 PM
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract<br><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>
<dd>Ok Tom - thats 9 - Whats the magic number?</font>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- 
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">jefsey</a> 
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> 
<dd>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:37 PM
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN
contract<br><br>

<dd>I second all this. I suggest that the icannatlarge.com presents this
motion to its members and they register on the GA to participate to such
a vote. May be a good occasion to have the GA list taking overt the ALSC
list to be closed? This a real occasion if everyone shares in it. Like
for Plan B.
<dd>jfc<br><br>

<dd>On 02:14 03/05/02, Joanna Lane said:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>
<dd>PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE&nbsp; BELOW. </font><font size=2>
<dd>Mr. James Love, a member in good standing&nbsp; of the DNSO's General
Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically
stating:</font><font size=2>
<dd>&nbsp;&quot;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 initial
terms of reference 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.</b>
<dd>The vote should be taken within 10
days.&quot;</b></font><font size=2>
<dd>Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger. </font><font size=2>
<dd>Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a
Vote</b>:-</u> </font>
</dl>
<ol><font size=2>
<li>James Love (Proponent)</font> <font size=2>
<li>John Palmer (Second)</font> <font size=2>
<li>Danny Younger (Second)</font> <font size=2>
<li>Jeanette Hoffman</font> <font size=2>
<li>Joanna Lane</font> <font size=2>
<li>Sotiris Sotiropoulos</font> <font size=2>
<li>Karl Auerbach</font> <font size=2>
<li>.</font> <font size=2>
<li>.</font> 
</ol>&nbsp;<br>
<font size=2>Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a
Vote</b>:-</u> </font><br><br>
<br>
- ---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date:
19/04/02</blockquote><br>
<hr>
<br>
- ---<br>
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02<br><br>
<br>
- ---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date:
19/04/02</blockquote></html>

- --=====================_9598068==_.ALT--

- --=======2A846ACC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6F3AFE3
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

- --=======2A846ACC=======--

- --
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: Sat, 4 May 2002 17:17:00 +0200
From: "jeanette hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

On 3 May 2002, at 18:34, William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, May 03, 2002, 3:00:26 PM, jeanette hofmann wrote:
> 
> > I support a rebid not because I expect the DOC to generate or 
> > negotiate a better structure next time but rather because the 
> > current ICANN structure lacks any form of accountability. Rebids
> > might be a way of compensating for this severe shortcoming. In the
> > unlikely case that we succeed in achieving a rebid, ICANN's 
> > successor might be less indifferent with regard to proper procedure
> > and consensus assertions.
> 
> Which is all fine and dandy, but the GA is not the proper vehicle for
> it.

According to its bylaws ICANN has no members. There is no 
formally accepted At Large membership. What other channel for 
expressing distrust would you suggest?
Moreover, in Accra I have lost the belief in the healing 
power of substantive bottom-up structures within the current ICANN 
framework.  

jeanette

> All you would do is kill the GA permanently, with no chance of it
> being anything substantive from that point forward.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!  
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
> 

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

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 08:32:23 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

Saturday, May 04, 2002, 8:17:00 AM, jeanette hofmann wrote:

> On 3 May 2002, at 18:34, William X Walsh wrote:

>> Friday, May 03, 2002, 3:00:26 PM, jeanette hofmann wrote:
>> 
>> > I support a rebid not because I expect the DOC to generate or 
>> > negotiate a better structure next time but rather because the 
>> > current ICANN structure lacks any form of accountability. Rebids
>> > might be a way of compensating for this severe shortcoming. In the
>> > unlikely case that we succeed in achieving a rebid, ICANN's 
>> > successor might be less indifferent with regard to proper procedure
>> > and consensus assertions.
>> 
>> Which is all fine and dandy, but the GA is not the proper vehicle for
>> it.

> According to its bylaws ICANN has no members. There is no 
> formally accepted At Large membership. What other channel for 
> expressing distrust would you suggest?

Create a petition, form an organization, issue your own statements.

The GA is not the place for it.

> Moreover, in Accra I have lost the belief in the healing 
> power of substantive bottom-up structures within the current ICANN 
> framework.  

So that makes it ok to destroy the GA for those who do not want to
give up on the GA, because you have lost belief?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:19:46 +0200
From: "jeanette hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

On 4 May 2002, at 8:32, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, May 04, 2002, 8:17:00 AM, jeanette hofmann wrote:
> 
> > On 3 May 2002, at 18:34, William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> >> Friday, May 03, 2002, 3:00:26 PM, jeanette hofmann wrote:
> >> 
> >> > I support a rebid not because I expect the DOC to generate or
> >> > negotiate a better structure next time but rather because the
> >> > current ICANN structure lacks any form of accountability. Rebids
> >> > might be a way of compensating for this severe shortcoming. In
> >> > the unlikely case that we succeed in achieving a rebid, ICANN's
> >> > successor might be less indifferent with regard to proper
> >> > procedure and consensus assertions.
> >> 
> >> Which is all fine and dandy, but the GA is not the proper vehicle
> >> for it.
> 
> > According to its bylaws ICANN has no members. There is no 
> > formally accepted At Large membership. What other channel for 
> > expressing distrust would you suggest?
> 
> Create a petition, form an organization, issue your own statements.

 I have been a founding member of a body called NAIS that issued 
lots of statements. I don't feel any desire to repeat that procedure 
any time soon. 
> 
> The GA is not the place for it.
> 
> > Moreover, in Accra I have lost the belief in the healing 
> > power of substantive bottom-up structures within the current ICANN
> > framework.  
> 
> So that makes it ok to destroy the GA for those who do not want to
> give up on the GA, because you have lost belief?

Listen, it is your opinion that such a poll would destroy the GA not 
mine. I supported Jamie's motion and gave a reason why. That's 
all. 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Save Internet Radio!  
> CARP will kill Webcasting!
> http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1160
*************************