Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1162
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 6 2002             Volume 01 : Number 1162

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

Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 14:01:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

At 01:18 p.m. 4/05/2002 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>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.

Thanks for the pointer, Vittorio. 
http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=11

A number of substantive comments and proposals have been collected there.

The Forum front page: http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/index.php

Icannatlarge has now also made its facilities available for other DNSO 
related Polls.
There is now a special Forum "For DNSO use" .
GA members are free to register in the Forum, even if they are not 
registered as icannatlarge members.
This area is useful for collecting preliminary support for motions.

- --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: Sun, 05 May 2002 06:39:55 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I wish a vote

- --=======68EF6273=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4FC1D11; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request 
by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA 
wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
[ ] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the 
delegation of the IANA functions
[ ] I do not with the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of 
the IANA functions
thank you. 

- --=======68EF6273=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4FC1D11
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

- --=======68EF6273=======--

- --
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: Sun, 05 May 2002 06:48:19 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I wish a vote

- --=======50702E81=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4FC1D11; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request 
by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA 
wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
[x] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the 
delegation of the IANA functions
[  ] I do not wish the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of 
the IANA functions
thank you. 

- --=======50702E81=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4FC1D11
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

- --=======50702E81=======--

- --
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: Sun, 05 May 2002 15:22:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

At 03:29 p.m. 4/05/2002 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>>On 23:56 1/05/02 -0400, James Love said:
>>
>>>1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
>>
>>
>>The co-operation of the DNSO secretariat, where the voters' roll is held.
>
>Not so. The ga members can conduct their own poll any time they want to.
>All it takes is for the proponent to set it up, and with no "by-your-leave"
>from the DNSO Secretariat, the ga Chair, or anyone else. It's called a
>kind of "bottom up" that has no road blocks.

You said it.
But it needs a new voters' registration/sign up for the new polling instrument.
Two years ago (or is it already three?) such a proposal was flamed away by 
Alejandro Pisanti and Randy Bush.
Perhaps this time the time is (over)ripe for it.

- --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: Sun, 05 May 2002 04:36:04 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] I wish a vote

But of course my fine colleague,
May others show support

jefsey wrote:

> In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request
> by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA
> wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
> [ X] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the
> delegation of the IANA functions
> [ ] I do not with the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of
> the IANA functions
> thank you.
>

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: Sun, 5 May 2002 09:11:07 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I wish a vote

On 5/5/02 at 6:39 AM +0200, jefsey wrote the following :

>In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request
>by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA
>wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
>[x] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the
>delegation of the IANA functions
>[ ] I do not with the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of
>the IANA functions
>thank you.

The vote on the rebid of the delegation of the IANA functions is the
reason I signed back on to the ga list and ensured that my ga voters
registration was correct.

Darrell
- --
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: Sun, 05 May 2002 09:49:55 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I wish a vote

- --------------070703030800000304080008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey, hold on, Jefsey!  Some folks objected to the time for responding to 
the poll
being too short, so the timeline therefor was extended.  Joanna is 
tracking the results,
and when the time is up, she'll post the results.  I, too, suspect that 
the result will be
positive, and when so announced by Joanna, the "floor" will be open for 
Proposals,
of which yours below I am sure will be more than welcome. So I'm 
suggesting only
that your post is slightly premature.

By my interpretation of your expression below, and that made earlier by 
James Love,
the two are not inconsistent and say much the same thing in different 
words. Upon
Recognition of both of them, there is a generous time period during 
which the
relative merits can be Debated, and there may be a fusing of the two 
into a new
suggested Proposal, or who knows? In any event, there is now a defined 
mechanism
being played out that satisfies the truly imperative need to demonstrate 
not just to
the Chair but to the entirety of the [email-masked], that consensus has 
been reached
on the matter of presenting one or mor formal Motions to the Chair and 
then to
the DNSO Secretariat. Assuming that the Debate on these Proposals yields 
one
or more Motions on which the wording has been settled (we don't want the 
Chair to
be burdened with last minute amendments), the Chair (one may assume) 
will formally
request of the DNSO Secretariat that a formal vote be set up in 
accordance with
existing ICANN procedures.

This procedure should accomplish two things: (1) meet the previous 
objection made
by the Chair (and rightly so, in my opinion) that the "Motion" presented 
by James Love
had not undergone enough Discussion or Debate to be voted upon in any 
meaningful
manner (under Best Practices terminology, the "Motion" lacked adequate 
Basis); and
(2) demonstrate a level and amount of Discussion and Debate which 
yielded final
agreement (i.e., consensus) on the wording of one or more Motions to be 
submitted.
Any vote must ultimately demonstrate a meaningful consensus it it is be 
accorded any
credibility, and the only way to do that is to conduct these things in a 
systematic way.

I should add that a part of being systematic is that no more than one 
poll on some
specific issue should be run at the same time.  Your entry below 
essentially duplicates
the poll now being run by Joanna to which you refer, and I suggest we 
stick with
the one now in process.

Bill Lovell

jefsey wrote:

> In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that 
> request by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what 
> the GA wants. So, please kindly reply to the GA list:
> [ ] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the 
> delegation of the IANA functions
> [ ] I do not with the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation 
> of the IANA functions
> thank you.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---
>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
>

- --------------070703030800000304080008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Hey, hold on, Jefsey! &nbsp;Some folks objected to the time for responding to
the poll<br>
being too short, so the timeline therefor was extended. &nbsp;Joanna is tracking
the results,<br>
and when the time is up, she'll post the results. &nbsp;I, too, suspect that the
result will be<br>
positive, and when so announced by Joanna, the "floor" will be open for Proposals,<br>
of which yours below I am sure will be more than welcome. So I'm suggesting
only<br>
that your post is slightly premature. <br>
<br>
By my interpretation of your expression below, and that made earlier by James
Love,<br>
the two are not inconsistent and say much the same thing in different words.
Upon<br>
Recognition of both of them, there is a generous time period during which
the<br>
relative merits can be Debated, and there may be a fusing of the two into
a new<br>
suggested Proposal, or who knows? In any event, there is now a defined mechanism<br>
being played out that satisfies the truly imperative need to demonstrate
not just to<br>
the Chair but to the entirety of the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>, that consensus has been
reached<br>
on the matter of presenting one or mor formal Motions to the Chair and then
to<br>
the DNSO Secretariat. Assuming that the Debate on these Proposals yields
one <br>
or more Motions on which the wording has been settled (we don't want the
Chair to <br>
be burdened with last minute amendments), the Chair (one may assume) will
formally <br>
request of the DNSO Secretariat that a <i>formal</i> vote be set up in accordance
with<br>
existing ICANN procedures. <br>
<br>
This procedure should accomplish two things: (1) meet the previous objection
made<br>
by the Chair (and rightly so, in my opinion) that the "Motion" presented
by James Love<br>
had not undergone enough Discussion or Debate to be voted upon in any meaningful<br>
manner (under Best Practices terminology, the "Motion" lacked adequate Basis);
and<br>
(2) demonstrate a level and amount of Discussion and Debate which yielded
final<br>
agreement (i.e., consensus) on the wording of one or more Motions to be submitted.<br>
Any vote must ultimately demonstrate a meaningful consensus it it is be accorded
any<br>
credibility, and the only way to do that is to conduct these things in a
systematic way.<br>
<br>
I should add that a part of being systematic is that no more than one poll
on some<br>
specific issue should be run at the same time. &nbsp;Your entry below essentially
duplicates<br>
the poll now being run by Joanna to which you refer, and I suggest we stick
with<br>
the one now in process.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
jefsey wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
In spite of the fact that nine Members have already seconded that request
 by James Love, it seems there is a need to show our Chair what the GA  wants.
So, please kindly reply to the GA list: <br>
[ ] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the  delegation
of the IANA functions <br>
[ ] I do not with the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of
 the IANA functions <br>
thank you.  
  <pre wrap=""><br><hr width="90%" size="4"><br><br>---<br>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<br>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02<br></pre>
  </blockquote>
  <br>
  </body>
  </html>

- --------------070703030800000304080008--

- --
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: Sun, 05 May 2002 09:52:45 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

Joop:

You may well be exactly right, but you might refresh us on the details.
Does that mean we all re-subscribe to [email-masked] or what?

Bill Lovell

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 03:29 p.m. 4/05/2002 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>
>> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>
>>> On 23:56 1/05/02 -0400, James Love said:
>>>
>>>> 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The co-operation of the DNSO secretariat, where the voters' roll is 
>>> held.
>>
>>
>> Not so. The ga members can conduct their own poll any time they want to.
>> All it takes is for the proponent to set it up, and with no 
>> "by-your-leave"
>> from the DNSO Secretariat, the ga Chair, or anyone else. It's called a
>> kind of "bottom up" that has no road blocks.
>
>
> You said it.
> But it needs a new voters' registration/sign up for the new polling 
> instrument.
> Two years ago (or is it already three?) such a proposal was flamed 
> away by Alejandro Pisanti and Randy Bush.
> Perhaps this time the time is (over)ripe for it.
>
>
> --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: Sun, 5 May 2002 12:10:51 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

Sunday, May 05, 2002, 9:52:45 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Joop:

> You may well be exactly right, but you might refresh us on the details.
> Does that mean we all re-subscribe to [email-masked] or what?

He means that you have to go resign up for his little polling booth,
and then he will run the polls he thinks are appropriate, replacing
his judgement for the GA chair's.

- -- 
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: Sun, 5 May 2002 15:48:33 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the system
set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.  These are not binding
measures to begin with, and so having a record of what people support or
oppose is useful, by itself.  Also, one can imagine that a person could be
in favor of more than one motion that deals with similiar topics.   For
example, I could be in favor if a rebid, but also in favor of some specific
recommendations to the Committee on Reform.  Also, people will vote in favor
of (or opposed to) the rebid issue,  for differnent reasons.

Also, it is my understanding that to register to vote in the GA, you go
here.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

It appears as though many of the active GA posters are not now on the
official voting registry....Probably because the GA has only taken about 2
votes on matters of substance since it was created, and many persons have
not taken the time to learn how to register.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> Neither of these, I'd suggest.  The problem with (1) is that if
> two or more of the resolutions on the ballot are essentially similar, they
> may split the vote so that neither gets a majority, even though a
> substantial majority of the body in fact favors at least one of them.
> The problem with (2) is that the IRV system we use for candidate elections
> is designed with the goal of producing a winner in every election.
> That's not good for this sort of issue poll, since it may be we are so
> fragmented that there is *no* position that a majority supports -- in that
> case, there should be no winner.  My suggestion:  Allow members to vote
> yes/no on *each* resolution, and then see if any of the resolutions
> capture a substantial majority of those voting.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 5 May 2002 22:20:32 +0100
From: "Chris January" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I wish a vote

> [x] I wish the GA to debate and to take a vote on the rebid of the
> delegation of the IANA functions
> [  ] I do not wish the GA to take a vote on the rebid of the delegation of
> the IANA functions

- --
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: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:15:28 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Comments on policy development recommendations

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0121_01C1F4E6.F228CC60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thomas, thanks for your comments.
With regard to the role of a general assembly in a future structure you =
rightly describe the role of the GA as either:
1. Serve as a channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into =
the constituency scheme can still participate in policy-making. =20
2. Provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange.=20

You also call for definition of what new constituencies could be =
possible.  But if that problem is solved then role number 1 of a GA is =
redundant.

Are not the tasks:
1. Define missing stakeholders and integrate them into the NC
2. Have a GA of all these stakeholders as a "forum for broad =
inter-constituency exchange".=20
3. Have in addition a means of public comment and input for any one who =
feels left out.

The GA has never worked as a "forum for broad inter-constituency =
exchange" because it tried to be "a channel by which individuals and =
parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can still participate =
in policy-making".   If we are clever, we can meet both needs in a more =
elegant way.

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0121_01C1F4E6.F228CC60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thomas, thanks for your comments.<BR>With regard to =
the role=20
of a general assembly in a future structure you rightly describe the =
role of the=20
GA as either:<BR><FONT color=3D#0000ff>1. Serve as a channel by which =
individuals=20
and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can still =
participate in=20
policy-making.&nbsp; <BR>2. Provide a forum for broad inter-constituency =

exchange. <BR></FONT><BR>You also call for definition of what new =
constituencies=20
could be possible.&nbsp; But if that problem is solved then role number =
1 of a=20
GA is redundant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR>Are not the tasks:<BR>1. Define missing =
stakeholders and=20
integrate them into the NC<BR>2. Have a GA of all these stakeholders as =
a "forum=20
for broad inter-constituency exchange". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3. Have in addition a means of public comment and =
input for=20
any one who feels left out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The GA has never worked as a "forum for broad=20
inter-constituency exchange" because it tried to&nbsp;be "a channel by =
which=20
individuals and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can =
still=20
participate in policy-making".&nbsp;&nbsp; If we are clever, we can meet =
both=20
needs in a more elegant way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0121_01C1F4E6.F228CC60--

- --
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 #1162
*************************