Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1163
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 7 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1163

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

Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 14:59:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: GA input on WLS submitted to transfer TF

- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

FYI.  I just sent this to the transfer task force.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 14:58:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: GA input on WLS
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

To the Transfer TF: On behalf of the GA, I'd like to ask the Task  
Force to pay particular attention to the aspects of deleted domain  
handling and the WLS proposal described below.  Most what's  
mentioned below is not new, and has been said elsewhere before.

Regards, Thomas Roessler

(Chairman, DNSO GA)

<bold>1. Impact on competition between registrars.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper regarding the proposed Wait Listing Service; GA
feedback submitted to Verisign.</italic>)

<indent>

Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a
registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.
Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the
domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the
same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription
is made through a different registrar, nothing happens.

Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:
If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is
not available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.

Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which
would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and -
at sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other
registrars) could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for
registering an expired domain.  It would also skew competition
between registrars as far as registrations of these domains are
concerned - effectively, potential registrants would be forced to go
to the "old" registrar.

The conclusion from this scenario would be to hold up WLS until the
hoarding problem has been solved (1) on the policy, and (2) on the
implementation side, i.e., until the currently-hoarded domain names
have been released to the public.

</indent>

<bold>2. Grandfathering current subscriptions.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper; GA feedback submitted to Verisign; VGRS
response to General Counsel's Analysis.</italic>)

<indent>

In the earlier GA response, and the Registrar Constituency's
position, there are concerns on the impact an implementation of the
WLS proposal may have with respect to those who are currently
offering special services aimed at registering deleted domain names.
In particular, it is noted that only current SnapNames subscriptions
are grandfathered.

In its response to General Counsel's analysis, VGRS writes:
<italic>"Regarding the possible exclusions of names associated with
other deleted name registration services, VGRS only proposed
excluding SnapNames names because VGRS is not aware of any other
paid-up contracts on specific, identifiable names providing for
reasonable customer expectations and thereby opening up the door to
potential lawsuits."</italic>

The GA's members are not convinced by this argument, and ask the
Task Force to investigate the impact an implementation of the WLS
proposal under the conditions currently suggested may have on
legitimate interests of existing deleted name registration services,
such as eNom, NicGenie, IARegistry, AWRegistry, Signature Domains,
INWW, OnlineNic, AddressCreation, AllDomains, EastCom, PayCenter,
ExpireFish.  

</indent>

<bold>3. Background material</bold>

<indent>

<bold>*</bold> Verisign GRS material on the proposal:
<underline>http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html</underline>

<bold>*</bold> Registrar Constituency comments:
<undderline>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01524.html</underline>

<bold>*</bold> General Assembly comments:
<underline>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01355.html</underline>

<bold>*</bold> ICANN councel's analysis of the WLS proposal:
<underline>http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm</underline>

<bold>*</bold> Verisign's response:
<underline>http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm</underline>

</indent>

- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--
- --
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 10:20:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion:  One-person/One-vote

Thomas,

The General Assembly is a meeting place for the membership of the DNSO.   
It's role should be substantially more than merely (1) serving as a channel 
by which individuals and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can 
still participate in policy-making, or (2) providing a forum for broad 
inter-constituency exchange. 
 
The broad membership of the DNSO (the GA) should ratify each and every 
decision reached by the Steering Council (the NC) through a membership-wide 
vote.  There is not one policy recommendation that should leave the DNSO 
without the full ratification of the complete membership.  
"One-person/One-vote" is the only legitimate check on the abusive powers of a 
Council that does not fully represent the complete membership of this 
organization.

Let's restore true democracy to the DNSO.
- --
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 16:31:19 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Role of GA

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0151_01C1F51B.739EE5C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny, if you believe the "Council ... does not fully represent the =
complete membership of this=20
organization", then isn't the solution to make the Council =
representative rather than attempt to forge the GA into something it =
isn't?

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0151_01C1F51B.739EE5C0
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>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, if you believe the <FONT =
color=3D#0000ff>"</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D3><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Council ... does not fully =
represent the=20
complete membership of this <BR>organization"</FONT>, =
</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>then isn't the solution to make the Council representative =
rather than=20
attempt to forge the GA into something it isn't?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3></FONT><BR>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0151_01C1F51B.739EE5C0--

- --
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 11:05:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Role of GA

Philip,

By definition the GA is already the complete and full membership of the DNSO 
(that many constituency members choose not to actively participate in either 
their own constituencies or the GA does not diminish their rights as members 
to cast a vote to ratify the decisions of the group they have elected to 
join).  

Democracy is a wonderful institution and I prefer to solve our problems by 
giving each DNSO member the right to vote to ratify Steering Council 
decisions, rather than to continue denying them the right to vote while you 
pursue non-democratic alternatives.

You have nothing to fear from such democratic voting.  If the Council does a 
good job formulating policies that reflect the consensus views of the broad 
membership, then all Council decisions will be ratified by the 
One-person/One-vote mechanism.  If they aren't ratified, then this is 
indicative of the fact that more work is yet required.  

Checks and balances are important in any organization.  A democratic vote 
functions as such.  I see no drawbacks to a pure democratic voting process 
that involves the entirety of the membership of the DNSO.  Do you?
- --
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 17:18:24 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Role of GA

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01C1F522.07A2FDA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny, you say "many constituency members choose not to actively =
participate in either their own constituencies or the GA ..."

This should not be dismissed. The reasons for this choice is what we =
should be trying to fix. The absence of the "many" suggests a flaw in =
your democratic aspiration.=20

Philip

=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01C1F522.07A2FDA0
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>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, you say "many constituency members choose not =
to=20
actively participate in either their own constituencies or the GA=20
..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>This should not be dismissed. The reasons =
for&nbsp;this choice=20
is what we should be trying to fix. The absence of the "many" suggests a =
flaw in=20
your democratic aspiration.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01C1F522.07A2FDA0--

- --
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 11:54:10 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Role of GA

Philip,

You are correct that we should be trying to fix the problem of limited active 
participation.  But as earlier votes conducted by the GA prove, "non-active" 
members still participate through the voting process (and usually there are 
more non-active voters than active members).  These are the people that study 
and evaluate the comments of others and make informed decisions when a vote 
is called.

Just because they don't participate within a list environment does not mean 
that they have any less of a right to vote in our institution.  They are our 
members whether they contribute to forum discussion or not.

There is no "flaw" in the democratic aspiration.  Not all that are conferred 
the right to vote choose to exercise that right on every occasion, but they 
have such rights nonetheless.  

I wish to guarantee that every member of the DNSO has the right to vote to 
ratify the decisions of the group.  Will you act to support such democratic 
rights, or do you prefer a non-democratic model?
- --
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, 06 May 2002 17:59:56 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Role of GA

- --=======64807187=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-38072BB4; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Philip,
I think we could use the experience of the EEC parliament. They use to vote 
by lists of questions. We could easily have all the position taken by the 
NC listed on one ballot (two lines and an URL) and people having to cross 
yes or not or to respond Y, N, B to a numbered line. Anyone cad develop the 
necessary tool.

This would be a way to speed up decisions. Motivate the GA and give more 
interest into the NC. There is no reason why the NC would be considered as 
an adversary by the GA. I know that everyone is afraid of democracy, to 
some extent with reasons (nobody know which fool is the other), but we all 
believe itis the least worst and globally efficient. Again here we do not 
want representativity, but to make sure we benefit from a diversified 
selection to make sure every type of interest had a say.
jfc

At 17:05 06/05/02, [email-masked] wrote:

>Philip,
>
>By definition the GA is already the complete and full membership of the DNSO
>(that many constituency members choose not to actively participate in either
>their own constituencies or the GA does not diminish their rights as members
>to cast a vote to ratify the decisions of the group they have elected to
>join).
>
>Democracy is a wonderful institution and I prefer to solve our problems by
>giving each DNSO member the right to vote to ratify Steering Council
>decisions, rather than to continue denying them the right to vote while you
>pursue non-democratic alternatives.
>
>You have nothing to fear from such democratic voting.  If the Council does a
>good job formulating policies that reflect the consensus views of the broad
>membership, then all Council decisions will be ratified by the
>One-person/One-vote mechanism.  If they aren't ratified, then this is
>indicative of the fact that more work is yet required.
>
>Checks and balances are important in any organization.  A democratic vote
>functions as such.  I see no drawbacks to a pure democratic voting process
>that involves the entirety of the membership of the DNSO.  Do you?
>--
>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

- --=======64807187=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-38072BB4
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

- --=======64807187=======--

- --
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 12:46:14 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Role of the GA

Philip,

I appreciate the fact that the Council is finally willing to discuss the role 
of the GA in the DNSO, and I would point you to the "Vote on motion for the 
DNSO/GA Reorganization" which was passed by the membership on 30 October 2001:

Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organisation Formation Concepts (adopted 
by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should 
periodically review the status of the constituency groups to deteremine 
whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented".

Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their 
concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently 
representative

Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied 
internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to 
sufficiently address these concerns

It is therefore

RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:

1. Members of the General Assembly believe that the DNSO dysfunctionality 
requires direct ICANN Board intervention.

2. The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being 
placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council and creating a 
bicameral DNSO.

3. The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the 
DNSO/GA to perform its functions.

4. The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropiate funding 
model to support its activities.

5. The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be filled 
by a representative voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)

6. The General Assemnly seeks to have both an Advocate and a Consensus 
Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary control and 
responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as 
originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and consensus 
building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to facilitate the 
entry of thus far unrepresentated constituencies. 

As the Council has committed itself to reviewing all reform proposals (GA, 
ccTLD and others), I look forward to your discussion on the views held by the 
GA membership as enumerated within the text of this adopted motion.

- --
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, 06 May 2002 18:38:18 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Who Owns the 32-bit IPv4 Address Space ?

- --=======49843FD3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5957EEF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I suppose Jim will not mind me forwarding this question to the GA?
I am extermely interested. jfc

At 17:33 06/05/02, Jim Fleming wrote:
>http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg13271.html
>"IP renumbering timeframe"
>http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg13287.html
>"...I thought the space belongs to ARIN..."
>http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg13291.html
>"...most ISPs are registries..."
>Who Owns the 32-bit IPv4 Address Space ?
>What is the 32-bit IPv4 Address Space worth ?
>Are ISPs registries ?
>Are AT&T, IBM, Apple, HP, etc. Registries ?
>How do people and companies buy blocks of 32-bit IPv4 Address Space ?
>Where do they buy it ?....what does it cost ?

- --=======49843FD3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5957EEF
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

- --=======49843FD3=======--

- --
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: Tue, 07 May 2002 07:15:26 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Role of GA

On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:31:19 +0200, "Philip Sheppard"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Danny, if you believe the "Council ... does not fully represent the complete membership of this 
>organization", then isn't the solution to make the Council representative rather than attempt to forge the GA into something it isn't?

The problem with this Philip is how does one decide the weighting of
representation at the Council?  Just adding on a small business and a
registrants constituency would help but I struggle with the notion
that all constituencies automatically have the same number of Council
seats as one could have anywhere between 4 and 15 constituencies
depending how you sub-divide some groups.

Should Council representation be tied to how much one pays to ICANN?
how many active members the constituency has? how many people a
constituency indirectly represents etc?

The one person one vote proposal has some appeal as any other division
of representation is arbitrary or worse.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 22:40:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Slashdot.

Alexander found this.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/04/1839234

>Register to Vote on Rebid of ICANN Contracts
>
>The Internet
>
>Posted by michael on 02-05-04 19:48 from the no-confidence dept.
>
>James Love writes "After a difficult debate, a body within ICANN, 
>the DNSO "General Assembly," has agreed to hold a vote on whether or 
>not to ask the US Department of Commerce to rebid its contracts with 
>ICANN. A rebid would provide an opportunity for the public to reject 
>the current Lynn/ICANN/Staff/Board proposal for reorganization, and 
>to consider also alternatives to ICANN, including those that would 
>be more accountable, less coercive and considerably less ambitious 
>in terms of exercising control over the Internet. It appears as 
>though this vote will be held the week of May 13-17. The ICANN DNSO 
>General Assembly has historically been a forum for talking about 
>ICANN issues, but it has no actual power, and rarely permits votes 
>on substantive issue. Indeed, since its creation, there have been 
>only 11 votes, just two of which involved policy issues. Anyone can 
>register to vote in these elections, which are not binding on ICANN, 
>but in this case would be timely and important, and could persuade 
>the US Department of Commerce to get serious about dealing with an 
>out of control ICANN. Go here to register to vote." There's a bunch 
>of debate on this in the list archives of the DNSO mailing list.

- -- 
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: Mon, 06 May 2002 16:47:28 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Role of GA

DPF wrote:

>On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:31:19 +0200, "Philip Sheppard"
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>Danny, if you believe the "Council ... does not fully represent the complete membership of this 
>>organization", then isn't the solution to make the Council representative rather than attempt to forge the GA into something it isn't?
>>
>
>The problem with this Philip is how does one decide the weighting of
>representation at the Council?  Just adding on a small business and a
>registrants constituency would help but I struggle with the notion
>that all constituencies automatically have the same number of Council
>seats as one could have anywhere between 4 and 15 constituencies
>depending how you sub-divide some groups.
>
>Should Council representation be tied to how much one pays to ICANN?
>how many active members the constituency has? how many people a
>constituency indirectly represents etc?
>
>The one person one vote proposal has some appeal as any other division
>of representation is arbitrary or worse.
>
My sentiments exactly.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 06 May 2002 23:30:48 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Watching the voting registry

Dear all,

I'm increasingly worried that some people are not so 
much interested in what the GA thinks about the rebid,
rather in getting a GA vote and then getting new people
to register for the GA voting registry. The voting
registry is suddenly filling with new entries in
a few days.

http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
5 May 2002: 505 entries.
6 May 2002: 527 entries (last time I looked).

Which is an increase by almost twenty percent since
the last GA vote on 4 January 2002.
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b11.rosterindex.html
Since then, we suddenly have 85 new entries in the 
voting registry, of which 92.9% are from the US.
Now, more than half of the voting registry consists
of entries from the USA. The optimist would call
this outreach which is great and welcome. The pessimist
would call it a great way to show how fragile the
current GA structures are if you try to push hard.

"Go here to register to vote." 
http://slashdot.org/yro/02/05/04/1839234.shtml?tid=95

"To register to vote in the GA, go here."
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=709&mode=&order=0&thold=0

"To register to vote, go here"
http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002187.html

Best regards,
/// 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: Mon, 06 May 2002 23:51:17 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] sweet US

- --=======42E4262D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67F64DC6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/176371.html 

- --=======42E4262D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67F64DC6
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

- --=======42E4262D=======--

- --
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, 06 May 2002 23:59:23 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Slashdot.

- --=======7A151F0D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67F64DC6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thx, I will translate it. Jfc

On 22:40 06/05/02, Thomas Roessler said:

>Alexander found this.
>
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/04/1839234
>
>>Register to Vote on Rebid of ICANN Contracts
>>
>>The Internet
>>
>>Posted by michael on 02-05-04 19:48 from the no-confidence dept.
>>
>>James Love writes "After a difficult debate, a body within ICANN, the 
>>DNSO "General Assembly," has agreed to hold a vote on whether or not to 
>>ask the US Department of Commerce to rebid its contracts with ICANN. A 
>>rebid would provide an opportunity for the public to reject the current 
>>Lynn/ICANN/Staff/Board proposal for reorganization, and to consider also 
>>alternatives to ICANN, including those that would be more accountable, 
>>less coercive and considerably less ambitious in terms of exercising 
>>control over the Internet. It appears as though this vote will be held 
>>the week of May 13-17. The ICANN DNSO General Assembly has historically 
>>been a forum for talking about ICANN issues, but it has no actual power, 
>>and rarely permits votes on substantive issue. Indeed, since its 
>>creation, there have been only 11 votes, just two of which involved 
>>policy issues. Anyone can register to vote in these elections, which are 
>>not binding on ICANN, but in this case would be timely and important, and 
>>could persuade the US Department of Commerce to get serious about dealing 
>>with an out of control ICANN. Go here to register to vote." There's a 
>>bunch of debate on this in the list archives of the DNSO mailing list.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>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

- --=======7A151F0D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-67F64DC6
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

- --=======7A151F0D=======--

- --
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 18:20:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry

Alexander writes:  "The voting registry is suddenly filling with new entries 
in a few days."

This is great news, and perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the "Town 
Hall meeting" where members of the Community come in to register their 
satisfaction or discontent over issues under discussion.  Readers of 
ICANNwatch, the NCDNHC list and Slashdot are sufficiently attuned to 
activities within ICANN, and for many who otherwise either have no vote or 
will soon lose their vote (like the NCDNHC which is scheduled to be deprived 
of its voting rights on or around May 13) this is an opportunity to express 
their views.  

By the way, how does depriving the Non-Commercial Constituency of their right 
to vote accord with working to make the Council more "representative"?  
Perhaps Mr. Sheppard could comment on that point...
- --
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 18:21:37 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry

Maybe the leaders of the GA could write up something abut the vote, and tell
people how to register, and post in places where people who might be
interested in voting, could read it......  That would actually expand the
number of people who would vote.  If they want, they could do this in
several languages, and post it in different places.  527 voters doesn't seem
like the universe to me, particularly since many of these are probably
people who have not been active in this list for a long time.

jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: [ga] Watching the voting registry

>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm increasingly worried that some people are not so
> much interested in what the GA thinks about the rebid,
> rather in getting a GA vote and then getting new people
> to register for the GA voting registry. The voting
> registry is suddenly filling with new entries in
> a few days.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
> 5 May 2002: 505 entries.
> 6 May 2002: 527 entries (last time I looked).
>
> Which is an increase by almost twenty percent since
> the last GA vote on 4 January 2002.
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b11.rosterindex.html
> Since then, we suddenly have 85 new entries in the
> voting registry, of which 92.9% are from the US.
> Now, more than half of the voting registry consists
> of entries from the USA. The optimist would call
> this outreach which is great and welcome. The pessimist
> would call it a great way to show how fragile the
> current GA structures are if you try to push hard.
>
> "Go here to register to vote."
> http://slashdot.org/yro/02/05/04/1839234.shtml?tid=95
>
> "To register to vote in the GA, go here."
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=709&mode=&order=0&thold=0
>
> "To register to vote, go here"
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-May/002187.html
>
> Best regards,
> /// 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
>
>
>

- --
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, 06 May 2002 15:32:17 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> The optimist would call this outreach which is great and welcome. The
> pessimist would call it a great way to show how fragile the current GA
> structures are if you try to push hard.

The pragmatist might say that no outreach is better than having an issue
important enough to cause people to get involved. Maybe this is one. We saw
the same thing earlier this year with the Waiting List Service; several
people joined the GA just to oppose that iniative.

Personally, I'd rather let the current conversation on ICANN Reform play out
before deciding whether to ask the DOC for a rebid, but I don't see the harm
in taking a straw poll or having a vote.

      -- Bret

- --
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 #1163
*************************