Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1166
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1166

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:17:01 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is the GA?

Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 8:08:25 AM, James Love wrote:

> I'm not quite sure if I understand the offense that Thomas, Alexander,
> William and a few others have taken to encouraging  people to register to
> vote in the GA.   When Thomas announced he would allow a vote on the rebid,
> I checked and found out that I wasn't registered to vote, even though I have
> been on this list for years.  Lots of other people who post aren't listed as
> voters, and also lots of people who don't enjoy the daily bickering on the
> GA list but have participated in the GA in the f2f meetings.  I assumed the

The fact is that when the GA was created and voting rules were
determined, that the requirement to be considered a valid voter was
that you be a member of the GA list and/or a recognized constituency
list, as well as register in the voter registry.

This is not a "democracy" Jamie.  The GA rules are clear that it runs
by consensus, and that votes are meant to be a measure of whether
consensus exists.  That means that a vote of 50% + 1 for instance
would not be passed on as a consensus conclusion of the GA.

The GA is a body, it's not simply a collection of people who want to
vote on things.

- -- 
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: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:20:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is the GA?

Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 8:08:25 AM, James Love wrote:

> been on this list for years.  Lots of other people who post aren't listed as
> voters, and also lots of people who don't enjoy the daily bickering on the
> GA list but have participated in the GA in the f2f meetings.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons who want to be
members of that assembly. At present, this includes "ex-officio" the
subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants to the DNSO
Constituencies and the participants to the Working Groups.

A Member has the right to vote in a GA vote. 
All members who wish to vote in a GA vote must register with the GA
voting registry.

- -- 
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: Tue, 07 May 2002 08:29:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

"democratic, transparent, and respects human rights."

"a non-corrupt, democratic way."

Are those descriptions of ICANN?  I ask not by way of what the
MOU says, but rather by way of the actual performance of ICANN
over the years. If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
should favor one.

The quotations above are from solemn and serious commentary
on what would be hoped to be characteristic features of the
impending new State of Palestine.  Now if the Israeli - Palestinian
conflict that has been going on for decades can be resolved into
that kind of solution, surely we who live in the virtual world of the
Internet should demand nothing less.

Bill Lovell

- --
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, 7 May 2002 10:45:47 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] What is the GA?

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of James Love
>
> When Thomas announced he would allow a vote on the rebid,
> I checked and found out that I wasn't registered to vote, even though I have
> been on this list for years.

That's just one anomaly of the GA. You can discuss and not be registered to
vote. You can register and vote, but not read the discussions. It's something
that all find out that really read ... uh, read where?

> Maybe an endless capacity to read email from an ICANN listserve is
> the true test of someone qualified to express opinions on ICANN. Sort of
> an endurance test?

Yes, an endurance test. But it would be good for those planning on voting
to at least read - if not participate in - the discussion. I don't think
any of those that have pointed out the need for dual registration are saying
that anyone shouldn't vote. They are just pointing to the requirements.

- -Hugh
- --
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, 7 May 2002 16:52:50 -0100
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Watching the voting registry

I totally agree with Marc's eternally sane comments here. I have a real
problem with the suggestion that the recent increase in the voting registry
is in some way bad. Whichever way you look at it, suggesting that this
increase is bad is tantamount to saying that some (undefined) group of
people have the right to determine who can and can't vote in the GA. It
seems to me that those who are suggesting some dark motive behind the
increase in the voting registry are only really concerned that their own
position may not prevail in a vote on whether or not to rebid for ICANN's
services.

May I respectfully suggest to those of you who have argued that calling for
this vote is in some way "wrong" and that the increase in the voting
registry is in some way "sinister" that, as Marc suggests, you get out there
and campaign for the continuation of ICANN in something evolved from it's
current form. I am afraid that you may find this quite hard - but at least
no-one will be able to accuse you of trying to perpetuate the current system
by suggesting that some people newly interested in ICANN issues don't have
the right to vote on the major issue of the moment which is what is the best
structure for DNS governance.

To suggest that solutions can only evolve form the current structure (rather
than accept that the current structure may actually be the cause of the
problem) seems perverse to me; and if this really is a minority opinion,
then that will become clear in a vote.

andy duff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
> Schneiders
> Sent: 07 May 2002 12:54
> Cc: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry
>
>
> The discussion about calls to register votes seems to me to go nowhere for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. I sense a different attitude to this on both sides of the Atlantic
> Ocean, caused by the ways in which voting registries for national
> elections work (as far as I know) in the US and Europe. In the US one has
> to register in order to vote. Winning elections means in part making
> your potential voters register.
>
> 2. There is no way out of this. During the At Large elections of 2002 we
> saw campaigns to register for the elections in Asia and the German
> language area in Europe, which resulted in an unbalanced electorate.
> Outcries against this are no help. Go get your own voters in, I would
> say. Protests etc. are only legitimate if there is fraud, e.g. people
> registering several times with different names/email addresses.
>
> Those who read Slashdot _are_ interested. They do not have to read the
> bylaws of ICANN in order to vote. Most voters in my country have never
> read the Constitution, and do not even know much about what is in it. I do
> see that it is a good idea to inform people that one tries to get into
> registering into the issues. Politicians do that too. Naturally from their
> own perspective. If you have a different perspective from Jamie Love, tell
> that on Slashdot too?
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 7 May 2002 08:55:37 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 8:29:32 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Are those descriptions of ICANN?  I ask not by way of what the
> MOU says, but rather by way of the actual performance of ICANN
> over the years. If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
> Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
> if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
> should favor one.

That is not why someone should vote against this "motion."

This motion should be voted against because it is an inappropriate use
of the DNSO General Assembly and would permanently render the GA
useless as a body.

Those voting for this motion are really voting for the death of the
General Assembly.

You should vote against this motion whether you support a rebid or
not.

And if you support a rebid, you should join a coordinated effort to
get that message out.  You should not let yourself be a party to Jamie
Love's attempt to try and get a media victory over ICANN by
embarrassing it with a vote like this in its own DNSO GA, and in so
doing, rendering the GA permanently ineffective.

- -- 
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: Tue, 7 May 2002 12:16:54 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry

William is correct in stating that the GA runs by consensus.  It is also true 
that the NC is supposed to be managing the consensus process.  How exactly 
are they doing that if well over half of the NC is not subcribed to the 
Voting Registry?  Are they even reading the GA list so that they can "manage" 
the process?

NC members not on the the voting roster:

Forsythe
Cochetti
Tindal
Carp
Harris
Ruth
Feld
Grabensee
Tonkin
Djolakian
Shankman

Have many of these folks have ever posted a comment to the GA list?  How then 
are they "managing" anything?   It's time to dismiss the notion of the NC as 
a "consensus managing" body.  Let one-person/one-vote be the determinant as 
to whether consensus exists.  The NC is clearly not up to the job.
- --
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 12:34:41 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is the GA?

William X Walsh wrote:

>
>This is not a "democracy" Jamie.  The GA rules are clear that it runs
>by consensus, and that votes are meant to be a measure of whether
>consensus exists.  That means that a vote of 50% + 1 for instance
>would not be passed on as a consensus conclusion of the GA.
>
Well, what exactly _would_ constitute a consensus conclusion of the GA? 
a 67% result? higher?  Please define your use of the term "consensus" 
and how it applies to the GA (or how has it applied to the GA to-date).  

Sincerely,

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: Tue, 07 May 2002 10:10:45 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

Thank you Mr. Walsh for laying out the issue so clearly,

Funny thing that Bravery is, for without its' sister Fear it does not
exist.  One cannot be brave in the absence of fear.  (I know you think
this is all weird but listen)

The GA cannot exist without a self destruct mechanism and the willingness
of the members to use it.

Yes you are right a vote for a rebid is a self destruct vote.  But when
you know that your mere existence is being used to promote an evil and
unjust cause, don't you have a duty to self destruct.

I am not saying I buy into this as I see many potential alternatives where
a rebid makes things a little more in line with the green and white papers
and ICANNs' original promises (yes a contract is a promise).

Let us get behind a vote here William, dang, you and your kind might even
win the vote in opposition to a rebid, holy cow wouldn't that be
something! And if that happens you and I are both validated as doing
something important here.

A vote against a rebid would be great.  If that happened maybe we could
even get some donations to run the GA outreach.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 8:29:32 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Are those descriptions of ICANN?  I ask not by way of what the
> > MOU says, but rather by way of the actual performance of ICANN
> > over the years. If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
> > Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
> > if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
> > should favor one.
>
> That is not why someone should vote against this "motion."
>
> This motion should be voted against because it is an inappropriate use
> of the DNSO General Assembly and would permanently render the GA
> useless as a body.
>
> Those voting for this motion are really voting for the death of the
> General Assembly.
>
> You should vote against this motion whether you support a rebid or
> not.
>
> And if you support a rebid, you should join a coordinated effort to
> get that message out.  You should not let yourself be a party to Jamie
> Love's attempt to try and get a media victory over ICANN by
> embarrassing it with a vote like this in its own DNSO GA, and in so
> doing, rendering the GA permanently ineffective.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 19:11:20 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

- --=======61BA425=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-288574FE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:55 07/05/02, William X Walsh said:
>And if you support a rebid, you should join a coordinated effort to
>get that message out.  You should not let yourself be a party to Jamie
>Love's attempt to try and get a media victory over ICANN by
>embarrassing it with a vote like this in its own DNSO GA, and in so
>doing, rendering the GA permanently ineffective

It seems that I remember some St Paul's say about speaking the thruth at 
proper or wrong time, however you translate that in English.

Don't you see that you harm the ICANN in saying that: you are a seasoned 
ICANN communit member known to be sharp about wrongs. And you fear that the 
ICANN could punish the GA for telling what it thinks. That ICANN would 
survive through censorship. Any Congressman reading that with a proper IQ - 
and I suppose that fits the job - will see there a reason to ask about 
disbanding the gang asap.

The target is not to kill the ICANN. It is to stop it to harm the net and 
if possible to have it being of use. Lynn said: we cannot foot the bill, so 
we will not oot the bill. We say: hold on, what about changing the change 
the bill, so we can foot it.
jfc

- --=======61BA425=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-288574FE
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

- --=======61BA425=======--

- --
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 10:49:54 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Outreach

Let us do a little remedial homework on this outreach deal.

The Banner and Logo concept for the AL.com is a good case study.

First let us look at who we want to attract and bring into this fiery
ball of burning wax.
Then let us look at how we attract them.

(in the mean time we should wonder and contemplate if the TR. and JL
methods of individual outreach are really productive) they go out and
get votes but is that good or bad or indifferent.

Banners and slogans are cool and do get an occasional buyer, hits and
clicks are good for commerce concepts but are they really what we are
after.

WXW has some good points on the quality of what we attract, although we
are diametrically opposed on the value concept.

Give me some sponsorship value added and our group will drive a million
hits a day to any web site you want.
Big freaking deal. I do not think the GA should act like a dotbomb.

I don't think we should hang up a sign that says no wasps, latinos or
ignoramuses.  But what do we want in here?

Regardless (or is it irregardless) of the nay sayers Jamie Love and his
"movement" (take that any way you want) are making the GA more
important. EU is watching and listening, I note from a little bird that
dotCN is watching and certainly Mr. Evans and the US congress is
watching.

If you sloth's want me to write up the criteria for outreach with all
the ramifications, I will, but I don't think you engineers will like
much of the real world creeping into your ivory towers.

Thanks to all for participating in this great experiment.
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: 07 May 2002 13:47:00 -0400
From: Ross Rader <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Fwd: [Uwho] Minutes from 3rd public consult]

>   Final Verisign report on WHois.

Not a final report, but minutes from their third consultation - on a
"slightly" delayed basis.

- -rwr

- --
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 19:05:16 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

William S. Lovell wrote:

>.... If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
>Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
>if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
>should favor one.
>

I am not sure I agree.

I do believe that, in particular shooting itself in the foot at Accra in 
rejecting the AtLarge proposals of the Bilt committee (considering also the 
huge effort that all parties have put in order to come to some basic 
consensus points), ICANN has shown that it has no intention to fulfil its 
obligations.

The problem is "obligations with who". Does ICANN have obligations with USG, 
or the Internet community? If it is the former, then the reasonment is 
correct: let's ask USG to turn the page.
Let's go for a moment to the "other" decision that ICANN (and NC/DNSO, 
incidentally) has taken disregarding painfully obtained "community 
consensus". Somebody can spell "WG-C"?
In several occasions I have claimed that this whole circus about ICANN 
started with two objectives:
1. introduce new TLDs (and not just 7, but "a lot of")
2. break NSI's monopoly
Several years later, we have an ICANN that wishes to establish contracts 
will ccTLDs (that have operated well until now without any "adult 
supervision" by ICANN), but mysteriously fails to guarantee the separation 
of Registrar and Registry for .com (one of the necessary conditions for fair 
competition).
Only 7 TLDs have been introduced so far, and whoever has attended MdR knows 
how (remember the motivation for changing .air to .airo?).

What will bring a rebid now? I bet on a couple of years of delays, in which 
for instance no new TLDs will be delegated. Well, "nihil sub sole novo", as 
I have asserted way back in 1998 (CORE General Assembly in Washington, DC) 
that the continuation of the statu quo was the real purpose of the White 
Paper, hidden behind a mask of wider democracy. In summary, "change 
everything in order not to change anything" ("Il Gattopardo", famous book of 
Tomasi di Lampedusa on the sicilian society of the 19th Century).

What is the solution? I don't know. I have a lot of sympathy for Paul 
Hoffman's proposal 
(http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html, already 
posted but never referenced). I still have to digest the implications of 
some details, but as a whole I like it muuuuuch better than the one tabled 
for voting. Of course, it has the big disadvantage that it has to be read 
and unterstood, is not an easy slogan that can move the masses, in short, it 
is more an IETF approach than a GA-DNSO approach, but in the end it will pay 
because it proposes a reasonable basis of discussion for an alternative, as 
opposed to the 77. Cavalry approach.
May I also suggest another interesting text: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html. Different ideas, but the 
same effort: to define "what should be fixed", not "who has to fix it". 
IMHO, the only way to have the stakeholders heard.

Let me also comment on the vote.
On the timetable, I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas' approach: let's 
continue the discussion for few days. I honestly don't understand the hurry 
in taking a vote without fully understanding the implications thereof.
On the vote itself, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by 
invoking adult supervision, but I also believe that if the GA is so foolish 
to do it, it has all rights to do it. I belong to the category of people 
that does not want to punish suicide. And in this sense, the more 
last-minute voters we get, the quicker the death. Watch out, though, that 
this result in the GA will be shown as evidence by those who always opposed 
the AtLarge to prove their point: individual users can be captured by a well 
orchestrated campaign, and therefore the power should stay solidly under 
control.
In other words, this will not only suicide GA, but kill hopes for individual 
representation *ever*: even if the "contract" will be rebid, do you *really* 
expect new_co (as it used to be called) not to be subject to pressure from 
commercial interests? With such nice example of flooding the (GA) voting 
registry with people that never debated the issue (in the GA), they will 
have a good point.

In summary, most people on this list has several points of disagreement with 
ICANN. This is the document to discuss and put forward. Let's define "what 
has to be fixed", propose it to ICANN BoD (maybe to NC), and go to a motion 
of censure *if_the_answer_from_the_BoD_is_negative*.
But let's define what we want, instead of saying "We don't know what we 
want, but anyway ICANN can't deliver - daddy, please kick them out!".

Rewgards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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 15:57:47 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Watching the voting registry

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> William is correct in stating that the GA runs by consensus.  It is also true
> that the NC is supposed to be managing the consensus process.  How exactly
> are they doing that if well over half of the NC is not subcribed to the
> Voting Registry?

> Are they even reading the GA list so that they can "manage"
> the process?

Excellent questions. Any NC members care to comment?

> NC members not on the the voting roster:
> 
> Forsythe
> Cochetti
> Tindal
> Carp
> Harris
> Ruth
> Feld
> Grabensee
> Tonkin
> Djolakian
> Shankman
> 
> Have many of these folks have ever posted a comment
> to the GA list?

Few that I've noticed, amd I don't think many on the
ALSC task force list either.

> How then are they "managing" anything?

Good question. Again, any comment from NC members?

> It's time to dismiss the notion of the NC as
> a "consensus managing" body.

Perhaps not quite. 

Methinks it is fair to say that, to date, they appear
not to be doing this job. From where I sit, they
appear not to be even trying. And since, at least as
I understand it, that is their primary role in the
process, this is serious problem.

However, I'd like to hear their version of the story
(or their versions, since they may not agree) before
dismissing the notion that they are doing something
useful.

> Let one-person/one-vote be the determinant as
> to whether consensus exists.

No. See other posts for discussion.

> The NC is clearly not up to the job.

Apparently not.
- --
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 17:24:54 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is the GA?

jefsey wrote:

 > On 18:34 07/05/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
 >
 >> William X Walsh wrote:
 >>
 >>> This is not a "democracy" Jamie.  The GA rules are 
clear that it runs
 >>> by consensus, and that votes are meant to be a 
measure of whether
 >>> consensus exists.  That means that a vote of 50% + 1 
for instance
 >>> would not be passed on as a consensus conclusion of 
the GA.
 >>
 >> Well, what exactly _would_ constitute a consensus 
conclusion of the
 >> GA? a 67% result? higher?  Please define your use of 
the term
 >> "consensus" and how it applies to the GA (or how has 
it applied to
 >> the GA to-date).
 >
 >
 > Sotiris, please ... not again. Let settle abuot this : 
a consensus is
 > the prevailing opinon that opponents may live with. 
What is named
 > "community correct".

The "prevailing opinion that opponents may live with"? 
Pardon me, but
is that some kind of joke?  How do we ascertain what such 
a prevailing
opinion may be?  Shall we just say that consensus is 
achieved when
everyone agrees to disagree?  This is completely nonsense 
Jefsey.  If
there can be no objective measurement of consensus, what 
you have is a
hostage situation...

Sincerely,

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: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:42:34 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

Roberto, I also liked much of the Hoffman and Alvestrand papers, and both of
them seemed to be at great variance with the Board and staff positions.  How
does one get from her to there (or somewhere similiar), in terms of where
ICANN is headed?  The rebid puts the DoC into the mix, and allows
alternatives such as the Hoffman or Alverstrand type proposals, to be really
considered as alternatives.     A rebid is a particular process of managing
change, leaving it up the ICANN board is another.  I don't think it is
realistic for us to reach an agreement on the particular alternative, right
now, but a demonstration of support for a rebid would be correctly taken as
a vote of no confidence in the current Staff/Board proposals.     I would
have greater confidence that the Hoffman/Alvestrand and similiar proposals
would be given consideration in a rebid environment, than without.  Also,
the ICANN board itself would have to address accountability issues more
seriously if facing competition.  We should at least entertain the notion
that non-profits can face consequences for their failures.    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >.... If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
> >Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
> >if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
> >should favor one.
> >
>
> I am not sure I agree.
>
> I do believe that, in particular shooting itself in the foot at Accra in
> rejecting the AtLarge proposals of the Bilt committee (considering also
the
> huge effort that all parties have put in order to come to some basic
> consensus points), ICANN has shown that it has no intention to fulfil its
> obligations.
>
> The problem is "obligations with who". Does ICANN have obligations with
USG,
> or the Internet community? If it is the former, then the reasonment is
> correct: let's ask USG to turn the page.
> Let's go for a moment to the "other" decision that ICANN (and NC/DNSO,
> incidentally) has taken disregarding painfully obtained "community
> consensus". Somebody can spell "WG-C"?
> In several occasions I have claimed that this whole circus about ICANN
> started with two objectives:
> 1. introduce new TLDs (and not just 7, but "a lot of")
> 2. break NSI's monopoly
> Several years later, we have an ICANN that wishes to establish contracts
> will ccTLDs (that have operated well until now without any "adult
> supervision" by ICANN), but mysteriously fails to guarantee the separation
> of Registrar and Registry for .com (one of the necessary conditions for
fair
> competition).
> Only 7 TLDs have been introduced so far, and whoever has attended MdR
knows
> how (remember the motivation for changing .air to .airo?).
>
> What will bring a rebid now? I bet on a couple of years of delays, in
which
> for instance no new TLDs will be delegated. Well, "nihil sub sole novo",
as
> I have asserted way back in 1998 (CORE General Assembly in Washington, DC)
> that the continuation of the statu quo was the real purpose of the White
> Paper, hidden behind a mask of wider democracy. In summary, "change
> everything in order not to change anything" ("Il Gattopardo", famous book
of
> Tomasi di Lampedusa on the sicilian society of the 19th Century).
>
> What is the solution? I don't know. I have a lot of sympathy for Paul
> Hoffman's proposal
> (http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html, already
> posted but never referenced). I still have to digest the implications of
> some details, but as a whole I like it muuuuuch better than the one tabled
> for voting. Of course, it has the big disadvantage that it has to be read
> and unterstood, is not an easy slogan that can move the masses, in short,
it
> is more an IETF approach than a GA-DNSO approach, but in the end it will
pay
> because it proposes a reasonable basis of discussion for an alternative,
as
> opposed to the 77. Cavalry approach.
> May I also suggest another interesting text:
> http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html. Different ideas, but the
> same effort: to define "what should be fixed", not "who has to fix it".
> IMHO, the only way to have the stakeholders heard.
>
> Let me also comment on the vote.
> On the timetable, I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas' approach: let's
> continue the discussion for few days. I honestly don't understand the
hurry
> in taking a vote without fully understanding the implications thereof.
> On the vote itself, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by
> invoking adult supervision, but I also believe that if the GA is so
foolish
> to do it, it has all rights to do it. I belong to the category of people
> that does not want to punish suicide. And in this sense, the more
> last-minute voters we get, the quicker the death. Watch out, though, that
> this result in the GA will be shown as evidence by those who always
opposed
> the AtLarge to prove their point: individual users can be captured by a
well
> orchestrated campaign, and therefore the power should stay solidly under
> control.
> In other words, this will not only suicide GA, but kill hopes for
individual
> representation *ever*: even if the "contract" will be rebid, do you
*really*
> expect new_co (as it used to be called) not to be subject to pressure from
> commercial interests? With such nice example of flooding the (GA) voting
> registry with people that never debated the issue (in the GA), they will
> have a good point.
>
> In summary, most people on this list has several points of disagreement
with
> ICANN. This is the document to discuss and put forward. Let's define "what
> has to be fixed", propose it to ICANN BoD (maybe to NC), and go to a
motion
> of censure *if_the_answer_from_the_BoD_is_negative*.
> But let's define what we want, instead of saying "We don't know what we
> want, but anyway ICANN can't deliver - daddy, please kick them out!".
>
> Rewgards
> Roberto
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 7 May 2002 18:29:27 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Timetable and proceedure for vote

Thomas, fill us in on what is the timetable and procedure for a vote.  With
regard to the vote, how many proposals will be voted on, and how do we agree
on the final text of the questions?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1166
*************************