Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1168
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1168

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

Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 23:03:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Recommendation 18

Draft version 9 of the NC's Interim recommendations on ICANN evolution 
includes the following:

"The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at a minimum 
the following groups: Business users, intellectual property interests, gTLD 
Registries, Registrars, non-commercial interests, Internet service providers."

Looks to me like they are recommending nothing more than another DNSO minus 
the ccTLDs.  How does this solve any of our problems?  

Would anyone care to offer up a plan to reform our DNSO?  Or shall we leave 
it in the hands of the Board to make that decision for us?   Thomas, Alex... 
any thoughts on a better way forward that provides full representation for 
members of the GA?
- --
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 21:47:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] No more fun

I know most of you do not want to hear this stuff but a little reality
must settle in on all your comfortable lives.

Ireland, the Ukraine and West Virginia are laying off people because
your Internet is not stable.

Why?  Because your ICANN sucks.  Take my word for it, I have been in
such places and two hundred new unemployed smart programmers is not
good.

You figure it out, as I am only the messenger.

Sincerely,
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 00:20:33 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] icannatlarge.com

Membership registrations have now passed 800.

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: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:14:27 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 2002-05-07 18:29:27 -0400, James Love wrote:

>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?

I described that process before, and you even agreed to it: Produce  
a draft text and a list of ten supporters until May 10, for a  
resolution which deals with perspectives blah blah blah, and you'll  
be on the ballot.  If there's no resolution which fulfills that  
condition, there's no vote.

I have also described numerous times what kind of resolution I'd  
personally find reasonable.

You are now free to either produce a radical text like what your  
original motion suggested, or you could try to take into account the 
suggestions made by some on this list, and produce a reasonable text 
which does not ruin the GA's credibility.  Finally, you could  
respect the fact that there is certainly no consensus on what the GA 
should say, and refrain from further asking for a vote in such a 
situation.

Obviously, I believe that the first of these possibilities is the  
worst one, and that the last one is still best.

- -- 
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 04:09:20 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

Thomas,

Jamie has asked that the GA record its views on whether or not the US 
Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the services now 
provided by ICANN.  He states his rationale for asking for a rebid -- that 
ICANN has dramatically changed the intitial terms of refence for ICANN, that 
it is proposing even further changes, and that such proposals have met with 
extensive opposition in the Internet community.   He notes that the rebid 
would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan for 
managing key Internet resources.

Why do you consider this to be "radical text"?  On what basis does this text 
ruin the GA's credibility?  Are we not a forum for policy issues relating to 
the Domain Name System?  Are we not at liberty to seek the best possible 
proposals for the management of the DNS resource?  Is it not possible that 
other entities could propose plans for the management/coordination of the DNS 
superior to those of ICANN management?  

On the basis of performance-to-date, do you believe that ICANN has earned the 
trust of the Community?  If it hasn't, what do you find objectionable about 
recommending that the NTIA consider alternative service providers?  This 
proposal doesn't exclude ICANN from the process, it only forces them to 
compete (and hopefully to craft the best possible plan for managing the DNS). 
 Is the concept of competition troublesome?  Last I heard, most people think 
of competition as healthy.

A re-bid scenario only forces ICANN to provide the DoC with the necessary 
assurances that it is the best qualified organization to provide coordinative 
services.  Personally, I would like to see such assurances.  ICANN might even 
have to change their mind and continue to allow a GA to exist in order to 
secure the DoC's favor.  

When I look at the Lynn Plan, I see no GA, do you?  Why worry about the 
"credibility" of the GA when ICANN management has already made plans to 
eliminate both the DNSO and the GA?  To whom do you want to be "credible"... 
to those that place no value in your participation?  Ever notice that Louis 
Touton and Stuart Lynn never forward any correspondence to the GA?  Their 
messages appear on the Council list, but never on the GA list.  We are not on 
their radar scope.  They only pay attention to those interests that 
financially prop up their regime.  

The GA is the home of discontent within ICANN.  ICANN has already made plans 
to silence their critics by eliminating the GA and by eliminating the 
At-large directors.  How much more abuse are you willing to put up with 
before the message sinks in?  Go ahead and defend ICANN as much as you like, 
but let your membership express its views.  
- --
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 04:25:49 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

Thomas,

I am assuming there is no obligation to produce a text that you agree with,
and that we will proceed with a ballot that includes a recommendation for a
rebid, which people are free to vote for or against.   As discussed earlier,
in response to discusison, I have inserted language to address the issue of
the need for an international (not US only) solution, and I have also
clarified that a rebid would not preclude an outcome that selected the ICANN
proposal.   The vote on this should be for this proposition:

(For or Against)

"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition
would address the need to develop an international framework for DNS
management.  The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has
dramatically changed
the intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The
rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for
restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
resources."

As I understand your missives, and forgive me if I don't fully appreciate
what is going on here, you have accepted that this can be voted on, but
would also welcome either that I withdraw (no thank you) or modify this
further, or if others would offer alternatives that are "less radical," as
you put it.  I have yet to see any support for specific "less radical"
ballot proposals, but wait to see what happens.

I would also add that so far I have not heard much in the way of substantive
criticism of the benefits of a rebid, but I have heard your and other
complaints that this is an inappropriate proposal for the GA itself to make.
It would be interesting to know if you or some others think that a rebid
would be a bad thing in itself, or if the probelm is only having the GA ask
for a rebid.    So far, most of what I have heard is the latter.

Jamie

PS, the discussion of this issue on your web log is certainly a rather
abbreviated summary of the debate.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

> On 2002-05-07 18:29:27 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> I described that process before, and you even agreed to it: Produce
> a draft text and a list of ten supporters until May 10, for a
> resolution which deals with perspectives blah blah blah, and you'll
> be on the ballot.  If there's no resolution which fulfills that
> condition, there's no vote.
>
> I have also described numerous times what kind of resolution I'd
> personally find reasonable.
>
> You are now free to either produce a radical text like what your
> original motion suggested, or you could try to take into account the
> suggestions made by some on this list, and produce a reasonable text
> which does not ruin the GA's credibility.  Finally, you could
> respect the fact that there is certainly no consensus on what the GA
> should say, and refrain from further asking for a vote in such a
> situation.
>
> Obviously, I believe that the first of these possibilities is the
> worst one, and that the last one is still best.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:36:49 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:

>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open 
>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that  
>the new competition would address the need to develop an  
>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for  
>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the  
>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further 
>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet  
>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the  
>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered  
>by others for managing key Internet resources."

>As I understand your missives, and forgive me if I don't fully  
>appreciate what is going on here, you have accepted that this can  
>be voted on, but would also welcome either that I withdraw (no  
>thank you) or modify this further, or if others would offer  
>alternatives that are "less radical," as you put it.  I have yet  
>to see any support for specific "less radical" ballot proposals,  
>but wait to see what happens.

Please also submit a list of ten supporters (as suggested in my  
original timeline posting, to which you agreed).  I suppose this is 
a purely formal question in this case, but let's get the record 
straight.  To abbreviate the procedure, I'd suggest that you produce 
that list from previous discussions, post it, and let those who are 
on it object if they want to.

>PS, the discussion of this issue on your web log is certainly a  
>rather abbreviated summary of the debate.

I don't even claim it's a summary.

- -- 
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 02:22:04 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 5:58:48 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> This note by James Love I believe to respond effectively to Roberto's 
> well conceived objections, and also to those from such as William X. 
> Walsh who objects that the vote would have the effect of a General 
> Assembly suicide.

It does not adequately address those issues at all.

This is not a democracy, Bill.

> New people are signing on to [email-masked], I'm told, in
> droves.

Not from what I hear, it is only to the voting registry, which they
are ineligible to join.

- -- 
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:00:28 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

At 07.05.2002 19:05, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

100% agreement, also with the assumption that the GA has the right to 
commit suicide.

Another point which some people seem to completely ignore is that
the *problems* and the *major actors* will not simply change in
any different setting -- neither in the Lynn proposal nor any 
other proposal. Do you really think that the Intellectual Property
lobby (whether a DNSO constituency, a "forum" or any other form)
would happily stand by if hundreds of new TLDs were added to the root? 
That does of course not mean that we have to obey to their wishes,
but we have to be realistic about what we *can* change.
In private mail, I have already told Jamie that I think the chances
of a rebid are zero, but even *if* the DoC chose to rebid the
contract, it's hard to see how this GA vote will not be (ab)used
to demonstrate exactly why the At Large is such a bad idea.

>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!".

Unfortunately, Jamie's resolution has captured everyone's attention
for days now. Privately, people have told me that they think it
is "a silly diversion", "not constructive"  and "distract[ing] so 
much attention from more important issues". But if you speak out,
you risk being tarred and feathered as supporter of Stuart Lynn's 
reform proposal. It is frankly frustrating.

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: Wed, 8 May 2002 05:59:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Point of Order

I call on the Chair to table the motion by Jamie Love and others.

The motion is illegitimate as it runs contrary to the ICANN bylaws
pertaining to the GA. The GA is a open forum "for participation in the
work of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who
have a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas
for which the DNSO has primary responsibility".

Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.

Thus the motion as it stands is outside of the area of responsibility
of the DNSO GA, which is restricted by charter to only offering
consensus recommendations relating to the areas which are under the
DNSO's responsibility.  This motion is clearly beyond the scope of the
DNSO GA's charter, and the chair would himself be in violation of the
charter of the DNSO and the GA if he were to treat this as a valid
issue before the DNSO GA itself.

Discussion on the broader subject matter is not forbidden, but the
DNSO GA itself cannot take actions which exceed its charter granted
mandate, and the chair must be limited in his actions by the charter
as well.

- -- 
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:46:03 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] welcome to new members

- --=======6BC32D82=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The roster seems to indicate that we have many new and silent members.
May be will you want to introduce yourself?
This request is rather unusual, but there is a need to show observers that 
everyone is aware of what the ICANN ... is/was/will-could be.
It will also permit to individually welcome you, not only in general as I 
do it now.
Cheers!
Jefsey 

- --=======6BC32D82=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E
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

- --=======6BC32D82=======--

- --
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:07:24 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] wecann.com

- --=======9B11A56=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

For your infromation wecann.com is now linking the different 
propositions/positins.
Please help with the missing information you might know:

- - the propositions I do not have
- - the missing links to documents
- - the missing links to sites
- - the missing e-mail

Also with related document links.
I hope it helps a debate towards a consensus.
jfc 

- --=======9B11A56=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E
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

- --=======9B11A56=======--

- --
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:11:38 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

- --=======6605E2B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11:22 08/05/02, William X Walsh said:
> > New people are signing on to [email-masked], I'm told, in
> > droves.
>
>Not from what I hear, it is only to the voting registry, which they
>are ineligible to join.

I wander how you may know they have not registered on the list.
hacked it?
jfc

- --=======6605E2B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E
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

- --=======6605E2B=======--

- --
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:39:55 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion text + list of supporters

MOTION TEXT:
"The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed
the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further
changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The
rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for
restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
resources."

VOTE OPTIONS: For, Against, Abstain

FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS:
Deletion of duplicate "the" in the first sentence.
"intitial" changed to "initial" and "refence" changed to "reference" in the
second sentence.
Addition of Abstention to Vote options.

SUPPORTERS
The following Members indicated their support for a largely similar Motion:-

1. James Love (Proponent)
2. John Palmer (Second)
3. Danny Younger (Second)
4. Jeanette Hoffman
5. Joanna Lane
6. Sotiris Sotiropoulos
7. Karl Auerbach
8. David Farrar
9. Jefsey Morfin
10. Daniel Pare
11. Y. J. Park
12. Eric Dierker
13. Jonathan Weinberg
14. Andy Duff
15. Hugh Blair
16. Richard Henderson

- --
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:59:29 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

- --=======7B006F25=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 14:00 08/05/02, Alexander Svensson said:
>it's hard to see how this GA vote will not be (ab)used to demonstrate 
>exactly why the At Large is such a bad idea.

Dear Alexander,
I will not object the truth of what you say. But there is a very long time 
that this idea has been not only used and abused but accepted by everyone. 
The @large IS a bad idea the way the ICANN and the ALSC has presented it. 
And the way the ICANNatlarge current attempt is developping it right now.

Now, the question you must ask yourself is: let suppose Jon Postel is alive 
and there is no ICANN, no one ever figurered out the @large concept and 
certainly not of the GA. What would you do? when using the net, when 
developping on the net, when planning the net, when being unhappy with NSI etc.
jfc

- --=======7B006F25=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4A682D6E
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

- --=======7B006F25=======--

- --
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:56:06 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] statistics

For those who believe that we may have lots of new participants on  
the GA mailing list: Without having done a direct comparison of the 
membership lists, we have now 344 subscribers on the GA list and 18 
on ga-full.  For comparison, on February 26, there were 337 + 19 
subscribers.

- -- 
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:07:37 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 5/8/02 at 9:14 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :

> Finally, you could
>respect the fact that there is certainly no consensus on what the GA
>should say, and refrain from further asking for a vote in such a
>situation.

I have a lot of trouble with this statement.

It seems to imply that whether a consensus exists is determined by
fiat by an individual or individuals, Thomas Roessler or others, and
a vote should not be held to determine whether a consensus exists.

Interesting viewpoint.

Cheers,

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: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:11:30 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :

>On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
>>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
>>the new competition would address the need to develop an
>>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
>>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
>>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
>>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
>>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
>>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
>>by others for managing key Internet resources."

I support this text.

Cheers,

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: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:18:13 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

This is not a legitimate point of order, this is censorship and William 
Walsh is not in any position to dictate to the GA what is or is not a 
legitimate topic/issue for its deliberations, considerations and/or 
votes.   Mr. Walsh's track record as a usurper of individual user 
intiatives and grassroots organization is clear to all who are familiar 
with his shenanigans.  Thw quote Mr. Wlash produces is not in any way 
explicitly binding on the discussion of the GA, nor upon the subject of 
its votes.  In fact, there is nowhere in the bylaws any restriction 
whatsoever upon what may or may not be discussed in the GA.  I object to 
Mr. Walsh's objections as they are nothing more than an attempt at 
censorship.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

William X Walsh wrote:

>I call on the Chair to table the motion by Jamie Love and others.
>
>The motion is illegitimate as it runs contrary to the ICANN bylaws
>pertaining to the GA. The GA is a open forum "for participation in the
>work of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who
>have a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas
>for which the DNSO has primary responsibility".
>
>Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
>allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
>areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.
>
>Thus the motion as it stands is outside of the area of responsibility
>of the DNSO GA, which is restricted by charter to only offering
>consensus recommendations relating to the areas which are under the
>DNSO's responsibility.  This motion is clearly beyond the scope of the
>DNSO GA's charter, and the chair would himself be in violation of the
>charter of the DNSO and the GA if he were to treat this as a valid
>issue before the DNSO GA itself.
>
>Discussion on the broader subject matter is not forbidden, but the
>DNSO GA itself cannot take actions which exceed its charter granted
>mandate, and the chair must be limited in his actions by the charter
>as well.
>

- --
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:35:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 8:18:13 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> This is not a legitimate point of order, this is censorship and William 
> Walsh is not in any position to dictate to the GA what is or is not a 
> legitimate topic/issue for its deliberations, considerations and/or 
> votes.

I'm not dictating it.

The ICANN charter dictates it.

- -- 
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:43:34 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

William X Walsh wrote:

>Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 8:18:13 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>>This is not a legitimate point of order, this is censorship and William 
>>Walsh is not in any position to dictate to the GA what is or is not a 
>>legitimate topic/issue for its deliberations, considerations and/or 
>>votes.
>>
>
>I'm not dictating it.
>
>The ICANN charter dictates it.
>
NO, you're wrong.  The Charter does not state anything of the sort. 
 Your "point of order" is invalid and not explicitly supported by the 
Charter.  What the Charter does say is what *should* qualify those who 
participate in the GA (i.e. knowledge and interests of the DNSO's 
primary areas of responsibility) and NOT what they may deliberate upon, 
nor who the MUST be.  Nice try.  
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: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:01:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 8:43:34 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:

>>Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 8:18:13 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>
>>>This is not a legitimate point of order, this is censorship and William 
>>>Walsh is not in any position to dictate to the GA what is or is not a 
>>>legitimate topic/issue for its deliberations, considerations and/or 
>>>votes.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not dictating it.
>>
>>The ICANN charter dictates it.
>>
> NO, you're wrong.  The Charter does not state anything of the sort. 
>  Your "point of order" is invalid and not explicitly supported by the 
> Charter.  What the Charter does say is what *should* qualify those who 
> participate in the GA (i.e. knowledge and interests of the DNSO's 
> primary areas of responsibility) and NOT what they may deliberate upon, 
> nor who the MUST be.  Nice try.  

http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/aboutdnso.html

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the
DNSO, and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work
of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have
a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO,
including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
drafting committees and working groups.

The DNSO shall serve as advisory body to the Board, with the primary
responsibility for developing and recommending substantive policies
regarding to the Domain Name System.

- -- 
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: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:05:11 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

please explain why this is not a legitimate point of order here..
is it because you dont like mr walsh  ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

> This is not a legitimate point of order, this is censorship and William 
> Walsh is not in any position to dictate to the GA what is or is not a 
> legitimate topic/issue for its deliberations, considerations and/or 
> votes.   Mr. Walsh's track record as a usurper of individual user 
> intiatives and grassroots organization is clear to all who are familiar 
> with his shenanigans.  Thw quote Mr. Wlash produces is not in any way 
> explicitly binding on the discussion of the GA, nor upon the subject of 
> its votes.  In fact, there is nowhere in the bylaws any restriction 
> whatsoever upon what may or may not be discussed in the GA.  I object to 
> Mr. Walsh's objections as they are nothing more than an attempt at 
> censorship.  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> >I call on the Chair to table the motion by Jamie Love and others.
> >
> >The motion is illegitimate as it runs contrary to the ICANN bylaws
> >pertaining to the GA. The GA is a open forum "for participation in the
> >work of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who
> >have a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas
> >for which the DNSO has primary responsibility".
> >
> >Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
> >allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
> >areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.
> >
> >Thus the motion as it stands is outside of the area of responsibility
> >of the DNSO GA, which is restricted by charter to only offering
> >consensus recommendations relating to the areas which are under the
> >DNSO's responsibility.  This motion is clearly beyond the scope of the
> >DNSO GA's charter, and the chair would himself be in violation of the
> >charter of the DNSO and the GA if he were to treat this as a valid
> >issue before the DNSO GA itself.
> >
> >Discussion on the broader subject matter is not forbidden, but the
> >DNSO GA itself cannot take actions which exceed its charter granted
> >mandate, and the chair must be limited in his actions by the charter
> >as well.
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1168
*************************