Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1169
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 8 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1169

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

Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:04:34 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

Alexander Svensson wrote:

<snip>

>  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.
>
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the AtLarge.  The DNSO is 
a separate and distinct ICANN Supporting Organization that has 
absolutely _nothing_ to do with the AtLarge.  

Any association between the AtLarge and he DNSO GA made by Alexander, 
Roberto, and anyone else is an explicit scare tactic of one kind or 
another.  I would like them to produce any evidence they may have for 
their claims that the DNSO GA's vote for a re-bid will have any adverse 
affects on the AtLarge.

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, 08 May 2002 12:10:42 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

William X Walsh wrote:

>
>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.
>
Fact:  None of the above precludes the GA's ability to propose and vote 
on what it will, including a re-bid.  You'll have to do better than 
this, I'm afraid.

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 09:16:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 9:10:42 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Fact:  None of the above precludes the GA's ability to propose and vote 
> on what it will, including a re-bid.  You'll have to do better than 
> this, I'm afraid.

It most certainly does, Sotiris.  You are just so dead set on killing
the GA and trying to use it to embarrass ICANN in order to get some
anti-ICANN media coverage for this issue, that you refuse to see the
obvious.

- -- 
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, 8 May 2002 18:18:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

On Wed, 8 May 2002, at 05:59 [=GMT-0700], William X Walsh wrote:

> Discussion on the broader subject matter is not forbidden,

Thank you so much!

> 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.

Supposing you are right, which body could pass such a motion as that
proposed by James Love, both in the present structure of ICANN as well as
that suggested in the CEO's plan for reform?

- --
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 12:22:34 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

William X Walsh wrote:

>Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 9:10:42 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>>Fact:  None of the above precludes the GA's ability to propose and vote 
>>on what it will, including a re-bid.  You'll have to do better than 
>>this, I'm afraid.
>>
>
>It most certainly does, Sotiris.  You are just so dead set on killing
>the GA and trying to use it to embarrass ICANN in order to get some
>anti-ICANN media coverage for this issue, that you refuse to see the
>obvious.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong William.  And, for the record:   I don't think the 
upcoming re-bid vote will kill the GA, nor will it embarass ICANN.  If 
anything, it will be a helpful reminder that the ICANN has caused much 
disaffection in the Internet Community.  Something even you cannot deny 
Mr. Walsh.

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, 08 May 2002 16:32:38 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

William X Walsh wrote:
>
>I call on the Chair to table the motion by Jamie Love and others.
>

I respectfully disagree.

I am against the motion, because it be the death of the GA.
I am against tabling the motion, because by not abiding the rules the Chair 
will kill the GA.

The effect is the same, but as explained in a previous message, I am not 
willing to sanction self killing, but I will sanction killing of others.

Let the will of the (new forming) majority of the GA (voting registry, not 
mailing list) prevail: it will be absolutely irrelevant for the matter, as I 
cannot think for a second that USG will give any credit to a small group, 
rallied at the last minute.
It will be relevant, though, to demonstrate that individuals cannot 
self-organize and produce meaningful results.
What DNSO NC, ICANN BoD, and many others have argued ever since.

Incidentally, has anybody thought that ICANN is doing *exactly* what USG is 
expecting it to do, and therefore there is no whatsoever reason to kill it, 
if not to create further delays before creating a photocopy of it? I have 
lived this experience in Italy in the 60's and 70's, when governments failed 
confidence votes were replaced after long and thorough consultation by ... 
the same people over again.
The CEOs and the BoD Chairs of ICANN have been and are all US citizens, 
whose election/nomination was done with the placet of (if not following 
direct nomination from) the USG. Why would you think that they are acting 
not in line with the owner? Moreover, USG has had, and still has, the lever 
of the power. It could have warned or even stopped ICANN with a phone call, 
had it wanted. It did not, because ICANN is doing exactly what is supposed 
to do: slowing down the introduction of new TLDs, not hurting NSI/Verisign, 
favour IP (not the protocol, the property) and big business versus 
individuals and small guys, window dressing this with a zest of 
internationalism, that is to hold meetings also outside the US. Actually, 
after September 11, better if *all* meetings are held outside the US, in any 
case this will not affect the center of power, it will be just more dust in 
our eyes.

Well, I have my squash partner waiting for me, see you later.
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

- --
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 12:35:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

William X Walsh wrote:

>Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 9:22:34 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>>William X Walsh wrote:
>>
>
>>>Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 9:10:42 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fact:  None of the above precludes the GA's ability to propose and vote 
>>>>on what it will, including a re-bid.  You'll have to do better than 
>>>>this, I'm afraid.
>>>>
>>>It most certainly does, Sotiris.  You are just so dead set on killing
>>>the GA and trying to use it to embarrass ICANN in order to get some
>>>anti-ICANN media coverage for this issue, that you refuse to see the
>>>obvious.
>>>
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong William.  And, for the record:   I don't think the 
>>upcoming re-bid vote will kill the GA, nor will it embarass ICANN.  If 
>>
>
>You don't think....nice argument.  Others have shown clearly exactly
>why it is most likely to do so, and that's the best you can come back
>with?  "I don't think" ?
>
>Do you have anything to back that up?
>
>But again, it is all irrelevant, this motion is out of order.
>
The only thing out of order is you, Mr. Walsh.  You've used up your 5 
posts for today and this one was your sixth! (I'm also over the limit y 
this one email, but it's administrative so don't get all worked up)  ;-)

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, 08 May 2002 12:47:57 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Ken Stubbs wrote:

>please explain why this is not a legitimate point of order here..
>is it because you dont like mr walsh  ?
>
Not at all!  In fact, I like Mr. Walsh... he's entertaining.  As for his 
"point of order", it does not come from the ICANN Bylaws which only 
states the following about the composition of the GA:

"(b) The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of 
representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this 
Article VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies and (ii) 
a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and 
entities."

There is NO mention whatsoever in the ICANN Charter about what qualifies 
or does not qualify as legitimate GA deliberation/vote material, and I 
challenge Mr. Walsh (or anyone else) to show where in the ByLaws it 
does.  After all, Mr. Walsh contends that his "point of order" is 
dictated by the ICANN Charter.  The onus is on Mr. Walsh to produce the 
relevant ByLaw stipulation.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

P.S.  I have gone over the posting limit and I'm aware of this, I can 
only ask for the GA's indulgence on this wise.

.

- --
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 12:07:41 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

> 
> 
> William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> >  {bla bla bla}
> >
> The only thing out of order is you, Mr. Walsh.  You've used up your 5 
> posts for today and this one was your sixth! (I'm also over the limit y 
> this one email, but it's administrative so don't get all worked up)  ;-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
>

As a voting member and a list participant, I ask the moderator to sanction
Mr. WXW for breaking the rules (more than 5 posts in a day)

- --
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 13:27:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Dear Ken,

Please note that our bylaws state:  "Constituencies or GA participants may 
propose that the NC consider domain name policies or recommendations."  

As a GA participant, I propose that the NC consider the recommendation to ask 
the NTIA to re-bid the ICANN contracts, and that it place this topic on the 
NC agenda for discussion in the context of the ongoing debate on Reform 
options.  

Looking forward to seeing how the NC manages this consensus process,

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
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 12:49:00 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of John Palmer
> 
> As a voting member and a list participant, I ask the moderator to sanction
> Mr. WXW for breaking the rules (more than 5 posts in a day)

I question your bias in not mentioning Sotiris Sotiropoulos in the same post.
This looks very 1-sided to me.

- -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: Wed, 8 May 2002 19:48:32 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

On 8 May 2002 at 16:32, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I am against the motion, because it be the death of the GA.
> I am against tabling the motion, because by not abiding the rules the Chair 
> will kill the GA.
> 
> The effect is the same, but as explained in a previous message, I am not 
> willing to sanction self killing, but I will sanction killing of others.
> 
> Let the will of the (new forming) majority of the GA (voting registry, not 
> mailing list) prevail: it will be absolutely irrelevant for the matter, as I 
> cannot think for a second that USG will give any credit to a small group, 
> rallied at the last minute.
> It will be relevant, though, to demonstrate that individuals cannot 
> self-organize and produce meaningful results.
> What DNSO NC, ICANN BoD, and many others have argued ever since.

Roberto, you seem to imply that if individuals only behaved properly, the 
board would eventually grant them the rights originally provided in the bylaws. 
That is not how democratic structures are meant to work. Rights and duties 
are usually conceded independent of the individuals' behavior. If a board has 
the power to award or withdraw the rights of participation on the basis of the 
perceived ability to self-organize or produce meaningful results, then there is 
clearly something wrong with regard to the organization's internal power 
balance. 

I do share your opinion that a longer debate on this issue is helpful and 
perhaps even necessary. 
Jeanette

> 
> Incidentally, has anybody thought that ICANN is doing *exactly* what USG is 
> expecting it to do, and therefore there is no whatsoever reason to kill it, 
> if not to create further delays before creating a photocopy of it? I have 
> lived this experience in Italy in the 60's and 70's, when governments failed 
> confidence votes were replaced after long and thorough consultation by ... 
> the same people over again.
> The CEOs and the BoD Chairs of ICANN have been and are all US citizens, 
> whose election/nomination was done with the placet of (if not following 
> direct nomination from) the USG. Why would you think that they are acting 
> not in line with the owner? Moreover, USG has had, and still has, the lever 
> of the power. It could have warned or even stopped ICANN with a phone call, 
> had it wanted. It did not, because ICANN is doing exactly what is supposed 
> to do: slowing down the introduction of new TLDs, not hurting NSI/Verisign, 
> favour IP (not the protocol, the property) and big business versus 
> individuals and small guys, window dressing this with a zest of 
> internationalism, that is to hold meetings also outside the US. Actually, 
> after September 11, better if *all* meetings are held outside the US, in any 
> case this will not affect the center of power, it will be just more dust in 
> our eyes.
> 
> Well, I have my squash partner waiting for me, see you later.
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 8 May 2002 20:29:45 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: all you do need is love ...

... says the latest song posted to icannwatch.org. 
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=718

(I'd hope we could get a recording!)
- -- 
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, 08 May 2002 11:51:43 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The rebid vote

- --------------090201010001030804070508
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to this whole bit.  I 
count 17 emails with
the heading "Point of Order," and not a nickle's worth of input on the 
wording of the proposed
motion, or indeed very much at all. This "vote" will be conducted by 
Thomas Roessler, under
the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained time limits 
that allow little or no
comment, opportunity to amend, alternative proposals, and the actual 
content of the "Motion"
is something that has been "agreed" to between James Love and Thomas 
Roessler. That is not
the way things are supposed to work.

This side-tracking onto "point of order" issues is of course the 
standard tactic of William X.
Walsh -- he's been doing that for years, so as to prevent any meaningful 
operation of the
ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it because 
too many folks fall
into his trap. As to the "Motion" itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a 
list of 10 supporters of
it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of 
supporters.(However, motions do
not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations thereof.)  
James Love reasonably
asked about how the wording would be settled, would there be any other 
motions and so on,
and the answer from Thomas Roessler seems to be that there will be only 
the one motion and
"time is up." The ordinary characteristics of a democratic process have 
again been thwarted by
the fact that the GA indeed has no settled procedure that would allow a 
meaningful length of time
for meaningful debate, and I would not blame the DNSO Secretariat one 
bit if the Motion were
rejected because it had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that 
the poll recently
conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners sufficient interest 
to be addressed further.
There will now be a motion, but no significant "addressing." What was 
presented, in terms
of alternatives with respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems 
to have fallen into a
very deep well.

Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will allow a time for debate. But 
the scope of that
debate will be limited by the scope of the one Motion, which I don't 
think will suffice to cover
the complexity of the issue.  I've suggested that within the GA itself, 
before anyone rushes to
the Chair with something called a Motion, there be extensive debate and 
discussion, so that
all of the elements of the issue will be known to everyone, and from 
that a most meaningful
Motion would emerge that at that time would be presented to the Chair. 
It is only by that
kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay any 
attention to it anyway
might be enhanced.  I've said before, and I'll say it again, that the GA 
is a third-world
country, run for years by a dictatorship, and the GA members cannot get 
themselves out
of that because they don't understand how the democratic process works, 
and hence
continue to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have 
been set up with
that very intent: by definition, anything that runs that constrained 
course will show a lack
of any consensus, and the BoD will routinely so announce.  Very few in 
the GA seem to
have the ---- to have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the 
deliberately constrained
DNSO procedures.  To those Pavlovian dogs who will now salivate in the 
form of saying that
anything so done would have "no official status," please allow me a 
moment to try to stop
laughing. In terms of ICANN policy, the GA has no status. The only 
difference between
toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its own is that 
the latter choice,
wherein free democratic processes might occur, would more likely produce 
definitive,
meaningful results from which a real consensus might well emerge.

Bill Lovell

- --------------090201010001030804070508
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to this whole bit. &nbsp;I
count 17 emails with<br>
the heading "Point of Order," and not a nickle's worth of input on the wording
of the proposed<br>
motion, or indeed very much at all. This "vote" will be conducted by Thomas
Roessler, under<br>
the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained time limits that
allow little or no <br>
comment, opportunity to amend, alternative proposals, and the actual content
of the "Motion" <br>
is something that has been "agreed" to between James Love and Thomas Roessler.
That is not <br>
the way things are supposed to work.<br>
<br>
This side-tracking onto "point of order" issues is of course the standard
tactic of William X.<br>
Walsh -- he's been doing that for years, so as to prevent any meaningful
operation of the <br>
ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it because too
many folks fall <br>
into his trap. As to the "Motion" itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a list
of 10 supporters of<br>
it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of supporters.(However,
motions do<br>
not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations thereof.)&nbsp; James
Love reasonably<br>
asked about how the wording would be settled, would there be any other motions
and so on,<br>
and the answer from Thomas Roessler seems to be that there will be only the
one motion and <br>
"time is up." The ordinary characteristics of a democratic process have again
been thwarted by <br>
the fact that the GA indeed has <i>no settled procedure</i> that would allow
a meaningful length of time<br>
for meaningful debate, and I would not blame the DNSO Secretariat one bit
if the Motion were<br>
rejected because it had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that the
poll recently<br>
conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners sufficient interest
to be addressed further.<br>
There will now be a motion, but no significant "addressing." What was presented,
in terms<br>
of alternatives with respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems to
have fallen into a <br>
very deep well.<br>
<br>
Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will allow a time for debate. But
the scope of that<br>
debate will be limited by the scope of the one Motion, which I don't think
will suffice to cover<br>
the complexity of the issue. &nbsp;I've suggested that within the GA itself, before
anyone rushes to<br>
the Chair with something called a Motion, there be extensive debate and discussion,
so that<br>
all of the elements of the issue will be known to everyone, and from that
a most meaningful<br>
Motion would emerge that <i>at that time</i> would be presented to the Chair.
It is only by that<br>
kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay any attention
to it anyway<br>
might be enhanced. &nbsp;I've said before, and I'll say it again, that the GA
is a third-world<br>
country, run for years by a dictatorship, and the GA members cannot get themselves
out <br>
of that because they don't understand how the democratic process works, and
hence<br>
continue to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have been
set up <i>with <br>
that very intent</i>: by definition, anything that runs that constrained
course will show a lack <br>
of any consensus, and the BoD will routinely so announce. &nbsp;Very few in the
GA seem to<br>
have the ---- to have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the deliberately
constrained<br>
DNSO procedures. &nbsp;To those Pavlovian dogs who will now salivate in the form
of saying that<br>
anything so done would have "no official status," please allow me a moment
to try to stop<br>
laughing. In terms of ICANN policy, <i>the GA has no status</i>. The only
difference between<br>
toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its own is that the
latter choice,<br>
wherein free democratic processes might occur, would more likely produce
definitive,<br>
meaningful results from which a real consensus might well emerge.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
</body>
</html>

- --------------090201010001030804070508--

- --
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 12:46:36 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The rebid vote

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0707_01C1F68E.63A68190
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I personally would support a rebid demand myself since I feel the =
current process is both open-loop and failed to answer a number of =
critical questions.=20

Todd Glassey
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: William S. Lovell=20
  To: [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:51 AM
  Subject: [ga] The rebid vote

  I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to this whole bit.  =
I count 17 emails with
  the heading "Point of Order," and not a nickle's worth of input on the =
wording of the proposed
  motion, or indeed very much at all. This "vote" will be conducted by =
Thomas Roessler, under
  the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained time =
limits that allow little or no=20
  comment, opportunity to amend, alternative proposals, and the actual =
content of the "Motion"=20
  is something that has been "agreed" to between James Love and Thomas =
Roessler. That is not=20
  the way things are supposed to work.

  This side-tracking onto "point of order" issues is of course the =
standard tactic of William X.
  Walsh -- he's been doing that for years, so as to prevent any =
meaningful operation of the=20
  ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it =
because too many folks fall=20
  into his trap. As to the "Motion" itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a =
list of 10 supporters of
  it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of =
supporters.(However, motions do
  not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations thereof.) =
 James Love reasonably
  asked about how the wording would be settled, would there be any other =
motions and so on,
  and the answer from Thomas Roessler seems to be that there will be =
only the one motion and=20
  "time is up." The ordinary characteristics of a democratic process =
have again been thwarted by=20
  the fact that the GA indeed has no settled procedure that would allow =
a meaningful length of time
  for meaningful debate, and I would not blame the DNSO Secretariat one =
bit if the Motion were
  rejected because it had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that =
the poll recently
  conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners sufficient =
interest to be addressed further.
  There will now be a motion, but no significant "addressing." What was =
presented, in terms
  of alternatives with respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems =
to have fallen into a=20
  very deep well.

  Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will allow a time for debate. =
But the scope of that
  debate will be limited by the scope of the one Motion, which I don't =
think will suffice to cover
  the complexity of the issue.  I've suggested that within the GA =
itself, before anyone rushes to
  the Chair with something called a Motion, there be extensive debate =
and discussion, so that
  all of the elements of the issue will be known to everyone, and from =
that a most meaningful
  Motion would emerge that at that time would be presented to the Chair. =
It is only by that
  kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay any =
attention to it anyway
  might be enhanced.  I've said before, and I'll say it again, that the =
GA is a third-world
  country, run for years by a dictatorship, and the GA members cannot =
get themselves out=20
  of that because they don't understand how the democratic process =
works, and hence
  continue to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have =
been set up with=20
  that very intent: by definition, anything that runs that constrained =
course will show a lack=20
  of any consensus, and the BoD will routinely so announce.  Very few in =
the GA seem to
  have the ---- to have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the =
deliberately constrained
  DNSO procedures.  To those Pavlovian dogs who will now salivate in the =
form of saying that
  anything so done would have "no official status," please allow me a =
moment to try to stop
  laughing. In terms of ICANN policy, the GA has no status. The only =
difference between
  toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its own is that =
the latter choice,
  wherein free democratic processes might occur, would more likely =
produce definitive,
  meaningful results from which a real consensus might well emerge.

  Bill Lovell

- ------=_NextPart_000_0707_01C1F68E.63A68190
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 content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I personally would support a rebid =
demand myself=20
since I feel the current process is both open-loop and failed to answer =
a number=20
of critical questions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Todd Glassey</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" title=[email-masked]>William =
S.=20
  Lovell</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
  title=[email-masked]>[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 08, 2002 =
11:51=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [ga] The rebid =
vote</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to =
this=20
  whole bit. &nbsp;I count 17 emails with<BR>the heading "Point of =
Order," and=20
  not a nickle's worth of input on the wording of the =
proposed<BR>motion, or=20
  indeed very much at all. This "vote" will be conducted by Thomas =
Roessler,=20
  under<BR>the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained =
time=20
  limits that allow little or no <BR>comment, opportunity to amend, =
alternative=20
  proposals, and the actual content of the "Motion" <BR>is something =
that has=20
  been "agreed" to between James Love and Thomas Roessler. That is not =
<BR>the=20
  way things are supposed to work.<BR><BR>This side-tracking onto "point =
of=20
  order" issues is of course the standard tactic of William X.<BR>Walsh =
- -- he's=20
  been doing that for years, so as to prevent any meaningful operation =
of the=20
  <BR>ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it =
because=20
  too many folks fall <BR>into his trap. As to the "Motion" itself, =
Thomas=20
  Roessler asked for a list of 10 supporters of<BR>it, and Joanna Lane =
posted=20
  both the Motion and the list of supporters.(However, motions do<BR>not =

  ordinarily include within their wording any explanations =
thereof.)&nbsp; James=20
  Love reasonably<BR>asked about how the wording would be settled, would =
there=20
  be any other motions and so on,<BR>and the answer from Thomas Roessler =
seems=20
  to be that there will be only the one motion and <BR>"time is up." The =

  ordinary characteristics of a democratic process have again been =
thwarted by=20
  <BR>the fact that the GA indeed has <I>no settled procedure</I> that =
would=20
  allow a meaningful length of time<BR>for meaningful debate, and I =
would not=20
  blame the DNSO Secretariat one bit if the Motion were<BR>rejected =
because it=20
  had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that the poll=20
  recently<BR>conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners =
sufficient=20
  interest to be addressed further.<BR>There will now be a motion, but =
no=20
  significant "addressing." What was presented, in terms<BR>of =
alternatives with=20
  respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems to have fallen into =
a=20
  <BR>very deep well.<BR><BR>Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will =
allow a=20
  time for debate. But the scope of that<BR>debate will be limited by =
the scope=20
  of the one Motion, which I don't think will suffice to cover<BR>the =
complexity=20
  of the issue. &nbsp;I've suggested that within the GA itself, before =
anyone=20
  rushes to<BR>the Chair with something called a Motion, there be =
extensive=20
  debate and discussion, so that<BR>all of the elements of the issue =
will be=20
  known to everyone, and from that a most meaningful<BR>Motion would =
emerge that=20
  <I>at that time</I> would be presented to the Chair. It is only by=20
  that<BR>kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay =
any=20
  attention to it anyway<BR>might be enhanced. &nbsp;I've said before, =
and I'll=20
  say it again, that the GA is a third-world<BR>country, run for years =
by a=20
  dictatorship, and the GA members cannot get themselves out <BR>of that =
because=20
  they don't understand how the democratic process works, and =
hence<BR>continue=20
  to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have been set =
up=20
  <I>with <BR>that very intent</I>: by definition, anything that runs =
that=20
  constrained course will show a lack <BR>of any consensus, and the BoD =
will=20
  routinely so announce. &nbsp;Very few in the GA seem to<BR>have the =
- ---- to=20
  have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the deliberately=20
  constrained<BR>DNSO procedures. &nbsp;To those Pavlovian dogs who will =
now=20
  salivate in the form of saying that<BR>anything so done would have "no =

  official status," please allow me a moment to try to stop<BR>laughing. =
In=20
  terms of ICANN policy, <I>the GA has no status</I>. The only =
difference=20
  between<BR>toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its =
own is=20
  that the latter choice,<BR>wherein free democratic processes might =
occur,=20
  would more likely produce definitive,<BR>meaningful results from which =
a real=20
  consensus might well emerge.<BR><BR>Bill =
Lovell<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0707_01C1F68E.63A68190--

- --
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 #1169
*************************