Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #117
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 15 2000           Volume 01 : Number 117

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:39:09 -0700
From: Liz Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

At 12:31 PM 8/14/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Well, I live in Seattle, WA USA, and was one of the first to sign
>up, and I've not gotten my PIN yet either.
>
>I really want to give my member support to Karl Auerbach, but
>I can't until I get my PIN.
>

I also notice that despite the FAQ which states:

"If you have lost your password or PIN number, you should go to 
the members only area and click on the appropriate button. Because 
of the cost of mailing PIN numbers via surface mail, ICANN will 
send no more than one PIN reminder. Passwords and PIN numbers 
will not be given out by telephone."

that the members only area does not have a "button" for reminder
PIN numbers, just email password reminders. As PINs on paper are
one of the _easiest_ things to lose, I predict that many members
are going to be unable to vote because they've lost theirs,
can't remember them, and have no way to re-request them.

I think ICANN should take a leaf out of other high-security
web sites and say that once membership has been activated with the
sufrace mailed PIN, then the PIN is no longer required for further
access under that membership number.

(Forgive me if this has been previously covered, I'm relatively
new to the list)

- --Liz

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Bartlett*http://www.khyri.com/            110 E. Wilshire Ave.#G-1
Idyll Mountain Internet*http://www.idyllmtn.com/   Fullerton, CA 92832
Virtual Dog Show Co-ordinator*http://www.dogshow.com/   (714) 526-5656
Tibetan Mastiff Web Site*http://www.tibetanmastiffs.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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:40:24 -0400
From: Dale Farmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

Well, I live near Boston, MA USA, and I received my letter
with the PIN over the weekend.  Postmarked August 07
in Los Angeles.  Now I can activate my membership and
do the endorsement thing for Karl Auerbach's candidacy
for the board.

    --Dale

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Well, I live in Seattle, WA USA, and was one of the first to sign
> up, and I've not gotten my PIN yet either.
>
> I really want to give my member support to Karl Auerbach, but
> I can't until I get my PIN.
>
> Christopher
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mikael Pawlo" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:11 PM
> Subject: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation
>
> >
> > Still no PINs for several people in Sweden. Actually I haven't heard of
> > any Swede receiving his PIN. The election is due and this is really
> > starting to annoy me. If we don't receive PINs - is there another way for
> > us to cast our vote?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikael
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked]
> >   +46-709-179012                              http://www.pawlo.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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:51:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

Liz and all remaining assembly members,

  Liz, I think you are right here or at least have a very good suggestion.

But as has been the ICANN Boards habit in the past of late it is not
likely it will be taken seriously.  Hopefully I am wrong on this though.

Liz Bartlett wrote:

> At 12:31 PM 8/14/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >Well, I live in Seattle, WA USA, and was one of the first to sign
> >up, and I've not gotten my PIN yet either.
> >
> >I really want to give my member support to Karl Auerbach, but
> >I can't until I get my PIN.
> >
>
> I also notice that despite the FAQ which states:
>
> "If you have lost your password or PIN number, you should go to
> the members only area and click on the appropriate button. Because
> of the cost of mailing PIN numbers via surface mail, ICANN will
> send no more than one PIN reminder. Passwords and PIN numbers
> will not be given out by telephone."
>
> that the members only area does not have a "button" for reminder
> PIN numbers, just email password reminders. As PINs on paper are
> one of the _easiest_ things to lose, I predict that many members
> are going to be unable to vote because they've lost theirs,
> can't remember them, and have no way to re-request them.
>
> I think ICANN should take a leaf out of other high-security
> web sites and say that once membership has been activated with the
> sufrace mailed PIN, then the PIN is no longer required for further
> access under that membership number.
>
> (Forgive me if this has been previously covered, I'm relatively
> new to the list)
>
> --Liz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Liz Bartlett*http://www.khyri.com/            110 E. Wilshire Ave.#G-1
> Idyll Mountain Internet*http://www.idyllmtn.com/   Fullerton, CA 92832
> Virtual Dog Show Co-ordinator*http://www.dogshow.com/   (714) 526-5656
> Tibetan Mastiff Web Site*http://www.tibetanmastiffs.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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:31:24 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

>(to: Christopher Ambler, cc: to Esther Dyson and the GA, please find Mr
>Amblers original message attached below)
>
>Dear Mr Ambler,
>I wish I could use that as a comforting fact, but it just adds to the
>confusion regarding the PIN situation. I heard that the PINs would be sent
>in batches - fair enough - but now the election is due and I still do not
>know how to vote without my PIN.

Far more important than the final election, is the ability to lend 
your support to the impartial At-Large-nominated Board candidates.

If they don't get enough support, we get the ICANN picked board 
members instead, and the power of the At Large membership is reduced 
to the power of the GA membership and those with no DNSO 
representation.

>I sure can understand that ICANN suffer
>from intial administrative problems, but it's harder to accept that a
>legally binding election will take place when several voters have no means
>of participation.

Nothing that ICANN does is legally binding.

>
>The PIN situation should be solved or the election postponed.

Or the nomination period extended!

>Any other
>alternative is unjust and unfair. I might excercise my right not to vote
>for any of the candidates, but for the time beeing I'm even denied to 
>make such a choice.
>
>Lucky ICANN to have Esther Dyson as chairman - who I know is just,
>otherwise I might have suggested foul play.

Bwa hawwww hawww hawww! That's gotta be POST OF THE WEEK!!!

This is the same Esther that's more concerned about ensuring she's 
staying at a hotel with a smwimming pool during ICANN road shows, 
than ensuring fairness to all.

She was in charge when the GA didn't get to pick their own board 
members. Same with the DNSO.

She's heavily involved in the scam.

Esther Dyson just? My arse!

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:59:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Survey Reveals Platforms of Prospective ICANN Board Members

Vinton and all,

  That's fine, but not very efficient Vinton.  As an engineer yourself,
you are of course aware of this.  Also as a businessman and a stakeholder
that seemingly believes in "The Internet is for everyone" you also realize
I am sure, that this is not adequate.  And BTW, I have not received my
PIN again yet either, but have been notified that it is on it's way...  Yet
I was one of the first to apply.  These types of applications seem to
lead myself amongst others that have recently commented along similar
circumstances such as mine, to indicate that something is not quite
proper here....

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> new applications are not being accepted in order that all those that have been
> received up until now may now receive their PINS, Jeff.
>
> Vint
>
> At 02:52 PM 8/14/2000 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Judith and all,
> >
> >   How could Phase I be closing when not everyone has their PIN number yet?
> >
> >   Here is an obvious place where DOC/NTIA needs to step in and correct
> >this obvious problem ASAP!
>
> =================================================================
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway
> Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> Telephone (703) 886-1690
> FAX (703) 886-0047
>
> "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
> INET 2001: Internet Global Summit
> 5-8 June 2001
> Sweden International Fairs
> Stockholm, Sweden
> http://www.isoc.org/inet2001

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:08:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fwd: deadlines - The everlasting PIN situation

Kristy and all,

  An excellent letter Kristy.  My guess is that it will go ignored or
not acted upon any time soon if ever by the ICANN Board or the
DOC/NTIA, which is supposed to have oversight.

Kristy wrote:

> Here is a little note I just sent to the email address for ICANN's At Large
> members.
>
> :)
>
> ~k
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:05:30 -0700
> To: [email-masked]
> From: Kristy
> Subject: deadlines
> Cc: "At-Large Members"
>
> People who participate in [email-masked] list serv (recently moved
> to netsol.com) in addition to participants from [email-masked] are still
> reporting
> they have successfully signed up for a PIN at the At Large website; but have
> not received mail confirmation.  My partner and I have recently received our
> PIN#s in the mail via USPS the first week of August.  I activated mine and my
> partner will activate his later this week, I imagine.
>
> It would be acceptable for you to move the deadlines for each portion back to
> accomodate for the interest people are showing for ICANN and for the time
> delays for mailings, etc.
>
> In the event you are approaching an uacceptable level of financial strain due
> to the unforceen amount of hopeful participants; please make your financial
> information public.  I am confident more people would be interested in making
> donations; (although I doubt any ISP or TLDSP will pay invoices sent for fees
> that have neither been requested nor explained...) .
>
> I recommend that the dates be redefined for all Phases of all projects ICANN
> has made public knowledge of.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration.
>
> ~k
>
> Kristy [612.823.2418]
>
> For every ten people who are clipping at the branches of evil, you're lucky
> to find one who's hacking at the roots.
>
> ---Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) American philosopher

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:33:15 -0500
From: Erick Iriarte <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

Hi!

The same problem is in Latin America and Caribe. And some people have
registration around May 2000 and until have their PIN's.

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Derecho.Org America
http://derecho.org

At 21.11 14/8/00 +0200, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>
>Still no PINs for several people in Sweden. Actually I haven't heard of
>any Swede receiving his PIN. The election is due and this is really
>starting to annoy me. If we don't receive PINs - is there another way for
>us to cast our vote?
>
>Regards
>
>Mikael
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
>  +46-709-179012                              http://www.pawlo.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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:21:05 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

>At 18:31 14/08/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>This is the same Esther that's more concerned about ensuring she's 
>>staying at a hotel with a smwimming pool during ICANN road shows, 
>>than ensuring fairness to all.
>
>you are indulging in personal attacks.
>
>         Harald Alvestrand
>         List monitor

At Santiago:

Fact 1. The first thing Esther did when she arrived was move hotel, 
because the one hosting the hob-knobs didn't have a pool.

Fact 2. Motions were passed that reduced the power of individual net 
users compared to corporates. The UDRP for starters. The DNSO sham. 
The GA!

So, my statement was a fact.

And as far as getting personal is concerned, if that's what we have 
to do to highlight the screwing we're getting from ICANN, then yes, 
we're going to get personal. Get used to it.

They're the one's who won't allow us a voice in the process. They're 
the ones who will be first up against the wall when the revolution 
happens.

Where do you stand on the matter? Just part of the powerless GA?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
- --
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, 15 Aug 2000 08:51:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

Mikael, Christopher, and members of the Election Committee.
(please fwd this notice also to Mr. Nguyen Huu Dong, whose E-Mail 
address is unknown to me)

What worries me most in this PIN story is the size of the problem.
Few hours ago we had only 36231 "activated" members, out of the total of
 "unverified" 158593. That makes roughly between 20% and 25%.

It is impossible to say why more than 3 out of 4 people have not yet 
activated their membership, i.e. whether they did not receive their PINs
, they have lost it, they are on vacation (common thing to do in August,
 at least in Europe).
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the ability for Members to 
participate in the "membership-nomination" phase is dramatically 
reduced.
Under these circumstances, it seems obvious to me that some action has 
to be taken by the Board.
For instance, to consider the 2% cap on the activated members at 
midnight 2000-08-14 instead of the 2% of the (theoretical) number of 
overall members.
The best action, as suggested by others, would be to postpone the period
 of endorsement to "member-nominated" candidates until the PIN-sending 
process is not finished + reasonable mail delay time. But can/will the 
Board take such action?
It would be much better for ICANN and for the Members to have a more 
clean and complete election, but later in time, than to risk to be 
accused of introducing a bias in rushing things.
Anyway, we have an "Elections Committee" whose task is to oversee the 
regular rollout of the elections. I would like to suggest them to come 
up with a statement on the subject.

Best regards
Roberto

>(to: Christopher Ambler, cc: to Esther Dyson and the GA, please find Mr

>Amblers original message attached below)
>
>Dear Mr Ambler,
>I wish I could use that as a comforting fact, but it just adds to the
>confusion regarding the PIN situation. I heard that the PINs would be 
sent
>in batches - fair enough - but now the election is due and I still do 
not
>know how to vote without my PIN. I sure can understand that ICANN 
suffer
>from intial administrative problems, but it's harder to accept that a
>legally binding election will take place when several voters have no 
means
>of participation.
>
>The PIN situation should be solved or the election postponed. Any other

>alternative is unjust and unfair. I might excercise my right not to 
vote
>for any of the candidates, but for the time beeing I'm even denied to  

>make such a choice.
>
>Lucky ICANN to have Esther Dyson as chairman - who I know is just,
>otherwise I might have suggested foul play. Now that is hardly an 
option,
>but the PIN situation urgently needs to be addressed.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mikael
>
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>
>> Well, I live in Seattle, WA USA, and was one of the first to sign
>> up, and I've not gotten my PIN yet either.
>> 
>> I really want to give my member support to Karl Auerbach, but
>> I can't until I get my PIN.
>> 
>> Christopher
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mikael Pawlo" <[email-masked]>
>> To: <[email-masked]>
>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 12:11 PM
>> Subject: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > Still no PINs for several people in Sweden. Actually I haven't 
heard of
>> > any Swede receiving his PIN. The election is due and this is really

>> > starting to annoy me. If we don't receive PINs - is there another 
way for
>> > us to cast our vote?
>> > 
>> > Regards
>> > 
>> > Mikael
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
________________________________________________________________________
_
>> > 
>> >   ICQ:35638414                                mailto:
[email-masked] 
>> >   +46-709-179012                              http://www.pawlo.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
>> 
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
__
>
>  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
>  +46-709-179012                              http://www.pawlo.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: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:47:29 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] The everlasting PIN situation

Patrik wrote:
>
>I am not surprised if one look back to the history of _how_ the 
>"unverified" members were allocated.
>
>I think 20% is a result which is much higher than what I expected.
>

Yes, and anyway the total amount of already verified members is far 
higher than the 5000 that was chosen as lower limit for valid elections.

But the question was what to do if "good" members are not allowed to 
participate in this phase, not for their fault, but because of the 
delays in verification.

If your answer is:
"No problem, the 75% to 80% missing are *fake*, *unverifiable*, 
*unqualified*, or whatever"
I can (and happily will) live with that (provided that the 2% is 
calculated on the "verified today" number of Members).
If we find out, OTOH, that only 36231 will be allowed to participate in 
this phase, but 158593 (or anyway substantially more than 36231) will be
 allowed to participate in October, something is wrong.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 15 Aug 2000 09:52:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

Jonathan,

Absolutely correct.

(I wish I was able to express myself so clearly)

Roberto

P.S.: action point for me noted - I will get back to the GA with the 
list. I can already anticipate that they are one per Constituency, plys 
yours truly.

>	My understanding:
>
>	The NC decided a review of the DNSO should be undertaken using *two*
>bodies: a "Task Force" and a WG.  The Task Force was formed by 
invitation
>only,  with members nominated by each of the constituencies.  To my
>knowledge, the names of the Task Force members have not been made 
public.
>(Roberto, can you tell us who they are?)  The Task Force is putting
>together a workplan for the rest of the review process; its draft 
document
>has also not been made public.  Once the workplan is completed and 
approved
>by the NC, the NC will issue a call for rank-and-file members to enlist
 in
>the working group.
>
>Roberto, is this correct?
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>At 08:41 PM 8/14/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>Michael,
>>
>>Sorry for the confusion.
>>As I expalined in a previous post, the document is the initial 
document 
>>that is circulating in the Task Force to define the scope of work.
>>
>>You did not miss anything.
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>>
>>>That's amazing.  What kind of notice got sent to ICANN mailing list
>>>members?  Am I no longer on the relevant list? 
>>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>>
>>>> The NC Task Force is at work, I am part of it.
>>>> The deadline for comments on the initial document is today.
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
>>>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
>>>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>>>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>>>                        -->It's hot here.<--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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, 15 Aug 2000 12:16:21 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

Following up on my own post:
>
>P.S.: action point for me noted - I will get back to the GA with the 
>list. I can already anticipate that they are one per Constituency, plys
 
>yours truly.
>

The participants are:
Bus.  Theresa Swinehart
ccTLD Patricio Poblete
gTLD  Roger Cochetti
IPC   Axel Aus der Muhlen
ISPC  Hiro Hotta
NCDNH YJ Park
Reg.  Paul Kane
+ Pindar Wong, who did the presentation of the DNSO Review in Yokohama.

Just in an attempt (let's see how successful) in cutting short the 
suspicions of "secrecy", the mailing list archives for the Task Force 
are public (like the other WGs, Committees, and so on), and can be found
 at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html.

Of course, your comments/suggestions about the matter discussed in the 
TF are welcome, either privately or on the GA-list.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 15 Aug 2000 12:33:20 +1200
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

At 13:57 14/08/00 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>Should this GA not allow its on-line members to vote on the resolution 
>that
>>the members present in Yokohama voted so overwhelmingly for? Just to 
>remind
>>the NC at this critical moment?
>
>For what purpose?
>The motion has been voted and obtained consensus in Yokohama, was 
>presented to the NC on the same day, who received it and took immediate 
>action.
>
>
I agree that action is already on the way in some form. But,
A vote from the virtual GA is a useful exercise. We haven't voted all that
often and it sets the right precedent that allows the WHOLE GA to vote on
issues that otherwise could be rammed through a physical GA.
It also prevents people from making the point that the whole GA didn't get
the chance to vote on the issue.
If Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin hadn't held up their hands in person, they
could surely be expected to raise that point.

>>Now back in my Asia-Pacific region where I am resident, but where I 
>cannot
>>gather support for a nomination under the current rules. 
>
>
>Why? I don't understand this.
>
I raised the point once more in Yokohama. Esther admitted that it was a flaw
in the rules. I have a European citizenship, while I am resident in the Asia
Pacific region.
The current rules make the nomination of expatriates, if not put on the
ballot by the nominating committee, a practical impossibility. For an
Internet body, such a rule is especially ludicrous.

- --Joop
www.idno.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, 15 Aug 2000 12:50:41 +1200
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] new constituencies

Since the process is now still open, we might as well help the special NC
task force in their thinking:

**********************************

DRAFT Outline for the DNSO Review

Introduction:

The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, with the responsibility of
advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the
domain name system. The DNSO has the primary responsibility for developing
and recommending substantive policies regarding to the domain name system.
Additionally, the Board can reer proposals for substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III,
Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the ICANN Board shall...[include section
under 'responsibilities and powers' of the DNSO bylaws].

Background:

The DNSO was formed in the Spring [February] of 1999 as one of the three
SO's under ICANN. It was formed following extensive global discussions and
communications, with the intent of trying to establish an SO that
represented the stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and
recommending substantive polices regarding the domain name system. Following
its establishment, it had functioned. As required under the ICANN bylaws,
the DNSO review is necessary to determine whether it is fulfilling it's
commitments, and whether it needs to be adjusted in order to better fulfill
them.

Review:

The review will require assessing which questions the NC needs to ask in
connection for overall review, including what is the role of the
constituencies, what problems exist, and what should the dnso try to be
accomplishing and is it meeting those needs. In order to proceed with this,
we will outline below and ask questions, on the responsibilities of the
organization, and the structure. The review will conclude with
recommendations, if any, on how to better improve the fulfillment of the
responsibilities of the organization, and whether any improvements require
structural changes.

DNSO Responsibilities:

with the responsibility of advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy
issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO has the primary
responsibility for developing and recommending substantive policies
regarding to the domain name system. Additionally, the Board can reer
proposals for substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the
DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.

Identify what responsibilities the DNSO has had to date consistent with its
mandate [TO BE ADDED]

* To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled these responsibilities?

* Where was the DNSO lacking in its capacity?

* Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?

Structure:

The current structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven
constituencies, and the General Assembly [TO BE ADDED] provide short
overview of these structures].

* Does the existing structure work?

* If not, can it be improved?

* Are the constituencies a correct division? Should there be different
divisions in the DNSO? E.g., users v. providers?

* Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness of the
DNSO and NC?

* Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended group?

* The GA has improve subsequently to the elections of the chairs -- what
should be the future responsibilities of the GA be?

Review  [Additional points to be added]:

* To improve the effectiveness of the DNSO, should the structure change? if
so, how?

* Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work consistent with the
provision in Article III, Section 3, oftheICANN Bylaws, that the ICANN Board
shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that the
recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest
of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was
arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by
representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4)
isn't reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.

*******
My first reaction: the DNSO was supposed to be a representative structure of
all stakeholders in the DNS. Balancing  "ëffectiveness" for some special
interests against "representativeness" of the body itself is not a proper
exercise.
"Effective" has different meanings for different interests.

- --
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 #117
************************