Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1172
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1172

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:22:58 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in order
or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order

> On Wed 8 May, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Well perhaps Jamie should reword it to say that the functions of the DNSO
> should be put up for rebid, though I personally think this is a spurious
> distinction.
>
> The reality is that there's a growing consensus of opinion that a bit of
> competition for ICANN (or the DNSO if you want to restrict it to that)
would
> do no harm at all; Jamie's proposed motion is designed to establish
whether
> such consensus exists. Efforts to cite "procedure" in order to prevent a
> vote taking place are not surprisingly from those who do not support the
> motion and who fear that such a motion may garner general support. Some
> salient points:
>
> 1. If there is no consensus on Jamie's motion, it won't pass
> 2. If Jamie's motion does pass and there is a rebid, I would hope that
those
> who support a version of the current ICANN structure were confident enough
> that their own bid would prevail by virtue of it's suitability to the task
> at hand.
>
> Finally, a further word on this issue of the increase in the GA voting
> registry. The GA voting system is actually a prime example of why the
> current ICANN structure can never work efficiently - anyone could get
their
> granny, cousins, sisters, aunts uncles to register and vote on a position
if
> they wanted to. That's the real issue - that ICANN's current structure is
> horribly unaccountable and lends itself to capture and dominance by
certain
> interest groups - and that's why I continue to believe that a rethinking
> from scratch (including the DoC inviting alternative bids) is required. I
> think it's becoming clear that actually "not a lot" is what's required,
and
> that many of ICANN's problems stem from an over-elaborate and
unaccountable
> structure. The market has an uncanny knack of keeping things in check.
>
> andy duff
>
> --
> 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 23:27:09 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] statistics

>   What is important is that many thousands get every post to the
> DNSO GA list from us [INEGroup] due to past SELECTIVE
> CENSORSHIP practices documented in full on the DNSO
> GA lists archives.

Selective censorship claims by entities that don't exist? Rich...

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 06:10:54 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] reform proposition RFP

- --=======1D371F78=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6D8F712E; boundary="=====================_23874456==_.ALT"

- --=====================_23874456==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6D8F712E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

RFP for the development of the "iana.exe" program.

This program will run under WinNT and possibly under Linux.
It will be installed on a four machines system :
- - in MdR (ICANN)
- - in Herndon (VRSN)
- - in Geneva (ITU/T)
- - in Versailles (my office)
The machines will be interconnected via the net with full up-dates every 
minutes.

1. iana.exe will be available to everyone to register entries, make sure 
they are unique and respond three minutes later on (to allow a complete 
update cycle): this will limit the number of entries to 175,200 per year 
providing an auto-regulation between a limited number of entries, updates etc.

2. entries will be for IP blocks and will support 256 entries for IPv4, 
2056 for IPv8 and a large number for IPv6 'tests). They will be for 
protocol numbers. They will be for network names (TLD).

3. For names ; it will be in a first come first serve basis with 
verification of two name servers. With the delays and updates, it is 
expected that the 1.000.000 TLDs announced by the ICANN in MdR 2000 will 
not occur before June 2053. TLD Managers not re documented every year will 
be removed form the root (so the IANA database will be kept updated).

iana.exe will report:
- - the status of the IP blocks
- - the protocols numbers
- - the root file for the USG and the stub files for the Open Roots systems
- - the current directory of the TLDs.

The program will not be billed more than $ 5500.
the world@wide foundation.

- --=====================_23874456==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6D8F712E; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<b><u>RFP for the development of the &quot;iana.exe&quot;
program.<br><br>
</u></b>This program will run under WinNT and possibly under Linux. 
<br>
It will be installed on a four machines system : <br>
- - in MdR (ICANN)<br>
- - in Herndon (VRSN)<br>
- - in Geneva (ITU/T)<br>
- - in Versailles (my office) <br>
The machines will be interconnected via the net with full up-dates every
minutes.<br><br>
1. <b>iana.exe</b> will be available to everyone to register entries,
make sure they are unique and respond three minutes later on (to allow a
complete update cycle): this will limit the number of entries to 175,200
per year providing an auto-regulation between a limited number of
entries, updates etc.<br><br>
2. entries will be for IP blocks and will support 256 entries for IPv4,
2056 for IPv8 and a large number for IPv6 'tests). They will be for
protocol numbers. They will be for network names (TLD). <br><br>
3. For names ; it will be in a first come first serve basis with
verification of two name servers. With the delays and updates, it is
expected that the 1.000.000 TLDs announced by the ICANN in MdR 2000 will
not occur before June 2053. TLD Managers not re documented every year
will be removed form the root (so the IANA database will be kept
updated).<br><br>
<b>iana.exe</b> will report:<br>
- - the status of the IP blocks<br>
- - the protocols numbers<br>
- - the root file for the USG and the stub files for the Open Roots
systems<br>
- - the current directory of the TLDs.<br><br>
The program will not be billed more than $ 5500.<br>
the world@wide foundation.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_23874456==_.ALT--

- --=======1D371F78=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6D8F712E
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

- --=======1D371F78=======--

- --
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: Thu, 9 May 2002 00:41:10 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] statistics

Sorry Jeff,

My customers are smart enough not to buy into your field of dreams.

You are a fiction. Please leave.

- -rwr

http://www.byte.org/jw/jwk3.jpg

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] statistics

> Ross and all assembly members,
> 
>   Oh we exist all right Ross...  But it is interesting that you should
> take such an attitude as a few of our members are you customers
> and have supported some of your initiatives...
> 
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > >   What is important is that many thousands get every post to the
> > > DNSO GA list from us [INEGroup] due to past SELECTIVE
> > > CENSORSHIP practices documented in full on the DNSO
> > > GA lists archives.
> >
> > Selective censorship claims by entities that don't exist? Rich...
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> 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: Thu, 9 May 2002 01:06:49 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] statistics

In fairness, a person claiming to be Jeff Williams verbally indicated via
cellphone to me that 5 Eat Kirkwood Blvd, Grapevine TX was actually the
location of "my datacenter...I actually live in Plano."

And also in fairness, I never looked behind the sign (but I did look behind
the bushes - nothing back there but a highway and some fencing).

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] statistics

> Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 9:41:10 PM, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > Sorry Jeff,
>
> > My customers are smart enough not to buy into your field of dreams.
>
> > You are a fiction. Please leave.
>
> > -rwr
>
> > http://www.byte.org/jw/jwk3.jpg
>
> Nice residence you have there, Jeffrey.
>
> Did you build it yourself?
>
> You residence reminds me of your corporation....non-existent.
>
> --
> 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 22:32:15 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] funny about reality

You know there seem to be a lot of you folks out there that don't seem
to get my sisters and my brothers suffering.  You think this is some
game you can win.

No, we lose no matter what you do.  You owe us better.  Please get to
reality.

I need connectivity to save children,  I need the woman Doctor in Yale
Med school to relate to my agent orange victim in the Mekong. And I need
them yesterday.

Up yours Walsh with your games.

So rebind and get me somebody or something that can do it!

My children do not have time for your stupid ass points of order.

Rock on James Love.

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: Thu, 09 May 2002 01:54:24 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

At 11:22 PM 08/05/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that there is a reasoned point of order on the
>table. I would personally like to hear from our chair whether it is in 
>order or whether the discussion on the motion can proceed.

I'd like to make some points about a Point of Order.

First, I couldn't find any mention of what a Point
of Order is, insofar as it relates to the GA. Is such
a rule written down somewhere, even by a record of
past consensus? If not, then isn't a Point of Order
a dev/nullity?

Second, assuming that the minimalist rules of order
of the GA are augmented through rough consensus by
occasional looking for guidance from, for example,
Robert's Rules of Order, then a Point of Order is
*not* debatable and is ruled on forthwith by the
Chair (the Chair may put it to a vote). In the case
of the Chair making a ruling it can be appealed (which
must be done forthwith and requires a second) and it
then goes to a vote to support the Chair's ruling,
or not.

Third, Robert's Rules of Order almost always breaks
if you selectively use some of its rules and not others.

Fourth, if we aren't using Robert's, or others', rules,
it seems to me a Point of Order may be safely ignored.
If OTOH we are, even roughly, using Robert's Rules, then
I can't make points about Points of Order and this email
may be safely ignored. -g

- --
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: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:38:39 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Behaviour and rights

Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>Roberto,
>People have a right to speak.

Of course they do.
They have the right to speak, but also the right to decide to say things 
that can be:
- - relevant
- - irrelevant
- - counterproductive
That they decide to say irrelevant and/or counterproductive things does not 
diminish their right to speak, of course.

>The goal is not to replace ICANN per se, but
>to ask the people for whose benefit it exists to let their will be known, 
>in
>much the same way that any government must subject itself to a vote of the
>people every 4 or so years in order to stay in power.

Obviously yes.
But a vote changes the people in place in the government, not the type of 
government itself.
You vote every 4 years or so to replace the people in 
congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is, not if 
the shape of the 
congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is has to be 
changed. The latter can be done, of course, but it implies rewriting the 
rules of the game and it happens at much wider intervals.
And in fact people on the ICANN Board are subject to change (with the 
notable exception of the the 4 Boardsquatters, that most of us agree is a 
shame).

>Nobody is saying that
>ICANN could not be re-elected to serve another term, but it has no 
>automatic
>right to that extension, and by its own policies, admits a failure to
>deliver on its promises so far. Those whom ICANN has failed most are
>currently represented within the process by the GA, hence it has a right to
>hear about all the alternatives that may be available, not just those
>dictated by ICANN itself. For goodness sake, let the Vote proceed.

Absolutely correct. But this is, to translate an untranslateable Italian 
expression, "the ox who claims that the donkey has horns".
Not only I never said that the vote should not proceed (on the contrary, I 
spoke against the "motion of order"), but I am exactly one of the few who 
sais, contrary to you, that we should discuss "about all the alternatives 
that may be available", not just to rebid.
Let's assume for a moment that our "confidence vote" will be taken into 
account, what will replace the current ICANN? Either we are foolish not to 
have thought about it beforehand, or we do have a hidden agenda, and we are 
already lobbying US Congress for the alternate solution, and that, of 
course, without discussing this in the "open and transparent" process that 
we think ICANN should apply, but we are not bound to.

>The worst
>that can happen is that ICANN will have to run a re-election campaign and
>answer some tough questions. To do otherwise is to uphold the concept of a
>dictatorship.

Re-election campaign? Has there been an election campaign in first place? I 
must have missed it. I thought that the decision had been taken by USG with 
consultation with whom they chose to consult, and taken into account the 
opinions of those who they chose to listen.
And ICANN is the result.

You mean that, supposing we will have a rebid, this time USG will run an 
"open and transparent process", ending up with a vote of all stakeholders 
based on the principle "one person - one vote" to choose among the bidders? 
Wow!

Regards
Roberto
(keeping forgetting that there's a difference between geese and ganders)

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:08:36 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

> First, I couldn't find any mention of what a Point
> of Order is, insofar as it relates to the GA. Is such
> a rule written down somewhere, even by a record of
> past consensus? If not, then isn't a Point of Order
> a dev/nullity?

From an upper case perspective, quite likely. The fact is thought that
William has raised a substantive point about the validity of the motion from
a bylaws perspective. The options at this point, as far as I can see them,
is that Thomas can rule on William's "observation" (which would then require
Jamie, or another supporter of the motion to rephrase the proposal ), or,
William's point can be taken at face value and worked into the motion. The
third option is that the proposal can continue towards a vote in the face of
what are likely reasonable "constitutional" obstacles and lose all hope of
carrying any weight or credibility.

I for one would not vote on this proposal until such time that a) the
question is modified to fit the scope of the GA as William has described it
or b) it includes self-defeating/promoting language describing some sort of
a consultation with the ASO and PSO. My preference would be that the GA
actually engage in some cross-constituency work, but I fear that this would
not be controversial enough to engage the current membership.

> Fourth, if we aren't using Robert's, or others', rules,
> it seems to me a Point of Order may be safely ignored.
> If OTOH we are, even roughly, using Robert's Rules, then
> I can't make points about Points of Order and this email
> may be safely ignored. -g

Which, also speaking from an upper case perspective, is why (at least to my
understanding) the GA has never adopted the rules of order - they are really
tough to make work via email.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:21:08 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

On 2002-05-08 20:21:55 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:

>>Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to 
>>be the one least likely.

>I wish I agreed, but I don't. The US is very sensitive to EU and 
>other concerns and wishes to have maximum distance from its 
>'failsafe' role in running the DNS.  It wants the private solution 
>very badly.

Your argument doesn't justify the conclusion: All you say is that  
there will be continued private-sector control.  However, you fail  
to point out what incentive the players involved (which include the  
USG!) have to set up a DIFFERENT private-sector entity for 
exercising that control, when they can just as well reform the 
existing one.

- -- 
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: Thu, 09 May 2002 07:51:56 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in  favor of "reform" efforts

TR;

If I were hired to do a negative outreach instructional program.  (i do not
sell products but concepts)
I would take your picture and make a poster and a web site.  And say this
is the picture of negative outreach.
Sorry sometimes even a mellow creature like me needs to flame.

TR, there is a song out there that says it is not what you say but what you
do.
Is there one thing that you in the GA have done - up the latter to the NC
and then to the BoD of ICANN that in the slightest way suggests that you
can reform from within?

I do not think so!  In fact the best that has been done is the Lynn
"proclamation of failure".  but that is cheap ass talk with no doing.  And
your baiting questions here are more verbal crap with no results.
Jamie is getting something done, hooray for him.

Oh by the way where are your dotDE supporters, they seem to have shrunk
after you enlisted them strictly for your election?

Call a spade a spade.

Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-08 20:21:55 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>
> >>Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to
> >>be the one least likely.
>
> >I wish I agreed, but I don't. The US is very sensitive to EU and
> >other concerns and wishes to have maximum distance from its
> >'failsafe' role in running the DNS.  It wants the private solution
> >very badly.
>
> Your argument doesn't justify the conclusion: All you say is that
> there will be continued private-sector control.  However, you fail
> to point out what incentive the players involved (which include the
> USG!) have to set up a DIFFERENT private-sector entity for
> exercising that control, when they can just as well reform the
> existing one.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Thu, 9 May 2002 07:57:50 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote

My apologies - this was obviously an unfinished commentary and re response
was sent back offline as I recall. Again my apologies for burdening the list
with this.

T.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "GA List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote

> Joanna - my intent is not to respond negatively to you personally but the
> type of language that you are talking about is a
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:10 PM
> Subject: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote
>
>
> > FYI.
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:34 PM
> > > To: Joanna Lane
> > > Subject: Re: Timetable and procedure for vote
> > >
> > >
> > > Joanna,
> > >
> > > I think Dan's friendly amendment is a good one.
> > >
> > > With regard to the other issues that have been raised,
> > >
> > > 1.    I don't think it is a good idea to mention the particular
> contracts,
> > > and I prefer the present more general statement, so that we don't get
> into
> > > legalistic issues over the current status of a particular contract,
> which
> > > may be difficult for people (who vote on this) to assess.
> > > Similarly there
> > > was a suggestion to spell out in detail the options that the USG could
> > > consider in renegotiations, and I would prefer to keep it fairly
simple.
> > >
> > > 2.  Some have expressed a concern about the word, rebid.  The
advantage
> of
> > > the word rebid is that people understand what we mean.   The
> disadvantage
> > > may be some technical legal imprecision regarding whether the
> > > term "bid" is
> > > right to describe how some of these agreements work.   We could
> substitute
> > > _new open competition_ for rebid, avoiding terms that may have the
wrong
> > > technical meaning.    (See  below)  I personally think rebid is
> > > simpler and
> > > easier to read, but accept also "new open competition" or something
> else.
> > >
> > > 3.  I would prefer to not include Todd Glassey's suggestion that
> > > we specific
> > > to "require for perpetude", or that we make reference to the US
Federal
> > > Trade Commission, which currently has no role in DNS, other than
> > > to lobby to
> > > whois disclosures.
> > >
> > > 4.    I am happy to add at the end the language suggested by Jeanette,
> in
> > > the form below, wondering only if it is getting too long.
> > >
> > > "The GA also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper,
> the
> > > USG made it clear that it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The
> > > current ICANN structure has proven to be unhelpful in this respect.
> > > Schedules could not be met and agreements with key stakeholders have
not
> > > been achieved.  An open competition should aim to achieve
comprehensive
> > > privatization and internationalization of DNS services."
> > >
> > > 5.   added at the end of Jeannette's last sentence, I would also add,
> > > "consistent with the need for stability, innovation, competition and
> > > freedom." if this is appropriate.    Noting that it may be more
> > > effective to
> > > keep it shorter, rather than adding new ideas.  On the other hand,
maybe
> > > there is consensus on the new items.  I'm flex on this.    Jamie
> > >
> > > This is the modified version:
> > > =====================
> > > 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 new open competition is
that
> > > ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for
> > > ICANN, and
> > > is proposing even further changes. These proposed changes have
> > > met extensive
> > > opposition in the Internet community and go even further from the
> original
> > > terms of reference. The  new open competition  would allow the DoC to
> > > consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,
alternatives
> > > offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and provide for
a
> > > public record of the process for enhanced visibility.  The GA also
> reminds
> > > the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper, the USG made it
> > > clear that
> > > it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The current ICANN
> > > structure has
> > > proven to be unhelpful in this respect.  Schedules could not be met
and
> > > agreements with key stakeholders have not been achieved.  An open
> > > competition should aim to achieve comprehensive privatization and
> > > internationalization of DNS services, consistent with the need for
> > > stability, innovation, competition and freedom.
> > >
> > > ========================
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 9 May 2002 11:04:17 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

Thomas, several persons have indicated on this list that there are quite
different notions of what might replace ICANN, and I agree with this
completely.   Some of the proposes for dramatically shrinking ICANN's policy
making mandate or authority, or having a more distributed approach to policy
making,  lead away from a large complicated Internet world government type
model, for example, as several persons have noted.

I personally can think of lots of different ways the DNS could be managed,
many of them would seem to be reasonable, and some would not seem
reasonable.    I consider myself agonistic on the "best" management system.
The Lynn plan was shocking in the direction it went, very strong authority
and policy making mandate, tight board control over the election of board
members, elimination of accountability mechanisms, etc.

In an open competition, *different* proposals could be considered, on a more
level playing field, not expecting the incumbent ICANN board to be the
arbitrator.  The ICANN board committee on reform could not even bring in
outsiders, and it is hard to imagine the present board deciding to
dramatically reduce ICANN's powers or enhance bottom up power either, which
would be important if the DNS is controlled by a body with coercive power
and broad policy making authority.  One example of the problems with too
much board power is the fact that the GA is intimidated from offering
criticisms to the top down powers, who could (and already have proposed to)
eliminate the GA.

A DoC rebid would allow these different ideas to be considered by someone
else other than the ICANN BOD.  It is of course possible that the DoC would
do something worst than the ICANN board, left to its own devices.   But I
think the far more likely result is that the the competition would be the
ICANN Board's to lose, in the event that the ICANN board overreaches in
terms of too much power and too little accountability, and the alternatives
generated a lot of private sector and public support.   DoC is very
pro-privatization, as indicated most recently by the Evans letter to the US
Congress, and it is realistic about the need to have an international
framework, and we too can be clear about the need for an international
framework.

Finally, the idea that a recompete is a radical proposal would be more true
if it was not made in the context of the very radical Lynn proposal, and the
way the BOD is managing the "reform" process, which clearly excludes their
critics and avoids participation by independent voices, which in my mind, is
quite agressive.

Jamie

PS.... Thanks for allowing this vote to proceed, despite your personal
opposition.   That is quite fair.

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:50:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

James,

Your ideas seem very idealized to me.

Why would a country who is famous for stuffing the government with 
un-elected officials suddenly stop and start playing along with the 
consensus game they made up to keep us busy?

There is no money in that.  There is no infamy.

If the "problem" is with ICANN, isn't it really with the ICANNers and 
ICANNites?  Could we not solve our perceived difficulties simply by 
replacing all of the people currently involved?

:)

~k

- --
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: Thu, 09 May 2002 09:51:04 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On the "rebid" vote: Now we're getting somewhere!

We have here a basic motion from Jamie, and various comments, proposed 
amendments, substitute motions, etc., relating thereto. However, one 
"can't tell the players without a program." One post that sticks in my 
mind says something to the effect that "I think Dan's amendment is a 
good one, . . . ." But who is "Dan?"  And what was his amendment?  I'd 
suggest that, starting with Jamie's "motion," we most politely and 
subserviently ask our stalwart work horse, Joanna Lane, to consolidate 
these posts into a single document that identifies each motion 
numerically, as in "#001 -- "Rebid" -- Proponent - James Love"; "#002 -- 
"Rebid" -- Proponent - "Dan"; etc. Then, insofar as possible, subsumed 
under each such entry would be posted copies of any proposed amendments 
or comments, etc., that are unambiguously directed towards that 
particular motion. Then it would be possible for those who don't know 
who "Dan " is, or who get lost in the accumulating posts with respect to 
exactly which "motion" is being talked about, to respond, if desired, 
more clearly. In making comments, amendments, etc., it would then be 
very useful, of course, if such posts started out with something like 
"As to #001 . . . ," or even "As to Jamie's "motion, . . . ,"  etc.

I have usually put quotes about "motion" above, since I think what's 
going on here is really an attempt to generate a motion -- i.e., these 
several contributions may reasonably be treated as "proposals for a 
motion" -- that we can all agree upon.  (I concur with the notion that 
Jamie's "motion" is not at all ready to be forwarded through the Chair 
to be voted on, not because there is anything wrong with the motion 
itself, which I personally like, but rather because it has not been 
given enough study.)  What would be expected out of this process would 
likely be some single Motion, which would then be in shape to be sent on 
to the DNSO --not on the basis that X number of people favor or oppose 
it, but rather that it expresses, more precisely and informatively than 
any of the other proposed motions, what the exact issue is that needs 
decision.  As Joanna has previously suggested, and following the form of 
a Motion that Karl Auerbach had put before the BoD many months ago, what 
would help to separate one proposed motion from another would be the 
content of an initial sequence of "whereas" clauses that would provide a 
meaningful basis for the substantive body of the Motion.

Sound reasonable?

(Forgive me, Joanna, for I know not what I do.  :-))

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1172
*************************