Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1173
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1173

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 09:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

I must say that I am rather amazed at all of the bits and pixels being
burned even asking whether the GA should hold a vote/straw-poll on the 
question of whether the GA should encourage (or not) the US DoC to 
consider other candidates when deciding what to do when the various MoU's, 
CRADAs, purchase orders and such it has with ICANN come up for renewal, 
replacement, or extension later this year.

(Please note that I used neither the word "rebid" nor "contract" as those 
are not quite correct, and when talking to the USG one has to be very 
precise about what one means.)

Several points:

First is that the Names Council has rendered its opinion on the "reform"
plan.  The GA has no less a right to do the same; there is nothing that 
says that the GA may not express its sense on a matter.  I would suggest 
that the GA should not bind itself to a Procrustean bed of its own making. 

It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed it is right and proper, for the GA 
to stand up and make its opinion known.

Second, there is no other defined place in ICANN which is open to the
degree that the GA is open; the at-large having been dispatched in Ghana.

This makes the opinion of the GA all that more important.

Third, there are two issues: The question of the disposition of the
MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is one issue.  The other is the Lynn "plan".  Let
me deal with the latter first.  I was quoted in Salon as saying something
to the effect that the best use of that plan is as kindling to start a
fire.  I hold to the opinion that the Lynn plan is a blend of unworkable,
unaccountable, and naive financial and business practices; a closed system
of regulation of public matters without public participation; and a
roadmap to personal aggrandizement by some of those pushing the plan.  

But the lack of viability and wisdom of the Lynn plan is not the question
that Jamie asked.

The question he asked was for the GA to express its opinion on the matter
of the disposition by the US of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder later this
year.  My feeling is that is more than merely a valid issue, that it is an
issue of importantance.

Fourth, the question of the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is 
not a monolithic yes/no question.  That package of legal arrangements 
contains many distinct obligations and duties.  These can be separated and 
treated individually.  Let me illustrate by observing that "the IANA 
function" (which ICANN performs via the purchase order) could, and in the 
opinion of many, ought to be spun-out to a distinct entity while leaving 
other functions with ICANN.

(In case anyone is interested, I, as have several others, suggested that 
ICANN be evolved into several distinct entities, each with limited duties 
and thus limited powers -- http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm )

Fifth, even those of us like me - California-centric Americans ;-) -
realize that that whatever is done with these legal agreements, it
represents yet another action of US hegemony over this bundle of Internet
issues.  It seems to me that the question of how the US might proceed in 
actually accomplishing the disposition of the MoU/CRADA/PurchaseOrder is a 
forum in which one can raise and face the question of how to devolve this 
US control into something more acceptable to the sensitivities of the 
majority of the worlds people who don't live in the US without allowing 
ICANN, or whatever it "evolves" into, to become a body without 
accountability and without oversight.
 
So my thought is this: The GA ought to be what its name says it is - an 
assembly open to "general" matters, in other words, any matter.  It should 
not feel constrained by artifical subject matter ropes that have not 
constrained its sister body the Names Council.

If a member of the GA places a question, and that question obtains 
cognizable visibility as a matter of interest and concern, then the GA 
ought to proceed with all deliberate speed to discuss the matter *and* to 
obtain the sense of the membership on that question that was put forth.

		--karl--

- --
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 12:56:15 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Text of ballot question

From yesterdays comments, this is the proposed text.
Jamie

=======May 9 text=====
The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
The rationale for asking for a 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,  and alternatives
offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while providing 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. An open competition should aim
to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom.
==============

- --------------------------------
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, 9 May 2002 10:10:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question

Thursday, May 09, 2002, 9:56:15 AM, James Love wrote:

>>From yesterdays comments, this is the proposed text.
> Jamie

> =======May 9 text=====
> The GA

And that is where you still have a problem.

Secondly, the GA CAN'T make a statement on this, it is not empowered
to.  Individual GA members may, and you have already indicated to me
off list that you are pursuing an independent non-GA statement for
people to attach their names to.   Yet you insist that the GA should
do it also.

You did not deny in our offlist exchange that you were pushing this
because of the PR value that a statement like that coming from an
internal ICANN body would be worth to your position.  You seemed to
acquiesce to that fact, as a matter of fact.

The one issue you refused to address in that exchange was if you
understood the very real and likely damage that your motion being
advanced by the GA would cause, namely that this would be used as a
VERY effective argument against open public participation inside ICANN
or inside ANY successor organization.

Others more fluent than me have addressed why this is not only a
likely, but a probably result (See emails from Thomas, Alexander, and
Roberto, amongst others).

You also failed to address the issue of this matter being outside the
CHARTER permitted scope of the GA.  Our chair has not rule on this
procedural question either.  ATTN: THOMAS, this requires your
attention!

- -- 
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: Thu, 09 May 2002 13:10:00 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>>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.
>
That is not correct.  William has not pointed out the specific ICANN 
ByLaw stipulation that would be violated by Jamie's motion.  In point of 
fact, there is no such stipulation, or ANY rules about what is 
legitimate deliberative material for the GA in the *ICANN ByLaws*.  If 
you, Mr Wader, wish to press the issue, then why don't you please 
produce the relevant section of the ICANN ByLaws.  Otherwise, there is 
no "point of order" as there are no established rules of order for the GA.

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: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:25:41 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

> That is not correct.  William has not pointed out the specific ICANN
> ByLaw stipulation that would be violated by Jamie's motion.  In point of
> fact, there is no such stipulation, or ANY rules about what is
> legitimate deliberative material for the GA in the *ICANN ByLaws*.  If
> you, Mr Wader, wish to press the issue, then why don't you please
> produce the relevant section of the ICANN ByLaws.  Otherwise, there is
> no "point of order" as there are no established rules of order for the GA.

The bylaws are very clear on a couple of key points

a) that the purpose of the GA is to act as an open forum for participation
in the work of the DNSO.

b) that the purpose of the DNSO is to advise the board with respect to
policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.

The motion on the table has nothing to do with the work of the DNSO and in
fact, directly impacts two other supporting organizations that are being
conveniently ignored by proponents of the motion.

Two other things are quite clear from these two clauses in the bylaws

a) that the GA has no place in making recommendations that affect
stakeholders that are not part of the DNSO and,

b) that the GA has no place in tabling recommendations directly with the
DOC.

As such, I strongly believe that William's objection is entirely legitimate
and requires that the Chair provide guidance concerning the scope of the
motion as presently under discussion.

To answer the specific question, the citation from the bylaws are
specifically 4.VI-B.1.a and 4.VI-B.4.a...

- -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 19:31:38 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GA] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

- --=======55A2189B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-76BC17D5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:50 09/05/02, Kist McKee said:
>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?
>:)

Dear Kist,
I am afraid this is idealization too. Let review it:
- - TR says you are idealistic because involved interests will not fade away 
and dont pay attention to people
- - you say James idealizes the USG democratic angelism.
- - I say you idealize the world in thinking that a wrong structures may be 
saved by better people.
- - you may say I idealize in believing that getting real will make good 
people understand they were wrong about structures.

Let assume we would be the BoD. Lynn reports: "I cannot make it".
1. we ask Lynn what does he do. They did it and he reported.
2. first, we can tell that he does too much as Karl said. I would even say 
they do far too much.
3. two, we can ask ourselves if what we do, we do it in the proper way. 
That question is not risen
4. three, we can ask ourselves, if what we do is necessary according to the 
charter
5. four, we can question the charter in two ways
     - in documenting our real problem - ie rewriting Lynn's document, now 
we know better
     - in asking for an external reevaluation (the rebid).

TR asks for alternatives to be proposed before hand. IMHO we do not want 
alternatives. We want a stop: most of the objectives of the ICANN are 
killed by the ICANN over doing it. It is not a question of political faith, 
it is technical. The contract system kills competition. Competition is 
fostered by the iana.exe system because no one can trick before hand. 
Because a good idea cannot be killed by establishment.

The only two problems I see with James motion are:
- - that it should be sent to the BoD first, explaining that we need them to 
get a documented review of what the ICANN does. That if this document is 
not provided by the DoC a rebid is the best way. That if we do not obtain 
it, we will ask for it directly.
- - TR's attitude. TR is no fool. He is our man relating with the NC. He is a 
pragmatic person. His analysis is a total loss of faith, to the absurd. 
This means that not only the BoD will not respond to our request, but most 
probably the DoC will not either. I cannot believe TR is now a defender of 
an outdated establishment: he is only realistically pessimistic.

So the motion text must include what Jamie put in it, but be phrased in a 
way everyone understand that we were obliged to vote it, in the best common 
interest - to save the DNS - what is dramatically true.

VRSN has indicated that they will put M$ 200 into the DNS development, MS 
will ally with them. MS has 1.5 billion ready to cash in if needed. There 
is no money problem, there is only an ownership problem. The question is 
simple: will the nets be MS, will the enhanced web be under MS planned non 
compatible super-directory system? Will the Whois be - under Jail penalty - 
the basis for the International Identity Card? Will the world's automated 
devices from bulbs to peacemaker, from videogames to TV be MS compatible, 
which means only MS compatible (any trademark permitted as long as it 
spells Microsoft). This is the reality. I think that there are Congressmen, 
all over the planet to dislike that prospect.

jfc

- --=======55A2189B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-76BC17D5
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

- --=======55A2189B=======--

- --
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 13:39:57 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question

William, you can say whatever you like on the list.  You can repost private
messages, messages from other lists, stuff from press interviews, I don't
care.  I have no idea what you think your point is.  Is there any doubt that
but we want the DoC to recompete the ICANN contracts, or that we think it
would be useful for the GA to also back this?  Is there a "PR value" in a
statement from the GA?  I would hope so.  That would mean that people
actually care what the GA says.   How could this not be clear, both on and
off list?    And how would it be a bad thing if a GA statement was actually
noticed by people?

  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question

> Thursday, May 09, 2002, 10:16:38 AM, James Love wrote:
>
> > Nice to know what offlist means to you.  Which is fine.  But also
something
> > to keep in mind.
>
> What, you expect to be able to say one thing on the list, and
> something off the list, and not expect someone to call you on it?
>
> I've posted this to the GA list too, so that others can see that this
> is exactly what you were expecting.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
>
>

- --
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 13:39:13 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question

I have a few additions to make [see below]

James Love wrote:

>>From yesterdays comments, this is the proposed text.
>Jamie
>
>=======May 9 text=====
>The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
>the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
>address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management -
>
one that includes and encourages public user input and participation in 
policy deliberation and formulation as an integral and irrevocable element.

>
>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,
>
as they further diminish ICANN's accountability to the Internet 
Communities of the world, and effectively silence any meaningful public 
input or participation in the decision and/or policy making processes 
within the ICANN.

>. The  new open competition  would allow the DoC to
>consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,  and alternatives
>offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while providing 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. An open competition should aim
>to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
>services, consistent with the need for stability, 
>
public accountability and participation,

>innovation,
>competition and freedom.
>==============
>
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: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Hello,

- --- "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Two other things are quite clear from these two clauses in the bylaws
> 
> a) that the GA has no place in making recommendations that affect
> stakeholders that are not part of the DNSO and,
> 
> b) that the GA has no place in tabling recommendations directly with
> the
> DOC.

I agree with Ross and others who've suggested that it's out of scope.
My original suggestion was that if folks want to vote on the Stuart
Lynn plan, that might be a more appropriate topic for voting by this
group.

Folks are of course free to make a petition to the DoC on matters that
are outside of the scope of the DNSO GA. That can be signed by
supporters of it, etc.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.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, 09 May 2002 12:59:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GA] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

Thank you Jefsey,

I enjoyed reading your commentary and appreciate quite a few of your 
points; however, if the Internet is to be run on MS OSs then I predict the 
Internet will stop working.  Even Microsoft uses UNIX OSs and software for 
their internal systems.  For example, they do not use Exchange, they use 
Send Mail on Free BSD.

;)

~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, 9 May 2002 14:15:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN Reform:  Membership provisions

When one reviews the historical record and examines the competing proposals 
put forth by ICANN, the Boston Working Group, and the Open Root Server 
Confederation, one cannot help but notice the universal consensus on the 
critical need for "membership".  Even ICANN reserved Article II in its intial 
bylaws "for use when the Corporation has members". 

Membership promotes accountability.  Current ICANN management has denied us 
membership, and has denied us those rights that are accorded by way of 
membership.  Our initial MoU with the Department of Commerce called for the 
establishment of "membership mechanisms".  ICANN has not only denied us such 
membership, it has acted to thwart every effort to seat an Individual's 
constituency, and has acted to eliminate the representation provided by 
At-Large directors.  

Is this the type of ICANN that you want?  Are you happy having your rights 
taken away from you, and watching as an elected representative At-Large gets 
killed right in front of your eyes?  Does an organization like this deserve 
to have its contracts renewed by the DoC?  A motion to recompete the ICANN 
contracts makes our dissatisfaction with the current regime a strong factor 
to be weighed by the DoC in its evaluation of the reform initiatives that 
ICANN will produce.

We have a right to membership provisions and a right to democratic 
representative processes.  Let the GA make its displeasure known.

- --
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 11:27:42 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question

On 5/9/02 at 12:56 PM -0400, James Love wrote :

>From yesterdays comments, this is the proposed text.
>Jamie
>
>=======May 9 text=====
>The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
>the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
>address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
>The rationale for asking for a 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,  and alternatives
>offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while providing 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. An open competition should aim
>to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
>services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
>competition and freedom.
>==============

Good.

I agree with the proposed text.

Cheers,

Darrell

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:42:04 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

On 2002-05-09 13:39:57 -0400, James Love wrote:

>Is there a "PR value" in a statement from the GA?  I would hope  
>so.  That would mean that people actually care what the GA says.   
>How could this not be clear, both on and off list?  And how would  
>it be a bad thing if a GA statement was actually noticed by  
>people?

What a wonderful world - Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on  
Technology (and its director, James Love) doing free PR for the 
DNSO's General Assembly.

Bad enough, what I've seen so far points in the opposite direction:  
The Consumer Project on Technology's director trying to abuse the GA 
as a throw-away public relations tool.

So, once again, the question to everyone involved with this: Do you  
want that?  Do you really think that a little PR booster for a  
campaign of CPTech is worth giving up on the GA?

Think twice, and respond, please.  Your responses may quite well  
influence what's going to happen.

- -- 
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, 9 May 2002 11:49:53 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Thursday, May 09, 2002, 11:42:04 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-09 13:39:57 -0400, James Love wrote:

>>Is there a "PR value" in a statement from the GA?  I would hope  
>>so.  That would mean that people actually care what the GA says.   
>>How could this not be clear, both on and off list?  And how would  
>>it be a bad thing if a GA statement was actually noticed by  
>>people?

> What a wonderful world - Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on  
> Technology (and its director, James Love) doing free PR for the 
> DNSO's General Assembly.

> Bad enough, what I've seen so far points in the opposite direction:  
> The Consumer Project on Technology's director trying to abuse the GA 
> as a throw-away public relations tool.

> So, once again, the question to everyone involved with this: Do you  
> want that?  Do you really think that a little PR booster for a  
> campaign of CPTech is worth giving up on the GA?

> Think twice, and respond, please.  Your responses may quite well  
> influence what's going to happen.

That's an easy one.  The core supporters for this motion were
originally those with close ties to the alt.root organizations, such
as a former new.net employee, members of the ORSC and TLDA, etc.

They couldn't care less about damage to the GA, because anything that
damages the credibility of any part of ICANN they believe can only
benefit them.

That is why we have a chair, Thomas, to make sure the GA is acting
within the charter and the rules that dictate its roll in the
processes.

- -- 
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: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:59:35 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] An interesting observation...

This comes from a slightly different corner of ICANN debates - but I 
believe that Sotiris' observation is an important one.

Archives of the lists involved with the exchange below are available 
from the following URLs, just in case you are interest in some more 
context:

 - http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg/
 - http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> -----

From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
To: James Love <[email-masked]>
Cc: panel list <[email-masked]>,
	alsg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:51:43 -0400
Subject: [icann-alsg] Re: [atlarge-panel] Re: [icann-alsg] Variations on a Theme
Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm
Organization: Hermes Network, Inc.

Pardon the question, but in one forum (the DNSO GA) you're trying to kill
ICANN as the technical coordination body by petitioning the DoC for a rebid,
and now here you are defending the retention of the word ICANN as part of a
name for our organization.  So, could you please state why you think it would
be to the advantage of our membership that we maintain the ICANN monicker?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

James Love wrote:

> I don't like International At Large much myself, but don't have good
> alternatives.
>
> Icann@large seems like what we are trying to do.  Is there  a reason we
> can't use ICANN in the name?
>
> If we don't use ICANN, what is it?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
> To: "panel list" <[email-masked]>; "alsg"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [icann-alsg] Variations on a Theme
>
> > Does _anyone_ have any comments?
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > > Here's what I'm toying with for a menu bar.  [the yellow
> > > dot is the rollover indicator in a finished menu]
> > >
> > > Comments please.
> > >
> > > http://www.worldatlarge.org/index_mock.html
> > >
> > > Sotiris
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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 15:08:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Giving up on the GA

Thomas,

I fail to understand why a vote of the membership constitutes "giving up on 
the GA".  Please clarify your position.
- --
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 12:24:00 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Ross,

This is total bunk.

The apriori and always paramount right and obligation of any assembly is the
right to disband or call for dissolution.

The DNSO is sanctioned to do their work by the DoC.  Asking them to take away
that sanction is not a right but an obligation if we view that we are being used
for improper purposes.

Excuse me Ross as my memory fades, what is your interest, I mean who do you work
for that has an interest in ICANN continuing?

Eric

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

> > That is not correct.  William has not pointed out the specific ICANN
> > ByLaw stipulation that would be violated by Jamie's motion.  In point of
> > fact, there is no such stipulation, or ANY rules about what is
> > legitimate deliberative material for the GA in the *ICANN ByLaws*.  If
> > you, Mr Wader, wish to press the issue, then why don't you please
> > produce the relevant section of the ICANN ByLaws.  Otherwise, there is
> > no "point of order" as there are no established rules of order for the GA.
>
> The bylaws are very clear on a couple of key points
>
> a) that the purpose of the GA is to act as an open forum for participation
> in the work of the DNSO.
>
> b) that the purpose of the DNSO is to advise the board with respect to
> policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.
>
> The motion on the table has nothing to do with the work of the DNSO and in
> fact, directly impacts two other supporting organizations that are being
> conveniently ignored by proponents of the motion.
>
> Two other things are quite clear from these two clauses in the bylaws
>
> a) that the GA has no place in making recommendations that affect
> stakeholders that are not part of the DNSO and,
>
> b) that the GA has no place in tabling recommendations directly with the
> DOC.
>
> As such, I strongly believe that William's objection is entirely legitimate
> and requires that the Chair provide guidance concerning the scope of the
> motion as presently under discussion.
>
> To answer the specific question, the citation from the bylaws are
> specifically 4.VI-B.1.a and 4.VI-B.4.a...
>
> -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

- --
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 12:21:45 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:24:00 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> The DNSO is sanctioned to do their work by the DoC.

No, they are not.  The DNSO is sanctioned by ICANN and ICANN's bylaws.

The DNSO has no relationship to the DOC at all.

Stick to facts, Eric.

- -- 
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: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:22:48 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

As one who has been advocating dumping ICANN for a very long time now, 
and having seen the same sentiments expressed by countless others, the 
James Love "motion" can hardly be classified as a CPTech campaign.  On 
the contrary, it seems to me that the Chair has lost all objectivity on 
the issue -- even under the narrow confines of the DNSO/GA procedures, 
it is the function of the Chair to administer motions and the like, not 
to attack them -- it's a cost of having the job. This little episode 
only underlines my suggestion that the GA folks involved on this issue 
carry on without regard to the Chair or DNSO.

Bill Lovell

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-09 13:39:57 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>> Is there a "PR value" in a statement from the GA?  I would hope  so.  
>> That would mean that people actually care what the GA says.   How 
>> could this not be clear, both on and off list?  And how would  it be 
>> a bad thing if a GA statement was actually noticed by  people?
>
>
> What a wonderful world - Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on  Technology 
> (and its director, James Love) doing free PR for the DNSO's General 
> Assembly.
>
> Bad enough, what I've seen so far points in the opposite direction:  
> The Consumer Project on Technology's director trying to abuse the GA 
> as a throw-away public relations tool.
>
> So, once again, the question to everyone involved with this: Do you  
> want that?  Do you really think that a little PR booster for a  
> campaign of CPTech is worth giving up on the GA?
>
> Think twice, and respond, please.  Your responses may quite well  
> influence what's going to happen.
>

- --
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 #1173
*************************