Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1174
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1174

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:22:59 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Thomas, this is really over the top.   What is the point of these personal
attacks?  William asks, is the GA voting going to have PR value for those
seeking a rebid?  Any honest assessment to that question (on list, off list,
to your mother, take your pick)  would say:  well, if the vote supports a
rebid, yes of course it will.    If it goes against a rebid, of course it
won't.    How would you answer his question?  The same way I answered it or
differently?

Do people care what the GA does?   I would hope that people do care.  You
don't?    Am I missing something, or is this some zany exercise to ensure
that the GA doesn't discuss anything of any information value to anyone on
the planet?   Why did you campaign to be the Chair of this organization, if
no one was supposed to pay any attention to it?

  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:42 PM
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
>
>
>

- --
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 15:26:05 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] For the Record

As I already stated 
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00848.html), I do not 
believe a re-bid vote would kill the GA, nor will it embarass ICANN. 
 That said, let me also state that I am withdrawing my support for the 
"rebid motion" at this time.  Joanna, please remove my name from the 
list of supporters for said "motion".

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 15:28:03 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

> This is total bunk.

In what sense?

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

That's not what the text of the motion says - in fact if it did, we wouldn't
be having this discussion. Further, if the motion stated that the GA was
going to make a recommendation to the board, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. But, again, that's not what the text of the motion says.

> 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?

If the question is  "what is my agenda" this link
(http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&querytime=y64xwB&q=%22ross+
wm%2E+rader%22) might be your best bet to find out for yourself.

As far as the explicit question goes, I have a hard time believing that this
is anything but rhetoric.

Thanks,

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.535.0123
f. 416.531.5584

ps - don't forget that there was a time not all that long ago when GSI and
the NSF called the shots on your domain policy - I think we all have a
vested interest in an ICANN - I'm surprised that no one is talking about
what that looks like.

- --
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 12:28:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:22:48 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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 

Jamie has already admitted this in private email exchanges, William,
which I referenced earlier.  He wants the GA to pass it only for the
additional PR value it will give to his effort.

- -- 
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 21:31:03 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GA] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

- --=======3E7A57DC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 19:59 09/05/02, Kristy McKee wrote:
>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.

I am afraid that MS is not exactly what you think they are. They are 
virtual typewriter designers. They picked the worldwide market of 
Remington, Olympia, Underwood, Singer, etc..  With this they added a few 
other things they have embeded into Widows/IE building the people a window 
on their yard and on their street.

What they own is the brainware of these people, who think "a la MS".. Now 
they start owning their name through passport. Imagine what will be a 
person who could not pay Microsoft's bi-yearly fee 10 years from now. No 
DN, no IE, no e-mail, no Windows, nothing. He will not virtually exist 
anymore. A zombi. Just real.

One of the last thing they do not own are the machines and the disks. In 
buidling their own complex file system everything could be under Microsoft 
... a danger. Will they implement it? probably as a compressed keyed 
system. But most of all for a bartering with Govs. No total trust, no 
anti-trust.

Obviously they will not use WinNT for infrastructure. NT was an error: they 
should have purchased QNX but it was not for sale. But they now have Linux 
and FreeBSD, not so good, but not too bad. Be sure that as soon as hey are 
finished with the Legal Case, they will go ahead with it buynig Lindow as 
they did with Citrix. Things take time. But why go fast and spend money 
when old solution make money pouring in. They have several other obvious 
"widgets" ... and the Internet is still using 1980 design.

Just put yourself in their perspective and consider that your business is 
to get money from people who need you, so you only want to invest in what 
will make more people to need you...

I wish we had mad a deal on the widget I need we would be rich by now... 
Please just remember that he key to most of this is the joke of the 
"authoritative root" ...
jfc

- --=======3E7A57DC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433
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

- --=======3E7A57DC=======--

- --
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 15:41:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

William,

Thank you for expressing your perspective that this is all a dastardly plot 
on the part of the evil alt.root community.  Your insight assuredly serves to 
reinforce the credibility of your comments.  

- --
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 14:30:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] reform proposal

Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start by 
listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?  How will 
the decision makers know who to choose if we don't communicate what we want?

For example, if you want Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice 
cream, don't tell me you are tired of chocolate yogurt and want me to get 
you something else in the genre of ice cream.  Tell me you want Ben and 
Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream.  In reference to ICANN, let's 
be specific about what we WANT, in addition to letting them know why we 
don't want ICANN.

Our Names Council is discussing this topic and has requested our input.  I 
am willing to set aside some time to help come up with a response for them 
to ponder and perhaps include in their findings/report.  I would think 
those who are sincere would also volunteer to participate in such a 
group.  We even have an extra publicly archived mail list we could use to 
move the process/work to another location, one without a five post limit.

:)

- --
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 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Hello,

- --- Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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?

No. Let's move on to something more on topic and within the scope of
the GA. If folks have alternatives to the Stuart Lynn plan, or
legitimate grievances within the context of domains, etc., those would
be appropriate for this forum. Saying "let's send it back to the DoC"
seems way out of scope, and should be done externally to the DNSO.

Just to revisit a topic from a week or two ago (and to put things back
on topics where the DNSO GA can have a voice), the privacy of the WHOIS
data, folks might be interested in a story from Newsbytes:

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/176371.html

"Internet users who knowingly submit incorrect contact information when
registering Web addresses could face up to five years in jail under
legislation introduced in the House of Representatives this week."

In addition, someone on another mailing list pointed out a service at:

http://www.hiddenregistration.com/

that does forwarding of all registrant contact info, for $20/yr. Some
had suggested that it would be extremely costly to have a lawyer or
another third party be a representative for a domain, but this goes to
show that the costs can be very low indeed, for those few who have a
need for the extra layer of privacy. I expect that with competition,
the price can be driven down even further, below $10. 

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 21:03:15 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of ballot question - JFC comments

- --=======594A311E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:56 09/05/02, James Love said:
>=======May 9 text=====
>The GA asks the US Department of Commerce

I would strongly suggest that we respect the decorum. So, International and 
press may see this is not a revolutionary proposition be a serious and 
consensual approach.. Most of the comment below should be "Whereased"

The GA asks the BoD to proceed jointly with the DoC to a review of the 
various agreements to be reviewed on September 30th and the DNSO must 
debate before that date.

The analysis of the different elements involved in the perspective of the 
Stuart Lynn analysis and call for a reform, should lead to a clean sheet 
analysis by the USG as the ICANN's "client". The DNSO is fully aware that 
it could lead to a partial or total open competition for the services now 
contracted to the ICANN, in particular for the Purchase Order, provided the 
new competition would warranty the need to develop an international 
framework, equal to all and as much as possible open to free enterprise, to 
non-profit, to alternative network and consumer protection cultures and 
legislations, and to developing countries, for the DNS management.

>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.

This analysis should also open and structure the debate concerning the IPv4 
addressing scheme, its possible extension, the IPv6 deployment, and the 
interaction with other numbering plans such as the telephone system or 
X.121, the new work and missions in the area of the Whois and alternative 
propositions, the associated directory plans, the DNS secure development 
and of the possible ownership of some DNS functions by commercial private 
interests, the nature of the ISO 3166 list an international reference in 
the DNS not endorsed by any international understanding, the legal nature 
of the domain names and of the value added services proposed by NSI, of the 
coherence between the cooperative agreement and Purchase Order,  of the 
ownership of the telephone numbers as names delegated under the terms 
voted  by the telephone operators within the ITU/T, etc.

>The rationale for asking for

for being open or even asking for

>a new open competition is that

experience and demands from he market and the forms of response chosen by 
the ICANN have lead the ICANN into what is commonly referred to as "mission 
creep" and dramatically changed ...

>ICANN has
>dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
>proposing even further changes.

>These proposed changes have met extensive

question, proposition for alternative and

>opposition in the Internet community and go even further from the original
>terms of reference.

It is also supported that the natural mechanics of the network and he 
performance of the Purchase Order in the original terms would produce a 
totally different and much more favorable situation.

>The  new open competition  would allow the DoC to
>consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,  and alternatives

often organized in different structures for a more reliable, a more 
resilient, a more secure, a more professional, a more innovative a less 
complex and expensive service of matters of different natures,

>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.

while a legal control and national security back-up solutions should be 
considered that the present terms do not permit,

>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.

at a time when technological changes requested by the enlargement of the 
International network system to many new countries, technologies, ways of 
use and needs, should lead to architectural innovations the rigid 
organization of the present agreement seems to prevent.

jfc

- --=======594A311E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433
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

- --=======594A311E=======--

- --
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 16:25:12 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Ok... we are entering the complete flame war, personal attack stage of the
discussion.    First of all, to the Chair, it is not a Jamie Love motion.
It is a motion that has significant support from people with a longstanding
association with the GA and the ICANN process, and those who support asking
for a new competition probably do so for somewhat different reasons.  Lots
of people have contributed to the text and the debate, and it insulting and
unnecessary to personalize this, and certainly not substantive.

William, is this is going to be an hourly flame fest and a big bandwidth
burner, rather than post what you say I said, post what I actually said, and
what you actually said.  Why not everything?  Not that anything is that
interesting or relevant, but why act like you have some big scoop?

And finally, is this some big revelation that a GA vote on recompete would
be expected to influence the DoC?

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

> Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:22:48 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Jamie has already admitted this in private email exchanges, William,
> which I referenced earlier.  He wants the GA to pass it only for the
> additional PR value it will give to his effort.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

- --
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 16:25:12 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

Ok... we are entering the complete flame war, personal attack stage of the
discussion.    First of all, to the Chair, it is not a Jamie Love motion.
It is a motion that has significant support from people with a longstanding
association with the GA and the ICANN process, and those who support asking
for a new competition probably do so for somewhat different reasons.  Lots
of people have contributed to the text and the debate, and it insulting and
unnecessary to personalize this, and certainly not substantive.

William, is this is going to be an hourly flame fest and a big bandwidth
burner, rather than post what you say I said, post what I actually said, and
what you actually said.  Why not everything?  Not that anything is that
interesting or relevant, but why act like you have some big scoop?

And finally, is this some big revelation that a GA vote on recompete would
be expected to influence the DoC?

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

> Thursday, May 09, 2002, 12:22:48 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Jamie has already admitted this in private email exchanges, William,
> which I referenced earlier.  He wants the GA to pass it only for the
> additional PR value it will give to his effort.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

- --
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 13:27:30 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

On 5/9/02 at 8:42 PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :

>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.

I do not agree with your assessment.

I do agree with Karl's (who, by the way, is doing a yeoman's job of
representing me and I am proud to have cast my vote for him)
assessment which I repeat here for ease of reference

On 5/9/02 at 9:55 AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote :

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

<snip>

>My feeling is that is more than merely a valid issue, that it is an
>issue of importance.

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, 09 May 2002 13:44:21 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

At 08:08 AM 09/05/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> From an upper case perspective, quite likely.

The email subject line *is* in upper case, hence my
confusion.

>The fact is thought that William has raised a substantive
>point about the validity of the motion from a bylaws perspective.

I agree. And thank you for your pointers to the
relevant sections.

>The options at this point, as far as I can see them,
>is that Thomas can rule on William's "observation"

I think one is bending the rules of order (semi-existent
at that) too far to ask for a ruling on an '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.

A fourth option is that the Chair rules on the Point of
Order, or point of order, or observation, and two members
who disagree with that ruling (regardless of what it is)
move and second an appeal of the Chair's ruling. It then
goes to a vote of the assembly. There are very good reasons
for this rule being included in, for example, Robert's Rules
of Order. The alternative is that a Chair could frustrate
the will of the majority, even a majority of all members
but two (the bringer of the Point of Order and the Chair).

It seems to me that this is a dangerous road to go down,
but we have already taken that fork in the road when the
Chair (whose actions to date have been above reproach IMHO)
is arguing for, or against, the main motion, rather than
dealing with a point of order which normally takes precedence.
There is logic in this rule as well, as why continue with a
debate that may eventually be ruled out of order, particularily
when the Chair is not showing impartiality to the main motion?

I fail to see how this point of order (or whatever it is)
can have its apparently desired effect of not allowing for
a vote on the main motion. Assuming a majority wish a vote
(regardless of how or whether they will vote individually
on the main motion) they can over-rule the chair. If the
Chair cannot be over-ruled by the majority then I would
again ask where such a rule is written down.

>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.

Agreed. A Point of Order is a good example of this, it
is unlikely everyone will cease posting until such time
as the Chair rules on that point. That is an argument
against using Points of Order via email, not against using
*any* rules of order. As I said, reverse engineering the
rules of order rarely works well. If we're going to have
selective rules of disorder instead, perhaps someone would
be so kind as to post them, or are they open source and we
can all have a go? -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 21:46:34 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

- --=======4F503885=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 20:42 09/05/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>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.

Dear Thomas,
what is bluntly wrong with you? That you oppose I understand. That you are 
bitter. That I understand. But this?

It really looks as if you were jealous consumers vs @large. They/we are the 
same.
I believe I read WXW or the Crispy Crockets. Them I understand their 
reasons, but you?

>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.

Who do you heared that from. From NC's people. Who is lobbying you?

>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?

Is that from you ??? or is that from Marilyn, Alexander and Joe?

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

Could you please be clearer.
What is going to happen is a vote. Everyone is, will be asked to respond. 
Some will say yes, sor will say no. This will certainly influence the 
result of the vote.

What do you mean in calling for a vote before a vote?
Or do you imply threads, from what you heard, from what you have been told?
That if we go ahead with a vote there would be ... there would be what? the 
closure of the GA list?
Before we can tune that motion enough to be the GA's one and not the one of 
Jamie.

hmmm. Unless you are clearer, it seems only to show that the GA carry some 
weight.
Please be clearer. We are certaily listening, be I/we do not understand. 
May be my low IQ: sorry.
jfc

>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming 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

- --=======4F503885=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-357C433
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

- --=======4F503885=======--

- --
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 17:19:26 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the "rebid" vote: Now we're getting somewhere!

Ok....I can answer part of that. I AM.....Dan
and it was my amendment.

"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:56:28 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
|> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 3:26 AM
|> To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order
|> 
<snip> 
|> 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...

I too feel the motion is outside of the GA scope and it may in fact be
very damaging if adopted as a formal GA proposal.  As William has
mentioned, if worked as a document not officially recognised by the GA
but supported by individual GA members, it would be far more effective
and relevent.

Whilst I support the major points of the motion text, I really do not
consider it an appropriate motion for an internal organ of ICANN with
limited scope to put forward as a body.  I feel to do so would be to
play into the political manipulations of others who have no regard for
the GA and what is hoped to be accomplished.

It would be my contention, such a statement would have far more impact
and be more effective if it was generated outside of the GA, with the
support of individuals from the GA, other individuals and organisations
from without the ICANN organisation.  It is after all dealing with
issues revolving around direct negotiotion and the possibility of
corruption as opposed to open transparent negotiotions and competition.
As such the issue should be of interest to a wider audience than the GA
which as a body, is hamstrung on such issues by the scope of its mandate
and the position it is in with regards to the key players involved in
the issue.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 #1174
*************************