Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1178
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 10 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1178

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:56:46 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL

andy & others..

what mail client you suggest i switch to. i have been using outlook express
for almost 5 years and am not very up-to-date on alternatives

thanks in advance for you help

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL

>
> If you're stupid enough to STILL be using on your Windoze machine I would
> recommend you don't run the attachment start.exe that Peter's machine just
> sent out, because I suspect it's a virus.
>
> Peter, time to dump MS Outlook Express and get a more secure email client.
>
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 05:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] reform proposal

Marilyn,

I must assume, that; Jeff speaks for his group, Ross speaks for his, Jamie 
for his, and so on.  What I would like to know is what your group thinks on 
these issues.  A bunch of stock in the IT area is going in the ----can.

Do you think that reform here can help?
Wouldn't a rebid bolster and breed some new confidence?
Reliability and Stability of the Net help, but perceptions are actually more 
important.  Can your group help here?
IPv4 is clearly a toy.  Is AT&T hooked up with the China Movement, away from 
ICANN and the few year old experiment?
What is your companys' reason for supporting ICANN in that technology has 
passed them by, by at least two years?

Can you be candid on these issues which are at the crux of your questions?
What is your company doing to route around the problems caused by the DoC?

Answers to these questions would help discussion and lead us dotcommoners to 
a better understanding.

Sincerely,
Eric

> Kristy and others,
> 
> I would welcome hearing from the GA as Kristy suggests -- the recently
> released papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee offer a new
> opportunity for input. Can the GA develop comments for the questions
> raised by those papers, even if it is only some of the questions?  
> 
> 
> I know time is short for everyone. 
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kristy McKee [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:30 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> 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
> 
> --
> 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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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 08:19:50 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

I think I already indicated supprot but if re-iteration is needed for
this specific worked, consider this my declaration of support for the
motion.

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> I support a GA vote being taken on this Motion.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:16 PM
> > To: GA List; James Love
> > Subject: RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
> >
> >
> > All concerned parties regardless of their views should add their
> > names below if they feel a vote should be taken on the following
> > Motion. Ten names are the minimum sought by the Chair for this to
> > proceed. Deadline, Friday May 10th.
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > ______________________
> >
> > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
> > > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
> > > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
> > > the Internet community and go even further from the original
> > > terms of reference.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> > > Commerce (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.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> > > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
> > > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
> > > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
> > > name System (the DNS).
> > >
> > >
> > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
> > > of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > > 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. 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.
> > >
> > > Agree [  ]
> > > Disagree [  ]
> > > Abstain [  ]
> > >
> --
> 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 05:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum/now this is a point of order

> Dear Joanna,
> I do not support that text as such as not enough worked and IMHO not 
> properly addressed not detailed yet. I have introduced many
> propositions to  add to that motion you did not take into account.
> 
> I know that this is difficult, but since you took the role of writer, I
>  suggest you now proceed on a step by step basis.
> 
> 1. what is the purpose of the motion?
>      - disruptive
Of course, one must disrupt negative behavior.
>      - advisory
Of course, the users must advise the top brass.
>      - force to a dialog
Well maybe but we have to find a common language, like democracy.
>      - obtain missing responses
We cannot bring them in until they have a voice.
>      - "suicide"
This is not new, hemlock in Socrates' writings is a responsible alternative.
> 
> 2. to who should it be addressed to?
>      - formally
Why Not?
>        - to the BoD
Yes.
>        - to the NC
Why?
>        - to the DoC
Of course.
>        - to the world
Done, thank you Jamie and Jefsey.
>        - to the outerspace
Cool.
>      - actually
>        - to the DoC to obtain a decision
Yes and No.  First have the vote which may or may not fail and then get the 
form online to make a "formal no not really" petition.
>        - to the BoD to make them moving
The only movement there aside from Karl and Alejandro seems to be bowel 
related.
>        - to the reform committee as a warning
Why not add it so they can pretend it does not exist.
>        - to the GAC members to create a problem they will have to solve
Absolutely
>        - to the Congress
Again, first a vote and then an online petition.
>        - to the Press
No.
>        - to our own ego
For sure dude.
> 
> 3. what is our real reason?
>      - that we are unhappy with the ICANN principle
Perhaps not in toto, let us see the vote.
>      - that we see that the current ICANN structure will never work -
Many of us believe that the only problem with Icann is the top level people 
not fulfilling their written contractual obligations.  Or that evil has 
creeped in and allowed control freaks to wrest away that which was already 
ordained to commoners.
>      that we have real concerns about the DNS stability
I would hope a rebid would address this, and make it better.
>      - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the
>      
> present DNS managment

Well it don't take no genius to see it effects economy, and does so without 
accountability and that the DoC is refusing to accept its' responsibility at 
this time.  But in that Vacuum we se China changing and the EU poised to be 
bold and make a difference and small people like me advising small countries 
to make an informed choice.
> 
> 4. what is our real target?
>      - to support external propositions
>      - to develop a GA proposition
>      - to permit a real debate on real element and not only on Stuart's
>      
> emotions
>      - to protect national interests and security
>      - to protect business interests
> 
I cannot know such rationale in the minds of so many.
> 5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN mission?
>      I listed a few of them which should be listed in whereas, but many
>      
> others may be indentified and then filtered to obtain a realistic and
> easy  to understand list for press and Congress
> 
> The question is not we will commit suicide or not, the question is the
> time  we will spend on it to be of use. Eben if it is only for the
> records: it  will help in the future to disqualify those who did not
> tried to save the  Internet from ICANN's bureaucracy.
> 
> Until that work is done, I reseve my support to this motion.
> jfc
> 
All of us should reserve our support at this time and wait and listen and 
maybe even ask a few who are not here what they would like.
Jefsey, is there a French Corp that would take this over?

Eric
> 
> On 05:38 10/05/02, Joanna Lane said:
>> > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
>> > > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
>> > > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
>> > >
>> > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
>> > > the Internet community and go even further from the original terms
>> > > of reference.
>> > >
>> > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
>> > > Commerce (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.
>> > >
>> > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
>> > > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
>> > > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
>> > > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
>> > > name System (the DNS).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>> > >
>> > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
>> > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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. 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.
>> > >
>> > > Agree [  ]
>> > > Disagree [  ]
>> > > Abstain [  ]
>> > >
>>--
>>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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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 08:54:28 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

typos typos shame on me!

not only do I indicate supprot, burt support as well...

Dan Steinberg wrote:
> 
> I think I already indicated supprot but if re-iteration is needed for
> this specific worked, consider this my declaration of support for the
> motion.
> 
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > I support a GA vote being taken on this Motion.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:16 PM
> > > To: GA List; James Love
> > > Subject: RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
> > >
> > >
> > > All concerned parties regardless of their views should add their
> > > names below if they feel a vote should be taken on the following
> > > Motion. Ten names are the minimum sought by the Chair for this to
> > > proceed. Deadline, Friday May 10th.
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > ______________________
> > >
> > > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
> > > > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
> > > > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
> > > >
> > > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
> > > > the Internet community and go even further from the original
> > > > terms of reference.
> > > >
> > > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> > > > Commerce (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.
> > > >
> > > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> > > > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
> > > > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
> > > > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
> > > > name System (the DNS).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
> > > > of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> > > > 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. 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.
> > > >
> > > > Agree [  ]
> > > > Disagree [  ]
> > > > Abstain [  ]
> > > >
> > --
> > 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:08:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL

I use Netscape Messenger and I find it's not as susceptible as Outlook 
(which I've used and had infected myself).

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Ken Stubbs wrote:

>andy & others..
>
>what mail client you suggest i switch to. i have been using outlook express
>for almost 5 years and am not very up-to-date on alternatives
>
>thanks in advance for you help
>
>ken stubbs
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL
>
>
>>If you're stupid enough to STILL be using on your Windoze machine I would
>>recommend you don't run the attachment start.exe that Peter's machine just
>>sent out, because I suspect it's a virus.
>>
>>Peter, time to dump MS Outlook Express and get a more secure email client.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Andrew P. Gardner
>>barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>>We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>>Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 06:29:30 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Karl - you are right about the conflict of interest for you here, but my
response to Joanna is that it also may not be fair or appropriate for anyone
at this time to take only one version of the proposed text and claim it is
***the*** motion and start a straw-poll on it to get its veracity when
people are not set on the language of the motion yet.

This is one of the problems with this and a number of the other lists that I
have spent time with, that it is essentially many fragmented voices and this
makes the value of such a 'niceified' request to be almost worthless at best
from what is essentially a disharmonized chorus, IMHO.

What needs to happen is that this WG needs to come to specific terms with
what it is trying to do... and state somewhere

    1)    The intent of the motion needs to be defined in very specific
terms (up at 200,000 feet); and

    2)    The process of how the Motion will be propagated and to whom needs
to be worked out, because what you say in the motion is specific to whom we
send it to. (this is also at 200,000); and

    3)    Itemize in the Motion the specific complaints that need to be
addressed and why (this is the 100,000 foot view); and
    4)    And then submit a formal motion, petitioning for these changes.
(and finally this is the ground zero of  the process)

No one sends anyone a letter "asking" for changes, they send petitions that
mandate something demonstrable. But they also have organizational backing
on the matter and what is here now is several different groups still
lobbying for language in the matter.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused - are these 10 names to simply get this motion onto the
> table so that it may be discussed and ultimately (perhaps) voted upon?  Or
> is this a vote on the motion itself?
>
> I'm all for the former (i.e. putting it onto the table for discussion) and
> if that's what we're doing then count me as a "yes".
>
> But if we're talking about the merits of the motion itself - I'm not ready
> to say yes or no.  (In fact, because of my role within ICANN, I'll
> probably abstain.)
>
> --karl--
>
>
> > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)
has
> > dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> > proposing even further changes.
> >
> > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
Internet
> > community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
> >
> > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce
> > (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.
> >
> > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
Organization
> > (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,
the
> > Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to
withdraw
> > from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> >
> >
> > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> >
> > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
Internet
> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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. 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.
> >
> > Agree [  ]
> > Disagree [  ]
> > Abstain [  ]
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:51:21 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote.

This is my understanding of the proceedure for getting text approved for a
vote.  Anyone can submit any text they want, and if they have 10 supporters,
the text is included on the ballot.

1.    Joanna has circulated a particular text that has included the input
from a number of different persons, and attempted to accomondate a number of
different concerns.   I support this text being included on the ballot, as
have several others.

2.  Alexander is circulating a second text for the ballot, which is designed
to be somewhat critical of ICANN, but   "more moderate."  I would also
support this being included on the ballot, so that this veiwpoint is
represented.

3.  It might be a good idea also to include a pro-ICANN/staff/BOD text, as a
third option, such as "The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN
board of directors to address the reform process, and agrees with the
general direction of the Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."  I would
like to see this also on the ballot, even though I would vote against it.
This is just a suggestion.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

> Karl - you are right about the conflict of interest for you here, but my
> response to Joanna is that it also may not be fair or appropriate for
anyone
> at this time to take only one version of the proposed text and claim it is
> ***the*** motion and start a straw-poll on it to get its veracity when
> people are not set on the language of the motion yet.
>
> This is one of the problems with this and a number of the other lists that
I
> have spent time with, that it is essentially many fragmented voices and
this
> makes the value of such a 'niceified' request to be almost worthless at
best
> from what is essentially a disharmonized chorus, IMHO.
>
> What needs to happen is that this WG needs to come to specific terms with
> what it is trying to do... and state somewhere
>
>     1)    The intent of the motion needs to be defined in very specific
> terms (up at 200,000 feet); and
>
>     2)    The process of how the Motion will be propagated and to whom
needs
> to be worked out, because what you say in the motion is specific to whom
we
> send it to. (this is also at 200,000); and
>
>     3)    Itemize in the Motion the specific complaints that need to be
> addressed and why (this is the 100,000 foot view); and
>     4)    And then submit a formal motion, petitioning for these changes.
> (and finally this is the ground zero of  the process)
>
> No one sends anyone a letter "asking" for changes, they send petitions
that
> mandate something demonstrable. But they also have organizational backing
> on the matter and what is here now is several different groups still
> lobbying for language in the matter.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1
>
>
> > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused - are these 10 names to simply get this motion onto
the
> > table so that it may be discussed and ultimately (perhaps) voted upon?
Or
> > is this a vote on the motion itself?
> >
> > I'm all for the former (i.e. putting it onto the table for discussion)
and
> > if that's what we're doing then count me as a "yes".
> >
> > But if we're talking about the merits of the motion itself - I'm not
ready
> > to say yes or no.  (In fact, because of my role within ICANN, I'll
> > probably abstain.)
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
(ICANN)
> has
> > > dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
> > > proposing even further changes.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
> Internet
> > > community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> Commerce
> > > (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.
> > >
> > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
> Organization
> > > (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White
Paper,
> the
> > > Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to
> withdraw
> > > from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> > >
> > >
> > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
> Internet
> > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 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. 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.
> > >
> > > Agree [  ]
> > > Disagree [  ]
> > > Abstain [  ]
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

Your typos may be a shame.

but missing them entirely when reading should be a crime.

e

> typos typos shame on me!
> 
> not only do I indicate supprot, burt support as well...
> 
> Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> 
>> I think I already indicated supprot but if re-iteration is needed for
>> this specific worked, consider this my declaration of support for the
>> motion.
>> 
>> Joanna Lane wrote:
>> >
>> > I support a GA vote being taken on this Motion.
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:16 PM
>> > > To: GA List; James Love
>> > > Subject: RE: Motion # 1 - addendum
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > All concerned parties regardless of their views should add their
>> > > names below if they feel a vote should be taken on the following
>> > > Motion. Ten names are the minimum sought by the Chair for this to
>> > > proceed. Deadline, Friday May 10th.
>> > > __________________________________________________________________
>> > > ______________________
>> > >
>> > > > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
>> > > > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference
>> > > > for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.
>> > > >
>> > > > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in
>> > > > the Internet community and go even further from the original
>> > > > terms of reference.
>> > > >
>> > > > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department
>> > > > of Commerce (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.
>> > > >
>> > > > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
>> > > > Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green
>> > > > and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it
>> > > > clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain
>> > > > name System (the DNS).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
>> > > >
>> > > > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization
>> > > > of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> > > > 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. 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > Agree [  ]
>> > > > Disagree [  ]
>> > > > Abstain [  ]
>> > > >
>> > --
>> > 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
> 
> -- 
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

- --
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 #1178
*************************