Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1179
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 10 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1179

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Dear friend,

You are right here.

Your analysis of petition is particularly appropriate.

But I do not feel that when making a statement of condemnation and request 
for alternatives one has to have on the plate all of those alternatives.
That seems like placing the cart before the horse.

A rebid and/or petition takes much time and we will have time to do as you 
rightly suggest.  But first allow us to damn the current situation.
Now does this motion do that in fine wording yet?  Very close (thank you to 
Joanna that transAtlantic transplant that transcends notions of nationalism)

I personally would like the motion more flat.  "Dear DoC we hate how ICANN 
is being run and ask you to search for new players."

e

> 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

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 10:56:07 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

I am firmly against taking this motion to a vote.

There has been zero consultation or discussion on the merits, or lack
thereof, of the proposition and as such cannot even remotely be taken as a
representative question.

While I am sympathetic to the need for immediate and decisive action,
sufficient consensus on the text of the motion does not yet exist to a
degree that warrants taking this to a vote.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: [ga] Motion # 1

>
> 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 10:57:23 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [bwg+] The GA effort to vote on a rebid

From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: [ga] Motion # 1

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 [X]
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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:24:01 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] other approaches and concerns

1)I do  not support the present draft resolution being voted on. 
2) The GA has the opportunity to provide useful, coherent, organized input and comments on the White Papers. That should be the focus of the GA.
3) Alex's draft resolution is a better option than the present draft resolution. 

1)I have several concerns about some other areas and believe they need addressing before a vote can be taken. 

*I question how engaging in this motion supports the purpose of the GA -- which is after all, a part of the DNSO of ICANN.  

*I certainly don't support it and question that it is "on topic" for the GA, as a couple of others have. 

* Special recruitment around a vote - I also question what seems to be an effort to recruit people to the voting registry just so they can vote on this issue.  

* On a separate, but related issue, I question how the voting registry is validated.  I am not comfortable with the integrity of the registry and would like to better understand whether effective mechanisms are in place to validate the "voters".  Do the constituencies regularly validate their membership? We have had a few changes. I suspect others have as well. 

On "stuffing the voting registry" or recruiting specifically to influence a vote: 

A couple of years ago, some folk, who were very concerned that "big business" would stuff the voting registries by having employees sign up.... raised this question in the public GA forum.  Some who were in Chile will recall that I went to the microphone in Chile specifically on this issue and responded that certainly my company wouldn't do that. And, in fact, that fear has been unfounded...  business  has comported themselves rather well on this front.  In fact, if anything, they haven't actually signed up for the GA actively.  There has certainly been no recruitment of people to sign up for the GA just for voting purposes by business. So, the fear that "capture" might occur in this manner, which existed a few years ago was, I thought, proven to be unfounded. 

Or so I thought.

Now, to my  amazement, I see what might appear to be recruitment for a single vote.. ...

Is there an effort to recruit people to the GA purely because of this vote? Are the folks signing up doing so because they intend to play an ongoing supportive role in ICANN and its evolution and reform?  Or merely to play in support of one outcome of a vote or another? If the latter, that  is, IF the purpose of recruitment is merely for this vote, this is not in the long term interests of the GA, or the DNSO, or of ICANN. 

And, no, the ends do not justify the means. 

One may not "love" the organization one is in; frankly, I believe that most ICANN participants do want changes in a variety of areas. Some we may agree on; others we may disagree. But, that means working within the organization to effect change. I see many on this list who seek to work responsibly to get changes.  

That should be the work focus of the GA. 

On Evolution and Reform: The GA can provide input, or it can chose to ignore a critical opportunity for input. 

There are now three white papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee on the table. Should the GA contribute? In my view, you bet!  As I said earlier tonight in a different post, the NC can benefit from your input on the questions asked in the white papers as well. I am certainly interested. The GA can provide input directly to the Committee as well. 

I agree that there is a difference between listening and agreement. I commit to listening to organized input.  I read the postings from many who I don't always agree with.  We may or may not agree.  I will read the organized input of the GA on these questions. 

Or the GA can chose to waste time and avoid meaningful opportunities for work by voting on a rebid. 

On the subject of Alexander's alternative resolution, I have concerns about some of the language, but it is more in the spirit of what I could support to be put forward as a reasonably drafted balanced approach to a resolution which reflects what I believe to be more of the broadly based GA membership.

- --
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 08:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Hello,

- --- "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I am firmly against taking this motion to a vote.

Ditto. It continues to be inappropriate and out of the scope of the GA.

I checked out the website of cptech.org, to look at their "agenda". I
found some of their positions to be simply hilarious. For instance,
they're angry that Microsoft stock doesn't pay dividends!! Sheesh!

http://www.cptech.org/ms/rn2bg20020104dividend.html

What's incredulous is that their point #1 is actually a *justification*
for not paying dividends, i.e. that shareholders are better off due to
the minimization of taxes. In point #2, there are thousands of other
stocks that one can buy, besides MSFT. Also, if one needed funds, one
can sell a few shares, instead of getting a dividend cheque. If a
dividend is paid, all that happens is that the stock goes down by the
amount of the dividend. So, if it goes down from $50 to $49, and one
had 1000 shares of stock, one could have raised the $500 in funds by
simply selling ten shares of stock at $50, and then holding 990 shares
at $50, with no dividends. Microsoft also saves a lot of cash from not
having to mail out cheques every quarter. (I'm not a MSFT shareholder,
but can understand there are good reasons for not paying dividends)

And these folks at cptech.org expect to be taken seriously? They've
marginalized themselves, and are probably proud of it, too. Let's not
do the same to the GA.

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: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:27:56 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Marilyn, what evidence do you or anyone else on this list have regarding
people stuffing the ballot box?   Can the DNSO staff post the names of *new*
persons who have been added to the list of voters, to see if there is even
one person who should not vote, or any evidence that anyone has done
anything wrong with regard to this ballot?  They should be able to do this.
As of yesterday, the DNSO General Assembly voting registry was  576 entries.
According to Alexander, it was 505 on May 5.  I am one of the new persons
registered to vote in the past weeks.  In our office of 25 people, we have 2
persons registered, and we have both been active in ICANN for a long time.
We have not done what Marilyn alludes to, and I don't know anyone who has.
What has happened in that some people who are members of this list,
including lurkers, and some people who are ICANN junkies like the list
members, have register to vote in the GA, which is their (and my) right.
The Slashdot post which TR has on his weblog, was a back page entry that
almost no one saw (it had a total of 6 comments).  I wish there had been big
publicity about the vote on Slashdot and other forums.  But in fact there
not been.    There have been discussions about the GA vote in places where
ICANN issues are often discussed, and since when is that a problem?    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander
Svensson (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: [ga] other approaches and concerns

>
> 1)I do  not support the present draft resolution being voted on.
> 2) The GA has the opportunity to provide useful, coherent, organized input
and comments on the White Papers. That should be the focus of the GA.
> 3) Alex's draft resolution is a better option than the present draft
resolution.
>
> 1)I have several concerns about some other areas and believe they need
addressing before a vote can be taken.
>
> *I question how engaging in this motion supports the purpose of the GA --
which is after all, a part of the DNSO of ICANN.
>
> *I certainly don't support it and question that it is "on topic" for the
GA, as a couple of others have.
>
> * Special recruitment around a vote - I also question what seems to be an
effort to recruit people to the voting registry just so they can vote on
this issue.
>
> * On a separate, but related issue, I question how the voting registry is
validated.  I am not comfortable with the integrity of the registry and
would like to better understand whether effective mechanisms are in place to
validate the "voters".  Do the constituencies regularly validate their
membership? We have had a few changes. I suspect others have as well.
>
> On "stuffing the voting registry" or recruiting specifically to influence
a vote:
>
> A couple of years ago, some folk, who were very concerned that "big
business" would stuff the voting registries by having employees sign up....
raised this question in the public GA forum.  Some who were in Chile will
recall that I went to the microphone in Chile specifically on this issue and
responded that certainly my company wouldn't do that. And, in fact, that
fear has been unfounded...  business  has comported themselves rather well
on this front.  In fact, if anything, they haven't actually signed up for
the GA actively.  There has certainly been no recruitment of people to sign
up for the GA just for voting purposes by business. So, the fear that
"capture" might occur in this manner, which existed a few years ago was, I
thought, proven to be unfounded.
>
> Or so I thought.
>
> Now, to my  amazement, I see what might appear to be recruitment for a
single vote.. ...
>
> Is there an effort to recruit people to the GA purely because of this
vote? Are the folks signing up doing so because they intend to play an
ongoing supportive role in ICANN and its evolution and reform?  Or merely to
play in support of one outcome of a vote or another? If the latter, that
is, IF the purpose of recruitment is merely for this vote, this is not in
the long term interests of the GA, or the DNSO, or of ICANN.
>
> And, no, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> One may not "love" the organization one is in; frankly, I believe that
most ICANN participants do want changes in a variety of areas. Some we may
agree on; others we may disagree. But, that means working within the
organization to effect change. I see many on this list who seek to work
responsibly to get changes.
>
> That should be the work focus of the GA.
>
> On Evolution and Reform: The GA can provide input, or it can chose to
ignore a critical opportunity for input.
>
> There are now three white papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee
on the table. Should the GA contribute? In my view, you bet!  As I said
earlier tonight in a different post, the NC can benefit from your input on
the questions asked in the white papers as well. I am certainly interested.
The GA can provide input directly to the Committee as well.
>
> I agree that there is a difference between listening and agreement. I
commit to listening to organized input.  I read the postings from many who I
don't always agree with.  We may or may not agree.  I will read the
organized input of the GA on these questions.
>
> Or the GA can chose to waste time and avoid meaningful opportunities for
work by voting on a rebid.
>
> On the subject of Alexander's alternative resolution, I have concerns
about some of the language, but it is more in the spirit of what I could
support to be put forward as a reasonably drafted balanced approach to a
resolution which reflects what I believe to be more of the broadly based GA
membership.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 12:55:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] No At-Large & no GA

As each successive Working Paper is released by The Board's Committee to 
Implement Stuart's Plan, it becomes readily apparent that the only folks 
being listened to are the gTLD registries and their registrars.  Those that 
prop up the ICANN regime, and that can convene joint meetings with Joe Sims, 
are the only players that matter to the ICANN Board.  

While the Committee may not be objective, it is certainly sufficiently 
transparent.  There is no proposed structure for the At-Large or the GA 
anywhere in the Committee's latest document.  

Wake up!   

Petitioning the NTIA to recompete the ICANN contracts is the only remaining 
action that can serve to protect our interests.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:06:33 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Jamie, if there is no evidence of recruitment just for this vote in any undue quantity, then I may stand corrected on that point. I think what your explanation is that many GA members hadn't bothered to register, and the dialogue has created new awareness about taking that step, thus they are registering.  Some others have been drawn to the GA because of various postings, is what you are saying?   If there is no problem of the nature I raised, then there may be a simple answer to that question.

I  note that my other concerns stand. 

Please don't lose sight of the reality that the GA has a chance to respond, just as do other groups, to the Evolution and Reform white papers.  

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:28 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; GA List
Cc: Thomas Roessler (E-mail); Alexander Svensson (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Marilyn, what evidence do you or anyone else on this list have regarding
people stuffing the ballot box?   Can the DNSO staff post the names of *new*
persons who have been added to the list of voters, to see if there is even
one person who should not vote, or any evidence that anyone has done
anything wrong with regard to this ballot?  They should be able to do this.
As of yesterday, the DNSO General Assembly voting registry was  576 entries.
According to Alexander, it was 505 on May 5.  I am one of the new persons
registered to vote in the past weeks.  In our office of 25 people, we have 2
persons registered, and we have both been active in ICANN for a long time.
We have not done what Marilyn alludes to, and I don't know anyone who has.
What has happened in that some people who are members of this list,
including lurkers, and some people who are ICANN junkies like the list
members, have register to vote in the GA, which is their (and my) right.
The Slashdot post which TR has on his weblog, was a back page entry that
almost no one saw (it had a total of 6 comments).  I wish there had been big
publicity about the vote on Slashdot and other forums.  But in fact there
not been.    There have been discussions about the GA vote in places where
ICANN issues are often discussed, and since when is that a problem?    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander
Svensson (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: [ga] other approaches and concerns

>
> 1)I do  not support the present draft resolution being voted on.
> 2) The GA has the opportunity to provide useful, coherent, organized input
and comments on the White Papers. That should be the focus of the GA.
> 3) Alex's draft resolution is a better option than the present draft
resolution.
>
> 1)I have several concerns about some other areas and believe they need
addressing before a vote can be taken.
>
> *I question how engaging in this motion supports the purpose of the GA --
which is after all, a part of the DNSO of ICANN.
>
> *I certainly don't support it and question that it is "on topic" for the
GA, as a couple of others have.
>
> * Special recruitment around a vote - I also question what seems to be an
effort to recruit people to the voting registry just so they can vote on
this issue.
>
> * On a separate, but related issue, I question how the voting registry is
validated.  I am not comfortable with the integrity of the registry and
would like to better understand whether effective mechanisms are in place to
validate the "voters".  Do the constituencies regularly validate their
membership? We have had a few changes. I suspect others have as well.
>
> On "stuffing the voting registry" or recruiting specifically to influence
a vote:
>
> A couple of years ago, some folk, who were very concerned that "big
business" would stuff the voting registries by having employees sign up....
raised this question in the public GA forum.  Some who were in Chile will
recall that I went to the microphone in Chile specifically on this issue and
responded that certainly my company wouldn't do that. And, in fact, that
fear has been unfounded...  business  has comported themselves rather well
on this front.  In fact, if anything, they haven't actually signed up for
the GA actively.  There has certainly been no recruitment of people to sign
up for the GA just for voting purposes by business. So, the fear that
"capture" might occur in this manner, which existed a few years ago was, I
thought, proven to be unfounded.
>
> Or so I thought.
>
> Now, to my  amazement, I see what might appear to be recruitment for a
single vote.. ...
>
> Is there an effort to recruit people to the GA purely because of this
vote? Are the folks signing up doing so because they intend to play an
ongoing supportive role in ICANN and its evolution and reform?  Or merely to
play in support of one outcome of a vote or another? If the latter, that
is, IF the purpose of recruitment is merely for this vote, this is not in
the long term interests of the GA, or the DNSO, or of ICANN.
>
> And, no, the ends do not justify the means.
>
> One may not "love" the organization one is in; frankly, I believe that
most ICANN participants do want changes in a variety of areas. Some we may
agree on; others we may disagree. But, that means working within the
organization to effect change. I see many on this list who seek to work
responsibly to get changes.
>
> That should be the work focus of the GA.
>
> On Evolution and Reform: The GA can provide input, or it can chose to
ignore a critical opportunity for input.
>
> There are now three white papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee
on the table. Should the GA contribute? In my view, you bet!  As I said
earlier tonight in a different post, the NC can benefit from your input on
the questions asked in the white papers as well. I am certainly interested.
The GA can provide input directly to the Committee as well.
>
> I agree that there is a difference between listening and agreement. I
commit to listening to organized input.  I read the postings from many who I
don't always agree with.  We may or may not agree.  I will read the
organized input of the GA on these questions.
>
> Or the GA can chose to waste time and avoid meaningful opportunities for
work by voting on a rebid.
>
> On the subject of Alexander's alternative resolution, I have concerns
about some of the language, but it is more in the spirit of what I could
support to be put forward as a reasonably drafted balanced approach to a
resolution which reflects what I believe to be more of the broadly based GA
membership.
>
>
>
> --
> 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 10:08:33 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

- --------------000901020109050809030407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To Ross and everyone else who has weighed in on this: we are now in the
debate/discussion stage, and I don't see that there will be any rush to 
a vote.
Having a "#1" implies that there might well be a "#2" and so on. Any of 
us is
free either to propose a "#2," or suggest an amendment to the present #1,
or whatever seems to be necessary. That's how this bit is supposed to work.

My own bent here, as soon as I get the time to do it, is to lay out a 
"Bill of
Particulars" that would put more meat into Joanna's "whereas" clauses, so
we'll see how that goes.  ICANN is not going away, and some concerted
effort by all of us on this will show ICANN that neither are we.

The object of all this work will be to generate, we hope, a single motion
that everyone will agree is the one that ought to be taken to a vote. In
the process of generating that motion, the actual merits will undoubtedly
need to be bandied about, especially to include some of the excellent
suggestions that have been made as to defining, up front, the actual
purpose of the motion, but we might bear in mind that all we are doing
at present is generating the best possible motion; we are not at present
doing any voting on it.

:-)

Bill Lovell

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>I am firmly against taking this motion to a vote.
>
>There has been zero consultation or discussion on the merits, or lack
>thereof, of the proposition and as such cannot even remotely be taken as a
>representative question.
>
>While I am sympathetic to the need for immediate and decisive action,
>sufficient consensus on the text of the motion does not yet exist to a
>degree that warrants taking this to a vote.
>
>-rwr
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
>To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM
>Subject: [ga] Motion # 1
>
>
>>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
>
>

- --------------000901020109050809030407
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
To Ross and everyone else who has weighed in on this: we are now in the<br>
debate/discussion stage, and I don't see that there will be any rush to a
vote.<br>
Having a "#1" implies that there might well be a "#2" and so on. Any of us
is <br>
free either to propose a "#2," or suggest an amendment to the present #1,<br>
or whatever seems to be necessary. That's how this bit is supposed to work.<br>
<br>
My own bent here, as soon as I get the time to do it, is to lay out a "Bill
of<br>
Particulars" that would put more meat into Joanna's "whereas" clauses, so
<br>
we'll see how that goes.  ICANN is not going away, and some concerted<br>
effort by all of us on this will show ICANN that neither are we. <br>
<br>
The object of all this work will be to generate, we hope, a single motion
<br>
that everyone will agree is the one that ought to be taken to a vote. In<br>
the process of generating that motion, the actual merits will undoubtedly<br>
need to be bandied about, especially to include some of the excellent<br>
suggestions that have been made as to defining, up front, the actual<br>
purpose of the motion, but we might bear in mind that all we are doing<br>
at present is generating the best possible motion; we are not at present<br>
doing any voting on it.<br>
<br>
:-)<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Ross Wm. Rader wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:01c701c1f832$d0cc2ea0$040a000a@RRADER2K">
  <pre wrap="">I am firmly against taking this motion to a vote.<br><br>There has been zero consultation or discussion on the merits, or lack<br>thereof, of the proposition and as such cannot even remotely be taken as a<br>representative question.<br><br>While I am sympathetic to the need for immediate and decisive action,<br>sufficient consensus on the text of the motion does not yet exist to a<br>degree that warrants taking this to a vote.<br><br>-rwr<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Joanna Lane" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>To: "GA List" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>; "James Love" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:02 PM<br>Subject: [ga] Motion # 1<br><br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!---->has<br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is<br>proposing even further changes.<br><br>WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!---->Internet<br></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">community and go even further from the original terms of reference.<br><br>WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce<br>(the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and<br>alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while<br>providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.<br><br>WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting<br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap=""><!---->Organization<br></pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">(the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,<br></pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap=""><!---->the<br></pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw<br>from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).<br><br><br>It is hereby RESOLVED that:-<br><br>The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of<br></pre>
            </blockquote>
            <pre wrap=""><!---->Internet<br></pre>
            <blockquote type="cite">
              <pre wrap="">Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department<br></pre>
              </blockquote>
              <pre wrap=""><!---->of<br></pre>
              <blockquote type="cite">
                <pre wrap="">Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by<br></pre>
                </blockquote>
                <pre wrap=""><!---->ICANN,<br></pre>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <pre wrap="">provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an<br>international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim<br>to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS<br>services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,<br>competition and freedom.<br><br>Agree [  ]<br>Disagree [  ]<br>Abstain [  ]<br><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br></pre>
                  </blockquote>
                  <pre wrap=""><!----><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                  </body>
                  </html>

- --------------000901020109050809030407--

- --
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 #1179
*************************