Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1180
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 10 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1180

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:13:09 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

You can't suck and blow on this - either the motion is up for discussion
before it goes for a vote, or the motion has been called for a vote.

The way I read Joanna's request is that it is the latter. If its actually
the case that I misread her message and the motion actually *is* up for
discussion and amendment, then I would be happy to put some ideas forward.
If this isn't the case, then my original statement of (non)support stands.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

> 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
> >
> >
>
>

- --
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 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

The issue of "ballot box stuffing" has been raised - And I'd like to say
that there is nothing wrong when people who have a right to vote take the
time and effort to register as voters on issues that interest them.

The public interest in Internet governance is best served when the public 
participates.

One ought not to forget that in the ICANN structure as it currently exists
the larger ballot box of making policy has already been stuffed - the
constituency structure of the DNSO creates several very large ballots for
certain selected industries and business sectors.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:24:01 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No At-Large & no GA

>
> Petitioning the NTIA to recompete the ICANN contracts is the only
remaining
> action that can serve to protect our interests.
> --

Whose interests? Those of the GA? Yours? Individual users that expect
nothing more from the DNS than simple resolution? Perchance, Registrants?

Perhaps I didn't say this clearly enough yesterday - there was a time, not
too long ago, when DNS policy was determined by a government and a defense
contractor - the rest be damned as it were. The current "mess", to borrow a
phrase from the critics, is far more desirable than having to appeal to the
House.

Be aware of what you are actually proposing.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Hello,

- --- "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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

Marilyn, there was the post here:

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ecommerce/2002q2/000772.html

on one of the cptech.org mailing lists, but who can tell if it created
much quantity... Checking the Alexa stats for how popular that site is:

http://xslt.alexa.com/data/cli100?srv=-1&client=3&url=cptech.org

they're not in the top 100,000 websites on the web. The DNSO has a much
bigger audience, see:

http://xslt.alexa.com/data/cli100?srv=-1&client=3&url=dnso.org

in 62,034th place of all sites on the web.

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 10:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

On Fri, 10 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
 
> 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.

Thois choice of words reflects reality perhaps more than we would like -
on certainly does have a chance "to respond".  But will one be heard?

ICANN has a long history of these kinds of 
"throw-it-over-the-wall-and-we-might-consider-it" kinds of processes.

And in those processes there has never been much evidence that what was
submitted was actually read, much less comprehended, and even less given
weight in some sort of even-handed and open-minded deliberation.

Granted, this evolution committee is doing a better job than any of 
ICANN's prior committees - at least it is asking questions.  But the 
questions indicate that the committee is running on rails that admit of 
little deviation from the basic shape of the Lynn plan.

The question being placed before the GA - regarding its sense on the
question of the disposition of the various legal arrangements between the
US and ICANN - is separate and distinct from one making one's comments to
the "evolution" committee.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:43:30 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No At-Large & no GA

Friday, May 10, 2002, 9:55:18 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Petitioning the NTIA to recompete the ICANN contracts is the only remaining 
> action that can serve to protect our interests.  

Great, then do so, in an appropriate manner.

Using the GA for this purpose is not an appropriate manner.

I am not challenging the message, it is the method.  The GA is not the
appropriate vehicle for this message.  Using it as the vehicle will
create ample reason for ICANN, a reformed ICANN, or any successor, to
argue for no, or strictly limited, public participation at all.

If the message is the important part, why are you so intent on
violating the charter and having this statement come out as a "GA"
statement rather than a statement that stands on its own merits?

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:51:02 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 10:56 AM -0400):

> 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.

ross--

if it's not representative, then surely it will be voted down, no?

cheers,
t
- --
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 11:00:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Friday, May 10, 2002, 10:51:02 AM, t byfield wrote:

> [email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 10:56 AM -0400):

>> 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.

> ross--

> if it's not representative, then surely it will be voted down, no?

Yet another first time poster....

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:08:29 -0700
From: Paul Stahura <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

I agree with Marilyn in that I also believe many participants want changes,
but that we should work within the organization to make the changes.  
Lets not go back to square one.
My guess is that if you take one step backwards, you would not
then take two steps forward, but rather another one backwards.
IMO the current resolution is one big step backwards.
I don't support it.

Paul Stahura

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:24 AM
To: GA List
Cc: Thomas Roessler (E-mail); Alexander Svensson (E-mail)
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 14:08:53 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Thanks George, and of course this is the archives of an (international)
E-Commerce discussion list, that has had a number of ICANN related
discussions over the past year, and follows also many other international
ecommerce issues, and has followed the ICANN governance issue for while.
Note also that the note included copies of various GA posts, on both sides
of the issue, including two from TR, expressing opposition to the motion.
Are other members of the GA permitted to talk about ICANN or GA issues
without a chaperone?   Or would there be *any* basis for not allowing any of
these people to have voted, if they had actually wanted to?  Many of them
are also active in several other ICANN mailing lists or belong to various
DNSO constituencies, such as the NCDNHC.    Is telling people who follow
ICANN issues how to participate in ICANN governance matters inappropriate,
and if so why?

jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns

> Hello,
>
> --- "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Marilyn, there was the post here:
>
> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ecommerce/2002q2/000772.html
>
> on one of the cptech.org mailing lists, but who can tell if it created
> much quantity... Checking the Alexa stats for how popular that site is:
>
> http://xslt.alexa.com/data/cli100?srv=-1&client=3&url=cptech.org
>
> they're not in the top 100,000 websites on the web. The DNSO has a much
> bigger audience, see:
>
> http://xslt.alexa.com/data/cli100?srv=-1&client=3&url=dnso.org
>
> in 62,034th place of all sites on the web.
>
> 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
>
>
>

- --
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 14:11:09 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 11:00 AM -0700):

> > if it's not representative, then surely it will be voted down, no?
> 
> Yet another first time poster....

uh, yeah--who's been actively writing about DNS for years, is a 
member of the NCDNHC, and editor of ICANN watch, etc., etc.

if you notice a spike in interest in the GA, it may because the 
GA is finally doing something interesting. 

cheers,
t
- --
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 14:17:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ...but we lied

We said that "Our goal is to replace each and every one of the current Board 
members as soon as possible", ...but we lied.

We said that "it is ICANN's highest priority to complete the work necessary 
to implement a workable At-Large membership structure and to conduct 
elections for the nine At-Large Directors that must be chosen by the 
membership", ...but we lied. 

We said that "The bylaws now make it clear that the Board has an 
unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that will elect the At 
Large Directors of the Board", ...but we lied.

We said that we will reserve Article II of our Bylaws "for use when the 
Corporation has members", ... but we lied.

We said that ICANN will "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open 
and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure 
fairness" ... but we lied.

We said that "ICANN must facilitate the translation of final documents into 
various appropriate languages" ...but we lied.

We said that the task of the Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee 
"is well underway, and should be fully implemented within a few months" 
...but we lied.

We said that "Some remain concerned that the Initial Board could simply amend 
the bylaws and remove the membership provisions that we have just described 
above. We commit that this will not happen." ... but we lied.

How many more lies to the US Government should be tolerated?  Would anyone 
like to offer a rationale as to why this incumbent ICANN management should be 
trusted?  All I see is lies and more lies.
- --
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 14:18:24 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

> if it's not representative, then surely it will be voted down, no?

Most certainly - but then that puts us in a constant state of voting. My
preference is to put forward propositions that have benefitted from at least
a few rounds of consideration, discussion and amendment...

- -rwr

(btw - any chance you'll be in bucharest?)

- --
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 14:27:24 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

At 11:00 AM 5/10/2002 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Friday, May 10, 2002, 10:51:02 AM, t byfield wrote:
> > [email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 10:56 AM -0400):
>
> >> 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.
>
> > ross--
> > if it's not representative, then surely it will be voted down, no?
>
>Yet another first time poster....

         I've been too busy on non-DNS issues to participate in this 
debate, but I've got to jump in here.  ted byfield is one of the most 
knowledgeable and astute ICANN observers out there; you can find some of 
his 1999-2001 commentary at <http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/>, and 
he's currently an ICANNWatch editor.  If the current controversy is getting 
folks like ted onto the ga list, that's without question a good thing (for 
us, if not for him).

- --
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: Sat, 11 May 2002 06:29:20 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL

On Fri, 10 May 2002 07:56:46 -0400, Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
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

I use Agent which is very cheap and very useful (handles both
newsgroups and e-mail in one format).  Available at
http://www.forteinc.com.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 12:15:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

- --------------080809090103000601090105
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

jefsey wrote:

> 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. 

Jefsey:

I don't think Joanna "took the role of writer."  What she did was put
James Love's "motion" into the form of a "#1" and post it as such. This
poor lady can't do everything for us!  I suggest that those who want
to work on #1, either by amendment or by posting a new "#2" or
whatever, simply do so and label what you are doing so that Joanna
would have half a chance of tracking all that for us as well. (I am
myself much in favor of there being a preamble, even before the usual
whereas clauses, that defines the purpose of the motion as you note
below.)

Bill

>
>
> 1. what is the purpose of the motion?
>     - disruptive
>     - advisory
>     - force to a dialog
>     - obtain missing responses
>     - "suicide"
>
> 2. to who should it be addressed to?
>     - formally
>       - to the BoD
>       - to the NC
>       - to the DoC
>       - to the world
>       - to the outerspace
>     - actually
>       - to the DoC to obtain a decision
>       - to the BoD to make them moving
>       - to the reform committee as a warning
>       - to the GAC members to create a problem they will have to solve
>       - to the Congress
>       - to the Press
>       - to our own ego
>
> 3. what is our real reason?
>     - that we are unhappy with the ICANN principle
>     - that we see that the current ICANN structure will never work
>     - that we have real concerns about the DNS stability
>     - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the 
> present DNS managment
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---
>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
>

- --------------080809090103000601090105
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
jefsey wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
Dear Joanna, <br>
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. <br>
  <br>
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. </blockquote>
Jefsey:<br>
  <br>
I don't think Joanna "took the role of writer." &nbsp;What she did was put <br>
James Love's "motion" into the form of a "#1" and post it as such. This <br>
poor lady can't do <i>everything</i> for us! &nbsp;I suggest that those who want<br>
to work on #1, either by amendment or by posting a new "#2" or <br>
whatever, simply do so and label what you are doing so that Joanna <br>
would have half a chance of tracking all that for us as well. (I am<br>
myself much in favor of there being a preamble, even before the usual<br>
whereas clauses, that defines the purpose of the motion as you note<br>
below.)<br>
  <br>
Bill<br>
  <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><br>
    <br>
1. what is the purpose of the motion? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - disruptive <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - advisory <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - force to a dialog <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - obtain missing responses <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - "suicide" <br>
    <br>
2. to who should it be addressed to? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - formally <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the BoD <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the NC <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the DoC <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the world <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the outerspace <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - actually <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the DoC to obtain a decision <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the BoD to make them moving <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the reform committee as a warning <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the GAC members to create a problem they will have to solve <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the Congress <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to the Press <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to our own ego <br>
    <br>
3. what is our real reason? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we are unhappy with the ICANN principle <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we see that the current ICANN structure will never work <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we have real concerns about the DNS stability <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the  present
DNS managment <br>
    <br>
4. what is our real target? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to support external propositions <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to develop a GA proposition <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to permit a real debate on real element and not only on Stuart's  emotions 
    <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to protect national interests and security <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - to protect business interests <br>
    <br>
5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN mission? <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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 <br>
    <br>
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. <br>
    <br>
Until that work is done, I reseve my support to this motion. <br>
jfc <br>
    <br>
    <br>
On 05:38 10/05/02, Joanna Lane said: <br>
    <blockquote type="cite">&gt; &gt; WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for
Assigned names and Numbers <br>
&gt; &gt; (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes. <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; the Internet community and go even further from the original <br>
&gt; &gt; terms of reference. <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department
of <br>
&gt; &gt; Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing <br>
&gt; &gt; key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of <br>
&gt; &gt; the process for enhanced visibility. <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting <br>
&gt; &gt; Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; name System (the DNS). <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; It is hereby RESOLVED that:- <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <br>
&gt; &gt; asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition <br>
&gt; &gt; for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new <br>
&gt; &gt; competition would address the need to develop an international <br>
&gt; &gt; framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of 
      <br>
&gt; &gt; DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also <br>
&gt; &gt; innovation, competition and freedom. <br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; Agree [&nbsp; ] <br>
&gt; &gt; Disagree [&nbsp; ] <br>
&gt; &gt; Abstain [&nbsp; ] <br>
&gt; &gt; <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>
      <br>
- --- <br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. <br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</a>). <br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02 <br>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><br><hr width="90%" size="4"><br><br>---<br>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<br>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      </body>
      </html>

- --------------080809090103000601090105--

- --
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 #1180
*************************