Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1189
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 13 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1189

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:38:14 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

On Thu, 9 May 2002 11:49:53 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Thursday, May 09, 2002, 11:42:04 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>> On 2002-05-09 13:39:57 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
>>>Is there a "PR value" in a statement from the GA?  I would hope  
>>>so.  That would mean that people actually care what the GA says.   
>>>How could this not be clear, both on and off list?  And how would  
>>>it be a bad thing if a GA statement was actually noticed by  
>>>people?
>
>> What a wonderful world - Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on  
>> Technology (and its director, James Love) doing free PR for the 
>> DNSO's General Assembly.
>
>> Bad enough, what I've seen so far points in the opposite direction:  
>> The Consumer Project on Technology's director trying to abuse the GA 
>> as a throw-away public relations tool.
>
>> So, once again, the question to everyone involved with this: Do you  
>> want that?  Do you really think that a little PR booster for a  
>> campaign of CPTech is worth giving up on the GA?
>
>> Think twice, and respond, please.  Your responses may quite well  
>> influence what's going to happen.
>
>That's an easy one.  The core supporters for this motion were
>originally those with close ties to the alt.root organizations, such
>as a former new.net employee, members of the ORSC and TLDA, etc.

I support the motion and am none of the above.

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

- --
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 20:09:10 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] An interesting observation...

At 08:59 p.m. 9/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler mentioned:

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

What is a little disconcertening is that these lists *and* the 
atlarge-discuss list *and* the announce list are  all already  under the 
control of Thomas Roessler, who used his posting access to icann-alsg  to 
argue for a migration of the icannatlarge website to a  server that is 
under his control as well.

Read the thread: "the single point of failure and "control" 
http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg/0205/msg00099.html

Thomas Roessler is not an elected member of the Supervisory Panel.

While icannatlarge is not a DNSO GA matter, the Assembly needs to be fully 
informed about its Chair.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   interim webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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 20:01:55 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

>
> >
> > > 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 [  ]
> > >

I am in favour of taking this motion to a vote.

- --Joop

- --
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 11:01:39 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] An interesting observation...

Good Lord, Joop!

Why is everyone so intent to bring the discussion culture
of the GA done to previous times with IDNO-related flame wars
and personal attacks? You are now using the same argument
which William X. Walsh used to discuss IDNO matters -- or
rather Joop Teernstra matters -- on the GA list!

I encourage everyone who is interested to read the /thread/
(not just the posting), but to discuss it, please take it to 
the appropriate mailing list which in this case is 
[email-masked]. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander (GA Alt.deckChair)

At 10.05.2002 20:09, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 08:59 p.m. 9/05/2002 +0200, Thomas Roessler mentioned:
>
>>- http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg/
>>- http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-panel/
>
>What is a little disconcertening is that these lists *and* the atlarge-discuss list *and* the announce list are  all already  under the control of Thomas Roessler, who used his posting access to icann-alsg  to argue for a migration of the icannatlarge website to a  server that is under his control as well.
>
>Read the thread: "the single point of failure and "control" http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg/0205/msg00099.html
>
>Thomas Roessler is not an elected member of the Supervisory Panel.
>
>While icannatlarge is not a DNSO GA matter, the Assembly needs to be fully informed about its Chair.
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>  interim webmaster
>www.icannatlarge.com
>Sign up and spread the word.
>
>
>--
>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 11:51:21 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] An alternative motion text

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored
        by an entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to 
        gain the trust of the Internet community,

Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into 
        policy-making, which must include meaningful individual 
        and non-commercial participation, and accountability (including 
        independent review of decisions),

Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away 
        from these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning 
        processes for the implementation of an independent review 
        system and for participation of the Internet community at 
        large in ICANN oversight,

the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must
adhere to these principles in any reform proposal and make it 
sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
these principles. Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide 
significant improvements in these regards, it is the international 
Internet community's and governments' task to consider how all of or 
parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one 
or more new or existing organizations which are accountable to the 
international Internet community as a whole, have clearly defined 
missions and are not only under the sole control of a national 
department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS 
or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all groups of the Internet 
community are 	called to deliver their input on reforms needed. 
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please send your comments!

Since a number of participants have called for it, the May 10th deadline 
announced by Thomas Roessler is extended until May 13th. However, due to 
time constraints at the secretariat, the ballot has to begin in the week 
between May 13th and May 17th.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 13:11:07 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] An alternative motion text

- --=======319F61FC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64C23E9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

As indicated in a previous post, the principle is good. It is purerly ICANN 
mani pulite oriented. It could be a warning in sequence, a test bed, should 
it not prevent the preparation work and the vote of the main motion. jfc

On 11:51 10/05/02, Alexander Svensson said:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored
>         by an entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to
>         gain the trust of the Internet community,
>
>Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into
>         policy-making, which must include meaningful individual
>         and non-commercial participation, and accountability (including
>         independent review of decisions),
>
>Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away
>         from these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning
>         processes for the implementation of an independent review
>         system and for participation of the Internet community at
>         large in ICANN oversight,
>
>the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must
>adhere to these principles in any reform proposal and make it
>sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
>these principles. Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide
>significant improvements in these regards, it is the international
>Internet community's and governments' task to consider how all of or
>parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one
>or more new or existing organizations which are accountable to the
>international Internet community as a whole, have clearly defined
>missions and are not only under the sole control of a national
>department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS
>or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all groups of the Internet
>community are   called to deliver their input on reforms needed.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Please send your comments!
>
>Since a number of participants have called for it, the May 10th deadline
>announced by Thomas Roessler is extended until May 13th. However, due to
>time constraints at the secretariat, the ballot has to begin in the week
>between May 13th and May 17th.
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>--
>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

- --=======319F61FC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64C23E9
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======319F61FC=======--

- --
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 13:40:04 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

- --=======152F7B7E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64C23E9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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
     - 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

- --=======152F7B7E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-64C23E9
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======152F7B7E=======--

- --
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 04:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] An alternative motion text

Alex,

I really like this alternative, two years ago.

Eric
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored
>         by an entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to 
>         gain the trust of the Internet community,
> 
> Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into 
>         policy-making, which must include meaningful individual 
>         and non-commercial participation, and accountability (including
>          independent review of decisions),
> 
> Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away 
>         from these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning 
>         processes for the implementation of an independent review 
>         system and for participation of the Internet community at 
>         large in ICANN oversight,
> 
> the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must
> adhere to these principles in any reform proposal and make it 
>sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
>these principles. Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide 
>significant improvements in these regards, it is the international 
>Internet community's and governments' task to consider how all of or 
>parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one 
>or more new or existing organizations which are accountable to the 
>international Internet community as a whole, have clearly defined 
>missions and are not only under the sole control of a national 
> department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS 
> or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all groups of the Internet
>  community are 	called to deliver their input on reforms needed. 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Please send your comments!
> 
> Since a number of participants have called for it, the May 10th
> deadline  announced by Thomas Roessler is extended until May 13th.
> However, due to  time constraints at the secretariat, the ballot has to
> begin in the week  between May 13th and May 17th.
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> 
> --
> 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

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:52:26 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Dear Alex and Thomas,

Re:  "The resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered to have 
been accepted, under the additional condition that more than 50% of voters 
accepted it."

Just to be clear... are you exactly following the "VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO 
GA" published to  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html 
or, are you creating a "new rule"?

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:53:17 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Text of Motion # 1..... plus info on title

The final text of motion # 1 is the one that Joanna Lane posted earlier,
which is below.  Now it needs a title.  I recommend:

"Request that US DoC hold open competition for services now offered by
ICANN"

<-----text Joanna Lane posted----------------->
- ---------------------
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.

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:25:02 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Gary Osbourne wrote:
>Just because this is an online voting process
>doesn't mean such voting should be done in
>parallel, rather than serial, fashion.

Frankly, each vote is costly. I takes several hours
of work on several days, mostly work by the DNSO
Secretariat, but also unpaid volunteer work by the
election watchdogs. I recommend reading Elisabeth
Porteneuve's remarks at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00249.html

In addition, not grouping motions on the same issue
in one vote seems to have exactly the same risks of
cyclical majorities than grouping them, only that
it is less transparent.

With that, I have reached my posting limit for today,
so I'll stay silent.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:04:41 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum

> 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
>      - advisory
>      - force to a dialog
>      - obtain missing responses
>      - "suicide"
>

Advisory and to force a dialog amongst the internet users of the world. To
inform them that
the name system has been hijacked by a corrupt monopoly.

> 2. to who should it be addressed to?
>      - formally
>        - to the BoD
>        - to the NC
>        - to the DoC
>        - to the world
All of the above

>        - to the outerspace
Dont be silly

>      - 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
All of the above.

>        - to our own ego
This is not about ego. Its serious business

>
> 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
BINGO!
>      - that we have real concerns about the DNS stability
>      - that we have concern for the world's economy structure under the
> present DNS managment
... and this is the result of current ICANN never working

>
> 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
>
1. To get them out of "power" before they do more damage with their
monopoly.
2. To prevent TLD theft like what happened with .BIZ
3. To open up the root so that there can be thousands of TLDs like there
should
be.
4. To once again reaffirm the "rough consensus and running code" concept
that
made the internet and is still the only way that it will work. If I create a
registry,
and am the first to operate a TLD, I should be able to be listed in the root
5. To smash WIPO's control over the namespace. Intellectual property
concerns
have NO place in domain names.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

> 5. what are the elements missing in the current ICANN mission?
No, the question is, what dozens of things are they doing that they
should not be doing.

>      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
>

Hope this helps
John

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:13:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:52:26PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Re: "The resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered 
>to have been accepted, under the additional condition that more 
>than 50% of voters accepted it."

>Just to be clear... are you exactly following the "VOTING RULES 
>FOR THE DNSO GA" published to 
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html or, are 
>you creating a "new rule"?

The mode of operation I have proposed is asking two questions (to 
speak in terms of the rules):

	1. Should the GA adopt resolution A?
	2. Should the GA adopt resolution B?

Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in 
the end, I have added the rule that the resolution which receives 
most "yes" votes is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of the 
vote.

If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would 
have to be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three 
mutually exclusive answers would be: James' resolution, Alexander's 
resolution, no resolution at all.

Comments?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                      <[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: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:21:18 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> 
> Just because this is an online voting process
> doesn't mean such voting should be done in
> parallel, rather than serial, fashion.

You are overlooking the cost of conducting the vote.  If votes were 
free (in terms of human effort to set up and real time to conduct), 
then conducting multiple serial votes might be reasonable.  But those 
conditions are not met.

In more detail: because of the uncertain transit time for email (especially 
when the further reaches of the Internet are involved), and the
fact that the vote is global across time zones, one must allow at least
a few days for any vote.  Moreover, because we aren't all in the same
room looking at each other's hands, there have to be auditing procedures
in place.  These audit procedures are potentially time consuming for 
the auditors, and for the people running the vote (the secretariat).  
Therefore we can't just run serial votes, and therefore, it is 
important to batch votes.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:58:56 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Throw-away PR - is that what you want?

[email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 08:38 PM +1200):

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

sorry, but this is a really idiotic remark.

> >That's an easy one.  The core supporters for this motion were
> >originally those with close ties to the alt.root organizations, such
> >as a former new.net employee, members of the ORSC and TLDA, etc.
> 
> I support the motion and am none of the above.

ditto.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1189
*************************