Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #119
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 18 2000           Volume 01 : Number 119

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:29:02 -0400
From: Theresa Swinehart <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

YJ,

Just a point of clarification.

As is noted in Jonathan's note below, there are two bodies, a working group,
and a task force. As I said on the call, Jonathan is participating in the
working group. The task force is a small group, made up of one constituency
representative, and the GA chair. The working group includes any interested
parties and provides input into the TF.

Jonathan, your participation is invaluable, and I hope you can help the
working group conduct it's work.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> YJ Park
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 10:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections
>
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Names Council teleconference was just finished and NC has made sure
> DNSO Review task force is going to facilitate the communications
> between any relevant group and Names Council.
>
> Therefore, my understanding after talking this with Theresa and Ken
> during the NC meeting is you can participate in the DNSO review TK
> and mostly welcomed to give your inputs based upon your expertise
> and experiences.
>
> Thanks,
>
> YJ
>
> > Absolutely correct.
> >
> > (I wish I was able to express myself so clearly)
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> > P.S.: action point for me noted - I will get back to the GA
> with the
> > list. I can already anticipate that they are one per
> Constituency, plys
> > yours truly.
> >
> >
> > > My understanding:
> > >
> > > The NC decided a review of the DNSO should be undertaken
> using *two*
> > >bodies: a "Task Force" and a WG.  The Task Force was formed by
> > invitation
> > >only,  with members nominated by each of the constituencies.  To my
> > >knowledge, the names of the Task Force members have not been made
> > public.
> > >(Roberto, can you tell us who they are?)  The Task Force is putting
> > >together a workplan for the rest of the review process; its draft
> > document
> > >has also not been made public.  Once the workplan is completed and
> > approved
> > >by the NC, the NC will issue a call for rank-and-file
> members to enlist
> >  in
> > >the working group.
> > >
> > >Roberto, is this correct?
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonathan Weinberg
> > >[email-masked]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 08:41 PM 8/14/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >>Michael,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry for the confusion.
> > >>As I expalined in a previous post, the document is the initial
> > document
> > >>that is circulating in the Task Force to define the scope of work.
> > >>
> > >>You did not miss anything.
> > >>
> > >>Regards
> > >>Roberto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>That's amazing.  What kind of notice got sent to ICANN
> mailing list
> > >>>members?  Am I no longer on the relevant list?
> > >>>
> > >>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The NC Task Force is at work, I am part of it.
> > >>>> The deadline for comments on the initial document is today.
> > >>>
> > >>>--
> > >>> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > >>>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |
> [email-masked]
> > >>>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables,
> FL 33124 USA
> > >>>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |
http://www.law.tm
> >>>                        -->It's hot here.<--
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>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
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:55:01 +0800
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

> Just a point of clarification.

> The task force is a small group, made up of one constituency
> representative, and the GA chair. 

Noted.

>The working group includes any interested parties and 
> provides input into the TF.

Personally, I have some confusion regarding this part.

If I reiterates what you're saying here, those who are not in the TF 
are also expected to give thier inputs to task force by sending emails 
both directly and indirectly to the TF. 

I hope I do understand you correctly.

YJ

> Jonathan, your participation is invaluable, and I hope you can help the
> working group conduct it's work.
> Theresa
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > YJ Park
> > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 10:29 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections
> >
> >
> > Dear Jonathan,
> >
> > Names Council teleconference was just finished and NC has made sure
> > DNSO Review task force is going to facilitate the communications
> > between any relevant group and Names Council.
> >
> > Therefore, my understanding after talking this with Theresa and Ken
> > during the NC meeting is you can participate in the DNSO review TK
> > and mostly welcomed to give your inputs based upon your expertise
> > and experiences.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > YJ
> >
> > > Absolutely correct.
> > >
> > > (I wish I was able to express myself so clearly)
> > >
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > > P.S.: action point for me noted - I will get back to the GA
> > with the
> > > list. I can already anticipate that they are one per
> > Constituency, plys
> > > yours truly.
> > >
> > >
> > > > My understanding:
> > > >
> > > > The NC decided a review of the DNSO should be undertaken
> > using *two*
> > > >bodies: a "Task Force" and a WG.  The Task Force was formed by
> > > invitation
> > > >only,  with members nominated by each of the constituencies.  To my
> > > >knowledge, the names of the Task Force members have not been made
> > > public.
> > > >(Roberto, can you tell us who they are?)  The Task Force is putting
> > > >together a workplan for the rest of the review process; its draft
> > > document
> > > >has also not been made public.  Once the workplan is completed and
> > > approved
> > > >by the NC, the NC will issue a call for rank-and-file
> > members to enlist
> > >  in
> > > >the working group.
> > > >
> > > >Roberto, is this correct?
> > > >
> > > >Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Jonathan Weinberg
> > > >[email-masked]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 08:41 PM 8/14/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > >>Michael,
> > > >>
> > > >>Sorry for the confusion.
> > > >>As I expalined in a previous post, the document is the initial
> > > document
> > > >>that is circulating in the Task Force to define the scope of work.
> > > >>
> > > >>You did not miss anything.
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards
> > > >>Roberto
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>That's amazing.  What kind of notice got sent to ICANN
> > mailing list
> > > >>>members?  Am I no longer on the relevant list?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The NC Task Force is at work, I am part of it.
> > > >>>> The deadline for comments on the initial document is today.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>--
> > > >>> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > > >>>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |
> > [email-masked]
> > > >>>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables,
> > FL 33124 USA
> > > >>>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |
> http://www.law.tm
> > >>>                        -->It's hot here.<--
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>--
> > >>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
> >
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:49:31 -0400
From: Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

Dear YJ
I look forward to the opportunity of participating even if you were writing to
J. Weinberg
Best Regards

Jonathan Cohen

YJ Park wrote:

> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Names Council teleconference was just finished and NC has made sure
> DNSO Review task force is going to facilitate the communications
> between any relevant group and Names Council.
>
> Therefore, my understanding after talking this with Theresa and Ken
> during the NC meeting is you can participate in the DNSO review TK
> and mostly welcomed to give your inputs based upon your expertise
> and experiences.
>
> Thanks,
>
> YJ
>
> > Absolutely correct.
> >
> > (I wish I was able to express myself so clearly)
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> > P.S.: action point for me noted - I will get back to the GA with the
> > list. I can already anticipate that they are one per Constituency, plys
> > yours truly.
> >
> >
> > > My understanding:
> > >
> > > The NC decided a review of the DNSO should be undertaken using *two*
> > >bodies: a "Task Force" and a WG.  The Task Force was formed by
> > invitation
> > >only,  with members nominated by each of the constituencies.  To my
> > >knowledge, the names of the Task Force members have not been made
> > public.
> > >(Roberto, can you tell us who they are?)  The Task Force is putting
> > >together a workplan for the rest of the review process; its draft
> > document
> > >has also not been made public.  Once the workplan is completed and
> > approved
> > >by the NC, the NC will issue a call for rank-and-file members to enlist
> >  in
> > >the working group.
> > >
> > >Roberto, is this correct?
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonathan Weinberg
> > >[email-masked]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 08:41 PM 8/14/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >>Michael,
> > >>
> > >>Sorry for the confusion.
> > >>As I expalined in a previous post, the document is the initial
> > document
> > >>that is circulating in the Task Force to define the scope of work.
> > >>
> > >>You did not miss anything.
> > >>
> > >>Regards
> > >>Roberto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>That's amazing.  What kind of notice got sent to ICANN mailing list
> > >>>members?  Am I no longer on the relevant list?
> > >>>
> > >>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The NC Task Force is at work, I am part of it.
> > >>>> The deadline for comments on the initial document is today.
> > >>>
> > >>>--
> > >>> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > >>>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > >>>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > >>>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> > >>>                        -->It's hot here.<--
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>--
> > >>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
> >

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:28:41 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

The Task Force was not set up by invitation, but rather a request for
volunteers for one NC member from each Constituency and the GA Chair.  It
is my understanding that the list of the members was made public by
Elisabeth through one of her emails to the NC which I believe is public.
Jonathan, since Theresa appears to be spearheading this effort (as she has
done on so many other occasions), I suggest as Ken did during the
teleconference today, that you email her directly with any questions or
concerns so you get the most up to date and accurate information.

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:29:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

All remaining assembly members,

  Is this "Task Force" still open for Volunteers?  If so I would like to
Volunteer...  If not, when did this "Task Force" stop taking Volunteers
and where was that announced specifically?

  Thank you for your cooperation in advance...  >;)

[email-masked] wrote:

> The Task Force was not set up by invitation, but rather a request for
> volunteers for one NC member from each Constituency and the GA Chair.  It
> is my understanding that the list of the members was made public by
> Elisabeth through one of her emails to the NC which I believe is public.
> Jonathan, since Theresa appears to be spearheading this effort (as she has
> done on so many other occasions), I suggest as Ken did during the
> teleconference today, that you email her directly with any questions or
> concerns so you get the most up to date and accurate information.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:31:49 +0100
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections

"Somewhere in the postal system ....."

I imagine that for some developing countries the use of the postal system
may be a nightmare. One thats even more challenging than using web based
membership participation from developing countries, as experienced with
at-large member registrations. Is this yet another barrier for participation
from the frontiers of the Internet?

Nii

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections

> Chris,
>
> ICANN claims it has sent all PINs by August 7, which makes it very
> likely that your PIN is somewhere in the Postal system.
> My suggestion would be, to you and to the others that are in the same
> situation, to activate the procedure for "lost PIN", and that before too
>  late.
> It is already difficult to get to 2% of the votes, that there's no
> reason to make this risk higher.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
>
>
> >> Your PIN was sent via postal mail.
> >
> >No, it wasn't. I still don't have it. I would like to state for the
> >record that I cast my support for Karl Auerbach. I have no
> >expectation of receiving my PIN in time.
> >
> >Christopher
> >
> >--
> >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, 18 Aug 2000 09:26:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections

Nii,

You are right.

One might just observe that this is not avoidable from ICANN's part.
Or are there alternatives that ICANN could have preferred to the postal 
system for (secure) delivery of PINs?

Regards
Roberto

>"Somewhere in the postal system ....."
>
>I imagine that for some developing countries the use of the postal 
system
>may be a nightmare. One thats even more challenging than using web 
based
>membership participation from developing countries, as experienced with

>at-large member registrations. Is this yet another barrier for 
participation
>from the frontiers of the Internet?
>
>Nii
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:50 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections
>
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> ICANN claims it has sent all PINs by August 7, which makes it very
>> likely that your PIN is somewhere in the Postal system.
>> My suggestion would be, to you and to the others that are in the same

>> situation, to activate the procedure for "lost PIN", and that before 
too
>>  late.
>> It is already difficult to get to 2% of the votes, that there's no
>> reason to make this risk higher.
>>
>> Regards
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Your PIN was sent via postal mail.
>> >
>> >No, it wasn't. I still don't have it. I would like to state for the
>> >record that I cast my support for Karl Auerbach. I have no
>> >expectation of receiving my PIN in time.
>> >
>> >Christopher
>> >
>> >--
>> >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
>
>
>
>
- --
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, 18 Aug 2000 03:29:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  It is, and always has been obvious and well known that the
postal system was, and has shown to be a poor and unworkable
method of delivering PIN's.  This shows the lack of good leadership
on the part of the ICANN Board and it's staff.  It shows clearly
that they are inept to a degree that is unfathomable the annals
of modern management history....

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Nii,
>
> You are right.
>
> One might just observe that this is not avoidable from ICANN's part.
> Or are there alternatives that ICANN could have preferred to the postal
> system for (secure) delivery of PINs?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> >"Somewhere in the postal system ....."
> >
> >I imagine that for some developing countries the use of the postal
> system
> >may be a nightmare. One thats even more challenging than using web
> based
> >membership participation from developing countries, as experienced with
>
> >at-large member registrations. Is this yet another barrier for
> participation
> >from the frontiers of the Internet?
> >
> >Nii
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:50 AM
> >Subject: Re: [ga] At Large Elections
> >
> >
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> ICANN claims it has sent all PINs by August 7, which makes it very
> >> likely that your PIN is somewhere in the Postal system.
> >> My suggestion would be, to you and to the others that are in the same
>
> >> situation, to activate the procedure for "lost PIN", and that before
> too
> >>  late.
> >> It is already difficult to get to 2% of the votes, that there's no
> >> reason to make this risk higher.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Roberto
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Your PIN was sent via postal mail.
> >> >
> >> >No, it wasn't. I still don't have it. I would like to state for the
> >> >record that I cast my support for Karl Auerbach. I have no
> >> >expectation of receiving my PIN in time.
> >> >
> >> >Christopher
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 18 Aug 2000 10:27:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] new constituencies

Joop,

>Since the process is now still open, we might as well help the special 
NC
>task force in their thinking:
>
>
>**********************************
>.......
>*******
>My first reaction: the DNSO was supposed to be a representative 
structure of
>all stakeholders in the DNS. Balancing  "ëffectiveness" for some 
special
>interests against "representativeness" of the body itself is not a 
proper
>exercise.
>"Effective" has different meanings for different interests.
>

The comments I delivered on Monday addressed somehow your concern, as I 
raised specifically the question on whether other groups could be 
identified that were not adequately represented in the existing 
constituencies.

Any other comments to the draft, that you want me to report?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 18 Aug 2000 10:32:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Elections

Joop,

>>
>I agree that action is already on the way in some form. But,
>A vote from the virtual GA is a useful exercise. We haven't voted all 
that
>often and it sets the right precedent that allows the WHOLE GA to vote 
on
>issues that otherwise could be rammed through a physical GA.
>It also prevents people from making the point that the whole GA didn't 
get
>the chance to vote on the issue.

For a vote, I need a motion and a second.
But more important, I need to have a debate on the issue going on, to 
make sure that people are interested.

Who wants to get the ball rolling and start proposing a text to debate? 
We can give ourselves a couple of weeks, and if there's enough interest,
 go to a formal motion andvote.

Fair enough?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 18 Aug 2000 04:28:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections (Seconded)

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  I believe that back in January of this year it was determined
by consensus, although not a measured one, that the DNSO
assembly members should and would have a right to have a vote
on specific issues.  As such I second Joops motion here...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joop,
>
> >>
> >I agree that action is already on the way in some form. But,
> >A vote from the virtual GA is a useful exercise. We haven't voted all
> that
> >often and it sets the right precedent that allows the WHOLE GA to vote
> on
> >issues that otherwise could be rammed through a physical GA.
> >It also prevents people from making the point that the whole GA didn't
> get
> >the chance to vote on the issue.
>
> For a vote, I need a motion and a second.
> But more important, I need to have a debate on the issue going on, to
> make sure that people are interested.
>
> Who wants to get the ball rolling and start proposing a text to debate?
> We can give ourselves a couple of weeks, and if there's enough interest,
>  go to a formal motion andvote.
>
> Fair enough?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #119
************************