Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1191
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 14 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1191

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:39:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Monday, May 13, 2002, 5:47:16 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 11:17 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>  > I'm still trying to get your point, and I'd like to ask
>  > you to make it more clearly.

> I'll try.

The issue, Gary, is that a motion which passes by a simple 50% plus 1
is clearly NOT the consensus position of the GA.

If another motion on the subject has MORE support, even if the first
motion is supported by a majority of the members, the motion with the
widest support is much closer to a true consensus, and would be more
valid as the consensus position of the GA than any other motion that
passed by a lower vote total.

But this doesn't solve the procedural issues with regard to this
entire subject being voted on that the chair has still not addressed
to the assembly and not to my satisfaction.  Recognizing that
something is in fact out of the bounds of the GA, and still letting
the vote go forward, creates more problems than it solves, Thomas.

This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside
the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the
Chair.

The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.

- -- 
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:43:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I share Joannas concerns regarding the Chair's recent and repetitive
disruptive behavior.  I also support Joanna's concern regarding
ALexanders attempting to circumvent or otherwise confuse
motions and the upcoming ballot format to do so...  Such behaviors
by Alexander and Thomas deserve the GA' members sanctioning..

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Thomas,
> I am deeply concerned that this procedure is being unilaterally decided by a
> Chair who is not at all neutral on the issues being debated. He is very
> hostile towards the first Motion, and if that isn't bad enough, the
> Alternate Chair is the Proponent of what is being set down as a competing
> Motion.  This state of affairs is not at all satisfactory, the results will
> not stand up to scrutiny later, it goes directly against every principal of
> Best Practices.
>
> I make further comments below.
>
> > Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> > message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
> >
> >       [ ] motion 1
> >       [ ] motion 2
> >
> >       [ ] abstain
> >
> > The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
> > motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which
> > can happen:
>
> This is not an appropriate format. These are not conflicting Motions whereby
> one has to chose one or the other, and if they were, then you should not be
> sending them for a vote, rather you should facilitate further discussion to
> eliminate one or other Motion. That would more than likely involve another
> informal Poll to determine which has greater consensus. As it is, if you
> insist on proceeding with a formal ballot this week, then you must allow the
> membership to vote on each Motion separately, which means an option for,
> against, and abstain on each Motion.
>
> > I admit that this is a rather "creative" application of the GA's
> > voting rules.
>
> Which would make the whole exercise a complete waste of time since the
> results would not stand up to scrutiny for reasons of your creative
> application of the rules.
>
> > As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would
> > mandate that the question on the ballot is something like this:
> >
> >       Please select one of the following options:
> >
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> >       [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
>
> Excuse me? Please point me to the part of the rules that says members cannot
> explicitly state their preference for each motion presented to them as a
> separate decision. I may agree with both of these Motions, or disagree with
> both, or I may agree with one, but abstain on another. You are denying my
> right to make those choices.
>
> > (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely implies that we are
> > already bending some rather important rules, as William has
> > argued.)
>
> A wholly inappropriate, almost juvenile, response to the point of order
> question in my view. If, the Chair is not satisfied that a vote is in order,
> then he/she should stop proceedings forthwith until it is. If, on the other
> hand, he/she allows it to proceed, then it should be done willingly and in
> good faith. Making insinuations that the procedure may be invalidated
> later - as Thomas is now doing, is out of order for a Chair.
>
> > I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest that these
> > comments should come rather quickly, since the time window we have
> > for starting an election is limited to this week due to practical
> > constraints at the secretariat, as I already pointed out more than a
> > week ago.
>
> What practical constraints? Since when did the General Assembly have to
> conduct its business to fit in with the Secretariat's social life (or
> whatever the reason is for insisting its done this week)? Do we know what
> pressing issue(s) prevents the Assembly from conducting its business as it
> sees fit?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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
> >
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:06:25 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign hit with lawsuit over deceptive renewal mail campaign

Bulk Register is suing Verisign over their deceptive renewal mail
campaign that disguised the domain transfer ad as a renewal invoice.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020513/wr_nm/tech_domains_verisign_dc_1

The mailing also violated USPS postal regulations regarding marketing
mails:

  http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/c031.htm

The requirement is that the following phrase must appear in at least 
thirty point capital letters on the face of the notice: "THIS IS NOT A 
BILL. THIS IS A SOLICITATION. YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY THE 
AMOUNT STATED ABOVE UNLESS YOU ACCEPT THIS OFFER."

They even have a helpful example picture of what it should look like:

  http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/c031.htm#Rar16021

I know many complaints were filed with the Postal Inspectors over this
issue as well at both local postal offices and online at:
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/fraud/MailFraudComplaint.htm

- -- 
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:23:05 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating 
a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers 
spousal employment.

cheers,
t

- ----- Forwarded 

From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:10:42 -0400

Those of us who were not in Accra had trouble understanding
what happened to the DNSO policy statement on .org. We were
particularly amazed by how the Board, without any warning
or any supporting public record, reversed position on 
giving .org to a non-profit organization, proposing to allow 
major commercial registries to bid for it.

Now it is possible to understand better what happened.

One of the companies that has been making it clear that
they want to be involved with .org is Neulevel. Before Accra, 
they were making it known that four people were assigned to 
the .org bid full time.

According to the transcript, the Board member who pushed the
Board away from non-profit was Robt. Blokzijl. See the transcript at
http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-14mar02.htm 

And guess what? Mr. Blokzijl has a special relationship to
Neulevel. His wife was hired by Neulevel a few months after 
they were married. Lynn Blokzijl is the Neulevel representative 
in the Netherlands. 

Maybe this is just a coincidence. Maybe Mr. Blokzijl's insistence
that .org be given to a company with "demonstrated experience"
and the Board's subsequent vote to permit commercial applicants
was unrelated to Neulevel's lobbying campaign. Maybe Neulevel's 
hiring of Mrs. Blokzijl had absolutely nothing to do
with the fact that she was married to a Board member. 

Even if this is all "coincidence," it doesn't make ICANN look
very good. Mr Blokzijl had better recuse himself from the .org
redelegation discussion, decision and all other aspects of the 
process.

- --MM

- ----- Backwarded

- --
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 19:33:09 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

Monday, May 13, 2002, 7:23:05 PM, t byfield wrote:

> i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating 
> a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers 
> spousal employment.

This isn't an At Large, or something like that.  This issue is also
outside the scope of the GA's mandate.

However, I do support the change you request, but the GA is not the
proper vehicle to seek such a change.  If you need assistance putting
together a letter and petition to advocate such a change, contact me
off list, I have existing software that would automate this process,
and would be happy to help advance a letter on this subject to ICANN's
Board, and host the petition site for it (free of course) which would
be likely to get a lot of support from others who are also GA members.
I can even have a section where signers can indicate if they are GA
members or not on the petition.

This is the proper way to advance issues that are outside of the scope
of the GA.

- -- 
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:59:02 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

> This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside
> the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the
> Chair.

This is a very straightforward question and the answer is simply no, it is
not out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that Motion #1 is a viable
restructuring proposal, whereas Motion #2, is not, it seeks only to remind
ICANN to do its job properly, something we have repeatedly expressed as an
Assembly for years with no positive results so far.

Even if you do not agree with that contention, Motion # 1 can only be out of
order on the basis that it is not possible for an entity to fail, which of
course is nonsense, witness Enron, hence the possibility must exist for the
best interests of the public to be served by replacing ICANN as a whole, the
mechanism for which is rebidding the ICANN contracts. Therefore, this Motion
forms part of the GA's restructuring proposal and is valid.

The real objection to the Motion of course is that it does not take the top
down directive to use the Lynn proposal as a starting point, but rather
responds to a bottom up initiative that does not even acknowledge the
existence of the Lynn plan at all.  It might be worth another Motion,
(Motion #3) to reject the Lynn plan as a whole, thereby opening the door to
rebidding the ICANN contract as a viable restructuring alternative, but I
had thought the community sufficiently intelligent to join those dots.

> The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
> this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.

On this we agree.

Regards,
Joanna
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[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 20:14:10 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

t byfield wrote:
> i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating
> a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers
> spousal employment.

Ted,

It already does. http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm
The operative provisions are below.

> 2.2 Family. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her
> spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his
> or her descendants and their spouses.
> 
> 2.3 Financial Interest. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has,
> directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family:
> 
> (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity
> with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement,
> or
> 
> (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or
> individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other
> arrangement, or
> 
> (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or
> compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the
> Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or
> 
> (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or
> compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been
> or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation.

- --
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 23:04:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

t byfield and all assembly members,

  I think this is a very good idea.  Perhaps the GA should draft a
resolution or motion to indicate it's concern and desire for such
a modification to section 7 of the ICANN bylaws addressing
COI considerations given the recent events???  I would be happy
to work with anyone of drafting such a resolution of motion
that the GA members may consider, amend, or otherwise
evaluate...

t byfield wrote:

> i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating
> a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers
> spousal employment.
>
> cheers,
> t
>
> ----- Forwarded
>
> From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:10:42 -0400
>
> Those of us who were not in Accra had trouble understanding
> what happened to the DNSO policy statement on .org. We were
> particularly amazed by how the Board, without any warning
> or any supporting public record, reversed position on
> giving .org to a non-profit organization, proposing to allow
> major commercial registries to bid for it.
>
> Now it is possible to understand better what happened.
>
> One of the companies that has been making it clear that
> they want to be involved with .org is Neulevel. Before Accra,
> they were making it known that four people were assigned to
> the .org bid full time.
>
> According to the transcript, the Board member who pushed the
> Board away from non-profit was Robt. Blokzijl. See the transcript at
> http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-14mar02.htm
>
> And guess what? Mr. Blokzijl has a special relationship to
> Neulevel. His wife was hired by Neulevel a few months after
> they were married. Lynn Blokzijl is the Neulevel representative
> in the Netherlands.
>
> Maybe this is just a coincidence. Maybe Mr. Blokzijl's insistence
> that .org be given to a company with "demonstrated experience"
> and the Board's subsequent vote to permit commercial applicants
> was unrelated to Neulevel's lobbying campaign. Maybe Neulevel's
> hiring of Mrs. Blokzijl had absolutely nothing to do
> with the fact that she was married to a Board member.
>
> Even if this is all "coincidence," it doesn't make ICANN look
> very good. Mr Blokzijl had better recuse himself from the .org
> redelegation discussion, decision and all other aspects of the
> process.
>
> --MM
>
> ----- Backwarded
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:10:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

Bret and all assembly members,

  Thank you for pointing this out to the GA members.  Well done!
In light of this, perhaps the GA should impress upon the ICANN BoD
that some concern of conflict of Interest has been raised and that
the GA members would like to see some immediate and corrective
action to rectify this concern without delay...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> t byfield wrote:
> > i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating
> > a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers
> > spousal employment.
>
> Ted,
>
> It already does. http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm
> The operative provisions are below.
>
> > 2.2 Family. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her
> > spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his
> > or her descendants and their spouses.
> >
> > 2.3 Financial Interest. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has,
> > directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family:
> >
> > (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity
> > with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement,
> > or
> >
> > (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or
> > individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other
> > arrangement, or
> >
> > (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or
> > compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the
> > Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or
> >
> > (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or
> > compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been
> > or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation.
>
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:20:21 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion to sanction the Chair and Alt-Chair

All assembly members,

  Of late or most recently we have had a motion put before the
DNSO GA members from James Love of rebid of the ICANN
Contracts.  Our Chair and Alt-Chair have taken such various actions
to which the intent seems to derail or defuse such a motion as it
seems particularly displeasing to them.  Therefore I would offer
to the DNSO GA members the following to consider:

Whereas:

  The Chair, Thomas Rossler and the Alt-Chair be specifically
sanctioned for their actions as to disrupt, misrepresent, confuse
purposefully, and/or impose voting rules that are not in existence
for motions put before the GA members.  Further that such
sanction be put to a ballot vote 10 days hence from this date,
May 13, 2002, after some debate or other discussion and
that such a sanction be recorded on the DNSO GA web site
in plain view for reference in perpetuity...

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:01:01 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

At 10:23 PM 13/05/02 -0400, t byfield forwarded:

>From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
>
>According to the transcript, the Board member who pushed the
>Board away from non-profit was Robt. Blokzijl. See the transcript at
>http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-14mar02.htm
>
>And guess what? Mr. Blokzijl has a special relationship to
>Neulevel. His wife was hired by Neulevel a few months after
>they were married. Lynn Blokzijl is the Neulevel representative
>in the Netherlands.
>
>Even if this is all "coincidence," it doesn't make ICANN look
>very good. Mr Blokzijl had better recuse himself from the .org
>redelegation discussion, decision and all other aspects of the
>process.

Arguably he should have recused himself prior to
the .org discussion, given the potential conflict.
Now that this has come to light, in most civilized
countries he would resign. But that is if one is
an elected official, and one is civilized. He can't
claim ignorance of the need for recusal as he was
one of those who did so regarding the new gTLDs:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-review-update-01nov00.htm#AvoidingConflictsofInterest 

Hmmm, Centralnic. They sell ccTLD/gTLDs:
http://www.centralnic.com/page.php?cid=57
By special appointment of Jon Postel no less:
http://www.centralnic.com/page.php?cid=32

One wonders idly if Blokzijl recused himself
from discussions about reserving two letter
sLDs in new TLDs (and in the .org redelegation).

I don't suppose it would be in order for a motion for
the GA to come up with a new marketing slogan for ICANN.
Too bad. My vote would go to: ICANN - Not juat a spectacle,
we're THE bad optics corporation. -g

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 02:10:27 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal  employment

> Arguably he should have recused himself prior to
> the .org discussion, given the potential conflict.
> Now that this has come to light, in most civilized
> countries he would resign. But that is if one is
> an elected official, and one is civilized. He can't
> claim ignorance of the need for recusal as he was
> one of those who did so regarding the new gTLDs:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-review-update-01nov00.htm#AvoidingCo
nflictsofInterest

Not to mention that he is the Chair of ICANN's Conflicts of Interest
Committee.
http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/

"The Board, through a committee designated for that purpose, shall require a
statement from each Director not less frequently than once a year setting
forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the
business and other affiliations of the Corporation. Each Director shall be
responsible for disclosing to the Corporation any matter that could
reasonably be considered to make such Director an 'interested director'
within the meaning of Section 5233 of the California Nonprofit Public
Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"). In addition, each Director shall
disclose to the Corporation any relationship or other factor that could
reasonably be considered to cause the Director to be considered to be an
'interested person' within the meaning of Section 5227 of the CNPBCL. The
Board shall adopt policies specifically addressing Director, Officer and
Supporting Organization conflicts of interest. No Director shall vote on any
matter in which he or she has a material and direct interest that will be
affected by the outcome of the vote." [Bylaws, Art. V, Sec. 7]

After public notice and comment, the Board adopted the Conflicts of Interest
Policy on March 4, 1999.

Members of the Committee. The Conflicts Committee currently consists of Rob
Blokzijl (Chair), Karl Auerbach, and Philip Davidson..

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 06:50:05 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Thomas,

>
>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.

I am happy with grouping the vote, not only because of cost considerations, 
but also because of clarity: it will be confusing for the people who did not 
follow the debate on the list, but are registered to vote, to receive at 
short intervals different ballots for similar motions.

This said, I believe that we have to do everything possible to ensure that 
the voters' choice will be correctly recorded, and interpreted.

First of all, I would recommend to include in the ballot text the urls of 
the two motions, so that people cannot be confused on which is A and which 
is B.
Secondly, I do believe that (to follow up with Gary Osbourne's example) if 
motion A gets 90% and motion B gets 91%, they should both pass, except that 
we have to draw political conclusions from the fact that one got more 
support than the other.
I am deeply uncomfortable with the potentially endless discussion that will 
follow a "non-adoption" of a 90%-approved motion.
In short, I dislike motion #1, I believe it is out of scope, I hope it will 
not pass, but if the GA insists on voting on it, and it gathers support, let 
be it!

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:14:40 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ballot discussion

Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
>Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my  
>message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
>
>        [ ] motion 1
>        [ ] motion 2
>
>        [ ] abstain
>
>The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_ motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
>
>- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).  
>  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes  
>  should win.
>
>- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the winner.
>  
>- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and 
vote yes or no to another.

Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
- -- are not conflicting Motions 
- -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
   eliminate one or other Motion.

My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
account.

Another possible format:
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
>As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate that the 
>question on the ballot is something like this:
>
>        Please select one of the following options:
>        
>        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
>        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
>        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
>
>You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of  
>the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that  
>case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets  
>more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be  
>documented, and we could at least try to return to more important  
>things.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
with this ballot.

Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two 
options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.

Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
(and *please* be as exact as possible).

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: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:26:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Hello Roberto!

At 14.05.2002 06:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>First of all, I would recommend to include in the ballot text the urls of the two motions, so that people cannot be confused on which is A and which is B.

We will have the full text in the vote outline and
both motions will have a short title behind
the number so that there should be no confusion.

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: Tue, 14 May 2002 11:22:41 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure - Time Line progress report

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:19:46PM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>PROGRESS REPORT on proceedings of the GA with reference to the 
>TIME LINE posted on May 3rd, 2002 at 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00700.html.  The Time 
>Line was prepared with reference to the Best Practices Time Line 
>Guide at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

This is not a "report" - rather, it's a suggested time line which is 
not realistic due to constraints at the secretariat.

Please, Joanna, stop to contribute to the GA's confusion.

- -- 
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:24:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

What is wrong with:

Motion 1
[ ] agree
[ ] do not agree
[ ] abstain

Motion 2
[ ] agree
[ ] do not agree
[ ] abstain

Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.

On Tue, 14 May 2002, at 09:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
>
> Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> >message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
> >
> >        [ ] motion 1
> >        [ ] motion 2
> >
> >        [ ] abstain
> >
> >The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_ motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
> >
> >- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
> >  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
> >  should win.
> >
> >- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the winner.
> >
> >- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and
> vote yes or no to another.
>
> Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
> -- are not conflicting Motions
> -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
>    eliminate one or other Motion.
>
> My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
> motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
> to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
> a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
> have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
> account.
>
>
> Another possible format:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate that the
> >question on the ballot is something like this:
> >
> >        Please select one of the following options:
> >
> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> >        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
> >
> >You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
> >the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
> >case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
> >more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
> >documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
> >things.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
> with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
> with this ballot.
>
> Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two
> options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.
>
> Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
> (and *please* be as exact as possible).
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1191
*************************