Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1195
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 15 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1195

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:56:53 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

William X Walsh wrote:

>  You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
>damn bit what you like, Bill.
>
Well, now.  This was addressed to the [email-masked], not to you.  I had 
added you
as a cc as a courtesy, since your name came up in the discussion. 'Nuff 
said, and
this one I'll let you read on [email-masked]. Whether you "don't care one damn
bit" what I like is not a comment worthy of response.

(Try to be nice to somebody and agree with what they've said and see what it
gets you!  :-)  This would be funny if it were not so pathetic.)

Bill Lovell

- --
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 21:19:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 6:56:53 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:

>>  You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
>>damn bit what you like, Bill.
>>
> Well, now.  This was addressed to the [email-masked], not to you.  I had 

Doesn't change the response at all.

What you don't like is irrelevant.

The REALITIES are relevant.

The reality is that the GA has a specific role, as defined by ICANN's
charter.  The role is clear, and it is also VERY clear that this
motion is outside of that role and entirely non-topical and out of
scope for the GA.

The fact remains that this issue has been raised and pointed out to
the chair, who has still failed to address an answer to the GA on the
issue, pretending it doesn't exist perhaps.

That does not do him, nor the GA, any justice.

How you addressed your comments are of no concern to my response,
actually I don't read CC'd copies of list emails anyway, so I read
your message off the list and responded to it as a list mail.

The chair has a responsibility to address this issue, and should have
done so long before now.

I and the rest of the GA are still waiting, Thomas.

- -- 
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:26:19 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 4

At 11:33 PM 5/14/2002 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>James Love proposed the following text:
>
>>====Suggested Ballot text # 3================
>>"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
>>address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
>>Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
>>======================================
>
>
>Well, since we are in the mood for adding confusion, let me propose 
>another text.
>====Suggested Ballot text # 4================
>WHEREAS the major problems with the current situation are:
>1) the lack of open and transparent process
>2) failure to involve directly all the Internet stakeholders
>
>The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of 
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US 
>Department of Commerce that, if an open competition for the services now 
>provided by ICANN will be held, the bids shall be submitted in an open and 
>transparent process to the Internet Community, who will decide the winner 
>with a global vote to be held online with the principle of "one individual 
>- one vote".
>
>Anything less would perpetrate the current method of taking decisions 
>behind closed doors, and without giving the power to the people that 
>deserve it, i.e. the individual users and stakeholders of the Internet.
>================================
>
>If Jamie`s motion is in order and in the scope of the GA, well, then this 
>one is as well.
>As for the chances of having USG listening to us and organize a global 
>internet vote, well, if somebody thinks that they will do a rebid just 
>because the GA asks, they might think also that we will have the online 
>vote to award the new contract.
>As for the difficulty of organizing such vote, the objection is moot: if 
>ICANN should be able to do it for the AtLarge elections, why on earth 
>should USG not be able to do it? In fact, they have the knowledge, the 
>financial resources, and all what is needed.
>
>Comments and seconds welcome.
>Regards
>Roberto
>

I, Kristy Mckee, second Roberto's Suggested Ballot text #4.

- --
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 21:44:40 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

- --------------050101020602070005050103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mr. Walsh:

Does not the scheduling of the motion(s) for a vote answer the question?
That's the "reality" we're now looking at.  And the "role" of the GA to 
which
you refer to is, of course, no role at all.  That's why these motions 
are being
advanced, and what you are doing is tightening the cords on the GA straight
jacket.

Bill Lovell

William X Walsh wrote:

>Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 6:56:53 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>
>
>>William X Walsh wrote:
>>
>
>>> You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
>>>damn bit what you like, Bill.
>>>
>>Well, now.  This was addressed to the [email-masked], not to you.  I had 
>>
>
>Doesn't change the response at all.
>
>What you don't like is irrelevant.
>
>The REALITIES are relevant.
>
>The reality is that the GA has a specific role, as defined by ICANN's
>charter.  The role is clear, and it is also VERY clear that this
>motion is outside of that role and entirely non-topical and out of
>scope for the GA.
>
>The fact remains that this issue has been raised and pointed out to
>the chair, who has still failed to address an answer to the GA on the
>issue, pretending it doesn't exist perhaps.
>
>That does not do him, nor the GA, any justice.
>
>How you addressed your comments are of no concern to my response,
>actually I don't read CC'd copies of list emails anyway, so I read
>your message off the list and responded to it as a list mail.
>
>The chair has a responsibility to address this issue, and should have
>done so long before now.
>
>I and the rest of the GA are still waiting, Thomas.
>

- --------------050101020602070005050103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Mr. Walsh:<br>
<br>
Does not the scheduling of the motion(s) for a vote answer the question?
<br>
That's the "reality" we're now looking at. &nbsp;And the "role" of the GA to which<br>
you refer to is, of course, no role at all. &nbsp;That's why these motions are
being <br>
advanced, and what you are doing is tightening the cords on the GA straight
<br>
jacket.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
William X Walsh wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 6:56:53 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:<br><br><br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">William X Walsh wrote:<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap=""> You may not like it, but personally I don't care one<br>damn bit what you like, Bill.<br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Well, now.  This was addressed to the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>, not to you.  I had <br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Doesn't change the response at all.<br><br>What you don't like is irrelevant.<br><br>The REALITIES are relevant.<br><br>The reality is that the GA has a specific role, as defined by ICANN's<br>charter.  The role is clear, and it is also VERY clear that this<br>motion is outside of that role and entirely non-topical and out of<br>scope for the GA.<br><br>The fact remains that this issue has been raised and pointed out to<br>the chair, who has still failed to address an answer to the GA on the<br>issue, pretending it doesn't exist perhaps.<br><br>That does not do him, nor the GA, any justice.<br><br>How you addressed your comments are of no concern to my response,<br>actually I don't read CC'd copies of list emails anyway, so I read<br>your message off the list and responded to it as a list mail.<br><br>The chair has a responsibility to address this issue, and should have<br>done so long before now.<br><br>I and the rest of the GA are still wait
ing, Thomas.<br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        </body>
        </html>

- --------------050101020602070005050103--

- --
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 23:19:12 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Problems

Let us assume that the GA continues for awhile.

I think that TR is having a hard time managing what has to be done.

Can we set up a group to help him manage the GA.

I will abstain because of his livid stated hatred of me, but by gosh the
guy can't even run this voting which should be relatively easy.  It is
truly pitiful and I feel bad for the guy.  Somebody help him out.

Eric

- --
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:29:16 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some remarks on motion 2

How does the resolution relate to the independent review panel?
 The resolution explicitly says that accountability is one of the
 principles which need to be honoured and explicitly says that
 this includes independent review of decisions. 

How does the resolution relate to At Large participation?
 The resolution explicitly says that meaningful individual 
 and non-commercial participation is necessary.

What does "meaningful" mean?
 Informed participation will happen under the condition that
 there is a certain responsiveness -- of course, individual
 user interests will not be the only source of input which
 has to be regarded as paramount. But if it doesn't make a
 difference whether someone delivers input or not, that
 someone will stop delivering input (with some obvious
 exceptions, http://www.byte.org/jw/jwk3.jpg). The input 
 will turn into destructive, frustrated action.

What about innovation, competition and freedom?
 These are very broad principles which I think everyone agrees 
 with. I have yet to see anyone opposing e.g. "fairness". I think 
 they are so broad that adding them here doesn't help much.
 Even Microsoft has a US lobby group called "Freedom to Innovate".
 The motion concentrates on the issues which are at the core
 of the debate.

Why is stability of the Internet mentioned *again*?
 When we are even considering moving the coordination of key 
 Internet resources, we should demonstrate that we are not only 
 playing some game, but are acting responsibly and have the 
 stability of the DNS in mind. Obviously, the technical 
 switching is a matter of seconds, but all the other aspects
 of switching are slightly more complicated.

So this one is simply more moderate than the other motion?
 Please read the two motions again, it's a bit more subtle than that.
 It is also about who should deal with the question if ICANN should
 fail to improve the situation regarding these basic principles.

Why does the resolution mention the "international Internet community"
and "governments" instead of the "U.S. government"?
 The internationalization of the coordination of key Internet
 resources which has occurred (and many reasons have been mentioned 
 why this internationalization is still in its early stages) has 
 to continue. Turning the issue over to the U.S. government is
 not a strategy which will necessarily result in a model which
 promotes internationalization.

But the ICANN/DoC MoU ends on 30 September 2002?
 A well known fact and most probably one of the reasons for the
 current reform process. Still, as mentioned above, if ICANN fails
 to deliver on the basic principles, the process has to be
 international. Maybe there are better approaches than contracting
 out the job by the U.S. government? This is certainly one of the 
 questions that will be asked if the basic principles are not met
 and the Internet community and governments have to think about
 alternative models.

Why is the "international Internet community" mentioned, not only
"governments"?
 Turning the issue over only to a single government or even several
 governments is at odds with the goal of self-regulation of the
 Internet community. Of course governments would play a significant
 role in such a case (see the AU and UK government consultation
 processes under way), but the Internet community should not sit
 idly by and wait.

So you're happy with ICANN as it is?/So you're happy with the
Stuart Lynn reform plans?
 No and no, respectively. But the resolution just mentions the
 basic principles which *have* to be honoured. I hope that
 everyone delivers input for a (realistic!) reform which honours
 the principles.

But why should we even bother to remind ICANN of these principles?
 Frankly, I believe that (a) the U.S. DoC has little interest to 
 open up the Pandora's box once again, (b) both the U.S. DoC and
 key players in the Internet community don't want the ITU to take
 over, (c) most players want to keep private-sector coordination,
 (d) all players plan to stay around. For these reasons, any 
 successor of ICANN would have the same players and problems as 
 ICANN, and the most probable successor of the current ICANN is a 
 reformed ICANN. The principles mentioned in the resolution make 
 clear what *we* expect from any successor of the current ICANN. 
 If the reformed ICANN does not provide this, we have to look 
 elsewhere.

Why is everyone called to deliver input? How does the resolution
relate to the E&R Committee working papers?
 I hope that the little time left to deliver input to e.g. the
 E&R Committee is used by everyone. Personally, I feel having
 wasted a lot of energy on this discussion which should have
 gone more towards analysing the working papers and their
 implications. In other words: *Let's move on and do our work*.

With this, happy voting and 
may the Force be with you,
/// 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 20:50:13 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Comparison of both texts

Looking at both motions, I can't see a good reason to vote
against either one.  Of course I agree with the
Love/Lane/etc text, asking for the rebid ("new open
competition for services now provided by ICANN"), but the
"moderate" text by Alexander Svensson, while definitely
bland, is not objectionable either.  In my mind there is
little virtue in offering a text that is "moderate",
"radical" or "conservative."    I think the more important
issue is whether or not it expresses the right idea, the
thing that makes sense doing, or at least asking.  Sometime
what is needed is moderate, sometimes radical, sometimes
conservative, and sometimes these labels mean next to
nothing.  Here are a couple of comparisons in terms of tone
if not substance:

Love/Lane/Hofmann et al.

     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. . .. these proposed changes have met extensive
     opposition in the Internet community.

Svensson

     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 . . . 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,

Love/Lane/Hofmann et al.

     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.
     
Svensson

     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

Love/Lane/Hofmann et al.

     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.

Svensson

     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.

Here are the two texts

Love/Lane text

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.

Alexander's motion

- ----------------------------------------------------------
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.

- --------------------------------
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:46:18 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

- --=======70AF4398=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20152C63; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 19:54 14/05/02, James Love said:
>I support also the Schneiders approach,which seems straightforward.  Will 
>there an opportunity now to debate the merits of the two 
>resolutions/motions (are they resolutions or motions?) ? It might be 
>useful to see a comparison of the two approaches, side by side.  Jamie

I agree with Marcs approach. We have eventually settled the obvious: that 
we have two motions to vote. Will we now discuss one strategy.

IMHO none of the motion is perfect and both are acceptable (I will vote both).

The point is what after them.
1. Jamies motion calls on the DoC for the future.
2. Alex's motion calls on the BoD for the future.

IMHO the future will belong to us, as the Internet Participants and as the 
DNSO GA. No one is really interested into the Internet that the ICANN has 
unbuilt. There is a growing consensus among Govs from what I gather - 
question: is the US Gov included? - that what we need is stability of the 
Internet and no more instability within the ICANN. And that this might 
result from:
- - three international rotational chair concertation infrastruture 
committees on each of the SO subjects where the ITU/T will be one of the 
members of each. With no lawyer involved.
- - an internet structure oriented "campus" where all the mission creep will 
be able to creep as much as they want, to develop relations and cross 
fertilization as they need it. ITU/T could host it, other could too. With 
as many lawyers as you want, but from every countries.

Question is
- - how to show the BoD that we want them to advance towards that solution.
- - how to show the DoC we distrust the BoD until they shown what they did
- - how to make very very clear that if the BoD does to go ahead in splitting 
the ICANN as per above, and very shortly, we already call on EVERY Gov - 
not only the USG against that mess; and not to support it.

Now in the case of the USG, we also need their "rebid" (please reread Karls 
mail, it is more complex) to help the ICANN in repelling some of the 
wording, may be in reviewing the cooperative agreement so VRSN may make the 
best of it. We need the USG to review Plan B. We also have to accept that 
the Internet was/is/will be made of several namespaces. And that the switch 
of the private Jon Postel network into an open system was not easy because 
of the growth. So it means a few things to be corrected in Legacy land : 
all of them are not with the ICANN.

jfc

- --=======70AF4398=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-20152C63
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

- --=======70AF4398=======--

- --
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:39:36 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of William X Walsh
|> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:34 AM
|> To: William S. Lovell
|> Cc: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; Gary Osbourne; Thomas Roessler
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.
|> 
<snip> 
|> If something is not topical for the GA, it is the Chair's job to
|> enforce that.  You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
|> damn bit what you like, Bill.  The GA's role is defined, its scope is
|> defined, and neither of these motions are within the GA's scope and
|> role.

Whilst I agree a motion calling for a rebid directed to an external body
is not within scope, I feel the other motion calling for participation
in and attempting to ensure the overall guiding principles involved in
the ICANN formation are adhered to, is within scope for the GA.
Providing the motion is addressed to the proper channels, which I have
assumed it would be.  To me, one motion seeks to influence an external
body to the detriment of the organisation whilst the other attempts to
work within to achieve a positive outcome.

One I'm comfortable supporting, the other I feel is a campaign that
should be waged outside of the GA and if it was, I would support it also
as an individual.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:47:39 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

On Tue, 14 May 2002 23:13:55 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>For the record, Becky is no longer with DoC, and knowing her new position I 
>bet that she might favour a redelegation.

I thought she had moved on.  I would quite seriously be interested in
her viewpoint in light of the fact she is one of the officials that
numerous promises were made to which have now been trampled on.

DPF

>>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
>>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>>CC: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations
>>Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:36:42 +1200
>>
>> >+     Becky  Burr  USA  Washington, DC
>>
>>Fascinating.  I hope Ms Burr expresses an opinion on the re-delegation
>>issue :-)
>>
>>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
>>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:32:05 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

Speaking of promises etc., I've always found the Verisign/WCP connection to
be intriguing...

More at Google...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=verisign+wilmer+cutler

Elliot disputes the conspiracy,
(http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0110/0486.html) but given that
I watch more X-Files than he does ;)

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DPF" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

> On Tue, 14 May 2002 23:13:55 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >For the record, Becky is no longer with DoC, and knowing her new position
I
> >bet that she might favour a redelegation.
>
> I thought she had moved on.  I would quite seriously be interested in
> her viewpoint in light of the fact she is one of the officials that
> numerous promises were made to which have now been trampled on.
>
> DPF
>
>
> >>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
> >>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> >>CC: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> >>Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations
> >>Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:36:42 +1200
> >>
> >> >+     Becky  Burr  USA  Washington, DC
> >>
> >>Fascinating.  I hope Ms Burr expresses an opinion on the re-delegation
> >>issue :-)
> >>
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
> --
> [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: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:12:30 +0200
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Basic outline of the voting process

[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
                     Basic outline of the voting process
                    b12, Two motions about ICANN Reform

14 May 2002

BASIC OUTLINE OF THE VOTING PROCESS, b12, Two motions about ICANN Reform

1. A ballot is prepared.

   A ballot starts with line "BEGIN" and ends with line "END__".

   It is like this:

    BEGIN:b12:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I vote FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I vote AGAINST Motion 1
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I vote AGAINST Motion 2
    b12:KabcdZ:[ ] I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2
    END__:b12:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply

   Motion 1. "Request that US DoC hold open competition
              for services now offered by ICANN"
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   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.

   Motion 2. "Basic principles for the ICANN Reform Process"
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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.
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The ballot is assigned a number (first field in a line), here "b12" --
   ballot number 12 (it is the twelfth ballot submitted to the GA vote
   since January 2000).

3. The ballot is personalised. Each line indicates who is voting.

4. The second field, here between "b12" and "FirstName_LastName", indicate
   a personalised code given for this ballot to this person. A
   personalised code is 6 characters, starting with "K", ending with "Z",
   here "KabcdZ".

5. Do not edit the ballot. Just put an "X" between square brackets [ ] if
   you give your vote to a statement written in a line.

   You have two votes, no more. You can vote for or against both motions,
   you can vote against one and for the other, you can abstain on either
   or both.

6. The ballot will arrive From: "[email-masked]" -- please reply without
   CC to any list.

7. You will receive an acknowledgement of your ballot within 48 hours.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Information from:  ) DNSO GA's Chair
- --
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:33:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 4

"Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As for the chances of having USG listening to us and organize a global 
> internet vote, well, if somebody thinks that they will do a rebid just 
> because the GA asks, they might think also that we will have the online vote 
> to award the new contract.
> As for the difficulty of organizing such vote, the objection is moot: if 
> ICANN should be able to do it for the AtLarge elections, why on earth should 
> USG not be able to do it? In fact, they have the knowledge, the financial 
> resources, and all what is needed.
> 
> Comments and seconds welcome.

Roberto,

Every vote is a collective, distributed and costly effort.
Necessary in every democracy.

I would be very happy to have the cost per person
for operations of real votes (i.e. without campaign and debates, 
just logistic of electorate offices), such as the last presidential 
in France, or the last presidential in the USA.

First, votes are decentralized, and there is many electorate offices.
Similar is necessary in electronic one - I do not know how to
run a vote with millions.

Secondly, you have to keep the electorate rolls up to date.
Therefore you need the universal identification of voters
(while we have today an universal numbering and naming,
which permits every planetary dream, it is still far away
from the universal identification of voters).

I do believe that the public representation of Internet users
is necessary, but it is very complex and must rely on
a distributed structure.
That being said, I do volunteer to work on online votes
- - it is enormous challenge.

Elisabeth
- --
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 #1195
*************************