Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1196
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1196

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:49:46 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

ummmmm its probably too early in the morning for me to be both blonde
and coherent but what is intriguing about a company doing business with
a law firm?  I find 'intriguing' to be an intruiging word in this
context, not sure what its pointing towards but certain there's a point.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:56:22 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

> ummmmm its probably too early in the morning for me to be both blonde
> and coherent but what is intriguing about a company doing business with
> a law firm?  I find 'intriguing' to be an intruiging word in this
> context, not sure what its pointing towards but certain there's a point.

:)

Simply the heavy involvement that WCP has w/ Verisign, the DNS and the DOC
over the years (roster, issues, etc.)

But, the "intriguing" part likely stems from my predilection for fantastic
conjecture more than the reality of the situation...In other words, like all
good conspiracy theory's, this is likely a happy coincidence.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:19:49 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

ah Ross,  but what conspiracy are you conjecturing?

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> > ummmmm its probably too early in the morning for me to be both blonde
> > and coherent but what is intriguing about a company doing business with
> > a law firm?  I find 'intriguing' to be an intruiging word in this
> > context, not sure what its pointing towards but certain there's a point.
> 
> :)
> 
> Simply the heavy involvement that WCP has w/ Verisign, the DNS and the DOC
> over the years (roster, issues, etc.)
> 
> But, the "intriguing" part likely stems from my predilection for fantastic
> conjecture more than the reality of the situation...In other words, like all
> good conspiracy theory's, this is likely a happy coincidence.
> 
> -rwr

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:23:59 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

You don't want to know...suffice to say that it heavily involves the US
military industrial complex and the obligatory "highest levels of
government" ;)

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

> ah Ross,  but what conspiracy are you conjecturing?
>
> "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> > > ummmmm its probably too early in the morning for me to be both blonde
> > > and coherent but what is intriguing about a company doing business
with
> > > a law firm?  I find 'intriguing' to be an intruiging word in this
> > > context, not sure what its pointing towards but certain there's a
point.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Simply the heavy involvement that WCP has w/ Verisign, the DNS and the
DOC
> > over the years (roster, issues, etc.)
> >
> > But, the "intriguing" part likely stems from my predilection for
fantastic
> > conjecture more than the reality of the situation...In other words, like
all
> > good conspiracy theory's, this is likely a happy coincidence.
> >
> > -rwr
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:40:14 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

[email-masked] (Tue 05/14/02 at 05:08 PM +0200):

> (Sorry that we are under such time pressure, but it is due
> to external constraints.)

part of the reason there are such time pressure is that instead of 
taking up motion 1, GA functionaries devoted lots of time to play-
ing bureaucratic cat-and-mouse in order to kill it. that maneuver-
ing was *very* internal.

i've seen lots of blabla in these discussions about how the motion
is beyond the scope of the GA, but the only reason motion 1 is im-
portant is that ICANN itself has moved well beyond *its* scope. it
is absolutely within the scope of the GA to address that fact--and
not, as you would have it, with a bunch of banal observations that
no one will listen to but, rather, with a statement that may *pre-
vent* ICANN from claiming consensus to justify further expansion.

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:49:32 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA vote on two motions about ICANN Reform - time limits

[To: [email-masked]]
[To:[email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
                   Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform
                                    b12

15 May 2002
22 May 2002

Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform

   * 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.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic outline of the voting on Two motions about ICANN Reform

   * Basic outline http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-b12-outline.html

Electorate and Voting Registry

   * Electorate. Voting roster
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.rosterindex.html, as of 15 May
     2002, at the time the ballot was prepared.
   * Voting Registry
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

Voting Rules used by the DNSO General Assembly

   * Voting rules http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

Time for the vote

   * Begins: Wednesday 15 May 2002, 13:00 UTC
     (06:00 LA, 09:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Tokyo)
   * Ends: Wednesday 22 May 2002, 13:00 UTC
     (06:00 LA, 09:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Tokyo)

Results published on 24 May 2002, 16:00 UTC

The full record will be published in:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.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 10:49:40 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

I intend to vote in favor of both motions.   Jamie

- --------------------------------
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 17:05:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ballot: Vote before when?

Do I need reading glasses, or does it say nowhere in either the ballot
email or the outline of the process when the vote closes?

- --
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 11:42:45 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

I actually think we have had plenty of discussion on the merits. It was
just disguised as procedural.

After all when you think of it, what is procedure but a bunch of generic
merits, tested and true, distilled down into a rule? And every time you
wish to apply that rule you have to assert that it is applicable by
applying those pesky things called 'facts' to support your procedural
claim, right?

James Love wrote:
> 
> I intend to vote in favor of both motions.   Jamie
> 
> --------------------------------
> 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:53:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot: Vote before when?

Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> 
> Do I need reading glasses, or does it say nowhere in either the ballot
> email or the outline of the process when the vote closes?
> 

The information about time has been posted now by the Secretariat.

The main page for this vote is:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html

<quote>
Time for the vote

       Begins: Wednesday 15 May 2002, 13:00 UTC 
       (06:00 LA, 09:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Tokyo) 
       Ends: Wednesday 22 May 2002, 13:00 UTC 
       (06:00 LA, 09:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Tokyo) 

Results published on 24 May 2002, 16:00 UTC
</quote>

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:17:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Dessa and all assembly members,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----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.

  The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
that relate to DNS or the relationship that the DNSO has with
stakeholders as it pertains to stakeholder/user interests.  Hence
it is fitting, proper as well as required for the GA to take such
a vote on a rebid situation if the GA members believe that such
a motion or resolution is necessary and/or desired so as to
inform the ICANN BoD and staff adequately...

>
>
> 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

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: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:23:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] Basic outline of the voting process

Dear secretariat,

  The problem with this proposed ballot is that it is confusing.
What is motion 1?  what is motion 2?

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> [[email-masked]]
> [[email-masked]]
>
> [ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-b12-outline.html ]
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                            DNSO General Assembly
>                      Basic outline of the voting process
>                     b12, Two motions about ICANN Reform
>
> 15 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

- --
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:54:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC BS

For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this -- 
"Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited 
to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development 
body."

- --
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 15:18:41 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC BS

For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this -- 
"Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited 
to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development 
body."

- --
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 16:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

that would mean....none of us, right?

On Wed, 15 May 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this -- 
> "Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body 
> should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for 
> broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be limited 
> to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development 
> body."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:17:11 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:18 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

|>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
|> that relate to DNS or the relationship that the DNSO has with
|> stakeholders as it pertains to stakeholder/user interests.  Hence
|> it is fitting, proper as well as required for the GA to take such
|> a vote on a rebid situation if the GA members believe that such
|> a motion or resolution is necessary and/or desired so as to
|> inform the ICANN BoD and staff adequately...

I don't normally respond to Jeff Williams posts but as this is topical I
will for this instance.

The statement above highlights the problems I have with the first
motion.  The motion does not and is not intended to inform the ICANN
Board or staff as to anything.  It is directed at an external body and
bypasses the internal processes. 

As such I believe it is out of order for this Assembly and can not
support it.

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 18:46:46 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

I will not be able to support the first motion because this is not the right approach for the GA of the DNSO. There are many reasons, including the points made by Darryl.  And, in addition, this  motion is very US centric in its approach to redress-- which is exceedingly ironic. 

My personal view is that the GA has been seriously diverted from providing comments on the White Papers.  

However, leaving that aside, the second motion is much more appropriate in its focus.  While I have some problems with some of its phrases, it is focused toward providing comments toward the right "recipient" -- ICANN. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:17 PM
To: 'Jeff Williams'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
|> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:18 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

|>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues
|> that relate to DNS or the relationship that the DNSO has with
|> stakeholders as it pertains to stakeholder/user interests.  Hence
|> it is fitting, proper as well as required for the GA to take such
|> a vote on a rebid situation if the GA members believe that such
|> a motion or resolution is necessary and/or desired so as to
|> inform the ICANN BoD and staff adequately...

I don't normally respond to Jeff Williams posts but as this is topical I
will for this instance.

The statement above highlights the problems I have with the first
motion.  The motion does not and is not intended to inform the ICANN
Board or staff as to anything.  It is directed at an external body and
bypasses the internal processes. 

As such I believe it is out of order for this Assembly and can not
support it.

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

- --
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, 16 May 2002 00:47:21 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- --=======75B8754B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA12D50; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The GA is a constituency since it votes and elects a Chair .. how different 
are "constituency" meanings in French, English and American, all of them 
make it depend from voting, what the GA does ... from time to time. jfc

At 22:28 15/05/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>that would mean....none of us, right?
>
>On Wed, 15 May 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > For those of you who were sleeping, the Names Council has passed this --
> > "Recommendation 24 - general assembly. The gTLD policy development body
> > should have a general assembly whose prime role is to provide a forum for
> > broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently, membership should be 
> limited
> > to the agreed stakeholders who are represented in the policy development
> > body."

- --=======75B8754B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA12D50
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

- --=======75B8754B=======--

- --
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 #1196
*************************