Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1197
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1197

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:56:36 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification... which I'll do here.

The topic of the role of the GA was raised by both Thomas and by me earlier and the chair added it to the agenda.  There was a brief discussion, with more to come in next call.  There was also a discussion about the emergence of other constitutiencies in a different but related section.  Finally, I have heard from several non commercial users that they aren't really sure that they have a constituency at ICANN. I'm very interested in hearing from those of you in the non commercial constituency about whether you see enough diversity that you would support a situation which segregates non commercial users, individuals, and then advocacy organizations, such as those presently engaged in the non commercial constituency.  

 Michael, I am a little mystified by your individual comment and ask for clarification... Perhaps I am mistaken that you are active in the non commercial constituency. Where is the "none of us"... coming from... I could be wrong of course... and perhaps you aren't part of the non-comm constituency. That would then make it clearer what your personal concerns are.

I make one other point which I'd be interested in your views on.  Many of the constituencies, if not all... [I actually think it is all, but don't know about the registries] allow participation for non members. Most of all constitutions meetings are open and are attended by observers and interested parties.  

We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you might draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if you don't like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. chair.

This is work in progress.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [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

- --
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 01:02:06 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

- --=======5CCA6C7E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA12D50; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 00:17 16/05/02, Dassa said:
>|> -----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.

Dear Dassa,
since you use:
>|>   The DNSO GA is supposed to advise the ICANN BoD on issues

to explain your problem, may I underline that "is supposed to advise" does 
not mean that it is obliged to only do that. The GA does many other things. 
This is not a goulag and we may write to who we want. Your problem is 
probably more that we sign as the GA and not as a gang of individuals. But 
the motion will actually be signed: by the % of the GA which voted it.

What is of importance is that it is voted, it is noted and it is acted upon.
jfc

- --=======5CCA6C7E=======
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

- --=======5CCA6C7E=======--

- --
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 16:06:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Wednesday, May 15, 2002, 3:56:36 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification... which I'll do here.

Which doesn't address the problem with the issue.

The point is that the Names Council wants to limit participation in
the GA, and this is unacceptable, and there is no rational basis for
such a limitation.

- -- 
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: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:10:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Danny and all assembly members,

  Well of course this is strictly BS as you rightly indicate in the subject
line.  I am wondering why this was not announced via the
announce list...???   In any event this is simply and only a
recommendation.  As such, perhaps the GA members should
consider a vote on it for or against...????

[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" 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 18:20:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure. - DNSO General Assembly's Vote on Rebid Motion.

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Darryl is of course obviously confused.  It also seems that you are
confused as well Marilyn.  That's unfortunate, but not all that surprising.
It is also not all that surprising that you will not be supporting Jamie's
motion as you have now stated that at least three times on this
ML that I am aware of.

  ICANN is only ONE recipient.  DOC/NTIA is yet another, and
really the only one that counts.  As you should know the ICANN
Contracts come up for review in Sept. 2002.  Hence the importance
of this vote by the GA to send a message as to where the GA,
or most of the DNSO participants stand on the ICANN BOD
and staff's performance as a DNSO body with respect to the
White Paper and MoU...

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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

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: Thu, 16 May 2002 01:31:33 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Procedure.

- --=======C852AD3=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA12D50; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 00:46 16/05/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>I will not be able to support the first motion because this is not the 
>right approach for the GA of the DNSO.

This is a pure statement not conforted by a bylaw quotation. All the quotes 
I have seen so far are based upon a far too restrictive reading to be 
accepted. However what is realy opposed if that if 30 people votes it obver 
50 (small figures) it is represented as a result of the GA. This is really 
a "BC" vision of democracy: 'please tell me who will vote for you, so I may 
see if there is a reason for a vote"

I have no problem in havnig the motion distributed as "signed by x Members 
of the DNSO/GA" ...

>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.

This is a good point. But it is not that a problem as the mission statement 
is to internatinalize the ICANN what has not been done. So resuming a 
proper management is to internationalize.

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

Glubs? on the white papers? Is that not what it does, "calling back to the 
withe paper".

>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.

True, a proper debate would have had it addressed to the DoC via the 
ICANN.  There does not any real difference
jfc

- --=======C852AD3=======
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

- --=======C852AD3=======--

- --
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 21:28:19 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Marilyn, are you talking directly to NTIA about the future of ICANN?
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

: I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification...
which I'll do here.
:
: The topic of the role of the GA was raised by both Thomas and by me
earlier and the chair added it to the agenda.  There was a brief discussion,
with more to come in next call.  There was also a discussion about the
emergence of other constitutiencies in a different but related section.
Finally, I have heard from several non commercial users that they aren't
really sure that they have a constituency at ICANN. I'm very interested in
hearing from those of you in the non commercial constituency about whether
you see enough diversity that you would support a situation which segregates
non commercial users, individuals, and then advocacy organizations, such as
those presently engaged in the non commercial constituency.
:
:  Michael, I am a little mystified by your individual comment and ask for
clarification... Perhaps I am mistaken that you are active in the non
commercial constituency. Where is the "none of us"... coming from... I could
be wrong of course... and perhaps you aren't part of the non-comm
constituency. That would then make it clearer what your personal concerns
are.
:
: I make one other point which I'd be interested in your views on.  Many of
the constituencies, if not all... [I actually think it is all, but don't
know about the registries] allow participation for non members. Most of all
constitutions meetings are open and are attended by observers and interested
parties.
:
: We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you might
draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if you don't like
this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. chair.
:
: This is work in progress.
:
: -----Original Message-----
: From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
: [mailto:[email-masked]]
: Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 PM
: To: [email-masked]
: Cc: [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
:
: --
: 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 22:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

[M.Cade asks about my role in the NCC, as if it were relevant to what I
gather is the proposed disenfranchisement of most of the active
participants in the GA.  I don't like talking about myself rather than
ideas, but feel compelled to reply.]

I do post to the NCC mailing list (and attended one physical meeting) but
have never voted in it other than at the physical meeting; ICANNWatch, of
which I'm an editor, had a membership - one that was bitterly contested by
ICANN shills - but I wasn't ordinarily the voting person for that
membership. Since ICANNwatch has no funds (we operate cashlessly, entirely
on donated services and labor, other than the domain name fees which come
out of an editor's pocket) it wasn't able to pay the NCC's levy and I
think we lost our vote and/or membership as a result.

In any case, I see myself primarily as an individual domain name holder,
and as an academic user of the Internet.  In those capacities I'm not
represented well by any existing structure in ICANN.  I certainly don't
represent my university employer, or it me.

The NCC is in any case designed to be dysfunctional: it represents too
many too diverse groups, and unlike, say, the business constituency, it is
painfully engaged in the process of being as open and representative as
possible.  When the groups represented are so very diverse, this is a
cause of near paralysis. The openness of the NCC extends even to the point
of tolerating notorious agent provocateurs in the pay of ICANN and/or
corporate insiders in the ICANN process.  No other part of the DNSO is
similarly open, or subject to similar attacks.

The NCC can't represent the interests I consider central (consumers,
academics) in a meaningful way: individuals can't be members; academics
don't vote their universities which are controlled by administrators.
Those are my relevant identities and they have no place in the NCC,
although it kindly lets me participate as a non-voting observer.  

But non-voting membership is of course very second class, often to the
point of meaninglessness; this will be even more true in the reformed
ICANN, in which all the participants in the various advisory sops will
quickly learn this lesson.

An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be an incumbent
and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.  Unstable.
In fact, doomed.

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I apologize for my empty post... I meant to include a clarification...
> which I'll do here.
....
> 
> constituency at ICANN. I'm very interested in hearing from those of
> you in the non commercial constituency about whether you see enough
> diversity that you would support a situation which segregates non
> commercial users, individuals, and then advocacy organizations, such
> as those presently engaged in the non commercial constituency.
> 
>  Michael, I am a little mystified by your individual comment and ask
> for clarification... Perhaps I am mistaken that you are active in the
> non commercial constituency. Where is the "none of us"... coming
> from... I could be wrong of course... and perhaps you aren't part of
> the non-comm constituency. That would then make it clearer what your
> personal concerns are.
> 
> I make one other point which I'd be interested in your views on.  
> Many of the constituencies, if not all... [I actually think it is all,
> but don't know about the registries] allow participation for non
> members. Most of all constitutions meetings are open and are attended
> by observers and interested parties.
> 
> We didn't enough about this issue in the GA discussion, but you might
> draft a comment about what you think the GA should b e if you don't
> like this formulation and forward it via the chair/alt. chair.
> 
> This is work in progress.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [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: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:21:30 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

[email-masked] (Wed 05/15/02 at 06:46 PM -0400):

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

indeed it has, and that's a very good thing. the 'white papers,' like
their 'clean sheet' predecessor (this is beginning to sound like a de-
tergent ad) are clear signs that ICANN staff and its sedated board re-
fuse to acknowledge the limits on purview and power that were the man-
datory terms of ICANN's existence. as such, the duty to ignore and/or
cirumvent them falls on ICANN's other component bodies.

> 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. 

it's quite telling that you yourself use 'ICANN' to refer to its staff
and board, because that is a fact. these two entities pay attention to
the other component bodies only when it suits their interests. when it
comes to this 'reform' process, they will not do so. ergo, it's entire-
ly approproate that component bodies should speak to other audiences.

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: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:46:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

At 04:28 p.m. 15/05/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>that would mean....none of us, right?

If "us" means "parties not fitting in the stakeholder scheme" (the term use 
by the NC) then all we may expect from this NC is some much resisted 
"public consultation".

Still continued foot-dragging about the recognition of an Individuals' 
constituency, "forming in accordance to criteria... (hrumpf, mumble) " that 
are of course still not coming forth from the task force, never mind that 
the current constituencies have not "formed" in accordance to any such 
criteria.

My respect for those NC members who are speaking out about how unfair this 
foot dragging is to all involved.

My MP3 player had a sense of humour.   Artist: dnsosansfilet.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:38:53 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
> important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
> an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be an incumbent
> and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.  Unstable.
> In fact, doomed.

Thank you. That is the best summary of ICANN's
problems I've seen.
- --
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 01:06:27 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

Sandy
> Harris
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> 
> 
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> 
> > An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
> > important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
> > an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be 
> an incumbent
> > and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.  
> Unstable.
> > In fact, doomed.
> 
> Thank you. That is the best summary of ICANN's
> problems I've seen.

Certainly the most succinct. I concur.
Regards,
Joanna 
- --
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 22:46:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] theories

It is a blatant and obvious truth that ASTR tried and may well have
succeeded in screwing up the vote for the rebid process.

What I want to know are theories as to why they did that.

They did not answer WXW on his request for a scope question.

They did not cooperage with the Secretariat.

They created confusion.

They avoided and created procedure.

They objected to the vote in the first place.

they did not adopt and implement bast practices.

They blocked this vote at every turn.

What their reason for doing so, and why did you who did vote for them?

As a student of humanity and philosophy I would love to know this
thinking.

But what I really want to know is if they win with this - WHY?

Very Sincerely,
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 23:02:12 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

yep,

Ditto

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Sandy
> > Harris
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:39 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> >
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
> > > important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
> > > an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be
> > an incumbent
> > > and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.
> > Unstable.
> > > In fact, doomed.
> >
> > Thank you. That is the best summary of ICANN's
> > problems I've seen.
>
> Certainly the most succinct. I concur.
> Regards,
> Joanna
> --
> 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 01:39:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] theories on the GA Chair and Alt-Chair obstructionist behavior - The Rebid vote

Eric and all assembly members,

  I changed the Subject line to better fit your very good and pointed
questions..
( More comments and/or observations below Erics )

[email-masked] wrote:

> It is a blatant and obvious truth that ASTR tried and may well have
> succeeded in screwing up the vote for the rebid process.

  Indeed they may have.  This is indeed disingenuous and/or obstructionist

behavior towards the GA members as others have already pointed out.
However I am not surprised as far as the Chair is concerned...

>
>
> What I want to know are theories as to why they did that.

  I have no theories.  I do have observations by which to guide me
in my own self determination as to why.
1.) Thomas Rossler the present elected chair of the DNSO GA
      does not want as he himself has stated to see the GA engage
      in making policy decisions by it's members on any issues.
      It is obvious to me that he does specifically not want the GA
     members to take any votes on any issues, motions, or resolutions
     that he himself has not agreed with in detail.

2.) The Chair seems not to believe in many instances that GA members
     are capable of understanding or determining DNSO related issues and
     therefore needs his and/or the Alt-Chair's council on any such
issues.

3.) Simply a huge ego problem...

>
>
> They did not answer WXW on his request for a scope question.

  They, Thomas and Alexander, did not understand the question...

>
>
> They did not cooperage with the Secretariat.

  No idea here.  Seems this may have been a communication problem
of some sort.

>
>
> They created confusion.

  This was obviously purposeful from both Thomas's and especially
Alexanders comments and interdiction tactic with a competing
and watered down motion to Jamie's Rebid motion...

>
>
> They avoided and created procedure

  They didn't like the present procedure.

>
>
> They objected to the vote in the first place.

  Obviously because both did not like the implications that may
effect in particular Alexanders "Study" on ICANN...

>
>
> they did not adopt and implement bast practices.

  You mean "Best Practices".  Well, those were never voted
upon by the members when they were introduced, although
such a vote was requested at the time under Danny's tenure...

>
>
> They blocked this vote at every turn.

  See above...

>
>
> What their reason for doing so, and why did you who did vote for them?

  I didn't vote for them...  I already knew and warned at the time what
the GA members could expect...

>
>
> As a student of humanity and philosophy I would love to know this
> thinking.
>
> But what I really want to know is if they win with this - WHY?

  The answer is closing the circle.  It is because they were trying
purposefully to be confusing to the GA members as much as possible..

>
>
> Very Sincerely,
> 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

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: Thu, 16 May 2002 03:40:36 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: An Argument for Proposal #1 (was Re: [ga] NC BS)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

> But non-voting membership is of course very second class, often to the
> point of meaninglessness; this will be even more true in the reformed
> ICANN, in which all the participants in the various advisory sops will
> quickly learn this lesson.
>
> An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
> important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
> an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be an
incumbent
> and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.  Unstable.
> In fact, doomed.
>

Precisely. The insiders are there for one reason - to maintain their
monopoly
control over the USG root. Their goal is to shut out competition so that
they
can have all of the business. Without a higher authority forcibly removing
them,
no meaningful reform can take place.

Thats why any plan from the inside is suspect, even if it sound like it
could be
reform. In this case (the Lynn proposal), not only doesn't is sound nice,
but
it arrogantly states that there will be no at-large representation.

This is the reason that proposal number two on the vote that is in progress
is
unacceptable. Asking them to "please be nice" will not work, since it means
giving up their control of the board to at-large.  This will mean, most
likely
more competition for the currently registries (Verisign, Afilias, Neulevel,
Neustar) and a serious analysis of the UDRP, which if it is honestly done,
can only lead to the conclusion that the correct thing to do is for all
registrants being released from the binding nature of UDRP and allowing
for voluntary use of it only.

It is now to the point where a higher authority has to force the board to
let go - they wont do it on their own because it means giving up their
monopoly. They need to be forced to do it. All of the plans that they
have for reform go exactly in the wrong direction. Therefore, the only
solution is to re-bid the contract and take it from them. Maybe, with
historical hindsight, we can start over and avoid the mistakes of the past.
There is no guarantee that what will come in the future will be utopia, but
one thing we can say for sure is that what is presently in place is
unworkable when it comes to the good of the whole community and that
any reform that is led by the insiders will fail to address the real needs
of busting the root-level monopoly because the insiders have zero
incentive to change and every reason to continue as they are.

Proposal #2 on the ballot is milk toast. It asks for them to be nice. Vote
against it and vote for Proposal #1 which has the teeth. We have tried
asking them to be nice now for over 4 years and have been met with
policies that become more closed and cliquish every day. ICANN
must be removed and we must start fresh.

Please vote YES on Proposal #1 and NO on Proposal #2.

John

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1197
*************************