Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1201
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 17 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1201

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:29:24 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Bushwhacked by the registries and registrars

Can you elaborate on what problem you are solving? I am just not clear what functions are being talked about: Contract enforcement? complaint management/response?  etc.

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:12 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Bushwhacked by the registries and registrars

Danny Younger wrote:
> Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service collects funds from the
> "stakeholders" (citizens) and yet the IRS does not have any say
> in how those
> funds are to be allocated. <snip>

Excellent point. And not only the IRS in America, also in Europe and
elsewhere. But this actually points to the enforcement issue. Because the
IRS does not set the taxes, it simply acts as an enforcement agency for
those who set the taxes (elected representatives of government), then
perhaps we should be thinking about splitting these functions in the context
of internet regulation also. If there was an enforcing agency, independent
of ICANN, (or its successor) would that solve some of the problems?

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 15:07:55 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 2, 2002

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

ICANN/DNSO

         DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 2 May 2002 - minutes

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

2 May 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies,
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent with apologies

16 Names Council Members

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
Alix Guillard        MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020502.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

It was decided to discuss Item 2 first.

The agenda was approved.

Another Names Council teleconference was suggested just before the Bucharest
Meeting.
Names Council teleconference schedule:
Tuesday 14 May
Wednesday 29 May
Thursday 6 June
Monday 17 June

Agenda item 2: Update on dot ORG task force

Elisabeth Porteneuve reported that the Names Council Task Force was
reconvened and had a teleconference on Tuesday April 30 with Louis Touton on
the implementation of details for the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Subsequently he posted the RFP, at 5:00 am Paris time which Elisabeth
forwarded Task Force members only so far.
There are 6 days to read the proposals as the deadline is May 8.
There are 2 main differences between the new dot Org registry and the new
gTLD registries:
1. It is a registry with 7 million domain names in operation which should be
taken into account for implementing the operation.
2. There is no sunrise period.

Ken Stubbs remarked that the most important factor in the short time span
was reasoned and deliberated input rather than who would or would not be on
the Task Force.

Agenda item 1: . Recommendations v7 - agreement on recommendations 14, 15,
16 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.Response-Reform-v7.html

Recommendation 14 Board Elections.
Friendly amendment Cary Karp:

The advisory body should elect or select a <number> to replace <selection>
of Board Members.

Marilyn Cade said Board members should be clarified by adding "voting Board
members. As a separate point, the process of how others will get on the
Board should be addressed.

Bruce Tonkin said that it was the Registrars position that 10 peopleshould
be nominated by the nominating committee, 5 should be elected by the
Advisory Council.

     Discussion followed on the Advisory body and merit was found in certain
     people participating in non-voting capacities, such as the Government
     Advisory Committee (GAC) Chair and members from the Internet
     Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architectural Board
     (IAB).

     Tony Harris said that the ISP constituency confirmed support for the
     revised structure of Advisory committees.
     Elisabeth Porteneuve echoed what Tony Harris said that though she could
     not speak for the ccTLDs, it was certain that they agreed with the
     analysis that there are problems, but not necessarily with the future
     structure. The idea should not be given that ICANN 2 needs only minor
     adjustments.

     Philip Sheppard summarised:
     Advisory Bodies, such as those referred to in Recommendations 9 to 13
     should elect a number of voting Board members.

     Marilyn Cade, going back to the Recommendations 9 to 13 suggested
     adding,
     ICANN Policy Development/Advisory Bodies, to which J.Scott Evans added
     ICANN Policy Development Bodies.

     Ken Stubbs said that there should be a specific list of definitions so
     that when reference is made to a committee it is clear what is meant
     and the difference made between Advisory and Functional.

     It was suggested that a list of additional topics be made and explained
     what the bodies consist of.

     New Wording: Recommendation 14 - Board Elections. The Advisory Body
     should elect or select a number of voting Board members.

     Recommendation 15 - Board Size

     The balance of the Board is important.

     Board size and composition must be specified.

     Ken Stubbs objected to the statement that he called "bland" and said
     that an approach to deal with the composition and strucure of the Board
     should be sought. He felt that it was important to have a specific
     discussions that should be well documanted and that the ICANN Board
     should have the opportunity to hear some of the discussions

     Chun said that there was a difference of opinion on Board functions and
     the number of Board members was less important. He felt that the board
     looked like an extended DNSO structure and it was necessary to be clear
     about the role of the Board before one could talk about the size. Where
     is the coordination of the different groups.

     There did not seem to be consistency among the constituencies on this
     recommendation.

     Marilyn Cade suggested a friendly amendment:
     Board Size and composition.

     Ken Stubbs did not agree with the wording of the recommendation
     Recommendation 16 - Independant review

     Cary Karp corrected "an ombudsman" to "the ombudsman".

     Discussions made clear the diffrence between the functons of a review
     committee and the ombudsman.
     Marilyn Cade made the point that there should be a process where
     complaints are made and a serious case of where by-laws are violated
     should be separated. Roger Cochetti agreed with Marilyn Cade and
     pointed out that many large organisations have complaint departments
     and in Europe they would be called ombudsman. An ombudsman is usually
     part of the management team but it is not part of ICANN's proposal in
     that it does not deal with the public. The courts usually play the role
     of independent review bodies with the ability to overthrow decisions,
     regulate actions and control to avoid abuse.

     It was decided to separate the two functions and add:
     Recommendation 17 - Create the office of ombudsman.
     New wording: Recommendation 16 - Independent review. Create a committee
     for independent review of appealed decisions of the ICANN Board.

     Philip Sheppard asked for comments on who should be candidates for the
     independent Review committee.

     Marilyn Cade suggested that designee of the IAB/IETF

An essential characteristic should be that no Board members participate in
an independent review process and it is not necessary to specify where they
come from.

     Item 3 - Discussion on Policy Development mechanisms

     Marilyn Cade noted that the Business constituency felt the policy
     development process must add structure, timelines and staff support.
     Whatever the Body be, it should develop generate and support policy.
     Harold Feld pointed out that there should be a specific vehicle for
     public comment.
     Ken made the point that if the policy was not consistent with the
     charter of the entity, the Board has a responsibility towards the
     entity. He felt the recommendation was too vague.

     Bruce Tonkin stated that a policy making body was the prime place for
     policy making and that the board needs the ability to make interim
     decisions to speed things up and reduce costs.
     J. Scott Evans disagreed as a problem that needed extensive study could
     not be resolved by an interim decision subject to change.
     The IPC model dealt with identified issues imported/exported to
     expertise committees, that make recommendations and draft the policy on
     the recommendations. Expanding the model further, there is a formalized
     structure for keeping the Board up to date.

     Bruce Tonkin emphasised the importance of Board involvement in the
     decision making process, supported by professional staff.

     Phillip Sheppard went on to the next point of Constituencies versus
     Forums.
     Harold Feld distinguished between the outreach and notification
     function and the actual policy making process.
     Marilyn Cade felt that fora were a useful distribution mechanism that a
     process was going on but ad hoc fora were irresponsible.

     There was no support for the concept of fora.

     Marilyn Cade repeated the Business Constituency proposal supporting two
     seperate policy development entities for ccTLDs and gTLDs with a strong
     relationship between the two, the present constituency model and a
     mechanism to take input from the AtLarge.
     Bruce Tonkin agreed that the Registrars constituency supported a
     similar model.

AOB - none

Philip Sheppard concluded and and said that he would formally submit a
report as edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May
2, 2002 at 15:00 Paris time.

1.Board composition and voting

2. Size of Board

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference May 14 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 22:34:23 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

Joanna, no surprise [I hope] that I agree that questionnaires aren't the end all/be all in terms of data input. :-)

 Questionnaires gather "snapshots" which provide some useful data which can help to guide draft recommendations. Consultation is still needed... 

I would suggest, based on my experience in non profits, business, and ... finally the ICANN task force process.

 MC
- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:34 PM
To: Thomas Roessler; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

Thomas,
>  - Recommendation 25 describes a public consultation period as "the
>    channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
>    stakeholders/constituency scheme participate in policy-making".  I
>    believe that this is an extremely poor suggestion for public
>    participation: During such public consultation periods there will
>    typically be no actual dialogue between the public and task force
>    members.... <snip>

The trend is for Task Forces to submit a questionnaire to those affected
stakeholders who have been excluded from the process, so I confine myself to
comments on that particular mechanism.

Questionnaires are a useful damage limitation tool for the Task Force:-

1) The Task Force can select only those questions for which it already has
answers.
2) Those affected have no mechanism to ask questions the Task Force doesn't
want to answer.
3) The questionnaire is open to the everybody, including those already
represented by the constituencies, in effect, skewing the questionnaire
results so as to dilute the views of those not represented elsewhere. It's a
"one-person, two or more votes" policy for the constituency members and
"one-person, no votes" policy for individuals excluded from constituency
membership.
3) All public comments can be ignored since the results are simply advisory,
rather than part of the mechanism to create policy.
4) Data from questionnaires takes so long to be extract, analyze and
publish, that it's usefulness is much diminished by the time the results are
released (example: WHOIS data).

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: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:37:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 5:49:01 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> William,
> By that logic, neither Amadeu Abril as an ICANN Director, nor any GA Task
> Force Representative have the necessary mandate to hold their current
> positions. Are you suggesting we restage these elections? Or could it be

Where did I say any such thing as this Joanna?

As usual, you are extraordinarily good at saying nothing at all
relevant to the discussion at hand.

The discussion is in regards to who is and who is not entitled to be
members of the GA voting registry.

If you could stick to that subject, by all means join us in the
thread, if not, then perhaps you have better use of your "skills."

- -- 
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: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:41:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA vote: status

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 7:15:49 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Thanks for the reminder. 

> My own personal view is that while I don't fully agree with having such a vote, that Alexendar's motion comes closer to an acceptable approach, IF the GA seriously wants an improved functioning
> private sector led entity.  

> I know that there is a concern, always, that people won't vote.

Why should they vote when the vote itself is illegitimate and outside
the scope of the GA.

Voting gives it legitimacy that it does not have.

Especially given how the chair dodged addressing the issue of the
legitimacy of the vote.

It's a disgrace.

- -- 
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: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:17:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC voting rights

Marilyn,

I understand that you are on the NC Budget Committee, and that the Committee 
is currently scheduled to meet this coming Monday to consider the plight of 
the NCDNHC.  May I ask if you will vote to deny the NCDNHC their right to 
vote?  What position has your constituency adopted?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:10:00 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA vote: status

[email-masked] (Thu 05/16/02 at 07:41 PM -0700):

> Why should they vote when the vote itself is illegitimate and outside
> the scope of the GA.

it would be really refreshing if you'd stop posing as arbiter 
of what is or isn't within the scope of the GA. first of all,
there seems to be no clear consensus within the GA about this
point. and second, the GA is itself a component of an organi-
zation that has demonstrated its inability to respect its own
scope. if the GA oversteps its bounds on a single occasion as
as way to prevent ICANN from running amok, then that's a good
thing. and please, spare us the blabla about how a single in-
stance is the harbinger of mayhem, because it isn't necessar-
ily so. it could be; if that turns out to be the case, you'll
have ample opportunity to denounce that in the future.

> Voting gives it legitimacy that it does not have.
> 
> Especially given how the chair dodged addressing the issue of the
> legitimacy of the vote.
> 
> It's a disgrace.

in the realm of ICANN, there are many other disgraces that are
much more significant. you might want to consider whether your
time and energy is spent denouncing this one.

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: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:20:12 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC BS

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C1FD8C.6E306A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive =
nature of individual involvement.

Let me propose a few starting points.

1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly =
impacted by ICANN policies.
2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.
3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different order =
to the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.

Conclusion:
- - there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy =
development.

If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the =
existing DNSO constituencies:
gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies =
impact on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.
Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation =
users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and their =
customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or non-commercial =
purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). =
They are stakeholders.

Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly =
impacted by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the =
same sense ? I do not know but their collective interests are clearly =
valid.  In the non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy =
development is typically heard via consumer organisations. Such =
organisations exist at national and regional (eg EU) level. This is the =
format of involvement of registrants as consumers that the NC envisages =
in recommendation 19. =20

The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek =
involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should =
be offered the opportunity of consultation.

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C1FD8C.6E306A40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Jamie Love raises a key question about defining=20
stakeholders.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight =
into the=20
divisive nature of individual involvement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Let me propose a few starting points.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means =
those=20
directly impacted by ICANN policies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a =
different=20
group.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is =
of a=20
different order to the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt=20
Agatha.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Conclusion:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>- there need to be different levels of involvement =
in ICANN=20
policy development.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) =
by=20
reference to the existing DNSO constituencies:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, =
ISPs&nbsp;-=20
ICANN policies impact on their business contracts. They are=20
stakeholders.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Business, Intellectual property interests, =
non-commercial=20
organisation users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of =
themselves and=20
their customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or =
non-commercial=20
purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). =
They are=20
stakeholders.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Individual registrants - like all consumers =
- -&nbsp;&nbsp;may=20
be indirectly impacted by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true =
stakeholder=20
in the same sense&nbsp;?&nbsp;I do not know but their collective =
interests are=20
clearly valid. &nbsp;In the non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in =
policy=20
development is typically&nbsp;heard&nbsp;via consumer organisations. =
Such=20
organisations exist at national and regional (eg EU) level. This is the =
format=20
of involvement of registrants as consumers that the NC envisages in=20
recommendation 19.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who =
choose not=20
to seek involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, =
should=20
be offered the opportunity of consultation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01C1FD8C.6E306A40--

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:44:19 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

In other words override the public/user will because some talking head
from worldcom who was consulted said otherwise.

Real cute.

e

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Joanna, no surprise [I hope] that I agree that questionnaires aren't the end all/be all in terms of data input. :-)
>
>  Questionnaires gather "snapshots" which provide some useful data which can help to guide draft recommendations. Consultation is still needed...
>
> I would suggest, based on my experience in non profits, business, and ... finally the ICANN task force process.
>
>  MC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 6:34 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS
>
> Thomas,
> >  - Recommendation 25 describes a public consultation period as "the
> >    channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
> >    stakeholders/constituency scheme participate in policy-making".  I
> >    believe that this is an extremely poor suggestion for public
> >    participation: During such public consultation periods there will
> >    typically be no actual dialogue between the public and task force
> >    members.... <snip>
>
> The trend is for Task Forces to submit a questionnaire to those affected
> stakeholders who have been excluded from the process, so I confine myself to
> comments on that particular mechanism.
>
> Questionnaires are a useful damage limitation tool for the Task Force:-
>
> 1) The Task Force can select only those questions for which it already has
> answers.
> 2) Those affected have no mechanism to ask questions the Task Force doesn't
> want to answer.
> 3) The questionnaire is open to the everybody, including those already
> represented by the constituencies, in effect, skewing the questionnaire
> results so as to dilute the views of those not represented elsewhere. It's a
> "one-person, two or more votes" policy for the constituency members and
> "one-person, no votes" policy for individuals excluded from constituency
> membership.
> 3) All public comments can be ignored since the results are simply advisory,
> rather than part of the mechanism to create policy.
> 4) Data from questionnaires takes so long to be extract, analyze and
> publish, that it's usefulness is much diminished by the time the results are
> released (example: WHOIS data).
>
> 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: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:12:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On 2002-05-17 10:20:12 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN  
>   policies impact on their business contracts. They are  
>   stakeholders.

Of course.  

However, by symmetry, ICANN policies also impact on the other  
parties who enter into these contracts.  That is, in the case of  
registrars and ISPs, registrants.  So, by the very argument you are  
making, registrants are stakeholders, too.  Regardless of whether or 
not they are individual, commercial, non-commercial, or  
governmental.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:41:03 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Could I have some clarification on my status as a member?

As I've stated previously I have considered myself a GA
member since a week after the voting rolls opened two years
ago. I have only recently subscribed to the [email-masked] list.

SFAIK I have only been subscribed intermittently to the
[email-masked] list. Yet I have always considered myself
a GA member, and SFAIK have voted each time a vote occurred.

Further, SFAIK I have been listed without interruption on
the voting roll since I first joined on May 21 or 22, 2000.

Am I now to understand that this was in error? Again SFAIK
I have never had my vote challenged by the committee which
oversees the vote, or anyone else. I understood the following
clause from here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
to read in the following fashion (and still do):

 > The following rules are suggested for the initial
 > GA voting roll:

I take it these rules have not been superceded?

 > The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those
 > persons who want to be members of that assembly.

I was/am a person who wants to be a member of that
assembly.

 > At present, this includes "ex-officio" the
 > subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants
 > to the DNSO Constituencies and the participants
 > to the Working Groups.

What this doesn't say is:

 > At present, this **only** includes "ex-officio"
 > the subscribers to the GA-lists, the participants
 > to the DNSO Constituencies and the participants
 > to the Working Groups.

If it meant *only* those members, why doesn't
it explicitly say so?

I took it to mean that members of those three
named groups were automatically voting members,
not that they were the only voting members.

Others such as myself, who only registered to
be on the voting roll, I also took to be members
of the GA. I understood that I had applied for
membership, that that membership was accepted,
that I could vote, and that when I did it would
be counted as a valid vote (which SFAIK is what
actually occurred on numerous occasions).

If that wasn't the case, why was I, and I
know I'm not the only one in this situation,
allowed to register? Why not just take those
considered members of those three groups and
combine them to form the voting roll, if those
are the only ones allowed to vote? When the
election oversight committee checks ballots,
do they check them against the voting roll
or the memberships of those three groups?

If only those three groups can vote, presumably
they would use the latter, and if so, presumably
I would not have had my vote counted. Yet it
seems to have been counted during various votes.

And why the inclusion of ex-officio, approximately:
without the rights of an(other) office? What
office are they vacating? If *only* members of
those lists can be on the voting registry, they
aren't giving up any office. Further, ex-officio
is often included to mean that one may not pull
a rank of office held elsewhere on others who don't
hold the same or higher rank of office.

I took this to mean that while some members might
also be GA list subscribers, or participants in
Constituencies, or Working Group, when it came to
the voting roll, all were equal. Otherwise, why
include that phrase?

In my own case, as I travel extensively, sometimes
sans connection, I didn't find constant subscription
to the GA list as manageable. Does that mean I am
not a member of the GA? While I could be a member
of a Constituency (or two), I am not. Does that
mean I'm not a member? I don't see any Working
Groups around to join. Does that mean I'm not a
member? And while travelling I have sometimes
subscribed to the announce list using web-mail.
Does that mean I am more than one member?

I hasten to add I have only ever voted once per
called vote, and always from the same address
as recorded in the voting roll.

 > A Member has the right to vote in a GA vote.

As I have already quoted:

 > The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those
 > persons who want to be members of that assembly.

I claim to be a person, I claim to want to be a
member of the DNSO GA by signing up to the voting
roll through use of a template (not necessarily
by joining a list, or a Constituency, or Working
Group, and if those members are automatically
members, and the only members, for whom was the
template provided?) so from my reading of this,
by signing up via the template, I am a member.

 > All members who wish to vote in a GA vote must
 > register with the GA voting registry.

I did that.

 > To register, one must send an email to the
 > Keeper of the Voting Registry (a secretariat
 > function) asking to become a member, and giving:
 > First Name
 > Last Name
 > Country of residence
 > Optionally, ...
 > Optionally, ...
 > Email to be used for balloting

I did that too, sans options.

 > All the information except the email will be
 > made public. A template is given below; USE THIS.

I did that too the first time as near as I recall.

If only the three listed groups can be voting
members, and as most parts of those three groups,
including all of the GA, have publicly archived
records of email, why would there be a clause
included saying that the voting roll email list
wouldn't be published. If only those groups can
vote, someone wanting the email of those members
who could vote could find most of them elsewhere.
Why then is the voting roll singled out for privacy
if it is only a duplication of memberships elsewhere?

 > The Keeper of the Registry keeps an updated
 > Web page listing all the Members listed in the
 > voting registry, see:
 > http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html

And there I am, though as I explained in an earlier
post, the date is wrong. That is not the date I
joined, I assume it is is the date I last updated
my contact info.

 > A Member can be removed from the voting registry
 > by:
 > A request from the Member to be removed
 > A procedure for dealing with fraudulent
 > registrations (see below).

I have never requested to be removed, nor SFAIK has
my registration ever been claimed to be fraudulent.

 > A registered Member has the duty to receive GA
 > vote ballots, and to keep his registration info
 > updated.

I have done that too.

And, except for the fraudulent registration clause,
that's about it. As near as I can tell I have done
everything necessary to be, and remain, a GA member
in good standing. Am I now to understand that that
wasn't the case? Am I also to understand that the
only difference between being a member and not being
a member could be whether one subscribes to an
announce list? That seems a rather arbitrary
distinction, it bars membership only to persons
who don't have an email address, and they couldn't
exercise a vote anyway.

While I don't think I've run afoul of the
fraudulent registration clause to date, I'll
include its main part here as I think it
also supports my reading of the rules:

 > The procedure for dealing with fraudulent
 > registrations is very similar to that for
 > multiple registrations on the GA discussion
 > list:...

If one has multiple registrations on the GA
discussion list, wouldn't those automatically
mean multiple registrations on the voting list
by the reading of the rules I am arguing against?
Why then draw this distinction, isn't it redundant?

If one complains of fraudulent multiple
registrations on the GA list and the others
are cancelled, they would also be cancelled
in the voting roll. This clause appears to
be for those who are on the voting roll but
not on the GA list, and it doesn't say anything
about them being a Constituency member or
Working group member. This is not aimed at
the same person at the same email address who
may be a member of more than one of these
groups. It is aimed at someone having multiple
registrations specifically on the voting roll.
If one cannot register only for the voting roll,
why would this clause be included?

As I am now subbed to the GA list I would seem
to be safe, but am I to understand that at least
some of my prior votes should not have been
counted? And is it likely that I am the only
person in such a position?

Color me confused. Please advise. Thx. -g

At 12:08 AM 17/05/02 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>The rules
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
>state:
>     The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons
>     who want to be members of that assembly. At present,
>     this includes "ex-officio" the subscribers to the GA-lists,
>     the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and the
>     participants to the Working Groups.
>
>Please note "the GA-lists", i.e. [email-masked] and [email-masked]
>While the first one is sometimes noisy, the second is on average
>1-2 emails a week, from the Secretariat.
>Therefore you may be a member of the GA without getting a huge
>traffic and filtering it into folders, but rather reading archives.

- --
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 #1201
*************************