Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1205
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1205

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 19:19:49 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 02:40 PM 17/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Friday, May 17, 2002, 2:43:10 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> > ...When does the
> > BoD get its first surprise quiz on BIND security flaws,
> > and how will those BoD members who fail be replaced?
>
>Again, that is your opinion (not one that I share)
>that that level of technical knowledge is required.

Not at all. It was just one example. One could as
easily give BoD members an exam on the UDRP, EG:
Did the complainant or respondent prevail in the
barcelona.com case?
and probably get most of the same failures. But
by all means let us leave these individuals in
charge, rather than those *uninformed* ones who
could pass both exams.

>I do not agree with that, and I am CERTAIN there
>is no consensus to support it.

There is not even a consensus to support a
consensus definition of what consensus means,
so you are probably safe in your certainty.

>I see no compelling reason to a requirement
>such as that.

So we should have a requirement for an
*informed* electorate, but not have such
a requirement for those elected. When arguing
such positions, please show your work, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

>There is a difference between REASONABLE
>and UNREASONABLE standards.

And who will be in charge of setting those
standards? You and/or Kent Crispin? That
should make for a low voter turnout. -g

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:13:46 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

[email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 07:01 PM -0700):

> >There has been, in my experience, at least one obvious attempt in prior
> >elections to "stuff the ballot", (or, as a friend put it "engage in an
> >exceptionally vigorous grass roots registration campaign").  In that
> >case the result wasn't affected by the attempt; the watchdogs decided it
> >wasn't worth invalidating the election over.
> 
> You cannot imagine how chilling it is to learn
> that you are in a position to decide whether my
> vote constitutes the equivalent of hanging chad. -g

keep in mind that kent's experience also involves the AL registration
software (used to throttle new regs because staff wouldn't be able to 
handle participation) and the gateway between ICANN's AL database and 
election.com (which broke early on and then in the final hours of the 
'selection'). damn shame election.com never released that white paper
about the ICANN 'selection' they promised... 

and you don't need to take my word for how great that experience was--
you can ask the carter center, which initially gave the 'selection' a
thumbs-up then later -- MUCH later -- released the substantive analys-
is with the same kind of fanfare you'd expect from a spy doing a dead 
drop.

but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
crous. (btw, where's crocker when you need him? these unsubstantiated
allegations should be enough to tie his thunderbags in a knot complex
enough to stop string-theorists dead in their tracks.)

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: Sat, 18 May 2002 15:46:48 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individual Stakeholders Constituency

On Fri, 17 May 2002 16:06:56 -0400, "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>For obvious reasons, I hesitate to jump into this debate, but what the heck
>-- I offer, as should be obvious, personal views only.
>
>What Kent has proposed and Bret has endorsed is simply a varient on what
>Esther and Denise and others are trying to do:  create some structured way
>to organize and present input from individual users (whether domain name
>holders or not).  

There are two issues here which are related but still distinct.  The
first is of individual registrants as a recognised stakeholder in the
DNS decision making process (currently the DNSO).  The other is
whether internet users (however defined) should have significant or
even majority control of ICANN (the at large).

>On this point, I agree with Jamie Love and Bret that all
>Internet users that are interested in doing so should be able to
>participate and make their views known in ICANN.  The debate has not been
>over this point, 

There is no debate over this point because it is impossible to not
have this happen.  Unless one closed off all forums and e-mail
addresses you can not escape internet users making their views known.
Acknowledging this is not a concession.  

>but over what kind of mechanisms are acceptable or
>workable, with the latter incorporating notions of informed participation
>as well as the pure logistics of the mechanism.  In my view, global on-line
>voting is not workable today, so it does not pass the test; 

The ALSC disagreed of course but that doesn't mean they are right.
Could you be more specific with why you think it is not workable.  The
suspicion of many people is that there is an ideological aversion to
"user control/dominance"  and so that barriers to this are found
rather than an alternate approach of "There are some difficulties with
online elections but lets try and find a way to minimise or solve
them".

>Having said this, some of Bret's earlier postings do not make sense to me.
>                                                                                          
> If an ICANN policy benefits registries                                                   
> and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then              
> ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.                               
>
>Bret, do you really think that the converse is not true?  How could
>registrants and other end-users be served if there were not sufficient and
>functional registries and registrars?  

A policy can be detrimental to their interests but still leave them
functional.  For example a policy allowing a registrant to cancel a
domain within five days of registration for no charge (as proposed in
.nz) would be good for registrants and bad for registrars and
registries yet isn;t going to bankrupt them to say the least.

>Isn't the real point that there
>needs to be a balance?  I even think I agree with your point that no
>interests are more important than those of end users, and that registrars
>and registries are servants of those interests, but that still leaves a
>question of how those end user interests are best served.  

That is good to know.  With the behaviour of Verisign towards
transfers though many people do not feel ICANN is succeeding in
serving these interests.  Likewise allowing Verisign to stay registrar
and registry.

>  I agree with the first point, and think that is in fact the crux of the
>debate.  There is, as best I can tell, significant disagreement over
>whether "the opinions expressed by those who choose to participate in ICANN
>are sufficiently characteristic fo the concerns of the larger community."

On a smaller scale we have had this debate in .nz.  Over some time
there was an increasing amount of criticism over how .nz was managed
and those running .nz insisted that the critics were not
representative of the larger community and were just a few maladjusted
individuals.  

However things came to a crunch and it became very obvious that the
internet community were very dis-satisifed with .nz management and it
got changed.  The critics were not just a few "venomous reptiles" to
quote a former official.  (Note I was one of the leading proponents of
change so my views are obviously coloured).

The lesson here is that having an open membership structure where
individuals can join and participate has worked.  It won't be perfect
all the time but it is better than no representation.

>deals with the point.  Small relative sample sizes of the sort we are
>talking about here -- which are clearly not representative of the great
>mass of end users -- does raise very serious questions about whether ICANN
>would be making informed choices if it acted on the views of that very
>small sample -- at least if you believe that serving the best interests of
>the mass of disinterested end users, not just the interests of the small
>group that actually participates, is the goal.

If one gets into statistical theory then the chance of a sample being
representative of the entire population is independent of the size of
the entire population.  ie a 1,000 string sample is just as likely to
be representative of a population of 1 million as it is of 100
million.  Now ICANN participation is not randomly selected but self
selecting but nevertheless there is guide to us that our goal should
not be some arbitrary percentage of particpants/user population but
more deciding what minimum size is needed for participating users to
be deemed fairly representative  of the wider user population.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:19:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Friday, May 17, 2002, 8:13:46 PM, t byfield wrote:

> but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
> be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
> crous.

It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
otherwise are not participants in the process.

A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way of
preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for arbitrary
reasons.

- -- 
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:56:52 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

[email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 09:19 PM -0700):

> > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
> > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
> > crous.
> 
> It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
> otherwise are not participants in the process.

well, you've got to start somewhere. specific issues are an excellent 
way to get people involved.

> A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way of
> preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for arbitrary
> reasons.

and term limits are an effective way of giving incumbents and fanatics
the boot. but the point is mechanisms of exclusion, not mechanisms of 
exclusion.

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: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:15:25 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] an ISC

On 2002-05-18 13:06:12 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>>Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, 
>>etc) and clone it.

>  An ISC would need an idependent and anonymous voting system, not 
>a clone of the GA system. 

What, precisely, is wrong with the current GA system?

>It would also need independent scrutineers.

What, precisely, is wrong with having "vote observers" which are  
reasonably independent wh4en taken as a group?  This is one example  
where biases in all directions can actually cancel out.

>As for seeding it with the whole membership of the GA. (incl.  
>those constituency members who are only subscribed to announce  
>lists) , the Individuals would start off with a whole lot of  
>corporate dilution.

Caused by whom?

>>other than that the member be able to establish that they are a 
>>real human being, and that they pay dues as required. (In 
>>particular, participation in another constituency in any 
>>capacity should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC 
>>in any capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the 
>>NC once.)

>...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an 
>IDNO style paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole 
>means of self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)

As opposed to web forums, where the _only_ archive available is  
under central control?

- -- 
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 22:18:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Friday, May 17, 2002, 9:56:52 PM, t byfield wrote:

> [email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 09:19 PM -0700):

>> > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
>> > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
>> > crous.
>> 
>> It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
>> otherwise are not participants in the process.

> well, you've got to start somewhere. specific issues are an excellent 
> way to get people involved.

And they are welcome to get involved, that is what such a rule would
encourage.  Get involved on the list, and in 3 months time you will
have earned the right to participate as a voting member.

>> A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way of
>> preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for arbitrary
>> reasons.

> and term limits are an effective way of giving incumbents and fanatics
> the boot. but the point is mechanisms of exclusion, not mechanisms of 
> exclusion.

This is not a method of exclusion.   They are simply non-voting
members until they have met the residency requirement.   Why is
requiring them to be a part of the community for a period of time in
advance a bad thing?  Because it prevents you and your type from
trying to advance measures in short time frames by using highly
charged PR in friendly forums just before a vote?

Sorry, but I don't see that as a bad thing.  Encourage them to JOIN
THE COMMUNITY, and be a meaningful participant, not to come to
influence a single issue.  After 3 months, they are full voting
members, and are welcome to participate in all votes.

This doesn't discourage outreach at all, it discourages single issue
outreach that is based on an attempt to influence the outcome of a
vote.  Outreach that is intended to increase the broad and meaningful
participation, which is what we should all be encouraging, would still
be of great use.  Even if the awareness of the outreach is because of
a single issue that they can't influence by pulling a hit and run and
joining only for that single issue.

Where is the downside?

- -- 
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 16:30:16 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of William X Walsh
|> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:19 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS
|> 
|> 
|> Friday, May 17, 2002, 8:13:46 PM, t byfield wrote:
|> 
|> > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1
should
|> > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is
ludi-
|> > crous.
|> 
|> It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
|> otherwise are not participants in the process.
|> 
|> A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way
of
|> preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for
arbitrary
|> reasons.

A much better approach to this issue is to ensure an effective outreach
and have the numbers within the GA to negate any sort of ballot-stuffing
or other undesirable actions by a few.

Providing each person joining the GA is an individual their views are as
valid from day one as they would be after 3 months.

Of course, the above really only applies in an ideal world and the
practical facts do support the inclusion of a validating period after
initial membership application.  I would suggest a slightly shorter
period of one month however.

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: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:39:58 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS: telephone conference opportunity

The board has asked the names council to start a "comprehensive  
review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and  
possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the board, no  
later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the  
status report to include any recommendations (with supporting  
materials) concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net 
agreements to allow it to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee, 
as part of its operation of the .com and .net registries." (02.53)

The names council has asked the transfers task force to take care of 
this.

The TTF will hold two telephone conferences on this topic next  
week. Details on these calls are available in the forwarded message  
included below.

The task force's first task with respect to WLS seems to be to 
identify any issues the WLS proposal may raise with respect to the  
legitimate interests of others, and to identify possible solutions. 
The calls are your possibility to bring such matters (and  
suggestions for solutions) to the TF's attention.

Additional Bookmarks:

 - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00179.html 
   (GA input on WLS, specifically directed to the TTF.)
   
 - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00180.html
   (Terms of reference for the TTF's work on WLS.)

Note: The GA is represented on the transfers task force by Dan  
Steinberg.

Kind regards, and have a nice week-end,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message -----

From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule
Importance: High

This is a follow-up to the Task Force Chair's posting announcing two
consultation calls for next week  - the dates are: Tuesday, May 21 and
Wednesday, May 22.  I am posting the following announcement on the
Chair's behalf:  The purpose of these calls is to provide an opportunity
for discussion and input on the WLS proposal.  These calls will be
duplicative in nature so that an opportunity is presented on two
different dates in the event you cannot make one of the dates.  FYI - a
draft document will be posted on Monday to this list by the Chair.

The format of the meeting follows:  Welcome; Overview by ICANN Staff;
Invited presentation by Verisign Registry on the WLS proposal;
Round-robin comments from participants on call (you are invited to sign
up for a queue to make comments by emailing Marie Juliano at
[email-masked] - OFF LIST. ) There are two options available:  if you
wish to make a prepared presentation of 5 to 7 minutes, you can sign up
for such a slot, and, time permitting, we will try to accommodate.  If
you wish to just ask questions or make brief comments, a queue will be
built during the call and you will have a chance to ask your questions.

Reminder - the format for both calls will be the same except for
presenters.  It is not really necessary for you to be on both calls
unless you particularly want to.

This call will  be open to your constituency representatives who are
interested and to interested representatives of the GA, but you will
need to make that announcement to your group.   In order to ensure we
have enough ports, people must RSVP by Monday, May 20, by email to Marie
([email-masked]).

The call on Tuesday, May 21, will be at 1:00 p.m. EDT (US).  The call on
Wednesday, May 22, will be at 10:00 a.m. EDT (US) - duration 2 hours.

Bridge number and participants' code remain the same on both days.

Bridge No.:                         517-267-0146

Participants' Code:             735 304

Host (Marilyn) Code:         743 890

Marilyn Cade

- ----- End forwarded message -----

- --
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 03:19:52 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: telephone conference opportunity

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The board has asked the names council to start a "comprehensive  
> review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and  possible 
> solutions for those issues and to submit to the board, no  later than 
> 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the  status report 
> to include any recommendations (with supporting  materials) concerning 
> VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net agreements to allow it 
> to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee, as part of its operation 
> of the .com and .net registries." (02.53)
>
> The names council has asked the transfers task force to take care of 
> this. 

Why the transfer task force to tackle the deletion issue?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> The TTF will hold two telephone conferences on this topic next  week. 
> Details on these calls are available in the forwarded message  
> included below.
>
> The task force's first task with respect to WLS seems to be to 
> identify any issues the WLS proposal may raise with respect to the  
> legitimate interests of others, and to identify possible solutions. 
> The calls are your possibility to bring such matters (and  suggestions 
> for solutions) to the TF's attention.
>
> Additional Bookmarks:
>
> - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00179.html   (GA 
> input on WLS, specifically directed to the TTF.)
>   - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00180.html
>   (Terms of reference for the TTF's work on WLS.)
>
> Note: The GA is represented on the transfers task force by Dan  
> Steinberg.
>
> Kind regards, and have a nice week-end,

- --
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:25:13 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNS Policy website search engine still alive

I've moved the DNS Policy website search engine to
http://www.wxweb.com/dnspolicy/  where it will be permanently housed.

dnspolicy.net will redirect to there.

Currently I am indexing:

http://www.open-rsc.org/
http://www.iana.org/
http://www.icannwatch.org/
http://www.icann.org/
http://www.internic.net/
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Domain_Names_and_Registration/
http://www.dnso.org/
http://www.gtld-mou.org/
http://www.iahc.org/
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/
http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
http://www.udrplaw.net/
http://www.idno.org/
http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/
http://www.tldlobby.com/
http://www.tlda.org/
http://www.dnlr.com/
http://www.internetstakeholders.com/

I have 6 additional URLs that will be added to the indexer on monday.

If anyone has any additional URLs or sites that should be added,
please email them to me off list.  Any URL relating to domain policy
is welcome.

The indexer is currently rebuilding its index, so not all the data has
been reindexed as of this moment, but it will run overnight, the sites
will be reindexed every week for updates.

If you notice any oddities, please let me know.

- -- 
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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:48:56 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ga/membership/voting

I believe that we have shown considerable interest in the concept of
membership and participation criteria and voting rights in many areas of
the goings on of the DNSO of ICANN.

It would appear that this subject matter is now ripe to accept motions
for a vote as to consensus of the GA.

I for one favour none of the restrictions save the concept of a
"residency requirement" of 3 months.

As has been demonstrated here on the GA list and elsewhere, we will deal
with the hooligans socially but they should have some time before
exercising a vote.

I call for a motion from the chair.

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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:54:37 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] URGENT please vote

Here is the return message from voting;

" Dear DNSO GA Member,

 Your ballot b12 has been received and recorded.

 Thank you for your participation in the DNSO work.

 DNSO Secretariat"

Hot damn that feels good.  And I thank all of you for giving me that
significant right and honor.

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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:57:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: telephone conference opportunity

I understand that the NC has a TF, TR.

I ask the chair to set up a GA WG  re WLS.

Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> The board has asked the names council to start a "comprehensive
> review of issues concerning the deletion of domain names and
> possible solutions for those issues and to submit to the board, no
> later than 10 June 2002, a status report on that review, with the
> status report to include any recommendations (with supporting
> materials) concerning VeriSign's request to modify the .com and .net
> agreements to allow it to provide a wait-listing service, for a fee,
> as part of its operation of the .com and .net registries." (02.53)
>
> The names council has asked the transfers task force to take care of
> this.
>
> The TTF will hold two telephone conferences on this topic next
> week. Details on these calls are available in the forwarded message
> included below.
>
> The task force's first task with respect to WLS seems to be to
> identify any issues the WLS proposal may raise with respect to the
> legitimate interests of others, and to identify possible solutions.
> The calls are your possibility to bring such matters (and
> suggestions for solutions) to the TF's attention.
>
> Additional Bookmarks:
>
>  - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00179.html
>    (GA input on WLS, specifically directed to the TTF.)
>
>  - http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00180.html
>    (Terms of reference for the TTF's work on WLS.)
>
> Note: The GA is represented on the transfers task force by Dan
> Steinberg.
>
> Kind regards, and have a nice week-end,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
> ----- Forwarded message -----
>
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:36 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Transfer Task Force Consultation Calls Schedule
> Importance: High
>
> This is a follow-up to the Task Force Chair's posting announcing two
> consultation calls for next week  - the dates are: Tuesday, May 21 and
> Wednesday, May 22.  I am posting the following announcement on the
> Chair's behalf:  The purpose of these calls is to provide an opportunity
> for discussion and input on the WLS proposal.  These calls will be
> duplicative in nature so that an opportunity is presented on two
> different dates in the event you cannot make one of the dates.  FYI - a
> draft document will be posted on Monday to this list by the Chair.
>
> The format of the meeting follows:  Welcome; Overview by ICANN Staff;
> Invited presentation by Verisign Registry on the WLS proposal;
> Round-robin comments from participants on call (you are invited to sign
> up for a queue to make comments by emailing Marie Juliano at
> [email-masked] - OFF LIST. ) There are two options available:  if you
> wish to make a prepared presentation of 5 to 7 minutes, you can sign up
> for such a slot, and, time permitting, we will try to accommodate.  If
> you wish to just ask questions or make brief comments, a queue will be
> built during the call and you will have a chance to ask your questions.
>
> Reminder - the format for both calls will be the same except for
> presenters.  It is not really necessary for you to be on both calls
> unless you particularly want to.
>
> This call will  be open to your constituency representatives who are
> interested and to interested representatives of the GA, but you will
> need to make that announcement to your group.   In order to ensure we
> have enough ports, people must RSVP by Monday, May 20, by email to Marie
> ([email-masked]).
>
> The call on Tuesday, May 21, will be at 1:00 p.m. EDT (US).  The call on
> Wednesday, May 22, will be at 10:00 a.m. EDT (US) - duration 2 hours.
>
> Bridge number and participants' code remain the same on both days.
>
> Bridge No.:                         517-267-0146
>
> Participants' Code:             735 304
>
> Host (Marilyn) Code:         743 890
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 18 May 2002 02:22:22 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

At 11:13 PM 17/05/02 -0400, t byfield wrote:

>keep in mind that kent's experience also involves
>the AL registration software...

Ya, am well aware of that. Didn't mention it because
Kent was ostensibly only involved in the technical
end, though he did regale the ALSC forum with tales
of a day of infamy when the Japanese might have been
launching a sneak attack. His trigger finger was
clearly itching on the DEL key, but he couldn't
be sure if they were friendlies or the perfidious
uninformed. At the last minute he let the bits
fly by, and he still has the scars to prove it.

>but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted
>by motion #1 should be spoken of in the same context
>as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludicrous.

If one is 1 of say, 500 GA voters, or x number of GA
posters, one has more influence than if the numbers
are bumped up via *any* outreach. The same is true for
any of us, but some of us aren't so frightened by that.

>(btw, where's crocker when you need him?

That part (and the other) of the C.C.Cyberus have
been out barking at traffic caused by the revelations
concerning the Blokzijl bunkmates.

I guess he heard His Master's Voice:
Cry havoc, and let slip the pups of misinfowar.

I mentioned this on ICANNWatch:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=744#6110

where, as you know, one needn't be so reserved,
and can call a spayed a spayed.

And it gets worse. From fsckedco:
http://comments.fuckedcompany.com/phpcomments/index.php?newsid=80174&sid=1&page=14&parentid=0&crapfilter=0 

Sounds like another round of layoffs at NeuLevel,
also that the neulevel.com message I reported may
have been caused by an about to be ex-employee,
as I'd theorized to newsbytes (which is also
now rumored to be toast). If NeuLevel doesn't
get .org it appears that dog may no longer hunt.

And if one subscribes to the domino theory...
Snapnames just laid off a bunch and its CEO
jumped. Something to do with that WLS delay.

One can hear Verisign to ICANN:
We need WLS or we're in big trouble.

And one can hear NeuLevel to ICANN:
We need .org or we're in bigger trouble.

And along comes the GA:
We need a rebid.

I suspect they'll run with the big dogs.

>these unsubstantiated allegations should be enough
>to tie his thunderbags in a knot complex enough to
>stop string-theorists dead in their tracks.)

Seems the ICANN superstring is about played out. -g

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:51:04 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise

- --=======62E5102=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-23F41DB0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 07:18 18/05/02, William X Walsh said:
>This doesn't discourage outreach at all, it discourages single issue
>outreach that is based on an attempt to influence the outcome of a
>vote.  Outreach that is intended to increase the broad and meaningful
>participation, which is what we should all be encouraging, would still
>be of great use.  Even if the awareness of the outreach is because of
>a single issue that they can't influence by pulling a hit and run and
>joining only for that single issue.

Ted, WXW and Joe (on the online voting system),
IMHO both of you have good and valid points and no need to become personal. 
The problem seems more related to the software tools. Let assume we have 
the following management system.

1. anyone can register in the GA, chosing which mail distribution, he wants 
and becoming a voter.
2. you can change e-mail without changing Membership ID
3. we can run votes and information polls freely. Let say that every week 
we have a poll over the debated issues (10 seconds to list a question for 
polling). Votes on Chair decision.
4. your vote is taken into consideration after you participated at least 
into 10 polls.

Would you not accept it?

- - Outreach is supported as even "stuffing" the list would result into polls 
slides, telling the voters there is something to consider.
- - Education is ensured because if you vote 10 times it means that you did 
not get bored and debated. You really proved you wanted to join.
- - Hi-Jacking is quite impossible: asking hi-jackers to vote 10 times in a 
row to get a vote the 11th time would cost a lot.
- - Yet the DNSO stays open to all and everyone may immediately contribute 
and even influence a vote by his positions and hos poll, the voter may 
filter and consider

An occasional slide would have no impact if an obvious hi-jacking attempt 
(from the difference with previous polls and with votes). But a growing 
poll tendency or a very high poll support (therefore voters supported by 
pollers) would speak a lot.

It would even permit very quick responses: a stuffing could lead to a quick 
verification vote. A 95% poll supported by a 75% votes would really mean 
the GA really supports something. While a 90% poll supported by a 45% 
vote  would mean hi-jacking attempt and kill the reputation of the stuffers 
and the enthousiam of their supporters.

I note that I prefer the poll count than a residency period, because 
responding to a poll is an active effort. Also because it permits lurkers 
to progressively join, and often these people are reasonable people taking 
time to join the debate.

jfc

- --=======62E5102=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-23F41DB0
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

- --=======62E5102=======--

- --
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 #1205
*************************