Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1224
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1224

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:59:29 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

At 03:08 PM 23/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>And the GA Chair should have put a stop to it, and failed to do so.
>He also completely refused to make a SINGLE public statement on the
>procedural objection that was raised, despite a private statement that
>was clear in showing that he concurred.

So why don't you publish that private email? Better to see the
actual words than to accept someone's interpretation of it, no?
I think publishing private email is about the only Usenet troll
technique you haven't used yet. Why so suddenly bashful? -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: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:23:27 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

At 01:20 PM 24/05/02 +1000, Dassa wrote:

>...The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises
>  the question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.

Not so much as it raises the question of why adding
Motion 2, or 3 or 4, was appropriate. -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, 24 May 2002 17:06:08 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:

>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.

It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA 
members had the opportunity  to answer that question by voting AGAINST 
motion 1.

- --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, 23 May 2002 22:49:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN  Reform, May 2002

Thursday, May 23, 2002, 10:06:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:

>>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
>>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.

> It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA 

"Mr Walsh" doesn't vote in inappropriate votes that violate the
charter and are outside the charter dictated role of the DNSO GA.

The vote is irrelevant.  It was inappropriate, it should not have
occurred, and its result has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Shame on Thomas for even letting it happen.

- -- 
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, 23 May 2002 23:12:27 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] October 1st, 2002

At 10:45 PM 23/05/02 +0200, jefsey wrote:

>Now, do I miss. Where is the problem?

The millions of dollars shown in the proposed
budget as income. Using your model, the vast
majority of those funds would have to be carried
over as a surplus. A not for profit organization
with a surplus many times larger than expenditures
might raise some eyebrows. If you add JDRP to your
model as the lawfirm of record, as well as a major
creditor, the numbers come close to being considered
reasonable under the circumstances. Yer welcome. :) -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: Thu, 23 May 2002 23:24:05 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

At 10:23 PM 23/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Which alt.root group are you with, Gary?

I had the new.net plugin installed from their inception
until a few weeks ago on one machine as I was concerned
about its security and privacy implications. Packet
sniffing throughout that period showed that I had no
reason for concern, they were no more nor less than what
they claimed (though with the auto-update feature the
price of liberty is eternal vigilance). I've never
registered a new.net faux domain name, nor have I ever
had cause to visit one of their sites other than for
testing purposes.

I have used ORSC nameservers on various machines over
the past few years just for grins. I didn't have
security or privacy concerns in that case, I was just
curious if it worked as advertised. As near as I can
tell, it did. Again, I have registered no alt.root
sLDs or TLDs (other than once putting a vote in for
the creation of some NameSpace TLD that now escapes me),
nor have I ever had a reason to access one of those
ICP-3 verboten addresses other than for testing purposes.

Other than that, SFAIK I have had no contact with any
alt.roots. So I guess my most honest and accurate answer
to your question would be that I'm not particularily
*with* any alt.root group. My question to you in return
would be, what on earth (the one under our feet, not the
alt TLD) does this have to do with the vote results? -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, 24 May 2002 01:33:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

Gary and all assembly members,

  I have to agree with Gary here.  Motion 2 was added by Alexander
purposefully to confuse and dissuade the real issue at hand.  That being

said should ICANN continue in the minds of the GA members or should
the ICANN Contracts be rebid.  It is clear that a majority of
those that voted believe that the present administration is
NOT satisfactory to the GA as a body and should be rebid
 Not a  surprising result.

 It is also clear from Motion 2 that there are two
acceptable approaches that the GA members are willing
to consider to address the reform of ICANN in it's present
form or at least under the present administration and
process or processes underway...

  Now, we as GA members can beat these results to death
as to evaluating them, or we can take action as DNSO
body that has meaning and substance in a two pronged
approach.  It is up to each of us and the GA as a
body of the DNSO and ICANN....

  So if I may be so bold I will make some basic suggestions.

1.) Those that voted for the rebid motion or motion #1
AND Motion #2 can work both sides of the proverbial
street by looking for ways and means of building and
proposing to the GA and other constituency members
as well as the other SO's a potential proposal for
such a platform by which a Rebid can or would be
presented to DOC/NTIA AND ALSO ways in which
the present ICANN structure and processes can be
improved that meet the criterion for motion #2

2.)  Those that voted and/or support one motion or the other
can concentrate their efforts in the direction of either
the Rebid potential proposals in conjunction with those
the voted in favor of both motions OR for those that
voted for motion #2 and Not Motion #1 can work
to find ways and means by which the existing structure
or changes in that structure can be improved or
restructured to improve ICANN as it applies to
the MoU and the White Paper.

3.) Those that did not vote in favor of either Motion #1 or
Motion #2 or obtained, can remain wallflowers, obstructers
and/or general nuisances OR consider getting off the fence and
get into doing some work with either my previous
two suggestions...

4.) The ICANN BoD, Staff and other constituencies or SO's
can take this vote seriously as is required in the ICANN
Bylaws, or they can just ignore it all together.  If the latter,
than my first 3 suggestions are worthless and pointless.
If the former, than there is at least a chance that serious
and expedient improvement or replacement can be
achieved...

  For the record, I will be trying to work in accordance
with my #1 suggestion even though I did not vote in favor
of Motion #2...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 01:20 PM 24/05/02 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>
> >...The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises
> >  the question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>
> Not so much as it raises the question of why adding
> Motion 2, or 3 or 4, was appropriate. -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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:44:37 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN  Reform, May 2002

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN
Reform, May 2002

> Thursday, May 23, 2002, 10:06:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:
>
> >>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
> >>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>
> > It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA
>
> "Mr Walsh" doesn't vote in inappropriate votes that violate the
> charter

Interesting ( to me, but probably not many other GA members)that you keep
using such words.
There is no part of the "charter" (- I think you mean the bylaws? ) that
limits the activity of the GA.  Can you point to that part of the charter
that is expressly "violated" ?

>and are outside the charter dictated role of the DNSO GA.

This is a slightly different point. You appear to believe that the charter
limits the activity of the GA in the same way that some company laws makes
"ultra vires" those activities of the company that are not expressly
authorised in its Articles of Association. My own jurisdiction, and many
others abandoned this concept in company law many years ago.

Do you believe that the "charter" of the GA should be amended, to expressly
include the limitation you assert?

regards

- --
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, 24 May 2002 03:20:19 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VRSN : Trust assured...

I am of the opinion that Verisign needs be divested of its Internet 
Registry function ASAP. [Anyone want to second such a move?]  WARNING: 
The following is a potentially destabilizing situation.  If at any time 
you feel as if you're going to be sick, please use an airbag.  Well, 
here's the latest on everyone's favourite company:
- -------------
from:
http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-9949161-0.html?tag=ltnc 
 [mind the wrap]

BALA CYNWYD, Pa., May 23 /PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit has been 
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of California on behalf of purchasers of VeriSign Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN) 
common stock during the period between Jan. 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002 
(the "Class Period"). Any member of the purported class may move the 
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may 
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges VeriSign and certain of its officers and directors 
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company 
provides digital trust services that enable Web site owners, 
enterprises, communications service providers, e-commerce service 
providers and individuals to engage in secure digital commerce and 
communications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants sought to 
artificially increase the Company's revenue and margins and to create 
the perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived organically. 
In fact, approximately 10% of the Company's revenue was derived from 
sales to small companies in which VeriSign had invested and from dubious 
"barter transactions."

VeriSign's revenues and earnings derived from related parties were 
dubious at best. Specifically, whenever a two-way set of transactions 
occurs in which a company acts as both the lender and service provider, 
an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would have 
made similar decisions regarding purchases in the absence of financing 
from that company. Accordingly, despite the Company's claims that such 
transactions were separately negotiated and recorded at terms the 
Company considered to be at arm's length and fair value, the revenue and 
earnings that VeriSign recognized from its relationship with these 
customers was not an accurate measure of the "real" demand for 
VeriSign's products. Equally dubious was the quality of the non-monetary 
portion of revenue recorded from reciprocal agreements.

As part of their effort to boost the price of VeriSign stock, defendants 
misrepresented VeriSign's true prospects in an effort to conceal 
VeriSign's improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 
million worth of their own VeriSign stock and use VeriSign's shares to 
acquire companies in stock- for-stock transactions. In order to 
overstate revenues and assets, VeriSign violated Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles and SEC rules by, among other things, engaging in 
improper barter transactions and affiliate sales. These transactions had 
the effect of dramatically overstating the Company's margins and 
financial statements. On the Company's partial disclosures on April 25, 
2002, the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50%.

Plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel. If you 
bought the securities during the class period, you may, no later than 
July 9, 2002, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A 
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other 
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead 
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is 
typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member 
will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or 
more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability 
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision 
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you have any questions concerning this case or your rights or 
interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Marc S. Henzel, 
Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by telephone at (888) 643-6735 or (610) 
660-8000, by facsimile at (610) 660-8080, by e-mail at 
[email-masked] or visit the firm's website at 
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
- -----------------

I am more than just a little uncomfortable with the thought that this 
same sleazeball company is responsible for the COM, NET & ORG Registry 
functions.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 May 2002 03:23:03 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May  2002

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 03:08 PM 23/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
>
>> And the GA Chair should have put a stop to it, and failed to do so.
>> He also completely refused to make a SINGLE public statement on the
>> procedural objection that was raised, despite a private statement that
>> was clear in showing that he concurred.
>
>
> So why don't you publish that private email? Better to see the
> actual words than to accept someone's interpretation of it, no?
> I think publishing private email is about the only Usenet troll
> technique you haven't used yet. Why so suddenly bashful? -g 

Gary,

Obviously you are unfamiliar with Mr. Walsh.  He has repeatedly posted 
private emails in the past so don't underestimate his rancour and ill will.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 May 2002 03:35:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN  Reform, May 2002

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN
>Reform, May 2002
>
>
>>Thursday, May 23, 2002, 10:06:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>
>>>On 01:20 p.m. 24/05/2002 +1000, Dassa said:
>>>
>>>>Totally false.  The higher level of support for Motion 2 raises the
>>>>question as to Motion 1 being appropriate.
>>>>
>>>It may still raise that question for you  and Mr Walsh, but *all* GA
>>>
>>"Mr Walsh" doesn't vote in inappropriate votes that violate the
>>charter
>>
>
>Interesting ( to me, but probably not many other GA members)that you keep
>using such words.
>There is no part of the "charter" (- I think you mean the bylaws? ) that
>limits the activity of the GA.  Can you point to that part of the charter
>that is expressly "violated" ?
>

I believe Mr. Walsh may be suffering from IDNO flashbacks brought on by 
his tour of duty there not long ago...  Kind of like John Rambo in the 
movie First Blood, Mr. Walsh is still fighting his "Charter" war.  Sad. 
 Truly sad, and kind of demented.  But, anyone who keeps an amateur 
investigative journal on Jeff Williams a.k.a Bob Davis etc., is IMHO 
actually a sadder wretch than the subject of his/her 'research'.

>>and are outside the charter dictated role of the DNSO GA.
>>
>
>This is a slightly different point. You appear to believe that the charter
>limits the activity of the GA in the same way that some company laws makes
>"ultra vires" those activities of the company that are not expressly
>authorised in its Articles of Association. My own jurisdiction, and many
>others abandoned this concept in company law many years ago.
>
>Do you believe that the "charter" of the GA should be amended, to expressly
>include the limitation you assert?
>

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 24 May 2002 01:04:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VRSN : Trust assured...

Old news, posted here two weeks ago.

Friday, May 24, 2002, 12:20:19 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I am of the opinion that Verisign needs be divested of its Internet 
> Registry function ASAP. [Anyone want to second such a move?]  WARNING: 
> The following is a potentially destabilizing situation.  If at any time 
> you feel as if you're going to be sick, please use an airbag.  Well, 
> here's the latest on everyone's favourite company:
> -------------
> from:
> http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-9949161-0.html?tag=ltnc 
>  [mind the wrap]

> BALA CYNWYD, Pa., May 23 /PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit has been 
> commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District 
> of California on behalf of purchasers of VeriSign Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN) 
> common stock during the period between Jan. 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002 
> (the "Class Period"). Any member of the purported class may move the 
> Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may 
> choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

> The complaint charges VeriSign and certain of its officers and directors 
> with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company 
> provides digital trust services that enable Web site owners, 
> enterprises, communications service providers, e-commerce service 
> providers and individuals to engage in secure digital commerce and 
> communications.

> The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants sought to 
> artificially increase the Company's revenue and margins and to create 
> the perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived organically. 
> In fact, approximately 10% of the Company's revenue was derived from 
> sales to small companies in which VeriSign had invested and from dubious 
> "barter transactions."

> VeriSign's revenues and earnings derived from related parties were 
> dubious at best. Specifically, whenever a two-way set of transactions 
> occurs in which a company acts as both the lender and service provider, 
> an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would have 
> made similar decisions regarding purchases in the absence of financing 
> from that company. Accordingly, despite the Company's claims that such 
> transactions were separately negotiated and recorded at terms the 
> Company considered to be at arm's length and fair value, the revenue and 
> earnings that VeriSign recognized from its relationship with these 
> customers was not an accurate measure of the "real" demand for 
> VeriSign's products. Equally dubious was the quality of the non-monetary 
> portion of revenue recorded from reciprocal agreements.

> As part of their effort to boost the price of VeriSign stock, defendants 
> misrepresented VeriSign's true prospects in an effort to conceal 
> VeriSign's improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 
> million worth of their own VeriSign stock and use VeriSign's shares to 
> acquire companies in stock- for-stock transactions. In order to 
> overstate revenues and assets, VeriSign violated Generally Accepted 
> Accounting Principles and SEC rules by, among other things, engaging in 
> improper barter transactions and affiliate sales. These transactions had 
> the effect of dramatically overstating the Company's margins and 
> financial statements. On the Company's partial disclosures on April 25, 
> 2002, the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50%.

> Plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel. If you 
> bought the securities during the class period, you may, no later than 
> July 9, 2002, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A 
> lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other 
> class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead 
> plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is 
> typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member 
> will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or 
> more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability 
> to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision 
> whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

> If you have any questions concerning this case or your rights or 
> interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Marc S. Henzel, 
> Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 
> Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by telephone at (888) 643-6735 or (610) 
> 660-8000, by facsimile at (610) 660-8080, by e-mail at 
> [email-masked] or visit the firm's website at 
> http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
> -----------------

> I am more than just a little uncomfortable with the thought that this 
> same sleazeball company is responsible for the COM, NET & ORG Registry 
> functions.

> Sincerely,

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos

> --
> 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

- -- 
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, 24 May 2002 04:12:48 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May  2002

Sotiris and all assembly members,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Gary Osbourne wrote:
>
> > At 03:08 PM 23/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> And the GA Chair should have put a stop to it, and failed to do so.
> >> He also completely refused to make a SINGLE public statement on the
> >> procedural objection that was raised, despite a private statement that
> >> was clear in showing that he concurred.
> >
> >
> > So why don't you publish that private email? Better to see the
> > actual words than to accept someone's interpretation of it, no?
> > I think publishing private email is about the only Usenet troll
> > technique you haven't used yet. Why so suddenly bashful? -g
>
> Gary,
>
> Obviously you are unfamiliar with Mr. Walsh.  He has repeatedly posted
> private emails in the past so don't underestimate his rancour and ill will.

  Not only that, which is all that bad IMHO, but the rancor from WXW
gets much worse in that he modifies those private E-Mails into something
totally different than their original state...  Now THAT is frankly
a form of rancor that is beyond reason....

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:59:31 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the  
"most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits. 
ICANNwatch editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his 
ICANNwatch piece at  
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even  
mention motion 2.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from James Love <[email-masked]> -----

From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 05:41:19 -0400
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote
List-Id: Discussion List of Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency  <discuss.icann-ncc.org>

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 AM
Subject: CPTech on vote to rebid ICANN contracts

   [Note: CPTech statement on vote follows
    summary of Motion 1]

It isn't that common for an organization to vote to give
others a chance to replace it, but that is what the ICANN
DNSO "General Assembly" did yesterday.  The vote was
controversial within ICANN, generating hundreds of missives
to the GA discussion list, and resulting in the highest GA
vote tally ever recorded (218 voters), and the highest rate
of online voter participation (37.2 percent of registered
voters) since the GA was created two years ago.
(http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html)

The most important vote was "Motion 1," the so-called
"nuclear option," which called upon the US Department of
Commerce to rebid its contracts with ICANN.  The vote on
this motion was:

               148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
                54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
                15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

A similar but somewhat more restrained motion 2 which
criticized the ICANN board and its reform process also
passed:

               164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
                33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
                19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2

Here is the guts of Motion 1:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
(ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of
reference for ICANN, and . . . these proposed changes have
met extensive opposition in the Internet community . . .
a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal
for restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for
managing key Internet resources. . . The General Assembly of
the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the
US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
the services now provided by ICANN, , provided that the new
competition would address the need to develop an
international framework for DNS management . . .
privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom."

CPTech statement of the GA vote,

"It is clear that the ICANN Board of Directors does not have
the support of the Internet community, and now it is
official that they do not have the support of their own
public forum, and the only consensus that exists is to
reject the ICANN board's proposed "reforms" for ICANN, and
start over.   The ICANN board is rapidly dismantling every
vehicle for democracy within ICANN, and this vote reminds
everyone why.  The ICANN board and staff is seeking to
impose an unpopular governance system on the Internet, and
the only way they can do that is to suppress avenues for
recording popular will.  The US Department of Commerce has
to confront a painful fact, ICANN is not working, not
listening, and not willing to heal itself.  There should be
consequences for failures, and even non-profit organizations
should face competition.  If ICANN can't tolerate elections
for its board members, and isn't willing to limit its own
powers in any meaningful way, it's time to think about
replacing ICANN with something else.  There can and should
be an open competition and a new debate about how the
Internet should be managed.  The GA asked for an
international privatized approach that addresses the need
for Internet stability, but they also insisted on a system
that protects innovation, competition and freedom.   These
last values are the ones that the current ICANN board has
ignored."    James Love, Dirctor, CPTech

Full Text of motion 1

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

WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and
Numbers (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms
of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further
changes.

WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition
in the Internet community and go even further from the
original terms of reference.

WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN
Board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
by others for managing key Internet resources, while
providing for a public record of the process for enhanced
visibility.

WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name
Supporting Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC,
that in the Green and the White Paper, the Government of the
United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw from
management of the Domain name System (the DNS).

It is hereby RESOLVED that:-

The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting
Organization of Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the
US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new
competition would address the need to develop an
international framework for DNS management. An open
competition should aim to achieve comprehensive
privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom.

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

Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored by an
entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to gain the trust of the
Internet community,

Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into
policy-making, which must include meaningful individual  and non-commercial
participation, and accountability (including  independent review of
decisions),

Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away from
these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning processes for the
implementation of an independent review system and for participation of the
Internet community at large in ICANN oversight,

the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must adhere
to these principles in any reform proposal and make
it sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
these principles.   Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide
significant improvements in these regards, it is the international Internet
community's and governments' task to consider how all of or parts of ICANN's
responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one or more new or
existing organizations which are accountable to the international Internet
community as a whole, have clearly defined missions and are not only under
the sole control of a national department of commerce, without endangering
the stability of the DNS or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all
groups of the Internet community are called to deliver their input on
reforms needed.
- ------------------------------------------------------------

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- ----- 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: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:01:52 +0900
From: Adam PEAKE <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

During the ALSC study we were told that: 

"VeriSign Registrar estimates that over 75% of its customers are
individuals or small or medium enterprises with less than ten employees.
[Verified in email from VeriSign, Inc. to the ALSC on September 26,
2001]" <http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml>

Information presented to show that taking domain name owners as the "At
Large" did not create an electorate of corporate reps.

Statistics, gotta love 'em,

Adam

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> THANKS.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with
> > > the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> >
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
> 
> Sorry, that is utter nonsense.
> 
> *Most* domain names are registered for business purposes.  (Old
> estimates from NSI were on the order of 70% of registrations in
> .com/net/org combined.  These estimates are necessarily rough, but even
> a casual examination supports it.) If you count domains registered by
> speculators as a business use, the proportion would be even higher.  If
> you throw in all other organizational use, the porportion gets even
> greater.  Domains registered by individuals for purposes other than
> business are a *very* tiny minority of the domains registered, and in
> this regard the GA is completely non-representative.
> 
> *Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
> of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
> overwhelming majority of the votes.
> 
> [...]
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
> [email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1224
*************************