Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1225
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1225

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:22:27 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Bret's Bylaws and Bret's Mission

Highly recommended reading:
http://icann.blog.us/2002/05/23.html#a364
http://www.lextext.com/bretsbylaws.html
http://www.lextext.com/bretsmission.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 07:28:30 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

Thomas, how gracious of you too.   I also look forward to your summary of GA
activities.     Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:59 AM
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
:
:
:

- --
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 13:51:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies that
are.

- -- 
[email-masked]

http://www.bijt.net/

On Fri, 24 May 2002, at 11:59 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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
>

- -- 
[email-masked]

http://www.bijt.net/

- --
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 11:52:39 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] voters

- --=======4EB74A17=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The list of the voters for/against the motions is negatively important. I 
mean those who did not vote to protect the ICANN, either in voting against 
the motions or in unballancing the rebid vs the move yourself  option. 
Also, at a time of Joe Sims and mst of the BoD's is that the ICANN is 
mainly concerned about names, it is of real interest to see who is 
registered as a voter.

1. at the BoD
2. among DNSO elected Directors
3. at the NC
4. in the list of the vocal people on the GA.
5. among the employees (permanent orpart time) of the ICANN

Only this analysis will show who feels really concerned.
jfc

- --=======4EB74A17=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======4EB74A17=======--

- --
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 11:59:16 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

- --=======10EE4D49=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 02:46 24/05/02, William X Walsh said:
>Only someone who can't read the charter, and who is already
>predisposed to think that anything that embarrasses ICANN is
>appropriate, regardless of the other consequences, would possibly say
>that.

Joe Sims?

- --=======10EE4D49=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======10EE4D49=======--

- --
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 12:15:11 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] October 1st, 2002

- --=======DAB19DD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 08:12 24/05/02, Gary Osbourne said:
>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

Understood. How crazy you are in the US as far as non-profit are concerned 
... so let pick a more civilized country were that kind of carry over is 
considered as sound management of a non-profit, or make it a ... Verisign 
foundation. They get the $M 12 with VRSN as a trustee so the money does not 
move, they sub-contract to VRSN at $4 the DN, vote Louis Touton as a Chair, 
takes over responsiblity in the root and sponsor the NCDNHC, to stop 
Milton's concerns and to look the good guy.

- - VRSN has not to pay the money
- - Louis' job is secured and he is now also a Member of the gTLD constituency
- - as you say JDRP is their lawyer and can receive 1/4 of their yearly $M 
2.4 revenue even if the ICANN is closed.
- - VRSN gets M$ 11 a year where they got nothing. (they probably pay a 10% 
rent on the Trust).
- - the BoD squatters could be offered permanent advisory seat on the ".org 
foundation" and tour the red-cross places round the world on a discounted 
rate for NGOs (I suppose the .org foundation could ask for an NGO status).

Were is the flaw? Including for the registrants? Including for the 
employees? Including for the BoD?
jfc

- --=======DAB19DD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-400ACB3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======DAB19DD=======--

- --
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 15:34:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO

         Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO

24 May 2002

The DNSO GA is going to celebrate its 3rd Birthday on 25 May 2002.

Over three years the DNSO has been working in open and transparent way,
providing the place for essential public representation in debates on ICANN
policies, thanks to endless efforts of many individuals.

DNSO Background

  1. The DNSO has been formed as the result of long consultation process in
     1998 and 1999, cf. http://www.dnso.org/history/www.dnso.org/

          "There is no single organization that meets the exact
          requirements for the Domain Name Support Organization
          ("DNSO") specified in the Bylaws of the reconstituted
          Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), also known as the
          Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
          Therefore, such an organization must be formed."

  2. The structure of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN was
     determined in Singapore, on 4 March 1999, see "Domain Name Supporting
     Organization Formation Concepts at
     http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html

  3. The first General Assembly of the DNSO has been held on 25 May 1999, in
     Berlin, cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990527.GAberlin.html

          The first www.dnso.org server was created on 23 September
          1998 on the initiative of Amadeu Abril i Abril. Until 8 June
          1999 the old www.dnso.org server was kindly hosted by the
          International Telecommunication Union at Geneva. Subsequent
          to the DNSO GA in Berlin, the new www.dnso.org server was set
          up on 1st June 1999 at AFNIC offices in Paris, and started
          operations immediately. More at
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990606.GAberlin-dnsoreport.html

DNSO Facts

  1. In August 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been providing on time the WG-A
     report on UDRP policies for the gTLD space
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990804.NCwga-to-ICANN.html

  2. In September-October 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been electing on
     time 3 ICANN Board Directors
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/1999.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.

     Since then every year the DNSO (NC and GA) elects 1 ICANN Board
     Director.
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html.

  3. In November-December 1999 the DNSO (NC and GA) has been developing the
     procedures for election of the GA Chair and hold the first election
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html

  4. In 2000 the DNSO GA has been developing its working rules and
     procedures, and come up with Fundamentals - Membership definition,
     Voting Registry and two Rules for votes by the GA:

       A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000:
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

       B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March
          2001:
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

  5. Between June 2000 and May 2002, 2 years time, the DNSO GA voted 12
     times.

     The summary of those votes (date, electorate, participation to vote,
     subject, URL to the full records of vote) are provided in:
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html

  6. The current status of the DNSO GA Voting Registry shows 583 persons,
     from 54 different countries.

          The GA Voting Registry includes members from various sectors
          of activity (gTLD Registries, Registrars, ccTLD Managers,
          Business, Universities, Telecommunication Industry,
          Law firms, Consumers organizations) as well as individuals.

          Some ICANN Board Directors, current or former, are on the
          Voting Registry records.

          The IETF Chair is on the Voting Registry records.

          One may note on the Voting Registry the participation of Ms
          Becky Burr, who was representing the US Government and
          signing the first MoU with ICANN on 25 November 1998, cf.
          http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm,
          and in the GA archives the participation of Joe Sims, who
          was signatory to the same MoU on behalf of ICANN newly
          created.

  7. The DNSO archives shows a 29 months record of participation to various
     DNSO GA mailing lists, week by week, at
     http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html 
     It starts with 526 different persons in January 2000. Currently 
     990 persons are subscribers, following debates on Domain Names 
     related issues in ICANN process.

  8. The DNSO publishes monthly statistics of www.dnso.org usage at
     http://www.dnso.org/webstats/

  9. The current DNSO Secretariat has been chosen by the Names Council in
     August 2001, subsequent to the determination by the NC of its needs,
     the selection process and the selection criterias. The RFP of this
     international bid is available at
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.RFP-DNSO.html.

     The new DNSO Secretariat started to operate in October 2001, and is
     still awaiting the signature of contract for services with ICANN,
     acting as legal entity for the DNSO.

     The DNSO Secretariat operates with a budget of $60,000 per year, which
     is approximately 2 orders of magnitude smaller than ICANN budget. 
     All documents, agendas, minutes and Mpeg3 recordings of the NC
     meetings are available in archives. The comprehensive summary 
     of the NC meetings in 2002 is provided at 
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

Elisabeth Porteneuve, the first DNSO Secretary
- --
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 09:38:32 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

[email-masked] (Fri 05/24/02 at 11:59 AM +0200):

> 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.

the response i just published on ICANN watch is below.

since you're striking the heroic posture of a paragon of honesty,
thomas, let me ask you this: did you conspire -- by which i mean
engage in private, coordinated actions whose basic nature was not
disclosed to all affected -- with alexander to develop the second 
motion and/or put it on the same ballot in order to defeat jamie's 
motion? if so, that's fine with me: politics, after all, is made 
of human lives. but so is journalism. 

cheers,
t
- -

   thomas-- 
   
   please re-read my second paragraph, and please notice as well
   that i provided a link to the vote results announcement. that's a
   subtle way of saying: *check the facts yourself.*
   
   i wrote about the **one** motion because that's the one i think is
   most significant. the second motion was, in my view, not only
   much less significant but also deeply intertwingled with the
   slapstick style with which you, as GA chair, oversaw the whole
   affair.
   
   as you may remember, you denounced the first motion and
   obstructed in numerous ways. but then -- after the GA alternate
   chair introduced the second motion -- you suddenly became much
   more amenable to a vote. at the time, the GA alt chair wrote[1]: "My
   personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting motions."
   and you yourself wrote[2]:
   
             [1] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01115.html
             [2] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01087.html
   
        Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in
        the end, I have added the rule that the resolution which receives
        most "yes" votes is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of
        the vote. 
   
        If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would
        have to be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three
        mutually exclusive answers would be: James' resolution,
        Alexander's resolution, no resolution at all.
   
   but rather than get into all this byzantiniana, i thought i'd
   merely doff my hat at it by citing the charges and countercharges
   hurled back and forth.
   
   but since you've called me a 'liar' for omitting explicit mention
   your effort to torpedo jamie's motion, i guess i'll explicitly
   mention it.
   
   it would be churlish of me to downgrade my assessment of your
   work because you called me a name, but there's one remark i'll
   modify. in my article, i cited the fact that jamie's motion
   passed as redounding to your credit. perhaps it would have been
   more to the point to say that it redounds to the credit of the GA
   members who pursued a course they believe in despite your
   vigorous efforts.

- --
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 06:50:49 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

I personally am well pleased with the turn out and implications of a fairly well run global internet vote
on an important subject. There was no capture. The split vote actually turned out ok.

The really cool thing is that we put it on the table and I believe that over twenty nations voted.
Gentlewoman that is not perfection but it is huge progress.

Our goals have been reasonably met.  There is a resemblance of Netizen public opinion, and that is very
good.

You participants are the finest of the finest that set policy on the Net.  I believe you have done well.

Thank you all who voted.

Sincerely,
Eric

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies that
> are.
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> http://www.bijt.net/
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, at 11:59 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> http://www.bijt.net/
>
> --
> 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 #1225
*************************