Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1226
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1226

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:41:32 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 08:01:52PM +0900, Adam PEAKE wrote:
> 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>

That statistic does not contradict my point at all.  Indeed, it is
well-known that the very large majority of businesses have less than 10
employees (or are individuals), whether or not they have domain names. 
In fact, the statistic you quote could easily be be developed as
evidence to support my conclusion -- if the distribution of enterprise 
sizes associated with domain name registrants is similar to the the 
distribution of enterprises in general you are probably dealing with 
the same population: enterprises.

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

*That* argument was flawed in a number of ways....  but it at least, in
contrast to the NAIS recommendations, it made *some* concessions to
reality.  ;-)

> Statistics, gotta love 'em,

Recall that I was refuting the claim that business use of domain names
is a small portion of the total.  That claim is absurd on its face -- no
detailed stastics are needed, and I wasn't making a stastical argument,
I was making an appeal to common sense.

Kent

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:57:43 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Transfer Task Force MP3 recordings May 21 & 22 2002

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

Alexander Svensson kindly recorded the NC Transfer Task Force teleconference
on Tuesday May 21.  It is available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/transfer-tf1.mp3

This is the Wednesday May 22 recording, a resend, so both may be found in
the same place.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020522.TF-Transfer.mp3

Good listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 16:51:44 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Vote information forwarded

The results of the GA vote on the two motions has been
forwarded to the DNSO Names Council, the ICANN President,
the GAC Chairman and Secretariat and the US DoC (to the 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
Information).

I hope the discussion about the vote itself can come
to an end soon -- let's focus on the reform itself
and on the other issues like Whois, deletion policies,
WLS.

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 11:06:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

The Chair of the Transfers TF has posted this reminder:  "On 5/14, a draft 
related to Apparent Authority was posted to the TF list. Comments FROM the TF 
itself will close on June 1.   The constituencies and GA are encouraged to 
widely distribute this draft and to provide comment via email to the TF 
members."

The "Apparent Authority" Analysis provided by Ross Rader and his "small 
drafting team" may be found at:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00181.html

My comments:

Ross's admittedly incomplete analysis focuses on two terms:  apparent 
authority and express authorization, the former term having been given a 
great deal of thought, and the latter term awaiting further consideration.  
These terms rise to a level of significance owing to their use in Exhibit B 
of the Registry/Registrar agreements which specify that "...for each instance 
where an Registered Name holder wants to change its Registrar for an existing 
domain name, the gaining Registrar shall obtain express authorization from an 
individual who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name 
holder."    

Ross argues that "It would be unworkable for this level of authorization to 
have to be obtained from the Registrant directly in every instance."  This 
argument is readily refuted (as "workable" models already exist in 
Australia).  What seems to be of greater importance to Ross and his 
associates is the "convenience" of the Registrar which is enhanced by the 
unexplained need to abide by the text of Exhibit B rather than crafting more 
appropriate language...  

By way of example, consider the auDA Registrar-Registar Transfers document 
posted to the TF list by Rick Shera:   
http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-transfers-draft.pdf    Rick notes that they 
have avoided apparent authority arguments altogether by specifying the level 
of authority required from the registrant, and that express "written" 
authorization is clearly defined (and does not include email).   Written 
authorization is defined as:

a hard copy letter, facsimile or PDF document signed by the registrant, or in 
the case of a corporate registrant, signed by a senior manager, corporate 
director, company secretary (or the equivalent of these positions) of the 
registrant.

The auDa procedure calls for written authorization coupled with a valid 
domain name PIN from the registrant (note that automated transfers are 
explicitedly prohibited for the sake of registrant protection).  I would 
appreciate some discussion on why this Australian model cannot be used by the 
ICANN organization, and why the Transfers TF has so far failed to discuss 
this alternative.

- --
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 08:28:51 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS/delete/Usurpation/ voting

Life itself is a wonderful experiment.

Standing on and by our word is one of the tests within that experiment.  We do
not have any moral problems here we simply have a breach of protocol.  And the
results of the heretofore ICANN tests must be thrown out and we must start
again.

When my scientist type father was working on a public health problem I
remember him telling me "schiestcoff I have to start all over" (of course I do
not know how to spell such a scientific term) The point is that we must toss
the petre dishes of a bad test program and start again. It is a requirement of
integrity.

OTOH we are doing better than ever before.  Now let us tackle the
WLS/delete/Usurpation/ problems.

It is always good to hear from Adam,

Sincerely,
Eric

Adam PEAKE wrote:

> 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

- --
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 15:29:50 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

Marc Schneiders wrote:

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

There are some facts (whether they are matematical or not, I don't know, but 
AFAIK they are truths):

a. both motions passed

b. motion #2 gathered wider consensus than motion #1.

Political interpretation of the value of these facts varies with the opinion 
of the beholder, but whatever attempt to deny (or hide) the facts is insult 
to the GA.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

- --
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 11:39:07 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

As with the last document that I worked on, you again mischaracterize it as
being "my draft"...there were two or three calls and a bunch of emails that
went into this proposal to the TF.

Regardless, you do raise touch on a key issue as it relates to the issue of
apparent authority in your analysis of the document - ""It would be
unworkable for this level of authorization to have to be obtained from the
Registrant directly in every instance."

It is important to remember the context of this statement...the rest of the
para reads...

"Many
Registrants do not wish to concern themselves with the day-to-day
maintenance of their domain registrations.  The concept of apparent
authority therefore allows a person authorized by the registrant to
legitimately interpose themselves between the registrant and the other
participants in the transfer process and in doing so, enter into binding
contracts on the registrant's behalf.  Apparent authority is also obviously
necessary where the registrant is a corporate body since it must act through
natural persons who must have authority to bind the corporation.  In order
to request a transfer, the Gaining Registrar must obtain Express
Authorization from an individual with the apparent authority to bind the
Registered Name Holder to the terms of transfer. Further, the form of the
express authorization is at the discretion of the gaining registrar."

This paragraph is not a discussion of how apparent authority is conveyed to
a registrar as you intimate below, but rather a factual statement
illustrating why the concept of apparent authority is an integral part of
the domain transfer policy and process in the first place. Try and get a
corporation to enter into a contract without bringing apparent authority
into the picture for instance.

Hope this clarifies.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:06 AM
Subject: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

> The Chair of the Transfers TF has posted this reminder:  "On 5/14, a draft
> related to Apparent Authority was posted to the TF list. Comments FROM the
TF
> itself will close on June 1.   The constituencies and GA are encouraged to
> widely distribute this draft and to provide comment via email to the TF
> members."
>
> The "Apparent Authority" Analysis provided by Ross Rader and his "small
> drafting team" may be found at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00181.html
>
> My comments:
>
> Ross's admittedly incomplete analysis focuses on two terms:  apparent
> authority and express authorization, the former term having been given a
> great deal of thought, and the latter term awaiting further consideration.
> These terms rise to a level of significance owing to their use in Exhibit
B
> of the Registry/Registrar agreements which specify that "...for each
instance
> where an Registered Name holder wants to change its Registrar for an
existing
> domain name, the gaining Registrar shall obtain express authorization from
an
> individual who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered
Name
> holder."
>
> Ross argues that "It would be unworkable for this level of authorization
to
> have to be obtained from the Registrant directly in every instance."  This
> argument is readily refuted (as "workable" models already exist in
> Australia).  What seems to be of greater importance to Ross and his
> associates is the "convenience" of the Registrar which is enhanced by the
> unexplained need to abide by the text of Exhibit B rather than crafting
more
> appropriate language...
>
> By way of example, consider the auDA Registrar-Registar Transfers document
> posted to the TF list by Rick Shera:
> http://www.auda.org.au/docs/auda-transfers-draft.pdf    Rick notes that
they
> have avoided apparent authority arguments altogether by specifying the
level
> of authority required from the registrant, and that express "written"
> authorization is clearly defined (and does not include email).   Written
> authorization is defined as:
>
> a hard copy letter, facsimile or PDF document signed by the registrant, or
in
> the case of a corporate registrant, signed by a senior manager, corporate
> director, company secretary (or the equivalent of these positions) of the
> registrant.
>
> The auDa procedure calls for written authorization coupled with a valid
> domain name PIN from the registrant (note that automated transfers are
> explicitedly prohibited for the sake of registrant protection).  I would
> appreciate some discussion on why this Australian model cannot be used by
the
> ICANN organization, and why the Transfers TF has so far failed to discuss
> this alternative.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

- --
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 15:48:44 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [voters] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

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
>

Insofar Motion 2 better represents the consensus of the GA, because it 
gathered higher percentages of support, it was highly appropriate to present 
it.

Again, if the purpose of the GA is to discuss and to achieve community 
consensus, which is what I do believe, motions that show larger consensus 
are always welcome.
If, OTOH, the GA is seen like a body that has to express majority votes on 
controversial issues, the approach would be different. But then we have to 
be aware that we get onto the slippery slope of "bring in your pals to 
influence the vote", and who knows what this will imply when we will have 
the next vote on whatever subject (WLS?).

This is, in fact, the simple "philosophical" question that the GA has to 
answer: should it be the body that strives to achieve the largest consensus, 
even if this will have the risk of diluting the contents to compromise among 
different interests, or should it be the body who strives to achieve the 
most mediatic result, at the risk of losing share of consensus?

If we have a vote on this ;>) I will go for the former.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

- --
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 17:50:17 +0200
From: "Hill, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World

Marilyn Cade has stated the following, excerpted from:

  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg02245.html

"Recently, a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said
something like: what about me? I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like
governments like it... I have seen many postings from industry sectors who
object to any efforts by governments or multi lateral organizations to
encroach into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's
functions. 
"Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty
organizations] to private sector leadership. We urge governments to work to
support ICANN; to participate in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities.
NOT to compete, and not to seek to take on functions which belong to ICANN.
"
I'm not sure which "multi lateral organization" Marilyn is referring to.
However, if she is referring to ITU, then I wish to state, once again, that
the ITU (an international treaty organization comprising 189 governments and
some 650 private-sector members) has not proposed to take over any of
ICANN's functions.  This is made very clear in the paper sent to the ICANN
Reform committe.  The same paper (now available in several languages) as
well as a 4-page summary is available at:
  http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-icann/index.html
ITU-T's intent is to support ICANN and to participate in GAC.  The ITU-T
paper was written in response to Stuart Lynn's call for comments, and to
suggest that discussions with ITU-T could lead to suggestions - that would
be agreed by all parties using open, bottoms-up consensus processes - that
might help ICANN to address some of the issues outlined by Stuart in his
paper on ICANN Reform.
Speaking personally, I've spent practically all of my career in business,
with a couple of stints in Universities, mostly as an IT manager, mostly
with computer companies.
In my experience, if somebody offers to engage in discussions to explore
mutually agreeable ways to help solve some problems, there isn't much harm
in talking.
Best,
Richard Hill
- -----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: [email-masked]
Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]

- --
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 11:58:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Ross,

In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:

"The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent 
authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific definition 
within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the work 
of this task force to make policy recommendations."

Why continue to be obtuse?  Is there a particular reason why you will not 
provide a specific definition?  Further, what problems do you have with the 
Australian model as cited?
- --
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 09:04:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Vote information forwarded

Thank you for the responsibility taken to forward said results.

I do not know if it is mass of will, or will of mass but our fine GA is
growing in an evolutionary sense.

Now we need a new vote.  One on the issues of the WLS/delete/Usurpation
concepts.

A GA is nothing without constant argument and voting.  It is our
obligation to the world to keep it rolling.

I am really pissed about the WLS issues and I really want them to come
to the GA floor and be voted upon.

Sincerely,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> The results of the GA vote on the two motions has been
> forwarded to the DNSO Names Council, the ICANN President,
> the GAC Chairman and Secretariat and the US DoC (to the
> Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
> Information).
>
> I hope the discussion about the vote itself can come
> to an end soon -- let's focus on the reform itself
> and on the other issues like Whois, deletion policies,
> WLS.
>
> 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

- --
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 16:05:14 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>*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.
>

I am not so sure, because I confess that I don't have hard facts in 
support/denial of either position, but may I note few simple things.

a. Having the majority of the votes is one thing, not allowing an important 
stateholder to have any vote is a different one. The fact is that the 
non-commercial individual users not only do not threat the consistent 
majority of the business, but are even precluded from having a constituency 
and a vote.

b. The same logic should be applied for large vs. small business. If the 
vast majority of the (business) users of the DNS are small businesses, 
family businesses, or even individuals that Kent claims (probably rightfully 
so) are using the DNS for business, is the current BC really representative 
of the business interests? To be clear, I don't have any complaint to the 
current BC, I am strictly an individual, non-commercial user (the kind of 
people that are not supposed to talk to the driver), and for me BC can do 
what it wants, but I don't understand why the reasonment is applied in two 
different ways when the ratio analysed is business vs. non-business, and 
when the ratio is large vs. small/family/individual.

Best regards, and I apologise to the drivers for the interruption.
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

- --
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 16:14:19 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...

My two cents.
While the process can always be improved, and the clarity of the message 
(email or website) can always be enhanced, I would like to point out that 
the rules might have not been so obscure (and therefore the work of the 
Secretariat might not have been so garbageous) if only one person, AFAIK, 
has contributed to the GA list but at the moment of the vote was unable to 
figure out that registration was needed prior to the vote.
The reverse is true, instead: this one single case is largely offset by the 
far more who found the way to register and vote even if they might not have 
read one single message from the GA list.
Regards
Roberto
(last post of the day)

>From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>,        "[email-masked]" 
><[email-masked]>
>CC: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...
>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 07:44:35 -0700
>
>DNSO Secretariat
>
>Your response is garbage. Voting is a specific privilege that is granted to
>the open GA membership, if they register because if you were not a GA 
>member
>then how would you know what to vote on and what the issues are???
>
>Your problem is that because you do not tell people that they cannot vote
>"until they register separately from their GA mailing-list registration",
>and there is an issue here because of this since it prohibits active
>participation in the management process of DNSO. Further because there is 
>no
>set of terms and conditions for how voting is carried out on any page that 
>I
>saw, there is a further problem with the voting process.
>
>As to what and how to vote the vote will be carried out,  the website is
>clear on that ***IF*** you can find the link, but it is not clear from the
>Mailing List Page that being able to vote is a separate qualification, nor
>is there any link from the Mailing List Page to the Voting Registration
>Page... which  would seem on the surface  to be an effort to increase the
>mailing list population without allowing them into the voting fold...
>
>either way its messy.
>
>Todd Glassey
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
>To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:44 AM
>Subject: Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...
>
>
>'Mailing list' and 'vote' are two different concepts. We don't see the use
>in insisting on the GA voting process in a rubric which is dedicated to
>global mailing list use (remember other people than ga ones are using this
>pages daily.)
>Vote is a volunteer act, and in every country when you wanna vote you go to
>the dedicated office and register yourself in the voting registry. This is
>exactly the same here. When you want to be a ga voter you go in the rubric
>of the GA called GA voting registry. As soon as you have clicked there you
>have a description of what to do to become a registrant. This seems pretty
>clear like that. We will anyway try to make it clearer in the near future.
>Regards,
>
>DNSO sec.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 22 May, todd glassey wrote :
> > Proposed MAIL LIST webpage content... Note the highlighted second bullet
>under the GA List block in the lower window.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > ICANN/DNSO
> > 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
> >
> >
> >       Mailing lists
> >       All about mailing list subscription and archives
> >
> >       All DNSO mailing lists archives
> >         a.. General Assembly archives.
> >         b.. Names Council archives
> >
> >
> > 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
> >       General procedure
> >         a.. April 2001: No Cross Posting rules implementation on the 
>DNSO
>http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.html
> >         b.. May 2001: Procedures for handling bounced e-mail messages
>http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECbounces-handling.html
> >
> >       How to subscribe to mailing lists
> >
> >       Announcement list
> >         a.. Official announcements, only DNSO Secretariat may write to
>this list.
> >         b.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, 
>please
>send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe announce (or
>unsubscribe announce) in the body of the message.
> >       General Assembly list
> >         a.. Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this
>list, only subscribers may write to this list.
> >         b.. Anyone wishing to also vote as a member of the GA must
>register for that separately in addition to subscribing to the mailing 
>list.
>See the Voter Registration URL at
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html for more
>information.
> >         c.. Two main principles since the origin of this server in June
>1999, explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new
>subscriber:
> >           1.. the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
> >           2.. the respect of participants is mandatory
> >         d.. More explicit rules of order defined in
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >         e.. More about GA list monitoring in
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
> >         f.. Currently, there is a self-imposed limit of FIVE postings 
>per
>day on the GA mailing list, violating this limit may result in additional
>filing penalties or ultimately in removal from the list as needed to
>maintain order.
> >         g.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list,
>please send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe ga (or
>unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
> >
> >       Information from:
> >      © DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

- --
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 12:39:27 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

welllllll facts are facts...but given the numbers...I would not hold my
breath and jump up and down claiming any difference there is
statistically significant.

Please folks. We debated the existence of the right of the GA to make
motions, we debated the motions, we barely (procedurally) debated
content and implications. We voted. Both motions passed with clearly
more than a majority.  Do we have to argue about this too?  Do we have
to discuss the fact that some people voted and others didnt? Do we have
to interpret the fact that some voted immediately....and Dan steinberg
inextricably....waited a few days???

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> >
> >There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies that
> >are.
> >
> 
> There are some facts (whether they are matematical or not, I don't know, but
> AFAIK they are truths):
> 
> a. both motions passed
> 
> b. motion #2 gathered wider consensus than motion #1.
> 
> Political interpretation of the value of these facts varies with the opinion
> of the beholder, but whatever attempt to deny (or hide) the facts is insult
> to the GA.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
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 12:53:54 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

>
> In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:
>
> "The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent
> authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific
definition
> within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the
work
> of this task force to make policy recommendations."
>
> Why continue to be obtuse?  Is there a particular reason why you will not
> provide a specific definition?

Speaking from a drafting team perspective, what is obtuse about the present
legal definition of AA? IANAL, but in agency law, the specific definition is
pretty clear.

> Further, what problems do you have with the
> Australian model as cited?

Speaking from a personal/Tucows/Constituency member perspective the
Australian model is one of the finest examples of avoiding the tough
problems that I have seen in a long time. I am sure that it works within the
confines of their limited scope, but until CP/IP gains wider support, using
tree-bark to conduct business in a global market over the Internet remains
silly.

With that being said, I am sure that if there is any interest within the TF
in exploring the .au model then I am sure that it will be discussed. My
initial reaction is that it won't be a very productive discussion in that it
solves the wrong problems.

- -rwr

- --
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 #1226
*************************