Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1231
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, May 26 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1231

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:19:37 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

On Sat, 25 May 2002 12:04:49 -0700, Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> 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.
>
>You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
>individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
>construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
>the constituencies. 

First of all I think the issues are the representation of individual
internet users as a whole and separate to that the existence of an
individual registrants constituency.

I also am sceptical about there being wide support in ICANN for
representation of individuals when the ICANN Board has just voted to
ignore its own ALSC and abolish meaningful individual representation.

>However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
>-- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
>and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
>pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
>zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
>democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal special
>interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
>individual users of the Interenet/DNS.

Just as the Orgs in the NCC are a small proportion of all orgs and the
businesses in the Bus Const is a minuscule fraction of all businesses.

As for the rather insulting characterisation of individuals pushing
for an individual registrants constituency as zealots, demagogues,
speculators, alt-rooters and kooks I would assert that even if this
was close to true what do you expect when every roadblock possible has
been placed in the road of getting a registrants constituency.  No
wonder a lot of people have fallen away.  I assert that if there was
agreement in principle to a registrants constituency you would get
participation that is at least as representative of the business
constituency.

>That is, those who oppose such a constituency oppose it because all
>*practical* experience indicates that not only would such a constituency
>fail to represent the interests it proports to represent, but it
>would be essentially be an insane playground for kooks.  

As I said this is a chicken and egg situation.  The stonewalling has
driven away almost all but the most extreme people.  However
icannatlarge.com has shown there is still a large number of people who
do wish to participate.  

>This is in
>almost all cases a good-faith concern about a very real problem.  It is 
>one thing to have kooks yelling at you; it is a totally different thing 
>to put them in the cockpit and let them fly the plane.

Being 1/8th of the DNSO is hardly in the cockpit (and especially as
the DNSO gets ignored by the Board on almost every major issue).

>But, indeed there are hundreds of thousands of individual domain name
>registrants, and millions of individual users of the DNS.  To date there
>has not been a creditable effort to form a constituency that really
>supports these interests, 

The new barriers that arrive at every opportunity do not help this.
Pretty hard to convince people that it is worthwhile to spend hundreds
of volunteer hours creating something which has a 90% chance of being
turned down regardless of the merits.

>and there are fundamental economic/social
>forces that work very strongly against the formation of such a
>constituency.  These same forces work against the formation of a small
>business constituency, or indeed any constituency intended to represent
>a large number of entities each with a very small interest --
>fundamentally, it simply isn't cost effective for a rational potential
>member of such a constituency to participate.  

This is only if you believe that for some never explained reason all
constituencies should pay the same amount to the DNSO.  In local Govt
for example business and individuals pay different rates for their
rates.

>For example, many restaraunts in my area have web sites; they spend far
>more on their water and phone bills than they do on their
>domain name, and as a general rule they simply don't concern themselves 
>with the governance of the water or phone systems, much less their 
>domain name.

However they as individuals (and in some areas as businesses) have the
opportunity to vote for the local authority which sets the charges.
No many do not want to be on the local authority but they sure as hell
want to be able to vote for the candidates whose views they most
support.  

Where is the opportunity for registrants to have any impact on whether
ICANN Board is composed of those who want a $3 mil/year ICANN or a $10
mil/year ICANN? 

>> 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?
>
>Yes.  Organizations like the International Chamber of Commerce do
>represent the interests of small businesses -- local chambers of
>commerce typically have lots and lots of small businesses.  

The level of representation is so indirect that it is almost absent.
A local small business in Lower Hutt would be a member of the Lower
Hutt CoC which is a member of Wellington Regional CoC which is member
of NZ Chamber of Commerce which is a member of Int CoC.  Now the
leadership of the Int CoC decide their policies on things such as
ICANN and in reality near impossible for individual small businesses
to have any impact on those policies.  

>The
>registrar and registry constituencies have singnificant portions of the
>total class as members; the ISPC has members that are associations of
>ISPs; the IPC has members that are associations of intellectual property
>professionals.  By far the least representative of its class as a
>constituency is the NCC -- it has a very small number of specific
>non-profit organizations, and a large portion of them are concerned with
>a restricted set of "civil society" issues.  And the non-constituency 
>members of the GA are even less representative of any particular class. 

I do not accept that extremely indirect representation is equal to
allowing direct representation.

>I'm sorry, I can't figure out your point here.  The BC is open to small
>businesses; if they joined in any number they would be the majority of
>the members (and maybe big business would be complaining that they don't
>have sufficient representation).  But, for the reasons I outlined above,
>they don't bother to join.  If we had a separate small business
>constituency they still wouldn't join.  

The BC has shown outright hostility to certain small businesses which
do not toe the party line so this could well be a reason not many
small businesses join.  

>If we had an individuals
>constituency I predict that it would have mainly familiar faces
>as members.

Do you really think your untested predictions are sound grounds to not
even try?  With this approach science would still be in the dark ages
and feudal lords would still rule their lands.  If there had been a
*genuine* effort to have meaningful individual participation and then
it had failed that would be another thing.  But it is obvious that the
founder(s) of ICANN have never wanted such participation, that they
only made temporary concessions to please the US Government and since
signing the MOU have done everything possible to make such
representation and participation impossible.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:12:00 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Kent Crispin wrote:
 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > 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.

Correct, if by "users of the domain name system" you mean domain
holders and administrators.

However, ICANN is not an association for DNS users. It is incorporated
as a "public benefit" corporation. I think that implies that whatever
mechanism is adopted should ensure that the public interest comes first.

Open elections for half the board is one mechanism that might ensure
that. No other mechanism I've heard proposed does.

The ALSC suggested six elected directors. This strikes me as the
worst of both worlds. It reduces the number of At Large directors
enough to destroy the original 9/9 balance, but it does not seem
to solve any of the quite real difficulties with running such an
election. That's just as hard whether you're electing a single
director or the whole board, or anything between.

Lynn suggests involving governments more. This flies in the face 
of many things said, and widely agreed to, in the original process
of creatinbg ICANN. There are also a whole range of issues around
non-representative and/or corrupt gov'ts, undue influence of
various lobbies there, ...

I've been suggesting giving net-based public interest groups like
EFF and CPSR board seats. That might be preferable to some of the
other proposals, but even I don't think it's a really good answer.

What would it take to turn NAIS into a recognised constituency? 

Anyone got other suggestions that might meet the basic criterion
of ensuring adequate public representation?

> > 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.
> 
> You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
> individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
> construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
> the constituencies.

There's a third thing to consider, and I think it is the basic issue.
It's not just that the public interest must be represented. We need
mechanisms that ensure that when it conflicts with narrower interests,
there's at least a good chance the pubic interest wins.

> However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
> -- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
> and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
> pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
> zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
> democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal special
> interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
> individual users of the Interenet/DNS.

Yes, there's a real problem there.
 
> That is, those who oppose such a constituency oppose it because all
> *practical* experience indicates that not only would such a constituency
> fail to represent the interests it proports to represent, but it
> would be essentially be an insane playground for kooks.  This is in
> almost all cases a good-faith concern about a very real problem.  It is
> one thing to have kooks yelling at you; it is a totally different thing
> to put them in the cockpit and let them fly the plane.

Granted, net.loons exist and some of them are here. Usenet, Slashdot
and quite a few other net institutions survive despite a substantial
kook presence. Why shouldn't a constituency structure?

Granted also that various groups have axes to grind and might consider
a constituency structure a handy grindstone. How is that worse than
having a registrars constituency, let alone the IP bunch?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 23:44:59 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Expiration and Re-Distribution of Domain Names

At 2:48 AM +0100 5/26/02, Richard Henderson wrote:
>This Landrush will be administered along the lines of the .info and .biz
>landrushes, through competing registrars (thereby providing some
>much-needed revenue to the failing domain name industry).
>

Ah yes. That's the answer alright! NOT!

If registrars can't stay afloat now that the gold rush is over, the _last_
thing we should be doing is pumping more money their way. That won't help
them become more efficient, just supply more coke for the noses at the top
level.

They're not British Leyland, and we're not the British Government.

Try coming up with something more financially viable.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 26 May 2002 17:36:19 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

At 02:41 p.m. 25/05/2002 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

>It's called kingship, by divine right. I believe it also has 
>primogeniture, by way of which
>dozens of years from now, the oldest male child of any current board 
>director, or
>descendent thereof, would be a director, running the Internet lives of the 
>descendents
>of all us current serfs.

Basshar Cerf and Uday Kraayenbrink? :-)

- --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: Sat, 25 May 2002 22:46:50 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 04:45:51PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Kent, what is the basis for having the ICANN board of directors elect the
> ICANN board of directors?

It is, in fact, quite common for boards of non-profits to select their
own successors.  Let me illustrate why this is so by asking you a few
questions:

According to the website of the Consumer Project on Technology, it is an
organization dedicated to representing the interests of consumers in a
number of areas (ie, it is concerned with regulatory issues), and you
are its director.  Were you elected to that position? If not, why not?
To use your question, what was the basis for your not being elected?

A more interesting question, of course, is how could you (or CPTech)
claim to fairly and transparently represent the interests of consumers
if you weren't elected to that position? Do you believe that the mere
association with Ralph Nader's name is sufficient to remove all
necessity for accountability? If you believe that CPTech can fairly
represent the interests of consumers without holding public elections,
why doesn't that apply to ICANN?  To be concrete, CPTech is doing 
things that may directly impact me, but I had absolutely no say in the 
positions that CPTech is adopting.  Why is that OK in the CPTech case?

Another question I would like to know the answer to is whether there is
a board of directors for CPTech (or it's apparent parent organization),
and if so, are they elected through elections open to the general
public? If not, what is the basis for that.  Note that this basic
information is not available from the CPTech website -- could you
explain why that is? Also, you reference grants, and how people can
donate money to CPTech, but there is no public accounting of how you
spend their money.  How can you justify this?

I note on the web site that three staff members are mentioned; but in a
recent message to the GA list you said "In our office of 25 people..."
Who are these other people and what do they do?

In sum it appears that CPTech, a non-profit organization that is deeply
involved in governance issues, is not at all motivated to inform the
public about its structure, how it is run, its finances, or its
staffing.  I realize that ICANN and CPTech are very different in many
ways, but there are also enough similarities that CPTech's profound lack
of transparency and accountability is rather noteworthy.  Perhaps it
doesn't matter to you, the director of CPTech, that the public doesn't
have access to this elementary information about your organization.  Or
perhaps you would really like to put up that information, but you just
can't find the time (I can certainly sympathize with that). 

Incidentally, did you realize that CPTech apparently has about 50% more
staff than ICANN? (ICANN has 17 people working for it, some of them part
time). 

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- 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: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:45:29 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Conversations back and forth are helpful to build understanding, and can be part of the "record".

As chair, I note:  

We are trying to take input and concrete suggestions as well as comments on our document.  

The Task Force's work will be enhanced by concrete submissions to the Task Force, with specific language. We would welcome any definition(s) which you might wish to offer, Danny. 
I have included the Transfer TF list. The previous cc's were part, but not all of the Transfer TF. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:54 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:47:24 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]

[Apologies for the stupid formatting, for some reason, my mailer refuses to
quote this message normally]

LS: "Allow me to add my two cents here. The real issue is WHO gets to
determine Apparent Authority!"

This is one of the central issues. Glad to see someone pick up on it
(finally).

LS : "I'm appalled at the flawed logic of allowing an undisclosed 3rd
party -- the
gaining Registrar -- to determine that I am I; that He speaks for I, or that
He/or her speaks for him/or her. This is absurd! There is no definitive
business relationship with these 3rd parties, where one can say WITH
CERTAINTY* that the Registrant has an agency agreement with the existing
Registrar."

I think that you'll find that if you review the Registrar Constituency
proposal to deal with this (the IRDX document) that this is effectively
dealt with.

The major steps are:

1. Establish credentials
2. Establish relationship
3. Undertake transfer

There are checks and balances each step of the way to ensure that the
registrant, losing registrar and gaining registrar share a balance of power
and responsibility in the transaction which ensures that the proper wishes
of each party are carried out. Could the proposal be more precise? Sure, but
then again, this document represents a consensus of the Registrar
Constituency, so compromises had to made.

LS: "My point of reference is the toll-free transfer in the SMS/800. The
policy is
that the gaining RespOrg (Registrar) presents a signed directive from the
Registrant to the losing RespOrg (Registrar), who then has 48 hours to
release
the number. We then have a help desk to intervene. The magic is that the
losing RespOrg has a KNOWN-CERTAIN agency relation with the Registrant. The
gaining RespOrg may not -- and in fact my represent an imposter. Who's to
know? I, as a Registrant, want my agent --  who knows me -- to validate my
request."

Have you reviewed the PIC/CARE handbook? It shaped much of the process logic
that went into the IRDX proposal. I think that you'll find many of the
positive attributes from "Telco-world" represented. I can't say that I've
reviewed the SMS/800 documents, but I'm guessing that they are largely
similar.

LS: "Ross Wm. Rader knows this story and he has advised me that there is no
proceedure to get this domain back -- thanks to this flawed system. And
there
are no SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS, as we've proposed to "take" it back! We will
appeal to you all if by the good graces of the current Registrar -- the 3rd
Registrar who transfered it in after it had been "whitewashed" and stripped
of
our identity -- has not returned it by next week."

No procedure currently. As long as the specific registrars who abuse Exhibit
B continue to carry out their anti-registrant/anti-industry practices, this
entire process will continue to be a mess, and short of court intervention,
most registrants in similar situations will continue to be fsck'ed.

- -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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:03:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Marilyn,

You refuse to allow members of the DNSO to post directly to the Task Force 
list.  Perhaps you could explain why we should support this elitist and 
foolhardy approach?  Most of us signed onto the efforts of the DNSO so that 
we could cooperate in the pursuit of solving domain name problems.  Your 
exclude-99%-of-the-membership methodology does not lend itself to a full 
discussion of the issues, and even most of your task force members haven't 
bothered to participate in this sham.  

You've been at this project for half a year.  What have you accomplished with 
such limited input so far?  All you've succeeded in doing is wasting our time 
and failing to achieve results.  Your interim report after half a year of 
work is pathetic, and registrants continue to suffer from abusive registrar 
transfer processes while you play at your stupid exclusionary games.  

If your process had any merit you would have achieved results and policy 
recommendations long before now.  Six months have been wasted, and I hold you 
accountable.

PS.  If you required a definition of apparent authority and express 
authorization, you probably should have started by asking the author of the 
contract (presumably Louis Touton, JDRP, and staff) to provide the 
definition.  
- --
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: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:11:58 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C2049D.C5643310
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe  its time for this -=20
=20
I want to formally move to repeal the five message limit for posting to =
this mailing list.=20
=20
It may have not been what was intended but it may be that its what it =
wound up being, and that is a rule that creates a environment wherein =
the end-users are impeded in governing the organization. It serves no =
other functional purpose except to stifle unwanted groupwide discourse, =
so it is counter to the open interchange of ideas and concepts.=20
=20
I would in its place propose in its place allow as many posts to any =
thread as long we keep the list watchdog. The Watchdog would become more =
a arbiter of decorum though and not the keeper of the 5 strikes and your =
out badge.
=20
To facilitate this I would also propose that under this motion we put in =
place a "fair play" policy and create a WG to implement a recommendation =
for this policy. This will require a collaborative effort to come up =
with a realistic and uniform policy and should be easily attainable in a =
couple of weeks at most. This should be a WG created by this motion.=20
=20
The intent of this motion is to create a fair and even interflow of =
communications. Yes, as individuals we have a tendency to be a bit =
acerbic and in some instances more arrogant than our water will attest =
to (yes, me too) but that is the nature of human beings and it is part =
of the creative spark that is driving us to be here.

With that said (and I apologize for waxing philosophical in the ending) =
I would ask for as second to this motion to the Secretariat.

Todd Glassey

- ------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C2049D.C5643310
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3504.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe&nbsp; its time for this - =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I&nbsp;want to formally move to repeal =
the five=20
message limit for posting to this mailing list. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It may have not been what was intended =
but it may=20
be that its what it wound up being, and that is&nbsp;a rule&nbsp;that =
creates a=20
environment wherein the end-users are impeded in governing the =
organization. It=20
serves no other functional purpose except to stifle unwanted groupwide=20
discourse, so it is counter to the open interchange of ideas and=20
concepts.</FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would in its place propose in its =
place <FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>allow as many posts to any thread as <FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>long&nbsp;</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>we =
keep the list=20
watchdog. The Watchdog would become more a arbiter of decorum though and =

not&nbsp;the keeper of the 5 strikes and your out badge.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To facilitate this I would also propose =
that under=20
this motion we&nbsp;put in place a "fair play" policy and create a WG to =

implement a recommendation for this policy. This will require a =
collaborative=20
effort to come up with a realistic and uniform policy and should be =
easily=20
attainable in a couple of weeks at most.&nbsp;This should be a WG =
created by=20
this motion. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The intent of this motion is to create =
a fair and=20
even interflow of communications. Yes, as individuals we have a tendency =
to be a=20
bit acerbic and in some instances more arrogant than our water will =
attest to=20
(yes, me too) but that is the nature of human beings and it is&nbsp;part =
of the=20
creative spark that is driving us to be here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>With that said (and I apologize for =
waxing=20
philosophical in the ending) I would ask for as second to this motion to =
the=20
Secretariat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Todd Glassey</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C2049D.C5643310--

- --
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: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

Hello,

- --- todd glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I want to formally move to repeal the five message limit for posting
> to this mailing list. 

I think a limit of five per day is very reasonable. Folks can combine
multiple thoughts into a single message, so that a limit of 5 isn't too
restrictive. It might also help people to think before posting, instead
of turning the list into a chatroom. Having 60 or 70 messages upon
opening one's mailbox every few hours with 1-line messages wastes a lot
of people's valuable time.

If one checks the archives, 99% of people don't post more than 2 or 3
messages per day. Perhaps folks who want no limit can explain why on
earth they'd need more than 5 posts per day? (i.e. an average of one
new contribution/thought every 4.8 hours) 

Perhaps adding a chatroom (unofficial) to the DNSO GA might help some
of the more "chatty" folks. For those who have AOL Instant Messenger
(free from www.aim.com), one can make a link such as:

http://www.aol.com/community/jump.adp/url=DNSO

and promote that as a place for real-time communications, as opposed to
using the mailing list for that.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
AIM ScreenName: PowerFinance ;)  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.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: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:36:35 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

The motion process was flawed though and neither one should have been
advanced. They are mutually exclusive of each other so any positive vote for
one extinguishes the other. That is why this voting process is flawed,
because the boilerplate and process of the election did not stop to mutually
exclusive motions from passing and thus causing a dilemma, I move to declare
this vote null and void and  further move to suspend all future votes in
which this situation is allowed to occur.

Personally I think this means that the voting regulations and process need
to be changed, and to that end I would move the GA to commission a Election
Process and Rules WG immediately to resolve this dilemma, so we can get on
with the democratic management of the DNSO.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:29 AM
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
>

- --
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: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:42:43 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Commentary inline below -

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

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

Absolutely. But still some kind of "keep um honest process" is needed too.

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

Bravo Dassa - someone finally stated the obvious. What makes us say that
someone must wait to participate in our forum or our reccomendations
regarding the management of their IP's to the ICANN as a whole? I think this
is asking for a lawsuit.

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

As long as the person is registered, any waiting period is a problem since
this group is starting to take on issues that effect people. Restricting
them from participating in their own businesses, i.e the operaitons of their
domain names and the processes for administering the larger  DNS issues in
the world as a whole will not stand any legal tests that I am familiar with.
It sure doesnt pass the sniff test and that's for sure.

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

- --
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: Sun, 26 May 2002 13:13:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Kent and all assembly members,

  There are quite a few major differences between CPtech and
ICANN Kent that make you arguments incompatible.
Here are just a couple:

1.) Cptech is not a signatory of the White Paper or the MoU
     ICANN is.

2.) CPtech is not contractually involved in with the USG
      with respect ti the Internet central resources.  ICANN is.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 04:45:51PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> > Kent, what is the basis for having the ICANN board of directors elect the
> > ICANN board of directors?
>
> It is, in fact, quite common for boards of non-profits to select their
> own successors.  Let me illustrate why this is so by asking you a few
> questions:
>
> According to the website of the Consumer Project on Technology, it is an
> organization dedicated to representing the interests of consumers in a
> number of areas (ie, it is concerned with regulatory issues), and you
> are its director.  Were you elected to that position? If not, why not?
> To use your question, what was the basis for your not being elected?
>
> A more interesting question, of course, is how could you (or CPTech)
> claim to fairly and transparently represent the interests of consumers
> if you weren't elected to that position? Do you believe that the mere
> association with Ralph Nader's name is sufficient to remove all
> necessity for accountability? If you believe that CPTech can fairly
> represent the interests of consumers without holding public elections,
> why doesn't that apply to ICANN?  To be concrete, CPTech is doing
> things that may directly impact me, but I had absolutely no say in the
> positions that CPTech is adopting.  Why is that OK in the CPTech case?
>
> Another question I would like to know the answer to is whether there is
> a board of directors for CPTech (or it's apparent parent organization),
> and if so, are they elected through elections open to the general
> public? If not, what is the basis for that.  Note that this basic
> information is not available from the CPTech website -- could you
> explain why that is? Also, you reference grants, and how people can
> donate money to CPTech, but there is no public accounting of how you
> spend their money.  How can you justify this?
>
> I note on the web site that three staff members are mentioned; but in a
> recent message to the GA list you said "In our office of 25 people..."
> Who are these other people and what do they do?
>
> In sum it appears that CPTech, a non-profit organization that is deeply
> involved in governance issues, is not at all motivated to inform the
> public about its structure, how it is run, its finances, or its
> staffing.  I realize that ICANN and CPTech are very different in many
> ways, but there are also enough similarities that CPTech's profound lack
> of transparency and accountability is rather noteworthy.  Perhaps it
> doesn't matter to you, the director of CPTech, that the public doesn't
> have access to this elementary information about your organization.  Or
> perhaps you would really like to put up that information, but you just
> can't find the time (I can certainly sympathize with that).
>
> Incidentally, did you realize that CPTech apparently has about 50% more
> staff than ICANN? (ICANN has 17 people working for it, some of them part
> time).
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1231
*************************