Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1232
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 27 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1232

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 13:22:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Marilyn, all assembly members and TF members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

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

  Yes indeed this is quite true.  None the less not being able to directly
participate a la a WG format makes this task force approach to
adequate input very questionable as to any outcome or potential
report(s) that may be generated as a result.

>
>
> As chair, I note:
>
> We are trying to take input and concrete suggestions as well as comments on our document.

  This is good of course.  But still inadequate.

>
>
> 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.

  How many tons of "Concrete" would you like?  >:)  And where would
you like it delivered?  >;)  Danny has offered several definitions as have
I and a number of others Marilyn.  If they did not meet your criterion as
to what is "Concrete" than you should be specific and open in saying so...
Thus far, that doesn't seem to be the case.  Hence I can only therefore
conclude that only some "Concrete" input is being considered seriously
for reason or reasons that seem suspicious but are not exactly known.

  So I hope that THIS input is "Concrete" enough for you?!

>
> I have included the Transfer TF list. The previous cc's were part, but not all of the Transfer TF.

  How convenient... But not unexpected...

>
>
> -----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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 14:28:53 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

I second the motion.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:36 PM
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
>

- --
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 11:55:45 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

Michael - all -
A WikiWikiWeb would solve all this problem and create a much stronger
interface model for the List as well. Would be totally cool.

Todd Glassey
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Philippe Renaut" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: Tr: [ga] DNSO.org web site and robots.txt

> I would appreciate a change in the robots.txt file.  It is useful for
> researchers, especially students, who may not be that sophisticated, to
> have easy access to the material via common tools such as google.
>
> Sophisticated researchers may know that they need to go to a DNSO-only
> search tool, but most people will not be aware of this, as the ordinary
> practice is increasingly to allow indexing.
>
> Thus, I very strongly request you make this change in the interests of
> allowing better quality research on Internet domain name issues.  Thank
> you.
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Philippe Renaut wrote:
>
> > I am very happy to see how a simple robots.txt file, a pretty old
technology as some have pointed out, can produce some pretty insultive
allusions by some presumably highly skilled technicians.
> > To consider things with a drop of intelligence, we can say that :
> >
> > the web site is lacking a search engine. This is a good point and the
secretariat is always open to intelligent proposals. If this is a global ask
(asked by the chair), we will do it. Remember we could develop hundreds of
services but some people are paying for it and may be they want us to do the
services they ask for and not what we secretariat staff are deciding is good
for them.
> >
> > the robots.txt is pretty restrictive. This is to avoid putting ten
thousands of pages of mails on google like tools. I personnaly think it is a
much more wise approach to have a good index place for www.dnso.org, and
then a fluent navigation inside the web site, more than to index every
pages...Once again if there is a global ask to change this, it can be done.
> >
> > accusations saying we don't know how to handle mailing lists and how to
have a web site up. I am sure the very wise person in charge of the
accusation can tell us every minutes where the web site was down, but I am
also sure it would not be very convincing for his cause. By the way the
secretariat was an open call for proposal so why are you not here instead of
us doing the job ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Philippe RENAUT
> > DNSO sec.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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 11:56:17 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

> [email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 09:19 PM -0700):
>
> > > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
> > > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
> > > crous.
> >
> > It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
> > otherwise are not participants in the process.
>
> well, you've got to start somewhere. specific issues are an excellent
> way to get people involved.

No William I believe that a three month waiting period would violate my
rights to participate in the governing of the Internet since this is an
ICANN lobby and would open this SO to being sued from its own members as
well as any others it refused to accept votes from because of this
prejudicial rule you are talking about.

>
> > A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way of
> > preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for arbitrary
> > reasons.
>
> and term limits are an effective way of giving incumbents and fanatics
> the boot.

I agree by the way - there are too many squatters in the various layers of
the ICANN. Especially in the PSO's.

> but the point is mechanisms of exclusion, not mechanisms of
> exclusion.

You mean "mechanisms of inclusion, not mechanisms of exclusion" dont you?

Todd

- --
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 15:08:43 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

Oops, I meant: "I second both motions"

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

> I second the motion.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:36 PM
> 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
> >
>

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 07:12:36 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

On Sun, 26 May 2002 10:36:35 -0700, "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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. 

Nonsense - they were in no way mutually exclusive.   

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: Sun, 26 May 2002 15:18:03 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

i strongly oppose this motion.

cheers,
t

[email-masked] (Sun 05/26/02 at 02:28 PM -0400):

> I second the motion.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)
> 
> 
> > The motion process was flawed though and neither one should have been
 <...>

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 07:15:56 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

On Sun, 26 May 2002 10:11:58 -0700, "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I want to formally move to repeal the five message limit for posting to this mailing list. 

I am strongly against this move.  It took a long time to get consensus
on the list rules and I think the five per day per person rule helps
keep the list manageable.  Without it we would have fewer list
subscribers.

Sure from time to time it is frustrating but one just has to be
disciplined with one's responses.

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: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:48:52 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Sunday, May 26, 2002, 11:56:17 AM, todd glassey wrote:

>> [email-masked] (Fri 05/17/02 at 09:19 PM -0700):
>>
>> > > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1 should
>> > > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is ludi-
>> > > crous.
>> >
>> > It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
>> > otherwise are not participants in the process.
>>
>> well, you've got to start somewhere. specific issues are an excellent
>> way to get people involved.

> No William I believe that a three month waiting period would violate my
> rights to participate in the governing of the Internet since this is an
> ICANN lobby and would open this SO to being sued from its own members as
> well as any others it refused to accept votes from because of this
> prejudicial rule you are talking about.

It is always amusing to see people talk about suing, when they have no
basis for doing so.  This is two emails I've seen from you on two
different forums threatening legal action for things that you have no
basis to take legal action on.

A waiting period would violate no rights, and would open no one to
lawsuits.

>>
>> > A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way of
>> > preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for arbitrary
>> > reasons.
>>
>> and term limits are an effective way of giving incumbents and fanatics
>> the boot.

> I agree by the way - there are too many squatters in the various layers of
> the ICANN. Especially in the PSO's.

You are responding to someone else here.

>> but the point is mechanisms of exclusion, not mechanisms of
>> exclusion.

> You mean "mechanisms of inclusion, not mechanisms of exclusion" dont you?

Same here.

Perhaps you should post more carefully and pay attention to who said
what when responding.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:57:08 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

And this should be my 5th posting today - so TTFN

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:39 AM
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.

George/All  this makes indexing the actual content of the archive virtually
impossible with any reasonable search engine since any number of different
thoughts will have to be gleaned from each message. So until this
organization has a mechanism in place so that the Arechive may be searched
and concepts or specific information extracted IT CANNOT REASONABLY ENFORCE
A 5 MESSAGE POSTING LIMIT...

> It might also help people to think before posting, instead
> of turning the list into a chatroom.

This is an opinion and doesnt belong in this response.

> 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.

Not if they are sorted by content in the Headers and Subjects, you just
ignore whatever you want. Wiht the concept of jamming mutliple postings into
a single submittal you insuire that everyone MUST read everything becuase
too many different thoughts are forced together.

No this 5 posting limit is a very bad idea. If you have problems with people
abusing the list - then kick them out. Just do it in a way so you dont get
the organization sued.

George - the point I am trying to get across is that the Archive also serves
a legal purpose to demonstrate "fair play in process" and so it is
critically important to this use that all of the knowledge in it is
searchable and indexable. And this is not the case at present. Clearly  at
this point by creating this arbitrary 5 posting limit you exacerbate the
problems with catagorizing the different thoughts or postings in the
Archive.

>
> 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)

You only have one important thought 5 times a day? Man - you lucky person.

>
> 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
>

- --
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 13:07:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

Sunday, May 26, 2002, 12:57:08 PM, todd glassey wrote:

> And this should be my 5th posting today - so TTFN

Make that 7th, but whose counting?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 17:29:16 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Kent, are you involved in the political or technical part of ICANN now?
In terms of how boards are choosen,  a lot depends upon what the group is.
A basic right of association is for people to act together with others, in
whatever form of internal governance they choose.  People can have
organizations with board members elected from a membership, self
perpetuating, choosen at random or just about anything they like.  When it
comes to governments, things are different, and some basic issues of
accountability have to be addressed.

If ICANN wants to morph itself into an advocacy organization, with opinions
but no power over the Internet, quite a few models of governance might be
appropriate.  If it wants to be an Internet governance organization, it is
different.  This is the guts of the issue.  What is ICANN?  If it wants to
be a global regulator, it can't organize itself like CPTech, ICANNWatch, the
Rockefeller Foundation or the Cato Institute.  It has to address the
legimacy of the process for electing or appointing board members.   The
difference goes to the regulatory or governance function.  The fact that
NGOs are advocates in governance is of course entirely appropriate in a free
society, regardless of their organizational structure.  Some are membership
based (like Public Citizen, the ACLU or Consumers Union), others are not
(Like Essential Information, CDT, etc).   CPTech is part of the Trans
Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, a group with 65 member groups. most of who are
membership based, and have millions of members, where I am the co-chair of
the IP committee.  TACD operates under tough consensus rules (any member
group can block an action), and has elections for its steering committee and
committee chairs.   It limits its membership, based upon a criteria.  TACD
isn't a government, it is a group that issues recommendations to
governments.

CPTech is an unincorporated project that Ralph and I started in 1995.
CPTech is small, with a staff that is typical two to four (not counting RN).
I am an employee of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, a non-profit
corporation created by Ralph Nader in 1968.   One of the CPTech staffers is
an employee of Essential Information.   Essential Information is in fact the
main funder of CPTech activities, based primarly on grants from the Ford and
Rockefeller Foundation, but from time to time other grants, such as one from
the Center for the Public Domain.  We don't take corporate funding.  The
office I referred to is the EI offices, which have other projects, on topics
such as tobacco control, environmental protection, banking, and various
international development projects.  I run CPTech.  I don't run the other
projects.

If CPTech wanted control over the DNS system, it would have to be organized
quite a bit differently.  ICANN wants that control.  ICANN has to accept
that it can't create governance organization that is self elected.   This
should be basic 101 stuff.  Maybe ICANN's staff is short on people who
appreciate what ICANN is trying to do, and why people are so appalled at the
"reform" proposals.

  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:46 AM
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
:
:

- --
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 18:45:44 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Dan Halloran's Continuing Silence

Richard that's not entirely accurate - I have responded.
but I do not have specific answers to your questions.

vint

At 01:43 AM 5/27/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>FIFTEEN DAYS ago I sent a personal message to ICANN's Dan Halloran, requesting that he answer the detail of 14 specific questions, which covered matters of sincere concern.
> 
>I also posted the 14 questions at ICANNWatch (see link: <http://icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=735>http://icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=735 ) and on public mailing-lists.
> 
>Dan Halloran has STILL not even acknowledged receipt of my mail.
> 
>Is this the openness and responsiveness we should expect from an organisation which serves the whole world?
> 
>I believe that ICANN does not want to answer awkward questions and is therefore consciously evading them.
> 
>I will continue to publicly request Dan Halloran to reply. As some of the issues have implications for the imminent .info LR2, I take the view that it is irresponsible and inexcusable of ICANN to ignore a serious and reasoned letter like this.
> 
>I welcome any supporting (or alternative) views. Unlike ICANN, I'm not afraid of dialogue.
> 
>Richard Henderson
><http://www.theinternetchallenge/>www.theInternetChallenge 
>        
>PS I have also copied Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn but neither of them have replied either. Has the whole of the ICANN leadership been sucked down a black hole? Are my questions really so frightening that they dare not answer ANY of them? And dare not even acknowledge their receipt? Openness.... ?????

- --
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 09:50:52 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2049A.D2943C40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpI found it interesting to carry out an analysis of this week's =
votes. I was curious to see how people had voted. Had one block of =
people all voted for Motion 1 (the re-bid) and another even bigger block =
of people voted for Motion 2 (softer approach)?

No!

It appears that a large majority were so much opposed to what ICANN are =
doing, that they were prepared to vote in favour of BOTH motions (the =
more extreme one AND the softer one).

Indeed, it turned out that only 38 out of the 164 voters who backed =
Motion 2 (soft option) did not also vote in favour of Motion 2. Put =
another way 126 out of 164 voters who backed Motion 2 also wanted to go =
further and called for a re-bid by voting for Motion 1 as well.

As a percentage, this means that only 17% of all those who voted, voted =
for Motion 2 alone.

77% of the Motion 2 voters also wanted to go further and call for a =
re-bid, and voted for Motion 1 as well.

Here are the actual voting patterns (I start at the "Defend ICANN" =
extreme and end at the "Anti ICANN" extreme):

VOTING PATTERNS

Against Both Motions:   25 people
Against Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2:   2 people
Voted Just for Motion 2:   1 person
Voted for Motion 2 and against Motion 1:   25 people
Voted for Motion 2 and abstained on Motion 1:   12 people

Abstained in both votes:   3 people

Voted for Motion 2 but also wanted to go further and Voted for Motion 1 =
as well:   126 people
Voted for Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2:   14 people
Voted for Motion 1 and against Motion 2:   8 people
Voted Just for Motion 1:   2 people

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

What is absolutely obvious is that the majority of people wanted the =
more extreme action of a Re-Bid, and that this was the most popular =
motion because 77% of Motion 2's voters ALSO wanted to go further and =
have the Re-Bid too.

There is absolutely no evidence that if people ALREADY want a Re-Bid, =
they are implying they want a soft approach to ICANN first. That would =
be a perverse interpretation, when they could have abstained on 1, voted =
against it, or not voted at all on it. Clearly it is more obvious to =
interpret those who voted for both as carrying out a "Protest" vote, =
basically saying, we'll support ANY action if it will clear out the =
status quo... ideally a re-bid, but if not, then any other method that =
will bring about change.

This is pretty obviously the outcome of last week's vote.

If you really want to know the truth, run the vote again, and ask people =
to vote on WHICH motion they prefer (if any).

It's as simple as that.

But I don't suppose we'd get a further vote.

I have to say it was profoundly unhelpful to introduce a second motion =
at a later stage, and run a vote on it at the same time. It did nothing =
for clarity, and is typical of the opaque and wilful evasion of popular =
will that ICANN seems to carry out all the time.

I'm sick of it.

So are the voters of the GA.

Analysis of these voters shows that to be so, and makes it clear that =
those who took part in the vote want a Re-Bid to clear out this house of =
rogues and rascals.

Richard Henderson

PS: Will Dan Halloran please answer my 14 questions! They are serious =
questions, and urgent questions, and I've now waited 15 days for even an =
acknowledgement of receipt. What a way to run a world resource! Opaque =
evasion, Dan! No sign of openness at all.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2049A.D2943C40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>I found it interesting to carry out an analysis of this week's =
votes. I was=20
curious to see how people had voted. Had one block of people all voted =
for=20
Motion 1 (the re-bid) and another even bigger block of people voted for =
Motion 2=20
(softer approach)?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>No!</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It appears that a large majority were so much opposed to what ICANN =
are=20
doing, that they were prepared to vote in favour of BOTH motions (the =
more=20
extreme one AND the softer one).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Indeed, it turned out that only 38 out of the 164 voters who backed =
Motion=20
2 (soft option) did not also vote in favour of Motion 2. Put another way =
126 out=20
of 164 voters who backed Motion 2 also wanted to go further and called =
for a=20
re-bid by voting for Motion 1 as well.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>As a percentage, this means that only 17% of&nbsp;all those who =
voted,=20
voted for Motion 2 alone.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>77% of the Motion 2 voters also wanted to go further and call for a =
re-bid,=20
and voted for Motion 1 as well.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Here are the actual voting patterns (I start at the "Defend ICANN" =
extreme=20
and end at the "Anti ICANN" extreme):</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>VOTING PATTERNS</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Against Both Motions:&nbsp;&nbsp; 25 people</DIV>
<DIV>Against Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2:&nbsp;&nbsp; 2 =
people</DIV>
<DIV>Voted Just for Motion 2:&nbsp;&nbsp; 1 person</DIV>
<DIV>Voted for Motion 2 and against Motion 1:&nbsp;&nbsp; 25 =
people</DIV>
<DIV>Voted for Motion 2 and abstained on Motion 1:&nbsp;&nbsp; 12 =
people</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Abstained in both votes:&nbsp;&nbsp; 3 people</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Voted for Motion 2 but also wanted to go further and Voted for =
Motion 1 as=20
well:&nbsp;&nbsp; 126 people</DIV>
<DIV>Voted for Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2:&nbsp;&nbsp; 14 =
people</DIV>
<DIV>Voted for Motion 1 and against Motion 2:&nbsp;&nbsp; 8 people</DIV>
<DIV>Voted Just for Motion 1:&nbsp;&nbsp; 2 people</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>* * * * * * * * * * * * *</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>What is absolutely obvious is that the majority of people wanted =
the more=20
extreme action of a Re-Bid, and that this was the most popular motion =
because=20
77% of Motion 2's voters ALSO wanted to go further and have the Re-Bid=20
too.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>There is absolutely no evidence that if people ALREADY want a =
Re-Bid, they=20
are implying they want a soft approach to ICANN first. That would be a =
perverse=20
interpretation, when they could have abstained on 1, voted against it, =
or not=20
voted at all on it. Clearly it is more obvious to interpret those who =
voted for=20
both as carrying out a "Protest" vote, basically saying, we'll support =
ANY=20
action if it will clear out the status quo... ideally a re-bid, but if =
not, then=20
any other method that will bring about change.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>This is pretty obviously the outcome of last week's vote.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>If you really want to know the truth, run the vote again, and ask =
people to=20
vote on WHICH motion they prefer (if any).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It's as simple as that.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>But I don't suppose we'd get a further vote.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I have to say it was profoundly unhelpful to introduce a second =
motion at a=20
later stage, and run a vote on it at the same time. It did nothing for =
clarity,=20
and is typical of the opaque and wilful evasion of popular will that =
ICANN seems=20
to carry out all the time.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'm sick of it.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So are the voters of the GA.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Analysis of these voters shows that to be so, and makes it clear =
that those=20
who took part in the vote want a Re-Bid to clear out this house of =
rogues and=20
rascals.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>PS: Will Dan Halloran please answer my 14 questions! They are =
serious=20
questions, and urgent questions, and I've now waited 15 days for even an =

acknowledgement of receipt. What a way to run a world resource! Opaque =
evasion,=20
Dan! No sign of openness at all.</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C2049A.D2943C40--

- --
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 #1232
*************************