Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1237
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 28 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1237

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:29:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]

Why must the ultimate user continue to suffer these injustices?
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Monday, May 27, 2002, 2:23:22 PM, Loren Stocker wrote:
>
> > But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of the
> > registrant.
>
> You might have had a point, except for one thing.  Real world
> experience.
>
> The problem with your model is that the agency in charge of
> enforcement, the Registry, owns the registrar that suffers
> from the highest amount of outbound transfers, and has a vested
> interest in stemming that tide.  They use a flawed process to
> "authenticate" the outbound transfers, and have no motivation to fix
> it because all it would do is make losing customers easier for them.
>
> There is no danger to the Verisign owned registrars, because Daddy
> will protect them.
>
> This was one of the reasons why the original contact required Verisign
> to divest itself of the registrar, which ICANN (and most of the
> Registrars who supported it as well) let them get out of doing last
> year, with virtually NO additional protections in place.
>
> The facts are, in REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, the method employed by NSI to
> verify outbound transfers has caused, and continues to cause on a
> DAILY basis, more REAL HARM to registrants, even on a financial level,
> than the the few instances of registrars implementing flawed gaining
> registrar authentication have caused.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 06:45:52 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Good morning.

I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.

Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>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.
>
>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.
>

Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency for 
Individual Domain Name Holders.
There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention, but 
I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a 
representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the 
most vocal participants, but they will be there.

I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by 
kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is not 
supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking of 
additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility of 
disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that passed 
with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).

So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement 
in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the 
maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed 
willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies 
exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority, because 
that will be the only practical effect?

My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good 
contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by any 
real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still part of 
the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that if a real 
constituency will be given a chance, there will be many potential good 
contributors who would participate. Of course there will be kooks, but a 
constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than the GA, for 
instance.

A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be 
representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not. 
Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness 
of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days 
of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule to 
deal with it.
Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential membership, 
at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, nevertheless, it 
exists and plays a useful role.
This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at 
ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable 
"evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for representativeness? 
After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the situation and 
definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make 
good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership, and 
get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance is 
not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to bring 
people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed 
constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have its 
voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:28:38 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Small Business Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01C2062A.0C53B240
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,
thankyou for you interest in the Business Constituency.=20
Before we launch into the analysis that you have requested as a =
non-member of the constituency perhaps you could let me know:
1. Are you a small business yourself ?
2. For those issues on which the BC has developed a written position, =
can you distinguish how these would be different from the perspective of =
only SMEs?
Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01C2062A.0C53B240
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>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>thankyou for you interest in the Business =
Constituency.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Before we launch into the analysis that you have =
requested as=20
a non-member of the constituency perhaps you could let me =
know:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1. Are you a small business yourself ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2. For those issues on which the BC has developed a =
written=20
position, can you distinguish how these would be different from the =
perspective=20
of only SMEs?</FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DF_01C2062A.0C53B240--

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:25:31 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

[email-masked] (Tue 05/28/02 at 06:03 AM +0000):

> >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.
> 
> That was not my intention.
> If you followed the thread, my comment was in reply to a series of comments 
> that claimed that only Motion #1 was important.

if you look back, i don't think you'll find a single person who 
claimed this. what you *will* find is a lot of opinions, as in,
'i THINK motion #1 is MORE important.'

the origin of this debate, afaict, is the tantrum thomas threw 
over my article on ICANN watch and, more important, his obstin-
ate refusal to accept the fact that people are free to say they
think motion #1 is MORE important. his outbursts in *at least*
three forums set the tone for the subsequent 'debate,' which, as
i said, consists of (literally) a handful of people repeating 
themselves ad nauseam.

the one exception, i think, is ross; but i find his arguments to
be completely disingenuous, and i suspect he does too. YMMV, and
i attach no procedural significance to that claim, other than the
one i initially made.

cheers,
t
- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:35:11 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

I think it is also relevant to mention that for all practical purposes, Kent
is the only ICANN staff member who regularly engages in these debates on
ICANN's DNSO listserves.    He is hired as a technical person, but the
"policy" people on the ICANN staff won't participate.  This is unfortunate.
I for one was pleased when Joe Sims was posting on this list, and I also
appreciate the willingness of Vint to post here, and Alejandro to post
regularly on the NCC list.   I wish that Dr. Lynn and other other "policy"
people on the ICANN staff, and some other ICANN board members, like Linda
Wilson, would engage the masses, like Kent, Vint, Alejandro (and sometimes
Joe Sims) do.

 Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

: Good morning.
:
: I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.
:
: Kent Crispin wrote:
: >
: >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.
: >
: >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.
: >
:
: Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency
for
: Individual Domain Name Holders.
: There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention,
but
: I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a
: representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the
: most vocal participants, but they will be there.
:
: I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by
: kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is
not
: supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking of
: additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility of
: disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that passed
: with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).
:
: So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement
: in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the
: maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed
: willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies
: exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority,
because
: that will be the only practical effect?
:
: My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good
: contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by
any
: real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still part of
: the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that if a
real
: constituency will be given a chance, there will be many potential good
: contributors who would participate. Of course there will be kooks, but a
: constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than the GA, for
: instance.
:
: A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be
: representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not.
: Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness
: of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days
: of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule
to
: deal with it.
: Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential
membership,
: at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, nevertheless,
it
: exists and plays a useful role.
: This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at
: ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable
: "evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for
representativeness?
: After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the situation and
: definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
: I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make
: good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership,
and
: get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance is
: not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to bring
: people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed
: constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have
its
: voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.
:
: Regards
: Roberto
:
:
: _________________________________________________________________
: Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
:
: --
: 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: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:46:20 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus positions
on the issue of elections.

1.   Is there support in the GA for having an At large election system to
put people on the board of directors.
2.   Should the ICANN board control (a) the nominations or (b) the elections
to the ICANN board.

Others may have different suggestions of how to do this.   We may more may
not have a consensus on 1 or 2.  But we should find out.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

: James Love wrote:
:
: > ... But with the next ICANN board meeting a
: > few weeks away, and almost zero bottom up statement
: > on the fundamental issue of how the board is going
: > to be elected, it would seem to me to be much more
: > important to focus now on the issue of board
: > selection.
:
: I agree.
:
: My opinion is that ICANN should live up to the
: commitments made at its founding and find a way
: to have open elections for half the board.
:
: I'll certainly grant that this isn't easy, but
: nothing I've seen to date convinces me it is
: impossible.
:
: Not have I seen any proposal for an alternative
: that appears likely to deliver adequate representation
: for the public interest.
: --
: 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: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:00:23 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

- --=======3393A90=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-62BA70CB; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Roberto and Kent,
I already adressed Kents' interesting position. For having prepared an 
initiative in that area which has been killed by the annoucement of Stuart 
just when we started a boostrap, there is a basic flaw that creates 
confusion. This is the Dennis Jenning's compromise perpetuated by Joop 
Teernstra.

You have to chose. Either you consider:

- - non profits
- - business
- - small businesses
- - individuals

and IMHO they have interests far beyond the scope of the DNSO and form the 
@large - may I recall you that the current @large Directors are : one user 
expert, one developper, one small business, one university member and one 
large corporation.

Or you consider

- - Registries (g/s/ccTLD)
- - Registrars
- - Registrants (individual, corporate and bulk)

with possible implications of special technical interests like ISP and IPC.

As long as this is not clearly sorted, I am afraid we will and Joop (who is 
confusing @large with individual domain holders - or worse "owners") only 
present a confused proposition not really appealingto anyone (BoD, 
Employees, and @large/individual/registrant/etc. )

On 08:45 28/05/02, Roberto Gaetano said:

>Good morning.
>
>I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency 
>for Individual Domain Name Holders.
>There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention, 
>but I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a 
>representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the 
>most vocal participants, but they will be there.
>
>I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by 
>kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is 
>not supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking 
>of additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility 
>of disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that 
>passed with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).
>
>So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement 
>in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the 
>maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed 
>willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies 
>exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority, 
>because that will be the only practical effect?
>
>My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good 
>contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by 
>any real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still 
>part of the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that 
>if a real constituency will be given a chance, there will be many 
>potential good contributors who would participate. Of course there will be 
>kooks, but a constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than 
>the GA, for instance.
>
>A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be 
>representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not. 
>Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness 
>of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days 
>of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule 
>to deal with it.
>Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential 
>membership, at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, 
>nevertheless, it exists and plays a useful role.
>This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at 
>ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable 
>"evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for 
>representativeness? After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the 
>situation and definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
>I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make 
>good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership, 
>and get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance 
>is not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to 
>bring people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed 
>constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have 
>its voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======3393A90=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-62BA70CB
Content-Disposition: inline

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

- --=======3393A90=======--

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:10:18 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

On 2002-05-28 07:46:20 -0400, James Love wrote:

>We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus  
>positions on the issue of elections.

New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote 
 from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:32:45 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
: >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
: >positions on the issue of elections.
:
: New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
:  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
:

   Even old intelligent arguments are important.  Evidence of what is the
consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.   Noise
on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can be
much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the issue
of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.

Jamie

PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.

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

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:46:58 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

t byfield wrote:

>
>if you look back, i don't think you'll find a single person who
>claimed this. what you *will* find is a lot of opinions, as in,
>'i THINK motion #1 is MORE important.'

I stand corrected.
What I sould have said is:
"If you followed the thread, my comment was in reply to a series of comments 
that claimed that Motion #1 was more important."
This is why I wanted to put on record my disagreement.

>
>the origin of this debate, afaict, is the tantrum thomas threw
>over my article on ICANN watch and, more important, his obstin-
>ate refusal to accept the fact that people are free to say they
>think motion #1 is MORE important. his outbursts in *at least*
>three forums set the tone for the subsequent 'debate,' which, as
>i said, consists of (literally) a handful of people repeating
>themselves ad nauseam.

Agree on the fact that people are free to say that they think that motion#1 
is MORE important. Of course, I assume to have the freedom to note that 
motion#2 gathered a wider majority (this being not an opinion, but a fact).
I also agree that we are repeating ourselves ad nauseam, and therefore I 
will not restate where we disagree, and will restrain myself to further post 
on the subject.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:19:40 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

James Love wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> : >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
> : >positions on the issue of elections.
> :
> : New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
> :  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
> :
> 
>    Even old intelligent arguments are important.

For mine, see a post titled "Question for Sims, Lynn and Dyson" in the
ALSC forum.
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01127.shtml

It was cc'd to three people in the title. Sims' answer is in that
archive.
The others did not respond.

> Evidence of what is the
> consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.   Noise
> on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can be
> much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the issue
> of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:29:55 +0900
From: Adam PEAKE <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

Wait on the voting for a minute...

Bret Fausett's put together a simple and I think very acceptable "Case
for (Only Mild) Reform".

Do we, the GA, agree with Bret's proposals? If not, why not? (And in
that case what modifications do you propose?)

Rather than voting on anything right now I suggest we see if the GA can
come up with improvements to Bret's proposals. Once that simple task's
done... we can vote them up or down.

See 
<http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/24.html#a366> Cost-Effective,
Trustworthy Global Election

<http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/23.html#a364> The Case for (Only
Mild) Reform

<http://www.lextext.com/bretsbylaws.html> Redline bylaws

<http://www.lextext.com/bretsmission.html> Redline Mission Statement

Most contentious issue for me is 6 vs. 9 for At Large representation.
Spent a lot of time on this with NAIS (*I am now speaking for myself*)
thinking about this and trying to defend 9, but now, I could accept 6.
Particularly if the ccTLDs (as represented in Bret's model) were to
ensure a fair voice for end users.

At Large of 6, plus a Canadian CIRA-like system would be work for to me.

Thanks,

Adam

James Love wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> : >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
> : >positions on the issue of elections.
> :
> : New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
> :  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
> :
> 
>    Even old intelligent arguments are important.  

See NAIS and ALSC reports :-)  

> Evidence of what is the
> consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.   Noise
> on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can be
> much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the issue
> of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> 
> --
> 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: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:58:57 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

I support the idea of working with Bret's draft, to see if we can have a
consensus position for the ICANN reform process, if this is the best
starting point.   I would add that we should not get hung up if we can't
agree on everything, and we if that is the case, we should search for basic
areas of agreement.    It would help if the leadership and some partisans of
the last vote can move forward, and do what it takes to get a consensus
position before the Bucharest meeting.  There isn't much time.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam PEAKE" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

: Wait on the voting for a minute...
:
: Bret Fausett's put together a simple and I think very acceptable "Case
: for (Only Mild) Reform".
:
: Do we, the GA, agree with Bret's proposals? If not, why not? (And in
: that case what modifications do you propose?)
:
: Rather than voting on anything right now I suggest we see if the GA can
: come up with improvements to Bret's proposals. Once that simple task's
: done... we can vote them up or down.
:
: See
: <http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/24.html#a366> Cost-Effective,
: Trustworthy Global Election
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/23.html#a364> The Case for (Only
: Mild) Reform
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/bretsbylaws.html> Redline bylaws
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/bretsmission.html> Redline Mission Statement
:
: Most contentious issue for me is 6 vs. 9 for At Large representation.
: Spent a lot of time on this with NAIS (*I am now speaking for myself*)
: thinking about this and trying to defend 9, but now, I could accept 6.
: Particularly if the ccTLDs (as represented in Bret's model) were to
: ensure a fair voice for end users.
:
: At Large of 6, plus a Canadian CIRA-like system would be work for to me.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Adam
:
:
: James Love wrote:
: >
: > ----- Original Message -----
: > From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
: > : >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
: > : >positions on the issue of elections.
: > :
: > : New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
: > :  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
: > :
: >
: >    Even old intelligent arguments are important.
:
:
: See NAIS and ALSC reports :-)
:
:
: > Evidence of what is the
: > consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.
Noise
: > on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can
be
: > much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the
issue
: > of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.
: >
: > Jamie
: >
: > PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.
: >
: > --------------------------------
: > James Love mailto:[email-masked]
: > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
: >
: > --
: > 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: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:19:17 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf agenda May 29, 2002

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

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 29 May 2002 - AGENDA
Coordinated Universal Time UTC 13:00 - see below for local times

1. Summary of last meetings.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-minutes.html
2. Discussion and adoption of recommendations 26 -33 (from version 10)
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020529.NCinterimrepv10.html
3. Other NC comments on evolution and Reform Committee working paper on
ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
htm

4. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020524.TFSummary-deletes-WLS.html

5. AOB

Note:
The next teleconference will be on Thursday June 6, at 15.00 Paris time.
See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, Japan/ Korea 22:00, 23:00 Melbourne)
Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere
- ------------------------------------------------------------

 Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
  Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00
  Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   8:00
  Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
  St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
  Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   10:00
  London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
  Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  16:00
  Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00
  Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 (Thursday)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html DNSO Secretariat and ICANN
Officers.

DNSO Secretariat
Information from:
      © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 #1237
*************************