Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1239
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1239

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:39:05 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

On Tue, 28 May 2002 15:31:43 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>David writes:  The main reason against the elections seems to be variants on 
>we can't make them 100% fraud free. 
>
>That's just the ICANN spin... the real reason against elections is that we 
>would be electing ICANN's most vocal critics.  ICANN incumbents don't want 
>half the Board populated with the likes of Karl and Andy.  It's that simple.

Oh I agree.  I was trying to make the point that the  "official"
stated reason is one which could apply to any country or large
organisation in the world almost.

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: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:55:22 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To: [email-masked]

Danny Younger wrote the following:

 The ICANN Board held a meeting.  Whether you label it a "retreat" or                     
 something else, it was still a meeting of the Board to discuss ICANN matters.            
  The Internet community was promised that Board meetings would honor the                 
 principles of openness and transparency, and that minutes of such meetings               
 would be provided.                                                                       
                                                                                          
 Would anyone care to predict whether such minutes will ever be forthcoming?              

While I understand that this is hardly a new subject, I thought it might be
useful, given the large number of apparently new participants in the GA
list drawn by its recent electoral efforts, to take one more crack at the
difference between transparency and "everything in public."  Danny, like
some others, apparently believe that to be transparent, all ICANN
discussion and actions have to be taken in full public view.  Why this is
so is not intuitively obvious.  Transparency to me means that  all actions
taken are disclosed and explained on the public record, for all to see and
react to, not that they can only be done in a stadium or on a webcast.  I
can understand Danny's curiosity, especially since for whatever reason he
and some others appear to have virtually unlimited interest and time to
spend on ICANN's lists and other related apparatus, but the fact that they
would like to listen in to every conversation does not rise to the level of
a condition precedent to openness.  Under this view of the world, there can
be no private discussions, because someone might say something that could
be influential and it would not be heard by the world.  This is the kind of
mentality that led to so-called "sunshine" laws in the US, which then led
to the affected bodies developing complicated ways to have the private
conversations that the "sunshine" laws supposedly prevent.  You'll notice
that no one pays much attention to this issue in the real world anymore.
No federal agency I am aware of conducts all its substantive discussions in
public, for all the obvious reasons.   And it is not mere coincidence that
the very Congress that passed "sunshine" laws did not apply them to itself.
The fact is that ICANN publishes every action taken, every proposed action
taken, and a lot of other stuff that never leads to actions taken.  The
notion that it is not "transparent" because it does not mandate that every
discussion, whether intended to produce an action or not, be held in full
public view is just plain silly.

The Board held a retreat this weekend.  It made no decisions (and therefore
there will be no minutes), but it did have several hours over two days of
uninterrupted discussion about very complicated topics.  I hope and believe
that the Board members left the retreat with a better understanding of the
issues, and their complexities, and of the perspectives of their fellow
Board members, than they had before the retreat.  Certainly, the Evolution
and Reform Committee members have a deeper understanding of the
perspectives of their colleagues to the materials they and others have
produced over the last several months, and this will be helpful in the
Committee's production of recommendations to the Board and the community,
which hopefully will be published later this week.   In most contexts, this
would be considered a good thing -- the people charged with oversight of an
body and a process working together to gain a better collective
understanding of the issues, so that they can do their job better.  In
Danny's world, on the other hand, it is just one more meeting of the Black
Helicopters.  Sad.

Joe Sims

- --
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 13:24:17 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

At 12:52 PM 28/05/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Perhaps you could organize a debate between a CIRA
>representative and our Canadian DNSO Board representative,
>Jon Cohen, on the fairness, representativeness, validity
>and affordability of on-line elections.

Sure, the CIRA rep could be Jon Cohen as well, who is
still (or again, it is unclear) on the CIRA Board:
http://www.cira.ca/en/about_ca.html
Canada apparently felt envious of ICANN and wanted
its own boardsquatter.

Hey, it should be easy to schedule a f2f meeting,
and they'd probably reach consensus. -g

- --
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 13:51:02 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

At the same time, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper
understanding of these perspectives had the Board released an audio
recording of its discussions. It would have allowed for more informed input
in response to the paper you expect might be released later this week.

    -- Bret

Joe Sims wrote:
> Certainly, the Evolution and Reform Committee members have a deeper
> understanding of the perspectives of their colleagues to the materials they
> and others have produced over the last several months, and this will be
> helpful in the Committee's production of recommendations to the Board and the
> community, which hopefully will be published later this week.   In most
> contexts, this would be considered a good thing -- the people charged with
> oversight of an body and a process working together to gain a better
> collective understanding of the issues, so that they can do their job better. 

- --
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 14:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:

> At the same time, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper
> understanding of these perspectives had the Board released an audio
> recording of its discussions. It would have allowed for more informed input
> in response to the paper you expect might be released later this week.

Indeed.  On this matter, the DNSO Names Council - which records its
meetings and publishes those recordings to the public - is standing head
and shoulders above ICANN's board.

Joe Sim's royal definition of "transparency" ranks only marginally above
Marie Antoinette's famous plan to alleviate hunger

Nearly two years ago I defined ICANN's obligation to be open and
transparent rather more broadly in my campaign platform:
	http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#open-trans

I find Sim's assertion that the lack of votes obviates the need for
minutes to be absurd - the ingredients and recipe that are used to produce
a decision are as much a component of open/transparent operation as the
the final decision itself.

		--karl--

- --
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 16:24:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

Loren and all assembly members,

Loren Stocker wrote:

> Hi William and all,
>
> I don't doubt that Verisign likes it to be difficult to transfer -- just look
> how AOL makes it all but impossible to drop.
>
> Yet, I split my real world experience with domains and the SMS/800. The
> SMS/800 is a two-party consent system that takes but 48 hour to transfer a
> number -- so it can be done! I think -- as Jeff just noted -- that we can have
> a fail-safe and effient transfers. This must be a two-party consent, there's
> just no other way. The motivation for fraud is too high to allow transfers to
> be done status quo.

  Yes a two party consent seems to be the best way in which this
can be accomplished with a very high degree of success.  However
one of those two parties MUST be the registrant, and the Registrant
must have the final say in the matter.  I would add that a standard
Domain Name Transfer system (SDNTS) with assigned PKI or
other encrypted Key system can be used here to accomplish this.

  I have never had any problem with changing my Netcom account
specifics using something very similar.  I also recently using a similar
system transferred stock from one Broker to another in a matter
of less than a day securely and pretty quickly.  So I and
many of our members, and obviously other Stakeholders
are of course not very understanding of the resistance
from some Registrars and Registries as to their consternation
and resistance to getting this issue handled fairly expediently.
Yet the ICANN BoD and most especially the ICANN staff
seems to be treating this amongst a host of other issues
as some sort of policy training exercise.  I personally
fine that irresponsible and grossly damaging, and have filed
a complaint with the DOC/NTIA accordingly...

>
>
> In the meantime, what I've do with Verisign is double-confirm transfers, as
> many e-mails seem to get lost. I'm batting over 95% with transfers now that I
> use this trick. And start early!

  Good trick!  The problem is that many new or even not so new
registrants do not know this trick, nor should they need or have too!

>
>
> Best, Loren
>
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]> 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

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: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:47:27 +0200
From: "jeanette hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

On 28 May 2002, at 13:51, Bret Fausett wrote:

> At the same time, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper
> understanding of these perspectives had the Board released an audio
> recording of its discussions. It would have allowed for more informed input
> in response to the paper you expect might be released later this week.

I had the same idea. These complicated topics that Joe Sims 
mentioned. And that he hopes and believes that the board members 
now have a deeper understanding of all these complexities. One 
really wonders whether those who did not attend this meeting and 
won't see any minutes have a chance to understand what they are 
expected to comment about. 

jeanette

The Board held a retreat this weekend.  It made no decisions (and 
therefore
> there will be no minutes), but it did have several hours over two 
days of
> uninterrupted discussion about very complicated topics.  I hope 
and believe
> that the Board members left the retreat with a better understanding 
of the
> issues, and their complexities, and of the perspectives of their 
fellow
> Board members, than they had before the retreat.  Certainly, the 
Evolution
> and Reform Committee members have a deeper understanding of 
the
> perspectives of their colleagues to the materials they and others 
have
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> Joe Sims wrote:
> > Certainly, the Evolution and Reform Committee members have a deeper
> > understanding of the perspectives of their colleagues to the materials they
> > and others have produced over the last several months, and this will be
> > helpful in the Committee's production of recommendations to the Board and the
> > community, which hopefully will be published later this week.   In most
> > contexts, this would be considered a good thing -- the people charged with
> > oversight of an body and a process working together to gain a better
> > collective understanding of the issues, so that they can do their job better. 
> 
> --
> 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 17:35:23 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

CIRA is only able to hold elections because each registrant is tagged in the
registry database as being a voter/non-voter with each registration
submitted.

This was only possible because CIRA required all legacy registrants to
re-register when they assumed control of the delegation.

This was only possible because of the relatively small number of
registrations that were concerned.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

> David writes:  The main reason against the elections seems to be variants
on
> we can't make them 100% fraud free.
>
> That's just the ICANN spin... the real reason against elections is that we
> would be electing ICANN's most vocal critics.  ICANN incumbents don't want
> half the Board populated with the likes of Karl and Andy.  It's that
simple.
>
> --
> 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 17:46:28 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IOC

Joe, TechDaily quotes Lynn as saying online elections are off the table, and
given some of the other board comments, one has to ask, is the board
learning toward the IOC model for governance?    Jamie

http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/ioc/index_uk.asp

      ORGANISATION

      The International Olympic Committee was founded on 23 June 1894 by the
French educator Baron Pierre de Coubertin who was inspired to revive the
Olympic Games of Greek antiquity.

      The IOC is an international non-governmental non-profit organisation
and the creator of the Olympic Movement. The IOC exists to serve as an
umbrella organisation of the Olympic Movement. It owns all rights to the
Olympic symbols, flag, motto, anthem and Olympic Games. Its primary
responsibility is to supervise the organisation of the summer and winter
Olympic Games.

      PRESIDENTS

     The IOC President is elected by the IOC members by secret ballot for an
initial term of eight years, renewable once for four additional years. The
President presides over all activities of the IOC, acting as its permanent
representative. The current President, since 16 July 2001, is Jacques Rogge,
of Belgium.

      EXECUTIVE BOARD

      The Executive Board, founded in 1921, consists of the IOC President,
four Vice-Presidents and ten other members. All the members of the Executive
Board are elected by the Session, by secret ballot, by a majority of votes
cast, for a four-year term.

      MEMBERS

      The members of the IOC are individuals who act as the IOC's
representatives in their respective countries, not as delegates of their
country within the IOC. The members meet once a year at the IOC Session.
They retire at the end of the calendar year of which they turn 70 years,
unless they were elected before the opening of the 110th Session (11
December 1999). In that case, they must retire when they reach the age of
80. The term of office for all members is eight years, renewable every eight
years. The IOC chooses and elects its members from among such persons as its
nominations committee considers qualified. All Olympic Movement members have
the right to submit nominations.

       Current members

      ADMINISTRATION

      The IOC administration is at the service of the needs of the Olympic
Movement. It prepares, implements and follows-up on a day-to-day basis the
decisions taken by the main organisations of the Olympic Movement.

- --------------------------------
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 18:00:39 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

Dear Joe, 

I am reminded of the letter sent by J. Beckwith Burr (US DoC) to Esther Dyson 
and Mike Roberts (ICANN) on July 8, 1999 in which the comment was made:  "The 
final step of opening the Board Meetings is critical to establishing trust in 
ICANN."

You are correct in stating that this is hardly a new subject, and most of us 
can understand the need for executive sessions when personnel or legal 
matters are at issue... in this instance, however, we all would have 
benefited from a better understanding of the viewpoints on reform currently 
held by our directors.  

I have appreciated the comments made by Linda Wilson that were posted to the 
Reform Committee's website.  I see value in the comments made by Alejandro 
Pisanty on the Non-Commercial list, and I am delighted that Vint Cerf will 
occasionally choose to post his thoughts to the GA list.  This type of 
openness makes it possible for us to better communicate with our directors.  

Is it supposed to be a secret that Stuart, Vint, Hans, Rob, and Helmut have 
adopted the "no direct at-large-elections under no circumstances whatsoever" 
position (as reported by Andy)?  Surely we should have the benefit of knowing 
what our directors think so that we may encourage them to modify or retain 
their current positions...  Openness and transparency are all about 
"communication".  A communicative Board can engender trust, and trust is the 
real issue.

I find it sad that you have to go out of your way to defend closed meetings.  
Perhaps you too, have too much time on your hands.

Best wishes,
Danny Younger

- --
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:05:10 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

Have to disagree with Karl and Bret on this one. Despite the tone of Joe's
message the point is generally correct . ( Of course, I can make no comment
on all the references to US law, and US institutions, which are analogies
largely lost on we non-US list members.)

But attempts to make people, yes, including  Board members, to think and
discuss in public are wrong headed, and doomed to failure if attempted.

Wrong headed because people need a safe space to think out loud, test
hypotheses and rehearse arguments. Its also good for developing the
necessary interpersonal relations on which most real progress depends.

Doomed, because people deprived of this facility soon engineer their own.
For example does anyone doubt that much of the board's work gets done at the
dinner before a board meeting? I don't say that they come to the meeting
with minds made up, but a lot of work will have been done in private.

By all means, criticise if you wish the appointment of this board, and their
election processes or lack of them, but hold out for a principle that would
make a board effective.

Regards
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

> On Tue, 28 May 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > At the same time, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper
> > understanding of these perspectives had the Board released an audio
> > recording of its discussions. It would have allowed for more informed
input
> > in response to the paper you expect might be released later this week.
>
> Indeed.  On this matter, the DNSO Names Council - which records its
> meetings and publishes those recordings to the public - is standing head
> and shoulders above ICANN's board.
>
> Joe Sim's royal definition of "transparency" ranks only marginally above
> Marie Antoinette's famous plan to alleviate hunger
>
> Nearly two years ago I defined ICANN's obligation to be open and
> transparent rather more broadly in my campaign platform:
> http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#open-trans
>
> I find Sim's assertion that the lack of votes obviates the need for
> minutes to be absurd - the ingredients and recipe that are used to produce
> a decision are as much a component of open/transparent operation as the
> the final decision itself.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 17:12:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

Adam and all assembly members,

  Despite Thomas objections, I think that Jamie's two potential
motions should be debated, and than voted upon.

  I also believe that Brett's proposal is too weak in it's scope
to be seriously considered, given the results on the Rebid
vote.  But if he wishes to make it a motion for the GA
members and it gets Thomas's imposed 10 seconds,
than it should go to a ballot to be voted upon by the
GA members after debate and potential amendments
if required or considered.

  All this aside however, I am more interested in putting
together with anyone or group that wants to work, as our
members are now doing, in addressing proposals concerning the
Rebid motion and the Motion #2 already voted upon...
To me this would be a much more constructive activity
and approach in dealing with the already existing and known
consensus or the DNSO GA members...

Adam PEAKE wrote:

> 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

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: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Have to disagree with Karl and Bret on this one. Despite the tone of Joe's
> message the point is generally correct . ( Of course, I can make no comment
> on all the references to US law, and US institutions, which are analogies
> largely lost on we non-US list members.)
> 
> But attempts to make people, yes, including  Board members, to think and
> discuss in public are wrong headed, and doomed to failure if attempted.

In a private situation I'd be agreeing with you.

In a private organization, the balance between openness/transparency and 
the need for smooth functioning tends to give weight to the latter over 
the former.

And I completely understand the need for there to be space for hard 
positions to be softened so that compromises may be reached.  But those 
are special spaces that ought to be the exception rather than the norm.

ICANN is a public-benefit organization.  Efficiency is not ICANN's highest
goal, process is at least as important as the result, and public
acceptance of decisions is as important as the decisions themselves.

ICANN was established on an explicit principle of open/transparent
procedures.

There are people who can, and there are people who can not, work in an 
open environment.

The interim board chose to say that "open" means "closed" and
"transparent" means "opaque".

They should have, instead, simply said that they could not perform
according to the ground rules and stepped aside to allow someone else who
could.

If ICANN wants to have closed meetings then it ought to honestly amend
paragraph 4 of its Articles of Incorporation and repeal Article III
Section 1 of its bylaws:

 Articles of Incorporation:

  4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet 
  community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant 
  principles of international law and applicable international conventions 
  and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these 
  Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this 
  effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant 
  international organizations.

 By-laws:

  ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY AND PROCEDURES

  Section 1. GENERAL

  The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the 
  maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with 
  procedures designed to ensure fairness.

	--karl--

- --
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 19:14:31 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

<FONT face=3D"Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" si=
ze=3D2><DIV>I would not assume that Andy's reports are accurate.&nbsp; His =
perspective sometimes colors his perceptions of both words and actions.</DI=
V><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>On the main point, we appear to start from differen=
t perspectives.&nbsp; You assume you have some irrefutable right to know an=
d see everything that happens inside ICANN; I assume you do not.&nbsp; I be=
lieve that ICANN meets its public obligations by making all its decisions o=
n the public record, with explanations, and by providing a process open to =
all leading up to those decisions; you believe that it must also provide a =
window on all conversations and discussions leading up to those actions.&nb=
sp; These are difficult to reconcile, so I won't try.<BR></DIV><DIV>&nbsp;A=
s to participation on the GA list, I do not consider this an obligation, an=
d given the approach adopted by most participants, it is certainly not an o=
pportunity for reasoned discussion of issues.&nbsp; So the notion that most=
 people do not find the time to offer additional opportunities to have verb=
al tomatoes thrown at them by the likes (assuming this is the correct word)=
 of Jeff Williams is hardly surprising.&nbsp; What is surprising is that pe=
riodically I forget what participation on this list is like, but it does no=
t take long to remember.</DIV><BR><BR><BR>Joe&nbsp;Sims<BR>Jones&nbsp;Day&n=
bsp;Reavis&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Pogue<BR>51&nbsp;Louisiana&nbsp;Avenue&nbsp;NW<B=
R>Washington,&nbsp;D.C.&nbsp;20001<BR>Direct&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.8=
79.3863<BR>Direct&nbsp;Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.626.1747<BR>Mobile&nbsp;Phone:=
&nbsp;&nbsp;1.703.629.3963<BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>The preceding e-mail=
 message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confi=
dential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges=
, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only =
to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of thi=
s message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then de=
lete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction=
 of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unla=
wful.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D  <DIV><BR></DIV><BR></FONT>=
- --
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 19:16:13 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: IOC

<FONT face=3D"Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" si=
ze=3D2><DIV>Jamie, you are better at PR than attempted analogy; better leav=
e that to professionals.<BR></DIV><BR><BR><BR>Joe&nbsp;Sims<BR>Jones&nbsp;D=
ay&nbsp;Reavis&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Pogue<BR>51&nbsp;Louisiana&nbsp;Avenue&nbsp;=
NW<BR>Washington,&nbsp;D.C.&nbsp;20001<BR>Direct&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.2=
02.879.3863<BR>Direct&nbsp;Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.626.1747<BR>Mobile&nbsp;Ph=
one:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.703.629.3963<BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>The preceding e-m=
ail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be co=
nfidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privile=
ges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed on=
ly to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of =
this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then=
 delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduct=
ion of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be u=
nlawful.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D  <DIV><BR></DIV><BR></FONT>=
- --
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 16:41:57 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IOC

At 05:46 PM 28/05/02 -0400, James Love wrote:

>Joe, TechDaily quotes Lynn as saying online elections are
>off the table, and given some of the other board comments,
>one has to ask, is the board learning toward the IOC model
>for governance?

This makes perfect sense to me. The IOC is a scandal ridden
secretive and corrupt organization, it is anal in its
micromanagement and protection of its own turf, it is
resistant to change even though many of its consumer end
users, participant athletes, member country organizations,
and even governments, have been active in pushing for
change. When the heat gets too much, the CEO resigns and
everything goes on as before. And just to underline the
many disturbing parallels, from my morning paper [1]:

- ----
Vancouver Sun, Tuesday, May 28, 2002

A surprise new fee requested by the International Olympic
Committee will almost certainly cost Vancouver's bid for
the 2010 Olympics an additional $500,000 US. [...]
It is the first time the IOC, which claims it spent $2
million to evaluate bids before Beijing was awarded the
2008 Summer Olympics last year, has required a fee to
cover the costs of the selection process.
- ----

The IOC has nothing on ICANN, who spent more than that
to select 7 TLDs. Arguably, hosting an Olympic Games
is a tad more complex than hosting a database. -g

- ----
1 [include endbracket in link]:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/news/story.asp?id={818709BF-D01A-47A8-88C4-B30157E10961} 

- --
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 #1239
*************************