Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1241
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1241

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:59:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate - Time Line Guide

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> PROPOSED TIME LINE for "Election Debate"
>
> The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable guideline
> as to the timing of the various events that need to take place in order to
> take a vote of the whole Assembly on one or more issues related to the
> Election Debate before ICANN's next Meeting in Bucharest, which commences
> June 24th 2002.
> What follows are not strict "rules" but rather a rough sketch of the rates
> at which Members could expect things to happen. That is, the "duration" is
> not carved in stone, but rather what one should normally expect to see, all
> other things being equal. Since, in order to complete any Vote of the whole
> Assembly within a 27 day time period, more than one process must take place
> at once, this table provides deadlines for each of the concurrent
> processes.
>
> A General Discussion and investigation of issues commenced on or about Tues
> May 28th http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01725.html. This process
> would normally run its course over a period of 7 days, ending Mon June 3rd.

  Well the process of online elections with their reference to the
Archived URL you provided actually stated over two years
ago and has been ongoing on and off sense that time.

  However for the purposes of getting something accomplished
along the line of Online Elections for any and all stakeholders/users
this venue, the DNSO GA list is one such place where such
work can be accomplished before the Bucharest June 24th
ICANN meeting.  I would add that these discussions be
paralleled at least on the At-Large list as well as that is the
most important area of interest for such global online elections
that can effect the Motion #2 recently passed.

  In this interest than, yet again, the method used in Joanna's
reference the CIRA held elections for all of canada from
Domain Name registrants ONLY for the dotCA TLD
registry...  However for Bucharest June 24th, we should
address any and all stakeholders or interested parties
in the DNSO as well as the yet to be decided upon
AT-Large.

>
>
> An informal Onlist Poll may be held at any time to determine interest in
> proposals put forward for further action, such as a vote of the whole
> assembly on one or more motions.

  Good point and good basic approach here if Thomas and Alex
will not disrupt or otherwise object and we stay within the
present DNSO GA voting rules...

>
> duration: 3 days
> suggested start date: Fri May 31st
> end: Sun June 2nd

  This time line seems fine...

>
>
> Submission and Debate on Proposal(s)
> duration: 7 days
> start: Fri May 31st
> end: Thurs June 6th
>
> Submission and Debate on text of Motion(s)/ including possible amendments
> and/ or substitute Motion(s)
> duration:7 days
> start: Fri June 7th
> end: Thurs June 13th
>
> Informal onlist Poll(s) on amendments,
> and/ or substitute motions
> duration: 3 days
> (optional at any time during Debate)
>
> Deadline for Text of Motion(s) to be submitted with a list of 10 supporters
> Fri June 14th
>
> Vote of the whole Assembly (subject to Secretariat availability)
> duration:7 days
> start: Sat June 15th
> end: Fri June 21st
>
> Submit Final Report(Motion Text, Vote results and supporting documentation)
> Mon June 24th

  This is too late a date.  The motion or Motions should be passed
at least a few days before Bucharest June 24th...

>
>
>

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 23:52:35 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

At 07:44 PM 28/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:

>This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their
>peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care
>about this effect.  They would rather have the "benefits" of a
>homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost
>surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.

I don't know if I'm one of those who want some
peculiar brand of transparency. I do know that
"to the maximum extent feasible" is at odds with
Vint Cerf repeatedly telling Karl Auerbach to
"take it offline" at Stockholm. It wasn't Karl
doing the homogenizing. I also don't think your
trip to Europe to discuss ICANN reform without
the knowledge, let alone the vote, of at least
some of the BoD members was particularily
transparent. Was there some valid, logical reason
for keeping it from them? If so, surely it can be
made public now.

I've served on numerous not-for-profit Boards
going back over 30 years, some of them dealing
with quite contentious matters. Only rarely would
one go in camera to deal with sensitive items
such as personnel, litigation, or something
contained in an NDA, for example. There were also
committees of the whole where directors could
express themselves without fear of being quoted
later. That is all understandable and reasonable
to me, though I will add that the inclusion of
staff or lawyers in camera was only if absolutely
necessary to a specific topic, and neither were
ever included in committee of the whole (a mini-
retreat as it were) so that discussion needn't
be homogenized on their account, as they aren't,
by definition, part of the 'whole'.

I didn't have a problem with that as ultimately
people were held responsible, proper minutes were
kept, including who voted for or against or
abstained, and these minutes were ratified and
published in a timely fashion. I've never seen
(whether from orgs that dwarf ICANN by any metric
but global impact, or from village PTA meetings)
such sparce and tardy minutes as eventually come
out of ICANN Excom and Special meetings.

Combined with sudden surprises out of nowhere
like the Verisign renegotiation, ICP-3, and the
Roadmap to Reform, none of which the community
were expecting, let alone requesting, how can
such secrecy be seen as "consistent with
procedures designed to ensure fairness"? What
we have with the ICANN not-for-profit is an org
that uses secrecy as its default mode, and only
opens up if, when, where, and to the extent
that it absolutely has to.

That does not instill or sustain trust that all
parties' interests are being dealt with fairly,
so any additional non-open, non-transparent
meetings are bound to be suspect as just leading
to more, perhaps unfair, surprises. What I find
peculiar is that you find such suspicion peculiar.

There's something I learned in school, and I know
I'm not the only one. If you hand in what you hope
is the right answer but you can't show your work,
the default is to assume that you're cheating. If
you're lucky, you can convince them you're guessing.

There are a number of valid, logical reasons why a
number of diverse affected parties, including those
who (s)elect BoD members, would like to know if the
BoD answers are just being cribbed from its staff
and lawyer. In absence of evidence to the contrary,
that seems to be the default, and safest, assumption.

That it is a lawyer and staff here now showing their
work, rather than Board members (other than Karl,
does this count as offline?), leaves only one
question, is the Board cheating or just guessing
when it comes to reform? It's all academic anyway.
both rate an F. -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: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:28:22 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

At 28.05.2002 22:34, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>I agree with many of the arguments raised by both Joe and Bret. 

So do I. I understand both the desire to have access to
literally everything said by the Board and the desire for 
opportunities to have in-depth discussions in private.
Realistically, if the Board presented us e.g. 30 hour-long
MP3 files, a few people would listen to them, transcribe
the juicy bits and use them later to point to apparent
contradictions: "But on the Long Island meeting, you said
you didn't like seven NomCom members." I believe what 
would happen is that the discussions would continue
during lunch break, over the phone or by private e-mails.
And as has been remarked on the NCDNHC list, from a
European perspective, ICANN is considerably more open
than e.g. regulatory bodies in the telecom sector (FCC
counterparts).

The problem in this case is that the Board now has a sense 
of what reform plans they like and dislike, and we only
have Andy's short but helpful account of the discussions. There 
is a risk that the overall reform discussion becomes disjointed
if every group discusses internally what they want. This
is why I would like more Board members to talk about the
current state of thinking within the Board.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 03:56:32 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: IOC

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
>Jamie, you are better at PR than attempted analogy; better leave that to
professionals.

Who are the professionals for attempting analogies?

Of course, the reason I raised the IOC was a serious one, and an obvious one
for the ICANN establishment to address, on substanative grounds.

From the IOC web page that I posted, "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 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."

This is, in fact, quite similiar to the structure that Lynn and several
board members are advocating.  A "nomination" and election system that is
accountable only to the incumbents.  The fact that the IOC has been
criticized for this structure is not only a debating point, it raises a real
isssue.  Why choose this type of model for ICANN?   Can you explain how a
system of a self perpetuating board, that re-elects itself, can respond to
criticism, when it does "the wrong thing."?

  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: Wed, 29 May 2002 04:08:47 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

I am proposing that be considered for a vote in the GA, to take place before
the Bucharest meeting.  I am asking Joanne Lane to propose the specific time
table.
Jamie

- ---------
Whereas the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was
created with an understanding that its board of directors would be elected
by a combination of supporting organizations and direct elections from an
atlarge membership, and

Whereas the Committee on ICANN Reform and Evolution and members of the ICANN
board of directors are considering new methods of electing the ICANN board
of directors, and

Whereas some members of the ICANN board of directors are proposing a system
whereby the board of directors would elect itself, and

Whereas a self perpetuating board of directors is both inappropriate and
unacceptable for ICANN,

The General Assembly of the DNSO expresses the following views,

1.    Every member of the ICANN board of directors should be elected  by
bodies that are wholly independent from the ICANN board itself.

2.    If the ICANN board creates a new system for board representation that
is different from the system contemplated in the White Paper, it should
repopulate the board with new board members, who are elected by bodies that
are wholly independent from the existing board, and such action is necessary
to demonstrate the board's confidence in the fairness of the new system.

- --------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 01:22:06 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 1:08:47 AM, James Love wrote:

> I am proposing that be considered for a vote in the GA, to take place before
> the Bucharest meeting.  I am asking Joanne Lane to propose the specific time
> table.

You might get taken more seriously if you asked the Chair to do that,
who can properly consult with the secretariat to see about the
feasibility.

Or you can go do your own thing and not bother with the GA.

- -- 
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:45:10 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

- --=======667B7E64=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Michael,
reasonable words come from you, Brett and Joe. But let remember that the 
ICANN main "product" is transparency. Many States and people are influenced 
in their day to day business and private life by the BoD decisions. They 
need to know if they can trust them and to protect their interest in knowing.

1. there were actions this WE. And some decisions. One has been reported: 
that the BoD is to look for a successor to Stuart. After Joe said there was 
nothing to report.

2. there were actions this WE; the BoD met with non BoD people. Not what 
they said, but what they were told and what they discussed about should 
have been reported. Question right now is simple: the ICANN II or several 
alternatives to the ICANN. I am afraid the current attitude will not help 
ICANN II.

3. I noted - as probably many Chancelleries did - that the ICANN legal 
adviser plainly compares the ICANN to "other" Federal Agencies.
jfc

On 04:34 29/05/02, Michael D. Palage said:
>Although not a frequent poster to the GA, I do try to monitor the traffic in
>my free time. I would like to offer my personal insight on the current
>discussion between Bret and Joe with regard to the scope and interpretation
>of open and transparent. During my over three years of involvement in the
>ICANN process the most defining moment I experienced occurred during Paul
>Twomey's GAC presentation at the Berlin meeting, specifically his response
>spanning 1 hour and 16 minutes to 1 hour and 22 minutes. See
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/ His comments provide a
>rather interesting backdrop to Bret and Joe's discussion.
>
>I agree with many of the arguments raised by both Joe and Bret. Based upon
>my personal experience I find myself somewhere in between both positions. As
>Chair of the Registrar Constituency, I believe that the open and transparent
>model by which the registrars have operated is far and a way superior to
>some of the clandestine operations of other constituencies. However, the
>open and transparent model has at times prevented us from engaging in
>meaningful dialogue to resolve complex problems. As the constituency has
>evolved, the Registrar Executive Committee has held weekly teleconferences.
>Although the minutes from these meetings are made available to the
>constituency, the conversations are not publicly available. In addition, the
>registrar executive committee has created a mailing list which is not
>achieved or publicly available. These non-publicly accessible communication
>exchanges were not done to circumvent any open and transparent process. In
>fact there is minimum discussion that takes here, the majority of
>correspondence takes place on the general registrar mailing list which many
>GA members monitor.
>
>Based upon the recent litigation between BulkRegister and VRSN, and the
>threat of other litigation involving other registrars I believe that the
>open and transparent communication between registrars could be threatened.
>It is with this insight that I understand the arguments put forward by Joe
>and Paul Twomey over three years ago.
>
>Turning to Bret's arguments, I must admit that on more than a few occasions
>(see LA 99 and Melbourne 01 meetings) I have rather strenuously disagreed
>with the positions put forth by ICANN and ICANN Staff. I share many people's
>concern about the leap of faith we are collectively being asked to take in
>connection with a yet uncertain and very powerful nominating committee.
>However, the alternative of existing in the current model is in my opinion
>not a viable alternative. The current bureaucratic nightmare has prevented
>meaningful issues from being resolved in a timely manner to the detriment of
>registration authorities and end users.
>
>In the end, the comments of Paul Twomey over three years ago are rather
>ominous, if ICANN fails there are bureaucrats eagerly waiting to step in and
>take it over, and in that scenario how may of us will even be provided a
>soap box to speak?
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

- --=======667B7E64=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5
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

- --=======667B7E64=======--

- --
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 10:47:12 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

- --=======407243=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 05:05 29/05/02, Kent Crispin said:
>On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> > At 5:28 PM -0700 5/28/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Joe Sims and Dave Crocker posting to GA at the same time.
> > Something's going down. Everyone be on the alert.
>Boo!

Joe, Dave and Kent. May be Andy are you right?

- --=======407243=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5
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

- --=======407243=======--

- --
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 11:05:18 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate - Time Line Guide

On 2002-05-28 21:01:07 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>PROPOSED TIME LINE for "Election Debate"

Please stop this, Joanna.  All you are causing is confusion.

- -- 
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:20:45 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

MOTION PROCESS RULES OF THE DNSO GA --  D R A F T v0.1 

(1) SCOPE OF THESE RULES

These rules apply only to motions of the DNSO General
Assembly. Elections of the GA Chair and Alternate Chair 
follow the GA Chair Election Rules. The voting process
itself follows the DNSO GA Voting Rules and the Voting 
Registry Rules.

(2) MAKING MOTION PROPOSALS

All motion proposals must be sent to [email-masked]
and are automatically archived on the DNSO website. The 
address [email-masked] shall not be used for discussion
about the proposal. The proponent must be a member of the 
DNSO GA Voting Registry. The motion proposal should follow 
this format:
 
  Proponent name           : 
  Proponent e-mail address :
  GA Voting Registry member: [yes/no]
  Title of proposed motion : "[max. 100 characters]"
  Short title              : "[max. 30 characters, should also
                              be the subject of the mail]"
  Full text of the proposal

(3) SCOPE AND NAMING OF MOTION PROPOSALS

Motion proposals addressing issues which are in the 
primary responsibility of a different Supporting 
Organization than the DNSO are not acceptable motions. 
Motion proposals addressing issues which are evidently
not in the responsibility of ICANN are not acceptable
motions. The Chair can require an adjustment of the 
title or short title of the motion proposal in a way 
that reflects the content of the proposal.

(4) SUPPORTING MOTION PROPOSALS

A motion proposal must be supported by 4 percent of 
the total membership of the DNSO GA Voting Registry
within four weeks, starting with the announcement on the
GA mailing list. Statements of support shall be sent to 
[email-masked] and should follow this format:

  Supporter name           : 
  Supporter e-mail address :
  GA Voting Registry member: [yes/no]
  I support the following
  motion proposal          : [proposal title]

(5) DISCUSSING MOTIONS

When the required number of supporters has been reached, 
the official motion discussion period begins. This does not 
prohibit discussion of the motion before the official 
discussion period starts. The time of the discussion period 
is fourteen days. During the discussion period, the DNSO
General Assembly has the opportunity to discuss the
merits and implications of the motion and to develop
alternative proposals. This period can be extended by 
up to fourteen days by the Chair, especially if there 
is no or very little discussion of the motion. 

(6) AMENDING MOTIONS

There are two ways of amending motions: Friendly 
amendments must be accepted by the original proponent 
of the motion and not be opposed by more than 1/4
of the original supporters within a week. Alternatively, a 
motion -- on the same issue as a motion which has met the 
required number of supporters as stated in (4) -- can be 
submitted as a motion proposal, requiring the support of 
2 percent of the total membership of the DNSO GA Voting 
Registry within two weeks. Voting Registry members can 
support any number of motion proposals. The official 
discussion period for such alternative motions on the 
same topic is seven days and can be extended by up to 
fourteen days.

(7) RETRACTING MOTIONS

A motion can be retracted by its original proponent;
the retraction has to be sent to [email-masked].
If 3/4 of the original supporters want to keep the
motion or if support for the motion evidently matches or
exceeds the number of supporters stated in (4), the
motion only needs a new proponent to continue in the
process.

(8) MAKING EMERGENCY MOTION PROPOSALS

If a proponent believes that the motion requires
immediate attention, he/she can note in his motion proposal
that he/she is proposing an emergency motion. The email
format for proposing and supporting the motion proposal 
remains the same; the emergency motion proposal must be 
supported by 7 percent of the total membership of the 
DNSO GA Voting Registry within seven days. The discussion
period lasts seven days and can only be extended by up
to seven days.

(9) APPROVING THE BALLOT

If the required number of GA Voting Registry members
have expressed their support and the motion has been
discussed by the GA members, the Chair of the DNSO 
General Assembly will approve a ballot in accordance with 
the DNSO GA Voting Rules. If possible, the Chair shall 
choose a starting date which allows to address all 
current motions, taking into account relevant deadlines 
such as public comment periods or meetings of the ICANN 
Board.

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

Some answers to possible questions:

Do you have a diagram for this?
  http://www.icannchannel.de/tmp/motion-voting-rules-01.pdf
  (55kB) -- hope it's helpful. 

Why aren't you using the "Best Practices" document by
Joanna and Bill?
  While I find it very useful, I think the rules are too
  long and difficult to understand, especially for
  non-native speakers of English. (Actually, I doubt that
  even 1/10 of the GA members have read them.) On the 
  other hand, I believe that we need rules to process 
  motions *quickly*. The proposed rules are 5kB of text and 
  hopefully easy to understand.

Why is it "easier" to propose an alternative motion on the
same topic than an "original" motion?
  If 4% of the Voting Registry members support a motion,
  this shows considerable interest in an issue -- that's
  good and indicates that there should be a vote. However,
  there should also be an incentive to improve the first
  motion at hand after discussing it. Additionally, it's
  not sure whether it is so much easier: Keep in mind
  that the time frame for alternative motion proposals
  is shorter (2% in *two* weeks). It's not an unfair
  advantage, since ultimately, the voters decide it by
  voting. Some have argued that we should achieve
  consensus by merging all proposed motions into one
  before the voting. I believe that we can only see if 
  there is consensus *after* the voting; for that reason
  I don't mind giving the GA voters the choice between
  several motions.

Why does it take more supporters for an "emergency motion"?
  I'm not sure if we need emergency motions at all, but
  if we want to use an abbreviated procedure to deal with
  issues e.g. directly before an ICANN meeting, we need
  some checks if we want to give up some of the procedure,
  allowing less time for discussion.

Why do we need motion process rules at all?
  Currently, there are no rules to decide when a motion
  has been formally established, how many supporters are
  needed, how much time for discussion is needed etc.
  Consequently, each time there is a vote, we have lots
  of discussion about how a vote should be run.

Why isn't the voting itself covered?
  We already have voting rules, voting registry rules and
  Chair election rules -- see the DNSO site. 

Are these rules perfect?
  [As if someone would actually ask that question...]
  Of course not, but I think they are much better than the
  current situation. 

So the Chair/Alt.Chair hopes to gain more power, right?
  Nope. Currently, Thomas and I have to resort to "making
  up rules as we go along". For instance, there is no
  rule to guide us how much time we should leave for
  discussion. This makes (a) GA members unhappy and (b)
  us unhappy, because we are criticized for whatever
  decision we make (too little time, too much time etc.)

Have to leave it there,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:41:03 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

- --=======4F7F7838=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Chair,
I submit the text of the following motion for a debate and further on for a 
vote by this GA.
I call for comments or tentative seconds. I thank the Chair to let us know 
under which delay and how many seconds he would need to proceed to a vote.

I note that this motion cetailny concerns the entire ICANN, but the DNSO 
being on its compenents, it concerns also the DNSO. The DNSO having to 
relate with the BoD, a drastic change in the BoD slection would necessarily 
have an impact on the DNSO. Among others this motion is to permit the 
Members of the GA to tell the limits or the conditions they want to set-up 
for them to trust the BoD and  for the DNSO/BoD relation to continue and 
improve.

>Whereas the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was
>created with an understanding that its board of directors would be elected
>by a combination of supporting organizations and direct elections from an
>atlarge membership, and
>
>Whereas the Committee on ICANN Reform and Evolution and members of the ICANN
>board of directors are considering new methods of electing the ICANN board
>of directors, and
>
>Whereas some members of the ICANN board of directors are proposing a system
>whereby the board of directors would elect itself, and
>
>Whereas a self perpetuating board of directors is both inappropriate and
>unacceptable for ICANN,
>
>The General Assembly of the DNSO expresses the following views,
>
>1.    Every member of the ICANN board of directors should be elected  by
>bodies that are wholly independent from the ICANN board itself.
>
>2.    If the ICANN board creates a new system for board representation that
>is different from the system contemplated in the White Paper, it should
>repopulate the board with new board members, who are elected by bodies that
>are wholly independent from the existing board, and such action is necessary
>to demonstrate the board's confidence in the fairness of the new system.

- --=======4F7F7838=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5
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

- --=======4F7F7838=======--

- --
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 13:51:12 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Note about [email-masked] address

Dear all,

just for clarification:
The [email-masked] address will not work *yet*, since 
I only made the draft proposal a few hours ago and 
the DNSO listadmin has not yet been requested to add the
address. (James Love has already sent his motion proposal
to the address, but has CCed several others.)

Best,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:57:01 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

Joe,

Let me start with a "me too".
I join the many who appreciate your participation in this forum, it is 
essential that the POV of the people that have a definite role in ICANN 
(whether staff, consultants, directors, or whatever) engage in open 
discussions on a public list. Isn't this part of the building of an "open 
and transparent" process? I like to have direct intervention of people 
taking responsibility for what they write.
I also hope that we in the GA will be able to restrain from throwing 
"virtual tomatoes", and keep the discussion correct. Knowing that if we 
don't, people like you will be less motivated to post, and in the end it 
will only be the GA to suffer.

This said, getting into the matter at hand, I do believe that there is not 
only black and white, but also shades of grey (not to speak about other 
colours).

You wrote (I only quote the passages I thought more important):
>.... Danny, like
>some others, apparently believe that to be transparent, all ICANN
>discussion and actions have to be taken in full public view.

I don't share Danny's view, but have nevertheless a concern about "openness 
and transparency" of ICANN, as is now.

I am with you when you note that:
>.... 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.

Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the concerns replying to one position that 
is probably extreme: "Every bit of information exchanged by every person 
bearing any hat in ICANN must be public record" (incidentally, I don't think 
that Danny would himself believe that this is what he meant in his posting).
The fact that we cannot have everything on public record does not absolve 
ICANN from doing a better job on openness and transparency, exactly how the 
fact that we cannot have a perfect, cheap, manageable and fair online 
election process does not constitute a good excuse for not trying to put up 
a process for the AtLarge election of Directors, or how, as stated in my 
post of yesterday, the fact that we cannot have perfect representation of 
Registrants does not constitute a good enough excuse for denying the 
legitimity tout-court of a Constituency for registrants.
In other words, if "black" is unfeasible, it does not follow that "white" is 
the only solution (you may change the order of the colours, if you like).

This is why I would suggest that we find a way to make better use of a 
scarce resource: participation of people of your caliber to the GA.
I would recommend that instead of discussing of the feasibility of equally 
unfeasible solutions (like to have every word of every ICANN Director, CEO, 
Staff, Counsellor, ... online in real time, or like to hold meetings without 
any information to the many laymen stakeholders), we concentrate on how we 
could make the ICANN process more open and more transparent, how we could 
have the voice of every stakeholder better taken into account by the Board, 
how we can improve an ICANN that is only in a very limited way open to 
non-US interests (the example I always make is 2 out of 2 CEOs and 2 out of 
2 Chairpersons being US citizen cannot be a coincidence).

Best regards
Roberto

>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1241
*************************