Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1245
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1245

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:46:44 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

At 03:35 p.m. 29/05/2002 +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

>I would also like to see introduced a polling service, where everyone 
>could propose a position, with a weekly vote on it. Nothing formal, highly 
>automated. The target would be to sense the real mood, to keep the voters 
>interested, to collect support for motion, to build consensuses, to 
>introduce new ideas, to build a sense of responsibility among the GA. 
>There are free services supporting that type of polling

Polling-for-all  is  available in the 
http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:07:42 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Discussion on Voting Registry

At 10:24 a.m. 29/05/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>We supposedly have an electorate of 586 members.  368 did not vote on the
>last set of motions.

This seems to be a normal voters' turnout under the circumstances.

>The IDNO supposedly has a roster of 263 members.  259 did not vote on the
>last set of motions.

That is because the voters were not made aware that these motions were 
going on.
It's  a discussion-list coup.
And even the discussion list has stopped taking the proceedings serious.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:44:28 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

This is nonsense. You know that, right? Yes, ICANN was never fully formed,
but that's not because of Ted's efforts. To the contrary, the ICANN that was
approved by the Department of Commerce called for the election of 9 At Large
Board members. Laying blame is certainly not a productive use of our time,
but if we're going to go down that road, I'm more inclined to lay the fault
for not getting ICANN 'fully formed' at your doorstep.

     -- Bret

Joe Sims wrote:
> If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
> have a good case for doing something different.  But since it has not had
> either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
> compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your view
> of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
> failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:29:36 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

William this is obliviously a typo on my part, but it gave you something to
slam me on, so what the hell right?

If you continued to read that and other commentary from me you would have
found that I was saying that the Registrar acts only as a "'publishing
agent' for expressed purpose of providing public resolution of the
contracted mark on the Internet.  And that in this type of relationship
there is no conveyance in ownership of any IP unless you do something stupid
and sign a contract with a registrar that says that you agree to let them
use the name as part of their Zone Tables for some period.  Then there is no
possibility of transfer because you are contractually bound as a member of
their Zone Tables.

My worst fear is that there is a real need to standardize the language that
is used in a domain publishing contract so it is just that of a publications
agent selling a listing service. This is all part of a Domain
Owner/Operators rights and these need to be defined post haste I think.

Anyway - did we ever get my membership on the IDNO list worked out?

Todd Glassey
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority
Discussion]]]]

> Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 11:06:47 AM, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the
registrar
>
> Wrong.  Try again.
>
> The domain name is a service, contracted for between the registrant
> and the registrar and registry.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:56:47 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] on using appropriate tools

Thinking a bit more about some of the recent discussions here, I  
arrive at the conclusion that a considerable part of the problems we 
are experiencing is caused by the use of an inappropriate tool:  
Votes like we are using them right now are _not_ the tool we  
_should_ be using in order to make declarations of the intent of the 
members of the GA.

More precisely, a vote is an instrument by which some well-defined  
body comes up with a collective decision.  The accountability for  
the outcome of the vote is collective; individual members are not  
held accountable for their individual votes.  For this reason, votes 
are held in secret. In particular, a vote deliberately withholds a  
considerable amount of information from the public.  

It is also bad to arbitrarily add new members to the voting registry 
for a particular vote: Suddenly, the body making the decision is no  
longer well-defined; the result of the vote ("body x says y") itself 
becomes ill-defined as a consequence.

Such votes are an appropriate tool when the GA actually acts as a  
homogeneous body, that is, when it elects a chairman or  
representatives to task forces, or when it votes on its internal  
procedures: Votes are appropriate whenever the question at hand is 
how the GA as a group of individuals can best organize its 
activities.

Votes are, however, not appropriate when GA statements are made on 
substance.  There are several reasons for this.

Most importantly, the GA is _not_ acting as a homogeneous body when  
it comes to substantial topics: We are a mix of constituency members 
and interested individuals, of stakeholders and slashdotters.  We  
may even want to take into account outside support for substantial  
statements (Jamie tried this; similarly, it may be interesting to  
shop for support for a uniform deletions policy or certain transfer  
policies at nsihorrorstories.com).  What the resolutions discussed  
here are about is not a _decision_ within a homogeneous body, but a  
demonstration of support (and, possibly, objection!) from those who  
want to demonstrate that support (or objection).

For such a demonstration, the deliberate loss of information which  
is connected with the current voting mechanism is not desirable: An  
explicit list of supporters of a resolution makes a lot more sense  
than the apples-and-oranges statement that "the DNSO's GA has voted  
for xyz".  In fact, I'd even go a step further than just making the  
voting process transparent: Let's get rid of the voting registry and 
the complex apparatus we are using altogether, as far as substantive 
resolutions are concerned (as opposed to questions of the internal  
organization of the GA).

So, here's my suggestion for how to deal with future resolutions:  
Set up separate web archives where support and objection are  
collected.  The easiest way to do this is to have two separate mail  
addresses, like <resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]> and  
<resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]>.  Connect each of  
these addresses to a web archive.  Distribute a message like the  
following one widely (very rough draft), including to the members of 
the voting registry:

	If you support the above resolution, please send an e-mail  
	message to <[email-masked]>; if you object, please 
	send an e-mail message to <[email-masked]>.  If you 
	want to explicitly record your abstention, send a message to 
	<[email-masked]>.

	In your message, please indicate your name, and possible 
	membership in a DNSO constituency.  Please use the following 
	template:

	Name:
	Membership: {ga/ga-voting-registry/constituency/external}

Define a deadline for the submission of these messages, and produce  
the final report when that deadline is over: Namely, the 
resolution's text, and the lists of supporters and objectors, 
including their kind of DNSO membership.

To summarize, the process suggested has the following benefits over 
the current approach:

 - The resulting statement is well-defined.
 - The process is transparent and can be implemented with 
   considerably less effort than the voting process; in particular, 
   the safeguards necessary to ensure the integrity of a secret vote
   are not needed here.
 - The very concept of capture does not make any sense, since it is  
   reasonably transparent who does and says what.  In particular, 
   there is no voting registry to be stuffed.

Of course, one may argue that this approach is relying on the  
integrity of the Internet e-mail system too heavily; indeed, faking  
a statement of support is as easy as faking an e-mail message.  

If this is a concern, the software used would have to be somewhat  
more complex: The software would have to send a message to the  
e-mail address given which contains the resolution's text and asks  
for confirmation.  The simplest approach to implement this is like  
this: For each incoming message at one of the -support, -object, or  
 -abstain addresses, create a random unique secret string [from a  
well-defined and safe to handle set of characters].  Use that as the 
file name under which you temporarily store the message.  Demand  
that confirmations be sent to ...-{support,object,abstain}-<magic>. 
Have a mail bot listening at that address strip the magic out of  
the address, and move the saved message into the archive.  After the 
end of the vote, move unconfirmed messages into separate archives.

Shouldn't be hard to do.

(If you're unsure about the process I'm describing - it's the same  
thing which is commonly done to confirm mailing list subscriptions  
nowadays.)

Comments?
- -- 
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 19:03:08 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
: >1.  Every member of the ICANN board of directors should be elected
: >by bodies that are wholly independent from the ICANN board itself.
:
: This is ill-defined: What does "wholly independent from the ICANN
: board" even mean?  Is the DNSO "wholly independent"?  Are the
: constituencies?  Would at-large elections like the ones which took
: place 2000 pass this test of independence?

   Probably poorly written.  What I need to say is that the board should not
elect itself.... be able to veto board members, or otherwise be self
perpetuating.   I'll work on the text to better express this.

The DNSO is clearly the weak link in ICANN, which itself is a huge
problem... this is where ICANN board really gets into trouble.   If DSNO was
stronger, ICANN board would be less of a problem.   But of course, then we
would need to worry about the strange way the DNSO is organized... where the
more commerical conflicts of interest you have, the more votes you get.   (A
topic for another day).

:
: >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.
:
: This suggestion would back-fire: It would deprive the board of all
: the experience which is currently there.  Rather, I'd suggest that
: the unelected (and, bad enough, also the elected) at large board
: members should be replaced at the next opportunity.

  I completely disagree with this.  The point is to force the current board
to design a system that they would trust, with them as outsiders.   People
will accept any stupid system for selecting board members as long as they
are on the initial board.

  Jamie

- --------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:14:42 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: [ga] your comments

> Why I bother to react to your nonsense is a mystery to me; must be some
> deep psychological thing.  But I'll take one last (I promise!) try:
>
I appreciate your comments in this forum.

> 1.  Lots of people have spent lots of time reacting to Lynn's paper.
> Indeed, it is absolutely clear that the vast majority of people involved
in
> the ICANN process agreed with its diagnosis of problems almost entirely,
> while there was lots more debate and disagreement on the prescription for
> solutions.

I am not sure that is an accurate characterisation of the RIR response.
see www.apnic.org/net_comm/icann/rir_statement/rir_statememt/html

They say that "ICANN should not be a policy developing body, but should
focus on coordination of informed external review of global policies" in
relation to address policies made by the RIRs and their existing processes.
Stuart points to the RIRs' insistence on being able to withdraw from ICANN
if ICANN creates policies they disagree with as an example of the
"difficulty in gaining the necessary voluntary and complete cooperation of
all the critical participants needed for ICANN to accomplish its mission"
(see p.10 of Stuart's paper). Yet this is similar to the sort of let out NSI
negotiated in its original contract with Commerce and ICANN.

I am sure that it is an inaccurate characterisation of the cctld response.

Centr's paper agrees that ICANN "in its current form cannot fulfil the goals
for which it was set up" but specifically declines to "comment on the
controversial statements with regard to ccTLD managers" in Stuart's paper.
(see www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html )

We in Asia Pacific have been a little more forthright, saying:
" APTLD suggests that it is important to understand that the failure to
reach agreements between ccTLDs and ICANN is not an indication of either
lack of support for an ICANN constituted along White Paper principles, or
that the continued stable global interoperability of the internet is not of
critical importance to members. However, the failure to reach agreements
needs to be taken into account in designing or reforming a structure to
prevent simply a repetition of the previous result. Without a change of
understanding, a new structure will not produce agreements.

The primary obstacle to reaching agreements was the failure by both parties
to satisfactorily establish whether there were any limits to the
"sovereignty" of the ccTLDs in relation to their policy-making role. Draft
contracts prepared by ICANN have tended to reflect and carry forward the
totally different contractual relationship necessary between ICANN and the
generic top level domains. For the g-TLDs, it is ICANN itself which has to
perform the role of the "local internet community". This requires it to
develop and manage policies, which is a function which it should not perform
in relation to ccTLDs. These difficulties, coupled with scepticism
concerning the independence of ICANN from the US Government and its
susceptibility to influence from major commercial interests have not
assisted the formation of agreement. Neither has the apparent adoption by
the staff of policies promulgated by the Government Advisory Committee,
despite their lack of acceptance by the Board, not having been developed by
the ICANN consensus-based policy development process. "

(see www.aptld.org/NEWS/200.html)

At the risk of overly stretching the medical analogy, Dr.Lynn's diagnosis is
akin to saying :
"this patient is dying of lung cancer from too much smoking. The cure is to
cut out smoking and pay for this radical surgery".

We say the patient is dying but from a heavy foot on the throat, which is
preventing the patient from getting fresh air and exercise.

 So, I agree with you Joe that that there has been disagreement over the
"prescription", and say this is likely if the problem continues to be
misdignosed.

>Where we got relatively little reaction was from the byfields
> and similar professional ICANN critics, who have lots of time to carp and
> either an unwillingness or an inability to contribute in any productive
way
> to the debate.
> 2.  You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still facts.
> If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
> have a good case for doing something different.

This misses the point - ICANN has not been fully formed (ie signed up the
cctlds) nor fully funded (ie regular contributions according to budget from
the cctlds) precisely because it has performed badly.

>But since it has not had
> either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
> compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your
view
> of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
> failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.

This is clearly not directed at the cctlds. The relationship there might be
characterised as the ICANN staff trying to stuff their view of the g-tld
contracts and the un-adopted GAC principles down our throats, and extracting
revenues to fund g-tld policy development, but I'd rather close on a
constructive comment -the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
ICANN project since its inception, and are working on preparing a combined
cctld position on ICANN reform, once the regional associations have
completed regional discussions. We are devoting a half day of our two day
session at Bucharest on ICANN reform, and have invited other major players
to attend, and contribute their perspectives. I look forward to it.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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 19:30:34 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

Joe Sims wrote:

> 1.  Lots of people have spent lots of time reacting
> to Lynn's paper. Indeed, it is absolutely clear
> that the vast majority of people involved in the
> ICANN process agreed with its diagnosis of problems
> almost entirely,

Woohoo! We actually have consensus on something.

> while there was lots more debate and disagreement
> on the prescription for solutions.

Yes.

> Where we got relatively little reaction was from
> the byfields and similar professional ICANN critics,
> who have lots of time to carp and either an
> unwillingness or an inability to contribute in
> any productive way to the debate.

I'd say things like the NAIS report, various comments
from groups like EFF, CPtech, CDT, ... and analyses
by people like Froomkin would be highly productive
contributions, if the board bothered to listen.

Granted, some of the crtics do rave a bit now and
then, and a few are outright loons. That's not an
excuse for rejecting serious criticism, dismissing
it as non-productive carping.
- --
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 16:51:36 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

Friday, May 31, 2002, 3:29:36 PM, todd glassey wrote:

> William this is obliviously a typo on my part, but it gave you something to
> slam me on, so what the hell right?

> If you continued to read that and other commentary from me you would have
> found that I was saying that the Registrar acts only as a "'publishing
> agent' for expressed purpose of providing public resolution of the
> contracted mark on the Internet.

And this assumes that a domain name is automatically some sort of
protected mark.

THAT is what I was correcting you on, and have done so repeatedly on
this list.

- -- 
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 17:34:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] on using appropriate tools

NO. For the first time in living memory the GA has been able to get a clear
statement into the public domain through the mainstream media. The ink is
barely dry on newspaper reports and your response is to try and stop the
process repeating itself.

In the overall scheme of things, the process is working just fine thank you.
Voting is exactly the tool needed to confirm the will of the Assembly and
there are some good suggestions on the table for minor adjustments which do
not include denying members of the assembly their fundamental right to
express their will through secret ballots.

Really Thomas, I'm beginning to think your raison d'etre is "if it ain't
broke, break it".
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> Roessler
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 6:57 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] on using appropriate tools
>
>
> Thinking a bit more about some of the recent discussions here, I
> arrive at the conclusion that a considerable part of the problems we
> are experiencing is caused by the use of an inappropriate tool:
> Votes like we are using them right now are _not_ the tool we
> _should_ be using in order to make declarations of the intent of the
> members of the GA.
>
>
> More precisely, a vote is an instrument by which some well-defined
> body comes up with a collective decision.  The accountability for
> the outcome of the vote is collective; individual members are not
> held accountable for their individual votes.  For this reason, votes
> are held in secret. In particular, a vote deliberately withholds a
> considerable amount of information from the public.
>
> It is also bad to arbitrarily add new members to the voting registry
> for a particular vote: Suddenly, the body making the decision is no
> longer well-defined; the result of the vote ("body x says y") itself
> becomes ill-defined as a consequence.
>
> Such votes are an appropriate tool when the GA actually acts as a
> homogeneous body, that is, when it elects a chairman or
> representatives to task forces, or when it votes on its internal
> procedures: Votes are appropriate whenever the question at hand is
> how the GA as a group of individuals can best organize its
> activities.
>
>
> Votes are, however, not appropriate when GA statements are made on
> substance.  There are several reasons for this.
>
> Most importantly, the GA is _not_ acting as a homogeneous body when
> it comes to substantial topics: We are a mix of constituency members
> and interested individuals, of stakeholders and slashdotters.  We
> may even want to take into account outside support for substantial
> statements (Jamie tried this; similarly, it may be interesting to
> shop for support for a uniform deletions policy or certain transfer
> policies at nsihorrorstories.com).  What the resolutions discussed
> here are about is not a _decision_ within a homogeneous body, but a
> demonstration of support (and, possibly, objection!) from those who
> want to demonstrate that support (or objection).
>
> For such a demonstration, the deliberate loss of information which
> is connected with the current voting mechanism is not desirable: An
> explicit list of supporters of a resolution makes a lot more sense
> than the apples-and-oranges statement that "the DNSO's GA has voted
> for xyz".  In fact, I'd even go a step further than just making the
> voting process transparent: Let's get rid of the voting registry and
> the complex apparatus we are using altogether, as far as substantive
> resolutions are concerned (as opposed to questions of the internal
> organization of the GA).
>
>
> So, here's my suggestion for how to deal with future resolutions:
> Set up separate web archives where support and objection are
> collected.  The easiest way to do this is to have two separate mail
> addresses, like <resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]> and
> <resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]>.  Connect each of
> these addresses to a web archive.  Distribute a message like the
> following one widely (very rough draft), including to the members of
> the voting registry:
>
>
> 	If you support the above resolution, please send an e-mail
> 	message to <[email-masked]>; if you object, please
> 	send an e-mail message to <[email-masked]>.  If you
> 	want to explicitly record your abstention, send a message to
> 	<[email-masked]>.
>
> 	In your message, please indicate your name, and possible
> 	membership in a DNSO constituency.  Please use the following
> 	template:
>
> 	Name:
> 	Membership: {ga/ga-voting-registry/constituency/external}
>
> Define a deadline for the submission of these messages, and produce
> the final report when that deadline is over: Namely, the
> resolution's text, and the lists of supporters and objectors,
> including their kind of DNSO membership.
>
> To summarize, the process suggested has the following benefits over
> the current approach:
>
>  - The resulting statement is well-defined.
>  - The process is transparent and can be implemented with
>    considerably less effort than the voting process; in particular,
>    the safeguards necessary to ensure the integrity of a secret vote
>    are not needed here.
>  - The very concept of capture does not make any sense, since it is
>    reasonably transparent who does and says what.  In particular,
>    there is no voting registry to be stuffed.
>
> Of course, one may argue that this approach is relying on the
> integrity of the Internet e-mail system too heavily; indeed, faking
> a statement of support is as easy as faking an e-mail message.
>
> If this is a concern, the software used would have to be somewhat
> more complex: The software would have to send a message to the
> e-mail address given which contains the resolution's text and asks
> for confirmation.  The simplest approach to implement this is like
> this: For each incoming message at one of the -support, -object, or
>  -abstain addresses, create a random unique secret string [from a
> well-defined and safe to handle set of characters].  Use that as the
> file name under which you temporarily store the message.  Demand
> that confirmations be sent to ...-{support,object,abstain}-<magic>.
> Have a mail bot listening at that address strip the magic out of
> the address, and move the saved message into the archive.  After the
> end of the vote, move unconfirmed messages into separate archives.
>
> Shouldn't be hard to do.
>
> (If you're unsure about the process I'm describing - it's the same
> thing which is commonly done to confirm mailing list subscriptions
> nowadays.)
>
>
> Comments?
> --
> 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
>

- --
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 19:13:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

Gary and all assembly members,

  Gary, thank you for you support on this in your comments below.
Transparency is very important if ICANN is to remain viable
and representative of the stakeholder/user Internet community
as well as business and other interest areas.  Right now it seems
that Joe does not know how to accomplish providing transparency
or just doesn't agree that transparency is necessary.

  I personally believe that is it clear that Joe and Vint are from the
Old School of "Old Boy" network method of accomplishing and
addressing the Transparency requirement.  Problem with this
sort of approach is the in the Internet world this just doesn't
work and can backfire on you accordingly, leaving ICANN
in a position of growing distrust and dismay by the vast
majority of stakeholders/users...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> 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

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: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:35:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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.

  Of course many of us here understand the desire of the
BOD to have opportunities to have in-depth discussions
in private.  That however, is not the WHOLE point
of disagreement or distrust.  What is, is that such
discussions should not be done IF what is to be
discussed is related to ICANN ongoing activities
or potential policy issues.

> 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).

  Well I can attest for FCC meetings.  I cannot for
other regulatory body's of similar nature to any great
certanty.  I doubt that you can either, Alex.  What
I can say with pretty good confidence of those that
I have been involved with in the past and presently,
the FCC is usually their model in the area of
Openness and transparency as a similar regulatory
body...

>
>
> 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.

  Not accurate here Alex.  We have Joe's and Karl's as well
now also.  Perhaps you haven't been paying close enough
attention...???

> There
> is a risk that the overall reform discussion becomes disjointed
> if every group discusses internally what they want.

  This CAN or MAY occur, and than again it MAY Not
occur as well.  Hence you are oversimplifying or potentially
mischaracterizing a forgone conclusion prior to such
occurring...  That IMHO, makes this fallacious reasoning...

> This
> is why I would like more Board members to talk about the
> current state of thinking within the Board.

  I agree with you completely here.  And this has been
a problem with the ICANN BOD and staff from the
onset.  It remains a serious problem now...  But we
have an old saying down here in Texas, "you can lead
a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"...

>
>
> 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

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: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: ccTLD "contributions" - was Re: [ga] your comments

On Thu, 30 May 2002, DPF wrote:

> ...  ICANN *refuse* to update our address in the IANA database until
> InternetNZ sign a contract with them so the result is official mail from
> ICANN (including their request for a donation to be made as a good faith
> gesture!!!)

I'd like to explore this "request for a donation".  On more than one
occassion I have heard ccTLD people mention something like this.

It would help me greatly to understand this if you happened to have a
timeline, with attached documentation, showing who said/did what to whom
at what time.

One of the reasons that I ask, apart from the potentially coercive
aspects, is how to account for such "donations".  For example, a true
"donation" is something made out of pure generosity and is not an advance
payment or substitute for a past, present, or future debt.  True donations
offset neither debt nor future payments, and they are not refundable.  On
the other hand, one can slap the label "donation" or "contribution" onto
something that is in reality an advance payment that will be used to
reduce future payments.  And that raises questions of refundability if the
foundation for those future payments not soon come into being.  I have
found ICANN's accounting of these matters to be less than satisfactory.  
On at least one occassion I have had to write to putative "contributors"
to learn whether their understanding was consistent with that of ICANN's
management.

		--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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1245
*************************