Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1298
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1298

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

So what you meant was, "we debate but only on agendas set by {fill in the
blank}"?  Excuse me if I'm being dense, but I really don't quite follow
what you have in mind here.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > I beg your pardon?  We "participate" but don't express opinions?
> >
> > I'm sure you didn't mean to sound Stalinist, but what exactly *did* you
> > mean?
> 
> Roberto explicitly stated that it was his opinion that the mission of the GA
> was to "to provide a forum for debating issues related to the DNS."
> 
> There is a different between acting like a debating club and substantively
> participating in the work at hand. IN other words, debate without results is
> simply debate. Debate with no purpose is what chums do on a Friday night
> over beers.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics
> 
> 
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open participation
> in
> > > the work of the DNSO.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's hot here.<--
> >
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:18:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Ross and all assembly members,

  Ross, if you really believe that the GA is not relevant, or dos not
provide any relevance to the DNSO and thereby ICANN, why do
you even bother to post on the GA list or participate in the DNSO GA?

  Secondly, doesn't your post below, demonstrate to al be it a tiny degree,
the relevance of the DNSO GA as it is presently?

  And finally, given the number of resolutions and motions that have been
voted upon by the DNSO GA members for the ICANN BOD and staff's
review and consideration, does that fact not also demonstrate that the
DNSO GA in it's present form is at least somewhat productive and
conducive to the ICANN "Process"?

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> >
> > IMHO only kids in kindegarten accept adult supervision and debates under
> > adult control, adults do not. I am afraid that while the ERC first
> document
> > could have been promizing, the blueprint is the ICANN slow suicide. Anyway
> > the GNSO GA is of no real interest, CCSO local GA are.
>
> The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
> provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
> very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> accomplished.
>
> Your message demonstrates perfectly the current dysfunction. You make
> sweeping generalizations critical of the proposal yet fail to provide any
> clear input into how the proposal can be improved or provide an alternative.
> This is not how functional organizations produce useful insight. This is why
> the GA has failed to achieve relevance. This is why the status quo of the GA
> is not acceptable.
>
> There might be better ways to proceed, but in the absence of a better idea,
> this is the only way to proceed.
>
> -rwr
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:26:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI -  ISOC Luxembourg: An Afternoon with Vint Cerf, on the 4th of July no less!

All assembly members,

  Here is something that Thomas, our chair passed along on the
ICANN-EU list of which he manages BTW...  My response
is included...

=====================Copy starts here ==================
Subject:
             Re: [icann-europe] ISOC Luxembourg: An Afternoon with Vint
             Cerf
        Date:  Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:09:36 -0700
       From:  Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
 Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
         To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
         CC:  [email-masked], vint Cerf
<[email-masked]>,
             icann board address <[email-masked]>
  References:
             1

Thomas and all,

  Yes, very interesting!  What is actually interesting is that Vint
Cerf would be spending July 4th (Independence Day), probably the
single most important holiday in the USA in Luxembourg.  To me
that shows his total lack of patriotism as a US citizen.
I am ashamed for him and of him...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Maybe some of you find this interesting.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.isoc.lu/news/getnews.php?id=98
>
> Date: 04/07/2002
>
> Auteur: Patrick Vande Walle
>
> Titre: An afternoon with Vint Cerf : "Internet: 21st Century Tidal
Wave"
> URL: http://www.isoc.lu/conferences/index.html
>
> On 4th July 2002, ISOC Luxembourg is proud to organize a conference
> featuring Dr. Vinton Cerf, father of the Internet.
>
> The conference is scheduled on the 4th July, 2002 at 2:30 pm at
the:
>
> International School of Luxembourg
> 36 rue Dupong (Campus Geesseknäpchen)
> L-1430 Luxembourg
>
> The conference wil be held in English. However, we will take
> questions in French, German and Luxembourgish.
>
> The entrance is free for everyone. However, given the limited
number
> of seats, you are requested to book your seat in advance.
>
> Provisional program
>
> 14:30 Welcome address
> 14:45 to be defined
> 15:30 "Internet: 21st Century Tidal Wave" by Dr. Vinton G. Cerf
> 16:15 Discussion panel with Dr. Cerf and industry representatives
> 17:30 Farewell drink
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

===================  copy ends here =============

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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:41:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics - Rather, the "Black and Blueprint"

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Ross!
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
> >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
> >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> >accomplished.
>
> The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
>    provisional constituencies
> -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA

  This is very wrong approach in the "Blueprint".  The GA members themselves
and individually are responsible for the GA.  They ELECT a council member
to represent them on the DNSO NC.

>
> -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
>    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.

  TF's have failed for the most part as has been clearly demonstrated
on a number of occasions as was plainly evident in the .ORG TF.
Hence the WG approach that is open to any and all stakeholders/users
that are GA members or GA list members that wish to participate.
Anything less for a General Assembly is just another form of
Censorship.  AND CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF ITS FORMS
IS WRONG!

>
>    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums

  This is also a form of CENSORSHIP, which has been recently
attempted by yourself and Thomas in the Rebid Motion.

>
>
> I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> is a truly bad idea.

  Not only it is a very bad idea Alex, it is yet another form of CENSORSHIP
which is wrong!

> In addition, one should not underestimate the
> amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> to get their Names Council work done!).

  Oh my!  How terrible for them!  Mercy me!  (Sarcasm intended here )
I can't remember the number of times I have used some or all of
my vacation time to complete work on time!  As one of our past
presidents, Harry Truman once said, "if you can't handle the heat,
get out of the kitchen".

> Doing the GA as a side
> job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
>
> I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
>
> I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> domain holders and IP interests are already represented.

  So far or members that have reviewed the "Blueprint" see
it mostly as a "Black and Blueprint" to the stakeholders/users.

>
> Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> balance.
>
> With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> /// Alexander
>
> PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
> http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliament.jpg
> :)
>
>

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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:57:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

The following was just posted to the registrars list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02625.html

    Dear fellow ICANN accredited registrars:

    On behalf of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly known as the Network
Solutions Registrar), NameSecure, SRSPlus, and NameEngine, the registrars of
VeriSign believe that it is unwise at this time to react to the proposal to
increase ICANN spending in 2002/2003 by 25% or more.  Such spending
increases may - or may not - be necessary and justified, but we do not see
how anyone could reach that conclusion at this point in time.  Consequently,
we think that basic and sound planning requires that ICANN's proposed budget
(fiscal year July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003), remain at the same levels as
the current budget (fiscal year July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002), until such
time as ICANN completes its current structural review. 

    As most organizations, we at VeriSign develop budgets that are based
on fairly specific assumptions about functions, structure, organization,
activities, and their consequent effect on expenses.  Most organizations do
the same.  It would not be a sound business strategy for any organization,
profit or non-profit, to enter into major new spending commitments at the
very time that they are in the midst of a strategic review.  We are not
rejecting the current budget proposal outright, we are simply stating that
at this point in time, given the major review that is underway,  it is not
fiscally prudent for a budget to enter into significant new, long term,
financial commitments that will increase the current budget by 25% or more
(see http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-15may02.htm#fn1 to note
that the current 25% increase omits some expenses - the actual percentage
increase could be higher).

    As ICANN continues its efforts to define a sound restructuring and
time frame for implementation, if necessary, it should be possible to set a
time in the future, perhaps before the new fiscal year ends, to increase the
budget with necessary and defined expenses.

    Respectfully,

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:35:05 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

ummmm wheres the beer? (tm)

since I see no beer around, and Ive been here for years...should I be
drawing conclusions?

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> > I beg your pardon?  We "participate" but don't express opinions?
> >
> > I'm sure you didn't mean to sound Stalinist, but what exactly *did* you
> > mean?
> 
> Roberto explicitly stated that it was his opinion that the mission of the GA
> was to "to provide a forum for debating issues related to the DNS."
> 
> There is a different between acting like a debating club and substantively
> participating in the work at hand. IN other words, debate without results is
> simply debate. Debate with no purpose is what chums do on a Friday night
> over beers.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics
> 
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open participation
> in
> > > the work of the DNSO.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                         -->It's hot here.<--
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:07:04 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

I think its important to ensure that the evaluation of the ERC
recommendations regarding the GA take into account the sum of  specific
recommendations rather than the specifics in isolation.

Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that the
ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose. Part of this lies
with ensuring that discussion is limited to the issue(s) at hand - ie - the
work of the GNSO.

In other words, if proposals aren't tabled and focused discussion does not
ensue and recommendations aren't forthcoming then the GA *cannot* be
effective. In this context, moderation is a useful tool for ensuring that
the discourse is focused and relevant.

Some say that moderation of the list is tantamount to censorship when in
fact it is, and should be, a reasonable tool that the chair can use to
ensure that the goals of the assembly are reached.

I can't say that any of this will be easy - rules will need to be
established and likely refined, but at the end of the day, unless the output
is substantive, then the effort is wasted.

One of the points that the ERC didn't touch on adequately, IMHO, is
steering. While generalities are put forward, I would be very interested to
hear much more in the areas of intake and closure for instance.

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

>
> Hello Ross!
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but
also
> >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide
a
> >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> >accomplished.
>
> The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
>    provisional constituencies
> -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
> -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
>    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
>    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums
>
> I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the
> amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
> job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
>
> I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
>
> I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
> Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> balance.
>
> With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> /// Alexander
>
> PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
>
http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliam
ent.jpg
> :)
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:14:01 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Reform proposal:  A democratic DNSO

Danny,

I touched on this many moons ago. The principle value that the GA can and
should be bringing to the table is the informed recommendations that its
members can make. We also talked about this generally on Thursday. Claiming
to represent a Public Interest doesn't increase the legitimacy of the
assembly. This is one of the big areas that the current GA has gotten
interminably tied up in. In the GA, as with the IETF, its not about who you
represent, but the ideas that you bring to the table. The ideas that
eventually result in consensus based recommendations that can be taken
seriously. This is not about democracy - it never was.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Reform proposal: A democratic DNSO

> Ross, you wrote:  "The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for
open
> participation in the work of the DNSO."
>
> Sadly, I think you are missing the point... We are in the midst of a
debate
> regarding the "evolved" future of the GA within the DNSO.  As such, we
cannot
> point to past constructs and declare that they are determinative.
>
> Within the DNSO we have two collectivities, the members of special
interest
> groups (constituencies) and non-affiliated members (GA participants that
> represent the voice of the Public Interest).  Currently, no voting rights
are
> accorded to those that represent the Public Interest within the DNSO, only
> lobbyists for special interest groups may vote.  Why should I and my peers
> that are actively involved in the day-to-day ICANN issues have no voting
> rights within this policy-recommending organ?  There are certainly as many
of
> us in this organization as there are of you... why should we be treated as
> second-class participants?
>
> Our founding documents were predicated on a recognized need for "balance".
> An "evolved" DNSO should confer voting rights to all that participate in
this
> body and should strike a balance between special interest and public
> interest.  In my view, that would mean that the GA as a collectivity
should
> have as many votes as the aggregate of the special interests.
>
> An even better approach would be One-person/One-vote, a democratic
tradition
> that would serve us well.  Let me ask, what would be your objection to a
> reorganization based on democratic principles?  Is there any particular
> reason why the membership of the GA should not be given voting rights?
What
> claim do you have to a superior status?

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

How then do I get subject I care about discussed?  Without a constituency
to belong to, or any Board members who answer to me, there is no avenue
withint the ICANN strcuture where I can raise issues and see if others
agree.  Which, as I read it, is exactly the point:  The GA has not gone
along with the program, it's dared to express views that dissent from the
ruling cabal's agenda.  It must go.  And go, it seems, it shall.

ICANNWatch.org will remain open, of course, but comments posted there are
officially irrelevant to any decision ICANN makes - it takes the view they
don't exist.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> I think its important to ensure that the evaluation of the ERC
> recommendations regarding the GA take into account the sum of  specific
> recommendations rather than the specifics in isolation.
> 
> Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that the
> ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose. Part of this lies
> with ensuring that discussion is limited to the issue(s) at hand - ie - the
> work of the GNSO.
> 
> In other words, if proposals aren't tabled and focused discussion does not
> ensue and recommendations aren't forthcoming then the GA *cannot* be
> effective. In this context, moderation is a useful tool for ensuring that
> the discourse is focused and relevant.
> 
> Some say that moderation of the list is tantamount to censorship when in
> fact it is, and should be, a reasonable tool that the chair can use to
> ensure that the goals of the assembly are reached.
> 
> I can't say that any of this will be easy - rules will need to be
> established and likely refined, but at the end of the day, unless the output
> is substantive, then the effort is wasted.
> 
> One of the points that the ERC didn't touch on adequately, IMHO, is
> steering. While generalities are put forward, I would be very interested to
> hear much more in the areas of intake and closure for instance.
> 
> -rwr
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics
> 
> 
> >
> > Hello Ross!
> >
> > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but
> also
> > >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
> > >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> > >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide
> a
> > >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> > >accomplished.
> >
> > The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> > -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
> >    provisional constituencies
> > -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
> > -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
> >    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
> >    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> > -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums
> >
> > I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> > but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> > find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> > proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> > if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> > Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> > but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> > have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> > is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the
> > amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> > their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> > lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> > to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
> > job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> > that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
> >
> > I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> > I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> > forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> > posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> > constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> > for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> > GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> > there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> > understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
> >
> > I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> > at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> > GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> > fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> > domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
> > Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> > a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> > Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> > and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> > as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> > to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> > businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> > and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> > no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> > domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> > balance.
> >
> > With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> > PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> > like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> > from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> > claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
> >
> http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliam
> ent.jpg
> > :)
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:49:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Reform proposal:  A democratic DNSO

Re:  "This is not about democracy - it never was"

I suppose that if I wanted to protect entrenched special interests at the 
expense of all others that seek to be represented in the ICANN process, I too 
would be using your arguments... but the truth is that I see the very real 
need to have the Public Interest accorded rights in the same measure that 
Special Interests now enjoy such rights.   With the demise of the At-Large in 
the ICANN structure, accountability and legitimacy demand that the Public 
Interest be placed on equal footing with Special Interest (especially in the 
area of domain name policy).

Ross, if its not about who you represent, but the ideas that you bring to the 
table that eventually result in consensus based recommendations, then why not 
just eliminate Council voting altogether?  How can you justify any voting 
mechanism that includes no voting bloc for the Public Interest?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:50:55 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Rhetoric aside, as I noted the ERC recommendations don't go far enough in
describing the steering and intake processes. Perhaps this is something that
the GA could seize upon, or not...

It must go? Whether or not the GA stays in the game is up to the GA and not
your "cabal".

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

> How then do I get subject I care about discussed?  Without a constituency
> to belong to, or any Board members who answer to me, there is no avenue
> withint the ICANN strcuture where I can raise issues and see if others
> agree.  Which, as I read it, is exactly the point:  The GA has not gone
> along with the program, it's dared to express views that dissent from the
> ruling cabal's agenda.  It must go.  And go, it seems, it shall.
>
> ICANNWatch.org will remain open, of course, but comments posted there are
> officially irrelevant to any decision ICANN makes - it takes the view they
> don't exist.
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > I think its important to ensure that the evaluation of the ERC
> > recommendations regarding the GA take into account the sum of  specific
> > recommendations rather than the specifics in isolation.
> >
> > Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that
the
> > ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose. Part of this lies
> > with ensuring that discussion is limited to the issue(s) at hand - ie -
the
> > work of the GNSO.
> >
> > In other words, if proposals aren't tabled and focused discussion does
not
> > ensue and recommendations aren't forthcoming then the GA *cannot* be
> > effective. In this context, moderation is a useful tool for ensuring
that
> > the discourse is focused and relevant.
> >
> > Some say that moderation of the list is tantamount to censorship when in
> > fact it is, and should be, a reasonable tool that the chair can use to
> > ensure that the goals of the assembly are reached.
> >
> > I can't say that any of this will be easy - rules will need to be
> > established and likely refined, but at the end of the day, unless the
output
> > is substantive, then the effort is wasted.
> >
> > One of the points that the ERC didn't touch on adequately, IMHO, is
> > steering. While generalities are put forward, I would be very interested
to
> > hear much more in the areas of intake and closure for instance.
> >
> > -rwr
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hello Ross!
> > >
> > > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > >The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA
but
> > also
> > > >provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going
forward.
> > > >The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
> > > >mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations
provide
> > a
> > > >very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
> > > >accomplished.
> > >
> > > The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
> > > -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and
> > >    provisional constituencies
> > > -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
> > > -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion,
> > >    resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
> > >    No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
> > > -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums
> > >
> > > I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
> > > but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
> > > find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
> > > proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
> > > if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
> > > Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
> > > but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
> > > have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
> > > is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the
> > > amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do
> > > their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
> > > lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
> > > to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
> > > job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
> > > that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).
> > >
> > > I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
> > > I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency
> > > forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't
> > > posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals
> > > constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution
> > > for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain
> > > GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course,
> > > there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody
> > > understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!).
> > >
> > > I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint,
> > > at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional
> > > GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the
> > > fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
> > > domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
> > > Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
> > > a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
> > > Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
> > > and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
> > > as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
> > > to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large
> > > businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer
> > > and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
> > > no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
> > > domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a
> > > balance.
> > >
> > > With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
> > > /// Alexander
> > >
> > > PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
> > > like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
> > > from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
> > > claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
> > >
> >
http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliam
> > ent.jpg
> > > :)
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's hot here.<--
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1298
*************************