Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1302
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 27 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1302

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:12:40 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Impressions from the Bucharest GA meeting

Hello from Bucharest!

Here are some thoughts on the Bucharest GA meeting -- I couldn't
take notes while chairing, but Glen will provide brief official
notes and we will put the presentations online.

First, we had an update from the Whois Task Force: They are
releasing their 88-page final draft report which contains some
interesting findings from the survey. There will also be a
presentation at the ICANN Public Forum. The Whois TF's task
was to identify whether there is a need for a review of the
current Whois policy, so it's only the first stage, but the
report is definitely an interesting starting point. After that,
we had a brief report about the work of the Transfer Task Force.
This one was the more general presentation, more details will
be available at the Names Council meeting starting at 11:00 UTC
(14:00 local time) and the ICANN Public Forum.

The first session was an update on At Large, with Denise Michel,
Izumi Aizu, Vittorio Bertola and Esther Dyson on the panel.
The At Large Organizing Committee (aka at-large.org) has by now
brought together 16 At Large structures representing over half
a million (!) Internet users in 70 countries, and it's focussing
now on getting the work on *issues* started. After that, we had
a very interesting presentation by Bernard Turcotte, President 
of the Canadian ccTLD registry CIRA. [Pronounced cee-rah, as I
have know learned. ;)] They just had user elections for 3 Board 
seats and although the participation level dropped and still
is low (1.000 of 140.000 possible voters), they seem to take it 
as a challenge to get more people to participate rather than a 
reason to give up. The election is done online, which is possible 
because all domain holders have an ID and password; the elections 
are monitored by professional auditors and performed by an 
external returning officer. Interesting: If people called the
customer support of their registrar during the period before
the voting, customer support people told them at the end of
the call that CIRA elections are coming up and that they could
get their ID and PW now if they didn't have it. They also did
mass media outreach and even banner ads, but that didn't seem
to have a major effect. About 100 of the vote(r)s were questioned,
but after investigation, only 15 were disallowed -- which seems
to be an extraordinarily low number to me. The verification
costed about 3000 US$.

After that I tried (/tried/) to start some discussion about the
future General Assembly under the Blueprint proposal. Unfortunately,
there was very little participation from the audience throughout
the whole meeting.

Thanks to the people who bothered to watch the webcast (sometimes
in the middle of the night) -- I received messages from Leah, 
Danny and Thomas. I apologize for the slow start: Someone had
messed around with the cables after the ICANN team had set up
the system, so they had to test and check again to make the
display work. Thanks to them as well! 

As said, I hope we all the presentations online after the meeting.
The next event to be webcast is the NC meeting.

Best regards,
/// Alexander 

PS: Nice to hear from Ken Fockler that the notes from the 
cross-constituency meeting are actually discussed at some
constituency meetings! 

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 05:17:59 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] June 25 notes

I don't know if this made it to the moderated list yesterday.

Jamie

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Bucharest Diary, June 25
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:43:10 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

Bucharest, Romania
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
James Love ([email-masked], local cell
+40.72.164.3737)

I'm here at the ICANN meeting, having arrived in the
late afternoon.  I briefly sat in the on a meeting
about the .org bids, and in another meeting organized
by the "icannatlarge.com" organizing effort, which
featured quite surprising presentations by Esther
Dyson, followed by about 5 hours of gossip, drinks and
food in the Marriott Grand Hotel, where the meeting is
being held.  We have wi-fi, which makes email easy.

Everything will lead up to the ICANN board meeting on
Friday, and so far it looks like a depressing week.
Most people say the June 20 "Blueprint for reform"
document will be approved with a few changes on Friday.
Among other things, ICANN is seeking to eliminate any
possibility that there will ever be votes from the
general public for anything, and doing its best to pass
this off this as some consensus decision.  ICANN
also proposes to abandon an independent review
board, and is seeking to adopt a statement on
policy making that opens the door to just about
anything.

The main thing here is about raising fears about what
will happen if people don't go along with the ICANN
"reform" proposal, no matter how bad it is.  Many of
these are seemingly inconsistent, and appeal as much to
emotions as reason.  Top on the list is the resentment
toward the US for its current perceived control over
the Internet DNS.  Recent statements by members of
Congress are being used to work people up over the US
government taking over the ICANN functions.  A large
number of persons here find this a compelling reason to
sign off on almost anything here, so that ICANN can
(drum roll) sign a new MoU with the US DoC.
Apparently having a really bad ICANN and DoC is
held out as much better than DoC running the DNS
without ICANN, as if this is something to worry about
(plausible as a sustainable alternative), or the likely
outcome of a failed ICANN.

Second on the list of feared things is the ITU, one
possible replacement for the US DoC if there was
international management of the DNS. The ITU is now
receiving some member government support for taking a
greater look a the DNS, particularly among developing
countries.  One of the issues here would be the
redelegation issue for ccTLDs, an obvious role that ITU
could play.  A number of persons here express fear that
this would lead to undesired national government
involvement in the way some ccTLDs are run, on the
theory that the current ambiguity of who controls the
ccTLDs has prevented some countries from being too
ambitious in regulating domestic Internet activity (or
taking away lucrative franchises).  Clearly some ccTLD
operators are nervous about ICANN, and some ccTLDs are
nervous about national governments.  For those who are
worried about domestic governments, they had hoped
ICANN would provide a buffer.

I asked people, if you don't want the US DoC to have
the DNS MoU, and you don't want the ITU, what do you
want?  The GAC?  The answer among many was, nothing -
they want ICANN without any government involvement.
What seems missing from this wish is any evidence that
governments will just turn everything over to ICANN and
give ICANN a blank check to do whatever it wants,
without any public accountability.  Plus, ICANN is
asking goverments to take a larger role, and they are.

Meanwhile, ICANN itself looks more and more like a
cartel, or a quasi-government that seeks taxes and
unwanted supervision of a cartel.  Verisigin doesn't
want an expansion of the name space, unless they can
run everything, and neither do the ccTLDs.  ICANN is
doing approximately zero to introduce new TLDs.  This
problem is so obvious that ICANN is being warned that
if can face antitrust law suits, an issue Joe Sims is
advising the ICANN board on, I was told.

The at large organizing meeting was small and even I
was surprised at how weak the support is here for
elections of any kind.  Esther Dyson and Denise Michel
gave long presentations on how the board would not
tolerate anything that involved the general public
electing board members, and they described the new
official ICANN "reform" version of the at large, which
is a highly structured consultation system, that ICANN
controls from the top, and which is not capable of
holding votes from individuals.  Esther went on about
how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
Latin America, and how little support there was for
elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.

At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats.  In
Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members.  Then
there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
supporting organization, with 3 board members.   Now in
the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
of a nominating committee.  Can you tell me how that 1
member will be chosen?"  At this point, Dyson told me I
should stop criticizing people, and be constructive.
The answer, of course, is that the ICANN board cannot
tolerate even the election of one person to a 19 member
nominating committee.  Apparently the mere existence of
a system for having elections is a taboo, because it
might lead to demands that elections be used for more
important things, and could provide evidence that the
public doesn't agree with the decisions of the hand
picked board members.  Of course, it is ironic that we
having this meeting in Romania, and headed next to the
People's Republic of China, to finish the job of
eliminating democratic input or mechanisms to express
dissent or popular opposition to ICANN Board policies.

Three members of the atlarge.com temporary steering
committee  (Vittorio Bertola, Izumi Aizu, and Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter) and were at the at large meeting, and
to my suprise, each of them
signaled a willingness to accept the ICANN
proposal to abandon any voting from individuals, in
favor of a promise by ICANN to consulate with the
public on issues.  The Dyson, Michel suggestion is to
be very docile, or the ICANN board won't even allow the
consultation process.   It is of course also relevant
that the ICANN board wants to strip the ICANN General
Assembly from the right to elect its own chair or vote
on any motions.

I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
process.  Densie told us that she had 20 years of
policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
to happen.  She said:
The US Senate would do nothing.  The US
House of Representatives would do nothing.  The DoC
would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.

Tonite Andy Mueller told me the ICANN board had one of
its secret get togethers this evening, and agreed to
approve the blueprint on Friday, with a few changes.
The board is closing ranks, and trying only to cut
whatever deals it needs to get the registries to go
along.   The $.25 per domain tax is not in the bag,
according to some, while others say it will go through.
There is an army of registry/registrars attending, but
very few domain holders are here to complain about the
tax, or to ask why they should have to pay, if they
have no voice in the organization.  The tax was just
proposed on June 20.   People have very low
expectations that the US DoC will do anything to back
consumer or civil society concerns about ICANN, and
seem willing to give up on lots of things.

Jamie
- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

- -- 
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 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, 26 Jun 2002 12:27:49 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: June 25 Notes

Jamie, the list isn't moderated, it's monitored (pre-screening
vs. posting rules) -- your message didn't get through because 
of anti-crossposting filters.
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.html

/// 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, 26 Jun 2002 04:28:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At large presentation

Leah and all assembly members,

  Oh Jamie's voice is being heard.  The problem is that the ICANN
BoD and staff along with Ex-Board member Esther Dyson and
Denise are just ignoring those many voices.  It is clear as it has
been from the beginning that the than ICANN "Interim" board
and staff had and still has not intention of owning up to their
mandate and contractually responsibilities of the White Paper
and the MoU to which they are now plainly in abeyance
of.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> Jamie,
>
> If only you could clone yourself a few million times, maybe your voice
> would be a force.  It's a shame that people seem to have given up due to
> the obvious futility of the individual's fight to exist in the ICANN
> framework.
>
> Personally, I was proud of you and would like to thank you for
> attempting to put a voice to the frustrations of most of us in the user
> community.
>
> Leah
>
> On 26 Jun 2002, at 3:38, James Love wrote:
>
> > I'm in the GA, and Denise, Esther, Vittorio, and Izumi Aizu and on the panel
> > to present a report on the at large organizing effort.
> >
> > Denise:
> > In Accra, the board has called for bottom up at large "structures."   She
> > reports $17k in contributions for at-large.org, and asks for more money.
> > 16 "at large structures" have been created or designated by the effort.  The
> > implication is that all the groups who are listed on the at-large.org web
> > page are on board with this new approach.  There is some talk of creating a
> > "structured role" in policy making, and input into the board decisions.
> > She ends with a slide that says that greater involvement of governments and
> > establishment of 'meaningful' participation by individuals are not
> > necessarily mutually exclusive.   Esther then jumped in to say some people
> > didn't support a greater role by governments.
> >
> > Izumi Aizu and Vittorio Bertola appeared on the pane with Esther and Denise,
> > and were generally supportive of the presentation by Esther or Denise.
> >
> > Esther made a confident (almost smug) presentation.  She said "I hope you
> > walk away with an appreciation by the huge amount of progress that has been
> > made."  Earlier the at large was an "incoherent" idea, now it is something
> > with .5 million people engaged through the 16 groups, and a structure in
> > place to provide input.  If ICANN becomes government controlled, it will
> > become too powerful.  It is really important that ICANN be controlled by
> > users, by the participants, than by governments.
> >
> > I just had my time at the mike from the floor... and went through the
> > basics...   The proposal for "at large structures" eliminates any votes by
> > individuals.  The White Paper gave individuals 8 of 19 board seats.  In
> > Cairo this was reduced to 5.  In Accra, the 5 elected seats were phased out,
> > but there was some hope that there would be an at large SO with maybe 3
> > seats on the board.  Now you have an at large "structure" that at best can
> > place 1 member on a 19 member nominating committee for some board seats, and
> > no one can explain even how that 1 person is selected.  To present this as a
> > success for enhancing the power of individual internet users is absurd.  I
> > said it was not true, as implied by Denise Michel's presentation, that the
> > groups listed as part of the at-large.org effort support the elimination of
> > elections for ICANN board members or the proposals in the blueprint to
> > dismantle democratic mechanisms (http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm).
> >
> > Denise said that CPSR was in fact supportive of the new "at large
> > structures" approach, and had joined in submissions on this to the ICANN
> > reform.    I'll let Andy Oram and Hans Klein respond with any helpful
> > clarificatons on this point.
> >
> > This was followed by a presentation on the Canadian Internet Registration
> > Authority (CIRA), which recently concluded its elections.   Alexander
> > Svensson then asked a series of good questions, asking about how the elected
> > members addressed issues of mission creep, why participation has declined in
> > elections, and about "outreach" in the elections.  I asked if there was
> > fraud?  And also, how much does it cost to audit the elections?  The CIRA
> > rep said that mission creep had not been a problem, the board had kept
> > things fairly narrow, and that many people seemed satified with the CIRA
> > operation, and were just didn't feel the need to be bother as long as things
> > were working ok.   The last CIRA election had about 1,000 voters.  The CIRA
> > has an external audit function, which ended up questioning about 100 votes,
> > and ended up rejecting about 10.  The cost of the audit and verification
> > proceedure was about $3,000 for the June 2002 election.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> > http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> > voice: 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:04:13 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC webcast, time lag and scribing

The Names Council meeting is beginning any minute.

Everyone watching the webcast 

http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ICANN/icann_bucharest.html

should be aware that there is a time lag of approx. half a 
minute. Be sure to ask your questions e.g. for the ICANN 
Public Forum *before* they formally ask for it.

BTW, the two professional court reporter scribes have arrived, 
so tomorrow, there will again be the excellent word-by-word 
scribing we have had in Accra. Unfortunately, the software 
they're using for captioning doesn't seem to support real-
time output. I very much hope it will take less time than
last time to put their text files online. 

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, 26 Jun 2002 14:53:26 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Blogging.

I'm currently trying to scribe to my blog.
- -- 
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, 26 Jun 2002 18:32:02 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dotorg Foundation - Validation Services?

Does anyone here understand what precisely the "validation services" 
[1] suggested by these guys are supposed to achieve?  What are these 
supposed to mean for individual registrants?

[1] http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/dotorgfoundation/c38.html
- -- 
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, 26 Jun 2002 10:23:37 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dotorg Foundation - Validation Services?

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 9:32:02 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Does anyone here understand what precisely the "validation services" 
> [1] suggested by these guys are supposed to achieve?  What are these 
> supposed to mean for individual registrants?

> [1] http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/dotorgfoundation/c38.html

I don't think it has any meaning for non-non-commercial registrants
(yeah yeah, beat me over the head for the term).  It looks like they
want to provide some kind of "trust" service for non-profit entities
so that the public has some assurance that the org foundation has
validated a particular registrant as a valid non-profit entity.

I equate this along the lines of the Geotrust TrueSite program
perhaps, a type of additional assurance consumers can use.

Honestly, as an adjutant service, I don't see any downside.

I hope someone else will read it and see if they agree with my take.

- -- 
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, 26 Jun 2002 12:38:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] GA on new  Blueprint for changes in GA

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Having votes on Motions/resolutions regarding or dealing with
specific or even broad issues are not problematic at all in any
General Assembly.  It is the leadership that can and with the
DNSO GA, has tried to make voting on issues, look
problematic..

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-06-26 11:08:53 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >   I believe that ICANN's elimination of the GA's tools
> >   (strawpolls) and voice is so fundamentally wrong that it is
> >   grounds in itself for the rebid of ICANN. kathy kleiman
>
> It's a long way from straw polls to votes.  The latter is what's
> problematic on the GA, for reasons I have pointed out before.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

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, 26 Jun 2002 13:42:19 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and 

I just talked with Jonathan Cohen about the role of the GA in the Blueprint 
document.  I asked him to support a change that would allow the GA to elect 
its own chair, and to vote on motions.  I said that the reform proposals 
including the Blueprint document would be wbidely read as anti-free speech, 
and also quite petty, since the GA has no real power, elects no one to the 
names council or the board, and only has the ability to provide a voice to 
people who have no real power.   He said, have people on the GA tell the 
board if this is important to them.   He said it was not the case that the 
ICANN board was trying to punish the GA for voting for a resolution that was 
critical of the ICANN board.  His email address is :

Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>

   Jamie

- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 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, 26 Jun 2002 10:53:34 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 10:42:19 AM, James Love wrote:

> I just talked with Jonathan Cohen about the role of the GA in the Blueprint 
> document.  I asked him to support a change that would allow the GA to elect 
> its own chair, and to vote on motions.  I said that the reform proposals 
> including the Blueprint document would be wbidely read as anti-free speech, 
> and also quite petty, since the GA has no real power, elects no one to the 
> names council or the board, and only has the ability to provide a voice to 
> people who have no real power.   He said, have people on the GA tell the 
> board if this is important to them.   He said it was not the case that the 
> ICANN board was trying to punish the GA for voting for a resolution that was 
> critical of the ICANN board.  His email address is :

The GA has never really had a right to elect its chair, simply to
nominate one, that the Names Council has been kind enough to rubber
stamp, and to be honest, that has at least once led to a bad chair
being selected.

I'm not opposed to this, but I think instead (and you would probably
have better luck getting this approved of anyway) any change should
keep the status quo, with the GA having the ability to nominate, and
the Names Council to actually select or oversee the selection of the
chair.

As for voting on motions, I tend to agree with Thomas on this.  I
think any change allowing that should come with the strict caveat that
the motions be RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE GA.

Anything else opens it up for the abuse we have already seen occur.

And btw, of course they won't say they are punishing the GA for voting
on that motion, that's not the politically correct way of answering
the question, but you think the subject of that vote hasn't been a
part of the discussions, you are simply being naive.

- -- 
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, 26 Jun 2002 14:22:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and

Janie, Jonathan and all assembly members,

  Jonathan knows full well that the DNSO GA members want have wanted,
currently have, and currently wish to maintain the right to vote for their
chair, vote on resolutions/motions and be open to any and all interested
parties or otherwise participants.  If he by now does not know and
understand this he and the ICANN board have not been paying
attention, which would not at all be surprising.

James Love wrote:

> I just talked with Jonathan Cohen about the role of the GA in the Blueprint
> document.  I asked him to support a change that would allow the GA to elect
> its own chair, and to vote on motions.  I said that the reform proposals
> including the Blueprint document would be wbidely read as anti-free speech,
> and also quite petty, since the GA has no real power, elects no one to the
> names council or the board, and only has the ability to provide a voice to
> people who have no real power.   He said, have people on the GA tell the
> board if this is important to them.   He said it was not the case that the
> ICANN board was trying to punish the GA for voting for a resolution that was
> critical of the ICANN board.  His email address is :
>
> Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
>
>    Jamie
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 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

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, 26 Jun 2002 16:01:46 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and 

It is difficult to understand how Jonathan Cohen could make such a 
statement when it is obvious to the GA members that it is exactly a 
ploy to rid ICANN of its pesky complainants - the idividuals.  Whether 
the purpose of the "Blueprint" is to silence the voice as punishment or 
not is really immaterial.  It is definitely anti-free speech and designed to 
exclude all but the dominant powers that currently exist.

In addition, the comments coming from Congress indicate a demand for 
more inclusion, not less; more transparency, not less.  So far, ICANN is 
having more behind-closed-door meetings, not fewer, as evidenced by 
the one in Bucharest.  

One might suppose that the lack of attendance at the DNSO meeting in 
Bucharest was due to lack of interest.  I believe it is due to lack of 
ability to travel all over the world for most individuals, the late hour for so 
many in the US and the feeling of futility resulting from the Blueprint 
document.  The fact that it was published at such a late date is also 
typical, allowing for no reasonable amount of time to discuss it.  
However, it is so blatant that the comments already made seem to be 
overwhelmingly against its recommendations.

In light of the fact that the BoD will most likely approve it, according to 
reports from Bucharest, why would there be a large number of people 
attempting to refute it?  People are becoming very tired of being paid lip 
service and having no voice in decision making.

Leah

On 26 Jun 2002, at 13:42, James Love wrote:

> I just talked with Jonathan Cohen about the role of the GA in the Blueprint 
> document.  I asked him to support a change that would allow the GA to elect 
> its own chair, and to vote on motions.  I said that the reform proposals 
> including the Blueprint document would be wbidely read as anti-free speech, 
> and also quite petty, since the GA has no real power, elects no one to the 
> names council or the board, and only has the ability to provide a voice to 
> people who have no real power.   He said, have people on the GA tell the 
> board if this is important to them.   He said it was not the case that the 
> ICANN board was trying to punish the GA for voting for a resolution that was 
> critical of the ICANN board.  His email address is :
> 
> Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
> 
>    Jamie
> 
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 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-full" 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, 26 Jun 2002 16:32:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Future of the GA and DNSO

Hello Jon,

The DNSO is still a mess, and no meaningful changes have been proposed in the 
current Blueprint.  We have gone through two back-to-back DNSO reviews, and 
now through the ERC review of the DNSO, only to have management conclude that 
no structural repairs are needed....  I have to wonder what kind of 
cigarettes these folks are smoking. 

Clearly for a long time now, the Board has been getting poor policy guidance 
from the Council, and I see no plan in place to change that situation, only 
cosmetic changes calculated to piss-off the volunteers in the GA.  The last 
thing that this Board needs is even less volunteers than it now has.  Denying 
participants in the process the right to elect their own leadership and the 
right to conduct their own votes (a right granted to every other constituent 
group in the ICANN process) is a sure way to alienate the unaffiliated user 
community that has endeavored to provide reasonable commentary on domain name 
policy issues.  And let's be honest about it... the GA is an active 
constituency in its own right with more involved members than all other 
constituencies combined.  We are the defacto Public Interest group in the 
ICANN process and have always articulated the outrage of the community.  

Yes, the Board has the power to put a damper on its critics and to control 
the GA in a heavy-handed top-down fashion... but is this really in the best 
interests of the Corporation?  Unlike those in the constituencies that seem 
to take every possible opportunity to suck-up to the Board, we tend to tell 
it straight.  This is healthy, and there is value in having a loyal 
opposition... it acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

It would be capricious to make an arbitrary decision on the GA without having 
had the benefit of consultation with its membership.  The ERC has not 
consulted with us.  Please do the "right thing" and make sure that as an 
impacted party we have the opportunity to fully debate these matters within 
our own membership and to consult with the Board regarding our sentiments on 
these eleventh-hour proposals.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and 

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, L. Gallegos wrote:

> It is difficult to understand how Jonathan Cohen could make such a
> statement when it is obvious to the GA members that it is exactly a
> ploy to rid ICANN of its pesky complainants - the idividuals.

Oh no, it makes perfect sense. What will happen is that things will go
according to the original plan, and when people complain Jonathan will
simply state that he didn't see a lot of people supporting a
self-forming, voting role for the GA.

The modus operandi for ICANN et. al. is to pretend to take feedback to
give the illusion of openness.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 26 Jun 2002 23:27:43 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Technical -  .org foundation proposal

Paul,

I'm just looking through some of the .org proposals.  In the  
technical part of the .org foundation proposal, C17.9, I've been 
stumbling over the following sentence:

	    * Proprietary request throttling technology developed by 
	    eNom, that can throttle by IP, will be deployed to  
	    prevent denial of service (DOS) attacks and UDP flood 
	    attacks.

I'm wondering how that's supposed to work - UDP is stateless; for  
this reason, each packet of a simple UDP flood attack can come from  
a different (faked) source IP address. Assuming that the attacker's  
ISP has egress filtering installed is certainly not safe.

Your explanation would be most welcome.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[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: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:47:48 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] right of GA to elect chair and

- --=======5A4D04=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4EC578E7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Where WXW shows he is ready to commit suicide to show himself right. Could 
you not relax once in a while? Take some fun at the ultimate support for 
the GA being the IP rep! jfc

On 19:53 26/06/02, William X Walsh said:

>Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 10:42:19 AM, James Love wrote:
>
> > I just talked with Jonathan Cohen about the role of the GA in the 
> Blueprint
> > document.  I asked him to support a change that would allow the GA to 
> elect
> > its own chair, and to vote on motions.  I said that the reform proposals
> > including the Blueprint document would be wbidely read as anti-free 
> speech,
> > and also quite petty, since the GA has no real power, elects no one to the
> > names council or the board, and only has the ability to provide a voice to
> > people who have no real power.   He said, have people on the GA tell the
> > board if this is important to them.   He said it was not the case that the
> > ICANN board was trying to punish the GA for voting for a resolution 
> that was
> > critical of the ICANN board.  His email address is :
>
>The GA has never really had a right to elect its chair, simply to
>nominate one, that the Names Council has been kind enough to rubber
>stamp, and to be honest, that has at least once led to a bad chair
>being selected.
>
>I'm not opposed to this, but I think instead (and you would probably
>have better luck getting this approved of anyway) any change should
>keep the status quo, with the GA having the ability to nominate, and
>the Names Council to actually select or oversee the selection of the
>chair.
>
>As for voting on motions, I tend to agree with Thomas on this.  I
>think any change allowing that should come with the strict caveat that
>the motions be RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE GA.
>
>Anything else opens it up for the abuse we have already seen occur.
>
>And btw, of course they won't say they are punishing the GA for voting
>on that motion, that's not the politically correct way of answering
>the question, but you think the subject of that vote hasn't been a
>part of the discussions, you are simply being naive.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02

- --=======5A4D04=======--

- --
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 #1302
*************************