Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1304
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 27 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1304

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:49:31 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of the GA and DNSO

It seems obvious to me that ICANN is a closed club.  They don't want
bottoms up or any criticism.  The blue print makes that clear, AFAIC.

It seems that none of the consistencies, except the non-commercial,
care about the GA because it does not serve their special interest.
Non-commercial made a pretty good presentation today in favor or the
GA. They don't have a profit motive.  If any other constituency spoke
out in favor of the GA, I missed it.  Please enlighten me.

There is lip service for the GA from ICANN and others, but no real
action. The GA can't do anything about it, either. It is like spitting
into the wind.

It is unfortunate and wrong, AFAIC, but it is the reality of it.
Unless a higher authority steps in, it is obvious that the GA will
play no meaningful part in ICANN.  I don't think that was the original
intention of the bottoms up structure.

We all know the arguments - white paper, MoU, etc. but there is no one
walking softly and carrying a big stick, either. I don't hold a lot of
faith in Congress actually doing anything either, let alone the DoC. I
hope I am dead wrong.

Someone once said, "Choose your battles wisely," but the GA is not
allowed to have any battles or even to take a position.  A vote is out
of the question, as well.

Someone also once said, "If you are going to attack the King, you must
kill him." The GA attacked by its recent vote, but didn't make the
most important part happen. That's almost like a self-imposed death
sentence.

It may be time, or close to time, for us to let a dead dog lie, face
the reality of it and just move on.  Who needs to continue to spend
precious time to fight windmills?

I hope I am wrong.

Thanks,

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 3:32:48 PM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> Hello Jon,

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

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

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

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

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 02:04:18 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Right of the GA to elect Chair

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Right of the GA to elect Chair
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:07:35 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: danny younger <[email-masked]>, 'James Love' <[email-masked]>

Jonathan and Jamie,
The Right of the GA to elect its own Chair received widespread community
support more than a year ago as part of the DNSO's Review Process. I point
you to the record of the NC's WG-Review Group, which established around
February 2001, by way of a Vote on a suitable Motion, prepared by Greg
Burton, the Chair of that Working Group.

This Vote came about not from some extraordinary clairvoyance of WG-Review
Members that a Blueprint for Reform was about to abolish the concept some 18
months later, but in response to current procedures which, as you know, make
the NC the responsible for confirming the appointment of Officers of the GA.
I believe the Bylaws state:-

 > > (e) Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and an
ombudsman.
 > > Officers of the GA shall be elected annually according to the voting
 > > procedures adopted by the GA and approved by the NC.

Notwithstanding that I have never seen an "ombudsman" used as part of any GA
procedures, unequivocally, the GA has been fighting for the right to remove
the "adult supervision" of the NC over its own Chair selection for a
considerable period of time, and it is only the NC's unwillingness to
cooperate with community consensus that does not fit its narrow, special
interest group agenda that has prevented this coming to pass already. As a
DNSO Elected Director, I would have thought you knew all this already, so
how come you are now insisting the GA restates its position, or that it is
appropriate for you to ignore previously stated position, or even translate
community consensus as now being the opposite of what we know to be true?

Added to this, I fail to understand how the Board can justify the existence
of a bottom up consensus development process if it is intent on denying the
GA's expressed will at every turn.

If you need the URL of the Motion Results, I can dig them out, but believe
these are included in the WG-Review Report prepared by YJ Park and
incorporated into the NC's Final Review Report forwarded to the Board. In
short, the Board has already been told how the GA feels about this matter
and it is not necessary to keep asking it the same questions over and over
again. It only creates the impression that the Board will not accept any
answers that do not fit with its preconceived agenda.

Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.

Regards,
Joanna

Jamie: Feel free to forward to GA List where I'm currently unsubscribed if
you see fit.

- -- 
- ------
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:06:00 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

Ross,

The GA, according to the blue print, is not allowed to take a position
or vote on anything.

Therefore, the GA will not oppose anything.  It is not allowed.

Consequently, why should I spend the time to read your document, when
what we say (individually as members or as the GA) doesn't count,
anyway?

It's a waste of time and intellect.  It's also a sham, AFAIC.

If you truly want bottoms up consensus, then do something positive
about it by taking a bull dog position in support of the GA.  When I
see you do that, I'll read your paper.

Thanks,

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 11:44:45 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote:
RWR> The link has been fixed - apologies to all for the additional traffic.

RWR> -rwr
RWR> ----- Original Message -----
RWR> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
RWR> To: "'Allan Liska'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
RWR> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
RWR> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:38 PM
RWR> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for
RWR> Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties

>> Allan/Ross,
>>
>> The page could not be found.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Allan Liska [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:04 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [registrars] Tucows Draft Proposal and Request for
>> Comments Concerning ICANN's Role in Relation to Contracted Parties
>>
>>
>> Hello Ross,
>>
>> Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 8:12:40 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> RWR> William Walsh was kind enough to write the Word .doc to a PDF for me.
RWR> I
>> have
>> RWR> since updated the site with this PDF version of the document which
RWR> can
>> be
>> RWR> found here...
>>
>> RWR> http://www.byte.org/hwg/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.pdf
>>
>> RWR> -rwr
>>
>> That link does not seem to work -- it returns a 404.  The HTML and DOC
>> documents work fine.
>>
>>
>> allan
>> --
>> allan
>> [email-masked]
>> http://www.allan.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
>>

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 01:16:38 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom

If Vint is on the board or an officer, he is culpable, and the post is
in order.  If he is only an employee, then, the post is out of order.

I don't care if he is the father of Chevrolets and apple pie.  It
doesn't matter.  Only the truth matters.

Thanks,

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 9:46:19 PM, Steven Heath <[email-masked]> wrote:
SH> Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] did say:
>> I really think that was uncalled for, Jeff.  Having read 
>> articles about 
>> these "loans," I saw no mention of Vint Cerf anywhere, nor would I 
>> expect to see his name associated with this case.  I think it is 
>> irresponsible to post using his name in the subject line and 
>> raising a 
>> redd herring needlessly.  It is bad enough that WorldCom is 
>> the subject.

SH> I too am disgusted that someone would even think of this let alone raise it
SH> on the GA list.

SH> The issue, as far as I can tell, is about moving operation expenses to
SH> capital accounts (thus spreading these costs over a number of years and thus
SH> reduce the impact of these costs in that period via deprecation).

SH> Lets let the various enforcement agencies to their work and let the
SH> employees carry on with their work and not have people cast these aspersive
SH> remarks.

SH> I think an apology to Vint is in order esp. in these troubled times of both
SH> ICANN and his employer.

SH> Steven Heath

SH> PS I snipped the original Jeff Williams post which Leah responded to as I
SH> felt no need to further pollute the list archive with those comments.

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 08:26:25 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann Critics Chatroom

On 2002-06-26 23:23:17 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>FYI an IRC chatroom has been set up.  Connect to http://dal.net,  
>pick a nickname and type into command line /join #icanncritics

Why do you reserve that one to ICANN _criticis_?

- -- 
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:19:11 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bucharest: June 27 Pubic Forum - At-Large report

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Bucharest: June 27 Pubic Forum - At-Large report
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:17:25 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

In the public forum, Esther Dyson and Denise Michel just presented the
at-large proposal.  It is essentially a top down proposal, which allows
organizations but not individuals to join, and will later develop a yet to
be defined method of managing public input.  The group not only did not
propose the development of any mechanisms for votes by individuals, but its
only suggested the board "consider" allowing this effort to "select" its own
steering committee, and even then, under "Board-approved guidelines."

http://www.at-large.org/submission-to-evolution-and-reform-cmt.htm
"We also recommend the Board consider allowing the At-Large Supporting
Organization to select their Steering Committee and Board members under
Board-approved guidelines/criteria."

Vint asked Denise if there would be methods of determining if the
representatives of these groups actually represented the interests of their
own users, and elaborated on his concern that they may only represent their
own views.  Denise said that they would be working on this issue, and Esther
took the floor and discribe a system used by two merging corporations to
confidentially poll (shareholders/stakeholders?).   She also noted that when
the results were contrary to what was desired, the poll results were not
made public, and then she suggested this polling firm might be available to
provide services for the at-large structures consultation.  It was not
obvious why Esther had come up with this example, or where she was going
with it.   There was another exchange regarding Esther's comment that she
hoped for the development of "parties" that cut across regions, prompting
Vint to indicate that he hoped this would not happen, which prompted Esther
to appear to back off, and Denise to emphasize their understanding that the
process would be managed in such as way to help faciliate consensus.

There were several persons in the room who have worked on At Large efforts,
including for example Aizu Izumi, Vittorio Bertola and Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter, who were recently elected leaders for incannatlarge.com[1],
Esther's previous at-large effort, and persons who were involved in the NAIS
and ALSC efforts.  Only two persons from the floor spoke on the Michel/Dyson
report, myself and Harold Felt from Media Access Project, a US NGO that
works on free speech issues.

I began by noting that we are meeting in Romania, a country that has only
recently abandoned a governance system that limited political freedom.  I
said that I opposed the top down managed public particpation system that
Denise and Esther were proposing, and that it was likely to be used to
control and supress criticism of ICANN, and that if ICANN was to get the
trust of the public and governments, there had to be mechanisms for people
to freely express opposition to its policies, and to freely choose their own
leaders.   I noted that ICANN is comfortable allowing a handful of select
selected businesses represent all businesses on earth, but was unwilling to
allow individuals to represent themselve directly, even in a structure that
has little or no real power.

Vint said the board was short on time, and I was cut off.  There will be
further opportunties to discuss these issues later during the period to
discuss the ERC report.

Harold Felt echoed some concerns about the at-large proposal.

[1]  I was also elected to the "temporary" steering committee of
icannatlarge.com.  This body was supposed to hold a new election within 90
days.  When it became clear that the panel was not going to hold a new
election within the 90 days, I resigned.

- ------
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:20:48 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Good for YOU

jamie:

Thank you in the strongest terms for standing up and insisting on being 
heard.  You were successful in a forceful manner that was very 
warranted.  Good luck in the open forum.

Leah

- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 14:19:01 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] news from bucharest: at large exists again

Dear fellow members,

it is worth noting that since five minutes ago, as per Lyman Chapin's
proposed amendment to the Blueprint exposed while presenting it to the
public forum, the At Large concept exists again, though with very limited
prerogatives if compared to the original election of half of the Board. I am
sure that many of us will complain about this or consider it just a fig
leaf, but for those (very few) of us who actually bothered to come here to
Bucharest and spend the last days lobbying for this to happen, it is
definitely a great achievement, at least as a starting point.

We'll have to discuss (I imagine, very hardly) in the next days whether this
proposed role (an At Large Advisory Committee similar to the GAC and the
other ACs) suits us, whether it is acceptable, or whether we should refuse
to participate in it and try to overturn ICANN as a whole. But at least,
this is a huge step forward if compared to the "nothing" of the Blueprint
document.
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 14:35:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Peter de Blanc

Dear Colleagues,

It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you
that our colleague and friend of several years,
Peter de Blanc, .VI (US Virgin Islands Registry),
passed away yesterday morning, 26 June 2002,
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Peter brought his resources and energy, smile and wisedom,
to the ccTLD Constituency, Names Council and ICANN.

Our condoleances go out to his family and close friends.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 14:52:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Peter de Blanc (from: [email-masked])

- ----- Forwarded message from Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]> -----

From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked] (Ron Sherwood)
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:34:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: [council] Peter de Blanc

Dear Colleagues,

It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you
that our colleague and friend of several years,
Peter de Blanc, .VI (US Virgin Islands Registry),
passed away yesterday morning, 26 June 2002,
in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Peter brought his resources and energy, smile and wisedom,
to the ccTLD Constituency, Names Council and ICANN.

Our condoleances go out to his family and close friends.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 08:55:09 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
 > Dear fellow members,
 >
 > it is worth noting that since five minutes ago, as per Lyman Chapin's
 > proposed amendment to the Blueprint exposed while presenting it to the
 > public forum, the At Large concept exists again, though with very limited
 > prerogatives if compared to the original election of half of the Board. I am
 > sure that many of us will complain about this or consider it just a fig
 > leaf, but for those (very few) of us who actually bothered to come here to
 > Bucharest and spend the last days lobbying for this to happen, it is
 > definitely a great achievement, at least as a starting point.
 >
 > We'll have to discuss (I imagine, very hardly) in the next days whether this
 > proposed role (an At Large Advisory Committee similar to the GAC and the
 > other ACs) suits us, whether it is acceptable, or whether we should refuse
 > to participate in it and try to overturn ICANN as a whole. But at least,
 > this is a huge step forward if compared to the "nothing" of the Blueprint
 > document.

Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The Esther/Board
version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it was.  Instead of
the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN board will pick which
members of the public can speak for the public.  You know.  Like in the old
USSR.   As you know, individual cannot join the at large on their own, and
ICANN will decide which organizations can join, and ICANN will decide who
"really" represents user interests, and how.   If you like this, it is good
evidence that you would really fit in.

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:07:19 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] Peter de Blanc (from: [email-masked])

Is there an address where we can send cards or flowers?  Peter will be 
sorely missed by many.  He was sincere and caring.

Leah

On 27 Jun 2002, at 14:52, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> ----- Forwarded message from Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]> -----
> 
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> 	[email-masked] (Ron Sherwood)
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:34:50 +0200 (MET DST)
> Subject: [council] Peter de Blanc
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> It is with great sorrow that I write to inform you
> that our colleague and friend of several years,
> Peter de Blanc, .VI (US Virgin Islands Registry),
> passed away yesterday morning, 26 June 2002,
> in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
> 
> Peter brought his resources and energy, smile and wisedom,
> to the ccTLD Constituency, Names Council and ICANN.
> 
> Our condoleances go out to his family and close friends.
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:13:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Don Brown wrote:

> If Vint is on the board or an officer, he is culpable, and the post is
> in order.  If he is only an employee, then, the post is out of order.
>

According to his CV he is a Senior Vice President:

http://www1.worldcom.com/global/resources/cerfs_up/personal_perspective/cerfprofile.xml

He is also not listed in the 2001 proxy report as being a member of the
WorldCom board of directors.

> I don't care if he is the father of Chevrolets and apple pie.  It
> doesn't matter.  Only the truth matters.
>
Agreed.

- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 06:46:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom

Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 11:16:38 PM, Don Brown wrote:

> If Vint is on the board or an officer, he is culpable, and the post is
> in order.  If he is only an employee, then, the post is out of order.

> I don't care if he is the father of Chevrolets and apple pie.  It
> doesn't matter.  Only the truth matters.

This thread has nothing to do with the GA, can it be taken off 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:48:34 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:55:09 -0400, you wrote:

>Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The Esther/Board
>version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it was.  Instead of
>the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN board will pick which
>members of the public can speak for the public. 

Where do you find this? It all will depend on how the ALAC members will be
(s)elected. I went there smiling and thanking them at the mike, but in fact
I tried to say: please let us make proposals in defining *that* point. That
is the crucial issue. I aim at having elections for at least half of the
ALAC members - it will never be the same as electing Board members, but at
least it would be a way of letting the concept of elections pass. There is
general support for elections among the ALOC organizations, so I think it is
feasible to have consensus in the ALOC on that, and once there's consensus
there, the Board might end up accepting that.
- -- 
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology

DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. 
Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
- --
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, 27 Jun 2002 23:29:39 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working Group Review : Public forum 

Joanna

Thank you, Jonna, for brining this issue and it was briefly covered during
the public forum. Since the WG-Review list was gone, I am using ga list.

I briefly mentioned despite request that the Board pay attentions to
WG-Review process in Melbourne meeting, March 2001, it was shut
down in April 2001 by the NC voting decision, which I feel sorry for as
former chair of WG-Review.

Regards,
YJ
===================================================
As DNSO WG Review Chair, I would like to remind people here two years
back when the community was worried and concerned that DNSO is
dysfunctional and provided the proposals to consider. It was also delivered
to the Board as of January 15, 2001 through electromic mail as DNSO
Review WG report. It was truly bottom-up process.

However, the DNSO Review report seems not to be seriously taken by the
Board then and ERC now when the Blueprint is published just before ICANN
Buharest meeting.

The Blueprint has been raising several concerns to revisit even though some
feel it is sufficient according to GAC communique.

First, Bottom-up process

Despite its emphasis on bottom-up participation since White Paper
and upto the current Blueprint, ICANN meetings and decision-making process
have few opportunities of direct partcipation. Ironically, the ICANN
meetings
are getting managed in a observing mode ratheran than partcipatory mode
in the name of efficiency. In line with this principle, the current
Blueprint
recommendation of appointing GA chair from electing GA chair is a serious
set-back which should be reconsidered.

Second, Geographical diversity

Despite several touches about geographical diversity in the Blueprint,
it is unclear how to maintain the goal under presented proposal. The
blueprint says 2 Directors from GNSO, CNSO, ASO and 8 Directors
selected from nominating committee composed of representatives from
the various groups.

My concern comes from my experience with ICANN which is already
more than three years. The one representative from the diverse
constituency is very likely to end up with specific regions rather than the
representative from Asia, Latin America and Africe as its constituency
representatives.

ICANN must have a mechanism to ensure geographical diversity both
in the Board level and Nominating Committee. Geographical Diversity
should be taken sincerely and genuienly. Global community is not
only America, Western Europe and Pacific Countries.

Therefore, I propose the specific number for geographical allocation in
a big picture should be articulated instead of nominal rethoric.

Lastly, Geographical diversity and gTLD registries. Yesterday there
were ORG bidders who are from USA and Europe following 2000.
None of proposal could not be presented from the rest of the world
due to unclear technical entrance barrier.

Therefore, to encourage more proposals from the rest of the world,

I do urge the Board to ensure people from each region should participate
in Monitoring Task Force which will be set up to evaluate new gTLDs in a
constant manner according to the New gTLD Task Force report as token
that at least you do really care geographical diversity in reality.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>; "linda" <[email-masked]>; "M.
Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "Andy Mueller" <[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach"
<[email-masked]>; "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM"
<[email-masked]>; "General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: [ga] Right of the GA to elect Chair

>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Right of the GA to elect Chair
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:07:35 -0400
> From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: danny younger <[email-masked]>, 'James Love'
<[email-masked]>
>
> Jonathan and Jamie,
> The Right of the GA to elect its own Chair received widespread community
> support more than a year ago as part of the DNSO's Review Process. I point
> you to the record of the NC's WG-Review Group, which established around
> February 2001, by way of a Vote on a suitable Motion, prepared by Greg
> Burton, the Chair of that Working Group.
>
> This Vote came about not from some extraordinary clairvoyance of WG-Review
> Members that a Blueprint for Reform was about to abolish the concept some
18
> months later, but in response to current procedures which, as you know,
make
> the NC the responsible for confirming the appointment of Officers of the
GA.
> I believe the Bylaws state:-
>
>  > > (e) Officers of the GA shall include a chair, a co-chair, and an
> ombudsman.
>  > > Officers of the GA shall be elected annually according to the voting
>  > > procedures adopted by the GA and approved by the NC.
>
>
> Notwithstanding that I have never seen an "ombudsman" used as part of any
GA
> procedures, unequivocally, the GA has been fighting for the right to
remove
> the "adult supervision" of the NC over its own Chair selection for a
> considerable period of time, and it is only the NC's unwillingness to
> cooperate with community consensus that does not fit its narrow, special
> interest group agenda that has prevented this coming to pass already. As a
> DNSO Elected Director, I would have thought you knew all this already, so
> how come you are now insisting the GA restates its position, or that it is
> appropriate for you to ignore previously stated position, or even
translate
> community consensus as now being the opposite of what we know to be true?
>
>
> Added to this, I fail to understand how the Board can justify the
existence
> of a bottom up consensus development process if it is intent on denying
the
> GA's expressed will at every turn.
>
> If you need the URL of the Motion Results, I can dig them out, but believe
> these are included in the WG-Review Report prepared by YJ Park and
> incorporated into the NC's Final Review Report forwarded to the Board. In
> short, the Board has already been told how the GA feels about this matter
> and it is not necessary to keep asking it the same questions over and over
> again. It only creates the impression that the Board will not accept any
> answers that do not fit with its preconceived agenda.
>
> Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> Jamie: Feel free to forward to GA List where I'm currently unsubscribed if
> you see fit.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> 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
>

- --
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 #1304
*************************