Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1310
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 2 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1310

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:12:19 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On 2002-07-01 18:18:06 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>>If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?

On 2002-07-01 18:48:44 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Look at the details of that rejection, and find out whether or not 
>it was the right thing to do.  For instance, what kind of 
>substance do the associations he's talking about have?  What have 
>they accomplished and done so far?

Please note that my message was based on the assumption that Marc's  
interpretation of Jefsey's note was accurate.  However, Jefsey just  
informed me in a private message that he "had never been told there  
was a documented rejection."

Thanks for the clarification, Jefsey!

- -- 
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: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 00:57:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, at 22:12 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-01 18:18:06 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >>If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?
>
> On 2002-07-01 18:48:44 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >Look at the details of that rejection, and find out whether or not
> >it was the right thing to do.  For instance, what kind of
> >substance do the associations he's talking about have?  What have
> >they accomplished and done so far?
>
> Please note that my message was based on the assumption that Marc's
> interpretation of Jefsey's note was accurate.  However, Jefsey just
> informed me in a private message that he "had never been told there
> was a documented rejection."
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Jefsey!

Are things clearer now? I am not sure what the quoted text exactly means.
Who told him? And what exactly?
Certainly I cannot see how it clarifies the earlier message:

"On 19:24 30/06/02, Vittorio Bertola said:
>I think we can have counter-proof of this: just let any organization you
>trust (including Jefsey's ones) ask Denise Michel for inclusion in the
>ALOC, and let's see what she answers.

I am sorry, Vittorio, but I did and so did germany@large. I suppose we are
of no interest. There are many others, to start with Karls one. We known
from the very beginning that this was twisted [...]"

So, was Jefsey's org rejected or not?

- --
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, 01 Jul 2002 16:39:28 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

At 06:06 AM 30/06/02 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:

>maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should
>suggest a practical solution to the potential propblem being
>discussed here..

Perhaps registrars could agree that the admin, technical,
and billing contacts all receive messages a month in advance
that their domain name is due for renewal. And registrants be
educated that those three contact email addresses all should be
different. The chance of three email addresses all returning
permanent fatal errors is considerably smaller than a single one.

As I said some months ago on ICANNWatch regarding this, it would
serve some well to mine the WHOIS looking for eg: @home addresses.
It would be relatively trivial to write a script that looked for
such or similar, and further looked for names that had the same
actual or even the same provider contact for all three. Now you
know that they are unlikely to receive a renewal notice so you
sign up for a namedrop service for that name.

It's not perfect, some may manage to keep their name because they
are sufficiently clued, but one can imagine there would be ripe
pickings here. Indeed, I'd take it farther and say that if some
who are well served by dropped names were of a devious bent, they
could send virii to ma and pa operations to wipe their hard drives
just short of the time that one's renewal comes up, or hack them,
or whatever (I have other ideas on this but don't want to be giving
out any tips).

So, in response to your suggestion I propose that registrars accept
a 'best practice' that registrants be notified by all available
means that their name will soon expire. As registrars may stand to
increase their income by having the name lapse, this could be seen
as a decent test of the quality of ICANN accredited registrars. -g

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 18:51:34 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Ken and all assembly members,

  Ken, I think you mean problem, not "propblem"..  In any event, several

practical solutions have already been offered here on the DNSO GA
forum on a number of occasions.  Hence, perhaps you should
pay a little closer attention to the GA members, instead of spinning
with what Leah nicely pointed out below...

  So in that vain, thank you in advance for your cooperation, Ken...

Ken Stubbs wrote:

>    maybe instead of just talking about the issues , someone should
> suggest a practical solution to the potential propblem being discussed
> here..
>
> ken stubbs
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: L. Gallegos
>   To: [email-masked]
>   Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:56 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption
>
>
>   My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to
> contact
>   the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).
> Many
>   registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email,
> so
>   that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they
>   change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is
> not
>   going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the
>   bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP
>   changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other
> emergency
>   change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain
>   information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is
>
>   extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars
> do
>   not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.
>
>   It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.
>
>   The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since
>
>   most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using
> another
>   phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is
>   verification of the number from which you are calling.
>
>   Leah
>
>
>   On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
>   > I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter
> if
>   > its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly
> telco
>   > error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or
> use a
>   > cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish
> what
>   > the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay).
> It's your
>   > repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
>   >
>   > William X Walsh wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
>   > >
>   > > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that
> no one
>   > > > seems to have addressed.
>   > >
>   > > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer
> resolves,
>   > > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the
> registrant
>   > > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to
> redeem it if
>   > > > there can be no contact?
>   > >
>   > > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this
> question or
>   > > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other
> means
>   > > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some
> of the
>   > > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their
> websites and
>   > > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
>   > >
>   > > > Anyone have any comments?
>   > >
>   > > Personal Responsibility.
>   > >
>   > > --
>   > > 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
>   >
>   > --
>   > 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-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: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:34:29 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Grace and Redemption

> 
> Perhaps registrars could agree 

I was with you up to that point.

- --
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, 01 Jul 2002 21:06:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > Perhaps registrars could agree
>
> I was with you up to that point.

  I was as well.  However not wishing to yet again
entangle myself and other members of the DNSO GA
in Gary's propensity for cryptic, yet sometimes
interesting retorts to comments regarding his particular
brand of prose posts, I purposefully neglected to
comment directly to his PROPOSAL.

  However that hopefully understood, it is rare that
the registrars could majorily agree on such proposals
as Gary would suggest, and Ken seems to have
missed on a number of occasions.  In any event,
John, it would seem that such proposals would need
the support by vote of the GA members and any and
all participating stakeholders/users in order to truly
formulate a "Best Practices" policy to this problem.
However, now that Stuart Lynn and now the ICANN
BoD has in Bucharest decided arbitrarily that such
cannot be done within the new "Black-and-Blueprint"
it would seem that we have ourselves a policy conundrum,
or a rather illegitimate opportunity for yet again another
policy to be hoist upon the registrants in their name
without their expressed consent or desire...

>
>
> --
> 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, 01 Jul 2002 20:39:55 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

- --=======1AB2223A=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6AFF55E0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:48 01/07/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>On 2002-07-01 18:18:06 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>>If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?
>
>Look at the details of that rejection, and find out whether or not
>it was the right thing to do.  For instance, what kind of substance
>do the associations he's talking about have?  What have they
>accomplished and done so far?

I do thank you Thomas for falling into the trap. I expected it to be tough 
to demonstrate that the decision was subjective. Actually we see now that 
it is more than subjective, it is according to an effective procedure. I 
had never been told there was a documented rejection: now we all know it. 
We were never made aware that there was a decision committee: now we know 
that Thomas is a Member. We were never made aware there were rules: now we 
know that they have been rightfully followed. We were never made aware 
there was an administrative registration file: now we know that we had to 
substantiate our incorporation date, legal publication reference, BoD list 
etc... may-be who knows? No one, but Thomas....

I am sad Thomas that you were entrapped into that. You are worth more.
jfc

PS about what we have done so far? a few things actually, but among them we 
havd a few disagrements with Thomas Roessler.

- --=======1AB2223A=======--

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:50:44 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Thomas' challenge to transparency

- --=======60E76C69=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6AFF55E0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear all,
Thomas rises an interesting issue: would I in ICANN stand for 
"inquisition".  To such a mail there are many ways to respond. I will take 
the challenge that Thomas is honest and not aggressive. We will see from 
his response. If he/we cooperate I will pursue on an issue I do consider as 
societal and of major interest. If he does not I will drop it as another 
"ICANNerie".

On 22:10 01/07/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>Thus, my question still stands (and please answer it in public):  What 
>kind of substance do france@large and germany@large have? Approximate 
>number of members?  Accomplishments in the past?
>
>Some transparency, please.  Right now, it looks more and more (to me) like 
>the organizations you are talking about are slightly more sophisticated 
>versions of INEGroup.

(NB. about transparency, I copied the GA the mail I sent to Thmaos - 
actually I intended it to be sent to all and I did not see that the ReplyTo 
was only to you. Nothing hidden.).

The main issue here is a lack of common work and understanding about what 
is what I call an "Internet Association" to try to render that new form of 
human organization that the nets permit to develop.

Joe Sims in the case of the ICANN tried to construe it as a "no member" 
corporation (Thomas question is "how many members"). The ISOC tried to 
build it as a wide structure with local Chapters and now with free members 
to get some numbers. The Eurolinc projects it as a cooperation of national 
Chapters. Joop, Vittorio and Esther try to set it up as a large (yet small) 
monolith  BC tries to set-it up as a pyramidal representation lobbying 
system. Thomas and Alex try to federate it under their dedicated 
chairmanship, Joop tried to link it to a Charter at the IDNO. Joana, Danny 
and I tried to link it to a procedure as a result of the WG-Review. Eric 
tries to relate it to a personal conceptual figure "the dotcommer". Jeff is 
historically only second to Joe with his INEG. There are several others 
around who tried to figure out the best way to address it, in particular 
many ccTLDs. And Thomas with his "does-not-exist" stuff, which is another 
(not that stupid) way. I understand it and try to build it as a multiple 
small local kernel non committing support structure.

Yet the real Blueprint problem comes from a common understanding and 
agreement on that kind of technico/legal structure we could commonly adopt, 
understand and share.

Up to now, the criteria we observed was that such organizations either 
spent most of their efforts (ICANN, GA, IDNO, ICANNATLARGE.COM) in self 
structuring; either in acting without a proper structure (most of the 
others), either in being lead by an individual supported by a consensus or 
as a group of nearly connected (often local) individuals (usually 
activists, ie students, relaxed employees or univesitaris, unemployed ) .

Now, Thomas tries to be critic (in the good sense I hope) in measuring it 
through its achievements. I am not sure it is a good way because the value 
and the weight of the achievements will be highly subjective. In the case 
of he ICANN I am sure it is not a good way because it is political first.

But the question is worth a real attention. And I think it is a real DNSO 
matter because names are the uniting element on the Internet: domain names, 
mailing lists, ccTLDs relations, @large etc. And the ICANN is one of them.

The question is: which structure, organization, behavior, legal status, 
evaluation, etc.. for that kind of collective interest on the Internet some 
name Association, Center, Constituency, Internet Association, no member 
corporation, consortium, society, club etc... which "unites" people who 
never met, discuss, develop things/ideas/actions in common etc

If this is of interest to some in here I am ready to discuss it. Otherwise 
I will drop it.
jfc

- --=======60E76C69=======--

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 17:37:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Jefsey,

I am not sure I follow you. I think it is time to stop reading meanings
into each others messages. The point is:

1. Did you ask for inclusion in the list on http://www.at-large.org?
2. Were you rejected?
3. Did you receive any explanation of that rejection?

- -- 
M

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, at 20:39 [=GMT+0200], J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> On 18:48 01/07/02, Thomas Roessler said:
> >On 2002-07-01 18:18:06 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >>If I am not mistaken, Jefsey told us he was rejected. So what now?
> >
> >Look at the details of that rejection, and find out whether or not
> >it was the right thing to do.  For instance, what kind of substance
> >do the associations he's talking about have?  What have they
> >accomplished and done so far?
>
> I do thank you Thomas for falling into the trap. I expected it to be tough
> to demonstrate that the decision was subjective. Actually we see now that
> it is more than subjective, it is according to an effective procedure. I
> had never been told there was a documented rejection: now we all know it.
> We were never made aware that there was a decision committee: now we know
> that Thomas is a Member. We were never made aware there were rules: now we
> know that they have been rightfully followed. We were never made aware
> there was an administrative registration file: now we know that we had to
> substantiate our incorporation date, legal publication reference, BoD list
> etc... may-be who knows? No one, but Thomas....
>
> I am sad Thomas that you were entrapped into that. You are worth more.
> jfc
>
> PS about what we have done so far? a few things actually, but among them we
> havd a few disagrements with Thomas Roessler.
>
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:28:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Request to Establish a GA Transfers Research Group

Thomas,

The Board has called for a policy-development process that "should have a set 
time period, probably no longer than 30-45 days".  I would like your 
assistance in proving that this can be done.  I need not remind you that the 
NC Transfers Task Force has accomplished nothing on transfers thus far in 
over 240+ days (other than arriving at a plan to waste even more time with a 
needless yet-to-be-released "survey").  The GA can get this work done in 45 
days.  We can act to end the abuse suffered by registrants at the hands of 
certain registrars.

I am asking you to set up a list dedicated to transfers (the same way that 
the TF has their own list), and I am asking you to Chair the research group.  
This group would ensure the opportunity for input by all interested parties, 
would be engaged in pro-active outreach to all potentially impacted parties, 
and would document both the input and the analysis that leads to its 
"advice".  All within 45 days.

Let's prove that we can solve this problem, and then move on to attack the 
next problem.  

regards,
Danny Younger

 

The NC Transfers Task Force has accomplished nothing on transfers in the last 
eight months.  I am not prepared to wait for them to piss away even more time 
producing a needless survey while registrants continue to suffer.  If the NC 
cannot get the job done, then it is time for the GA to step in.  I ask you, 
as Chair, to take responsibility 

The ICANN Board has adopted the recommendations of the ERC that call for a 
policy-development process that "should have a set time period, probably no 
longer than 30-45 days."  

These principles and procedures should mandate outreach, ensure the 
opportunity for input by all interested parties, require the development of 
records that document both the input and the analysis that leads to the 
recommendation, and set clear time periods for at least the production of 
status reports. 

Those policy-development bodies should be charged with undertaking an 
appropriate process of collecting community input, evaluating that input and 
developing recommendations that are either consistent with that input or 
clearly explain any inconsistencies. That process could involve working 
groups, task forces, public comments or some mixture of these devices, 
looking toward the production of a draft report and recommendation to the 
ICANN Board. This process should have a set time period, probably no longer 
than 30-45 days. 

Any such draft report should clearly state (1) the basis for any 
recommendations, (2) the steps taken to generate community input and the 
nature of that input, (3) the identity of and rationale for any dissents, and 
(4) any special time considerations relevant to the recommendations 
presented. 

Any such draft reports should be posted for review and comment by the public 
and/or any other ICANN entities for no less than thirty days, after which the 
policy body should have no more than fifteen days to finalize its report and 
recommendations and transmit them to the Board. 

consideration of a particular policy initiative should be limited to a total 
of ninety days after initiation or referral, at which time a report to the 
Board would be required

* See http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0207/msg00022.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: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:22:06 -0700
From: "Denise Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At-Large

Jefsey,

I did not receive a request from you or from germany@large to join the
At-Large Organizing effort. Perhaps there was an error in the registration
form script?  As noted on our website (www.at-large.org), all organizations
that involve and represent individual Internet users on issues that fall
within ICANN's mission, and meet the criteria listed below, are encouraged
to become an "At-Large Structure."  Please indicate your interest by sending
me an email at [email-masked].

Thanks.
Denise

At-Large Structures should:

- - Meet general criteria of openness, participation, and self-sustainability
- - Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual Internet users about
ICANN and ICANN issues
- - Involve individual Internet users, aggregate views, and identify relevant
Internet user priorities
- - Solicit the opinions of their members on these issues
- - Work with other ICANN stakeholders to address issues and develop positions
on Internet policy issues that fall within ICANN's mission.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------
Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:47:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References:
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]
><[email-masked]><[email-masked]
internet.fr><[email-masked]><3D1DDFF1.3ECD3FBB@h
i-tek.com>
Sender: [email-masked]

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

On 19:24 30/06/02, Vittorio Bertola said:
>I think we can have counter-proof of this: just let any organization you
>trust (including Jefsey's ones) ask Denise Michel for inclusion in the
ALOC,
>and let's see what she answers.

I am sorry, Vittorio, but I did and so did germany@large. I suppose we are
of no interest. There are many others, to start with Karls one. We known
from the very beginning that this was twisted and pure sales oriented
politicking. I am not interested in Joe Simsing, I am interested in the
Internet.

I mean in having people and e-businesses serviced through a common network
they understand, use and control. My organization from now one will be only
oriented towards this. For the French, for the Italians, for the Europeans,
for the Chineses and Indians and Aussies and Yankees and Vietnameses. If
ICANNers want join they are welcome as long as they behave themselves. I
proposed you and others many times to move ahead, I think that time has
come. If you want to contribute with work and funding hunt you welcome. The
only good news is that true internet operations have a cost but not a big
one and have a return, not a big one, but have one. If you want to speak
about PHP, on-line machines etc. you welcome.
jfc

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:37:07 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Vittorio,

     What difference does it make whether a group is accepted or rejected in 
this new Denise/Esther at-large "structure."?  What power does it have? 
What role does it have in allowing public to set the agenda?  Can it even 
elect its own leaders?  Who is the current leader of this, and how was that 
person choosen?

Jamie

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:27:30 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>I believe based upon experience and a long history this is naive.
> 
> 
> I think we can have counter-proof of this: just let any organization you
> trust (including Jefsey's ones) ask Denise Michel for inclusion in the ALOC,
> and let's see what she answers.

- -- 
- ------
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: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:

> At-Large Structures should:
> 
> - Meet general criteria of openness, participation, and self-sustainability

> - Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual Internet users about
> ICANN and ICANN issues

> - Involve individual Internet users, aggregate views, and identify relevant
> Internet user priorities

> - Solicit the opinions of their members on these issues

> - Work with other ICANN stakeholders to address issues and develop positions
> on Internet policy issues that fall within ICANN's mission.

ICANN itself could not join as it fails to meet any, much less all, of 
these requirements.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:18:13 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

I have not seen one reference to a benefit of being a member of the aloc.
I have not seen a published protocol or documentation of purpose.
This sure looks like the tail wagging the dog.
Eric

James Love wrote:

> Vittorio,
>
>      What difference does it make whether a group is accepted or rejected in
> this new Denise/Esther at-large "structure."?  What power does it have?
> What role does it have in allowing public to set the agenda?  Can it even
> elect its own leaders?  Who is the current leader of this, and how was that
> person choosen?
>
> Jamie
>
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:27:30 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I believe based upon experience and a long history this is naive.
> >
> >
> > I think we can have counter-proof of this: just let any organization you
> > trust (including Jefsey's ones) ask Denise Michel for inclusion in the ALOC,
> > and let's see what she answers.
>
> --
> ------
> 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 #1310
*************************