Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1318
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1318

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

Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:18:20 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN accused of bullying tactics by mainstream media

- --=======4F1F66EB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6857AE2; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 07:14 08/07/02, William X Walsh said:
>Sunday, July 07, 2002, 10:06:39 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2097000/2097771.stm
> > FYI
>Mainstream Media is NOT accusing ICANN of anything.  The BBC, and
>presumably other media outlets, are simply REPORTING a story that
>OTHERS are making that accusation.

Joanna, WXW,
you may want to reread the GAC report. More interesting when you read the 
implied meanings and you consider it was written by diplomats. jfc

- --=======4F1F66EB=======--

- --
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, 08 Jul 2002 18:22:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:
>
> >There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was
> >a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.
>
> Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.

  I think you mean "Explanation" here not "explanation".  In any
event should you check the archives, as I just did again today on
this non-issue, you will find that Karl announced that he would
not be attending Bucharest and why he would not be as well.

>
>
> >However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful
> >to me that the outcome would have been any different.
>
> Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered
> membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because
> "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he
> should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the
> word "unanimous" from the public reports.)

  I don't think, nor do I see any evidence that Karl has given
up on anything to date.

>
>
> >Incidentally, Thomas, how much debate and energy did the GA's
> >Chair offer in favor of a continued GA voice in ICANN? Did you
> >attend the meeting or make any other effort to participate in it -
> >in support of the GA, of course?
>
> To begin with, the GA's chair and alt.chair don't even get expenses
> to attend meetings, call into meetings, or call into telephone
> conferences.  Directors do.

  Well the GA Chair at least should have these expenses paid for
out of ICANN's budget.  However the fact that Stuart Lynn
some time ago now, decided that ICANN cannot afford to
even fund the DNSO GA is of course where this problem
lies.  And as well, the fact that the DNSO GA cannot
legally raise it's own funds, for reasons that are a bit
odd to say the least, has been debated vigorously
on several occasions on the DNSO GA list, as you
should know Thomas...

>
>
> Salzburg seminar funding was also not available this time, so
> Alexander went to Bucharest on his own cost.  I didn't, for a
> variety of reasons.
>
> Further, both Alexander and I have been spending countless hours
> (and transatlantic phone calls - no expenses for that, either) on
> trying to convince the Names Council that the GA can indeed
> contribute reasonably - note that the Council will ultimately be the
> institution which decides what the GA will look like in the future -
> the E&R blueprint mostly sets directions for that - by trying to
> demonstrate that the GA can constructively contribute to the DNSO's
> work.  I do think that at least some constituencies begin to
> understand that the DNSO would lose something important by killing
> the GA, or by restricting access to the GA to constituency members.

  Restricting the GA is in violation of the DNSO GA's own voted upon
mandate as well as not in keeping with the White Paper and the MoU.
The ICANN BoD and staff in particular know this all to well...

>
>
> Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not
> a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open
> polls instead, and most of the problems go away.

  Well the DNSO GA members disagrees with you on this issue
Thomas.  Which in part makes you not a good GA Chair, IMHO.

>
>
> --
> 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

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, 08 Jul 2002 18:40:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI FOr the NC-Transfer: Verisign deviltry? Its reply to a customer who wants to leave

All assembly members and/or other stakeholders or interested parties,

  The following is from Politech:

==============Copy starts here ===========
Subject: FC: Verisign deviltry? Its reply to a customer who wants to
leave
   Date:  Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:43:03 -0400
   From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
     To:  [email-masked]

- ---

From: "Thomas Leavitt" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Fwd: [NIC-020704.4568] Your Registrar Transfer Request
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:44:13 -0700

Declan,

I thought you might be interested in seeing how Verisign responds to
a  registrar change request... you get what appears to be a junk mail
that, if you don't read the fine print on, and just delete, will result
in a
denial of the transfer request. I almost did this myself.

The actual instructions on how to confirm the transfer request are
buried  in the "signature" portion of the email... pretty scuzzy in my
opinion - this is an email they're obligated to send, I think,
therefore, the
actual functional part of the email should be a lot more visible and
clear.

When you go to the "stayoffer.com" URL, you get redirected to

https://www.netsol.com/en_US/promotions/offers/renewals/renewal-7.jhtml?siteid=100&channelid=P47C100S169N0B10A8D157V1&clickid=1000000000

... where Verisign drops its pants and offers to let you renew your
domain for just $15/year with a two year renewal term... significantly
less
than the $35/year list price.

Of course, by that point, I'd already paid the 12 euro non-refundable
fee to have gandi.net host it, and I'm happy with them, so it wasn't any

use to me. But it might be of use to those folk who need to renew their
domains and want to stay with Verisign. :)

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [NIC-020704.4568] Your Registrar Transfer Request
>Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>Dear Valued VeriSign(r) Customer:
>
>We've received a request to Change the Registrar of your
>domain name registration SPACE.ORG to another registrar.
>You're a valued customer, and we want you to remain with
>VeriSign. We hope you'll reconsider and renew your domain
>name registration with VeriSign at our special valued
>customer promotional price, available at:
>http://www.stayoffer.com
>
>Don't miss out on the benefits VeriSign is committed to
>providing you, including:
>
>24-HOUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT
>FREE access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
>Get help when you need it. Customer Support is available
>by phone, e-mail, and through our Web site.
>
>ONLINE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
>Manage all your services with our easy-to-use, Web-based
>interface. Set up a Web site, add additional e-mail
>boxes, modify your contact information...it's all in
>one place.
>
>To renew SPACE.ORG with VeriSign at our special
>promotional price, click here: http://www.stayoffer.com
>
>
>**************************************************************
>We take every effort to protect you against unauthorized or
>fraudulent registrar changes. To keep your domain name
>registration with VeriSign, no action on your part is necessary.
>To confirm your desire to change your registrar, copy and paste
>the line below into the subject line of your return email:
>[NIC-020704.4568]:SPACE.ORG:580325:TRANSFER=YES
>
>If you don't respond within 72 hours from the time stamp of
>this e-mail, the request to Change Registrar will be denied.
>The timestamp of this e-mail and the time to respond are
>based on Eastern Time. If you have any questions, please
>e-mail us at: [email-masked].
>
>At VeriSign, we've been building online identities since the
>Internet was introduced. We will continue to put this
>experience and reliability to work for you. Thank you for
>being a VeriSign customer.
>
>
>(c) 2002 VeriSign, Inc. All rights reserved.

- --
Thomas Leavitt -- [email-masked], Sr. Systems Admin For
Hire

Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since
1993.
Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)

Personal Home Page and Resume:
http://www.internetmanifesto.org/resume/

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

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/

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

Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/

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

================  End of Copy from Politech ===============

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, 8 Jul 2002 20:48:34 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI FOr the NC-Transfer: Verisign deviltry? Its reply to a customer who wants to leave

At the very least, there should be a reference to the ACK paragraph 
immediately below the opening paragraph - in CAPS.  The notice is 
sleazy, IMO.  I honestly don't think it should include solicitation other 
than a link for more information and that link should really be located 
below the ACK instructions.

Leah

On 8 Jul 2002, at 18:40, Jeff Williams wrote:

> All assembly members and/or other stakeholders or interested parties,
> 
>   The following is from Politech:
> 
> ==============Copy starts here ===========
> Subject: FC: Verisign deviltry? Its reply to a customer who wants to
> leave
>    Date:  Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:43:03 -0400
>    From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
>      To:  [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> From: "Thomas Leavitt" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Fwd: [NIC-020704.4568] Your Registrar Transfer Request
> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 18:44:13 -0700
> 
> Declan,
> 
> I thought you might be interested in seeing how Verisign responds to
> a  registrar change request... you get what appears to be a junk mail
> that, if you don't read the fine print on, and just delete, will result in
> a denial of the transfer request. I almost did this myself.
> 
> The actual instructions on how to confirm the transfer request are
> buried  in the "signature" portion of the email... pretty scuzzy in my
> opinion - this is an email they're obligated to send, I think, therefore,
> the actual functional part of the email should be a lot more visible and
> clear.
> 
> When you go to the "stayoffer.com" URL, you get redirected to
> 
> 
> https://www.netsol.com/en_US/promotions/offers/renewals/renewal-7.jhtml?sit
> eid=100&channelid=P47C100S169N0B10A8D157V1&clickid=1000000000
> 
> ... where Verisign drops its pants and offers to let you renew your
> domain for just $15/year with a two year renewal term... significantly less
> than the $35/year list price.
> 
> Of course, by that point, I'd already paid the 12 euro non-refundable
> fee to have gandi.net host it, and I'm happy with them, so it wasn't any
> 
> use to me. But it might be of use to those folk who need to renew their
> domains and want to stay with Verisign. :)
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt
> 
> 
> >From: [email-masked]
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: [NIC-020704.4568] Your Registrar Transfer Request
> >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 02:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >
> >Dear Valued VeriSign(r) Customer:
> >
> >We've received a request to Change the Registrar of your
> >domain name registration SPACE.ORG to another registrar.
> >You're a valued customer, and we want you to remain with
> >VeriSign. We hope you'll reconsider and renew your domain
> >name registration with VeriSign at our special valued
> >customer promotional price, available at:
> >http://www.stayoffer.com
> >
> >Don't miss out on the benefits VeriSign is committed to
> >providing you, including:
> >
> >24-HOUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT
> >FREE access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
> >Get help when you need it. Customer Support is available
> >by phone, e-mail, and through our Web site.
> >
> >ONLINE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
> >Manage all your services with our easy-to-use, Web-based
> >interface. Set up a Web site, add additional e-mail
> >boxes, modify your contact information...it's all in
> >one place.
> >
> >To renew SPACE.ORG with VeriSign at our special
> >promotional price, click here: http://www.stayoffer.com
> >
> >
> >**************************************************************
> >We take every effort to protect you against unauthorized or
> >fraudulent registrar changes. To keep your domain name
> >registration with VeriSign, no action on your part is necessary.
> >To confirm your desire to change your registrar, copy and paste
> >the line below into the subject line of your return email:
> >[NIC-020704.4568]:SPACE.ORG:580325:TRANSFER=YES
> >
> >If you don't respond within 72 hours from the time stamp of
> >this e-mail, the request to Change Registrar will be denied.
> >The timestamp of this e-mail and the time to respond are
> >based on Eastern Time. If you have any questions, please
> >e-mail us at: [email-masked].
> >
> >At VeriSign, we've been building online identities since the
> >Internet was introduced. We will continue to put this
> >experience and reliability to work for you. Thank you for
> >being a VeriSign customer.
> >
> >
> >(c) 2002 VeriSign, Inc. All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Thomas Leavitt -- [email-masked], Sr. Systems Admin For
> Hire
> 
> Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since
> 1993.
> Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)
> 
> Personal Home Page and Resume:
> http://www.internetmanifesto.org/resume/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech:
> http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ================  End of Copy from Politech ===============
> 
> 
> 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-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: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:57:49 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI FOr the NC-Transfer: Verisign deviltry? Its reply to a customer who wants to leave

At 8:48 PM -0400 7/8/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
>At the very least, there should be a reference to the ACK paragraph
>immediately below the opening paragraph - in CAPS.  The notice is
>sleazy, IMO.  I honestly don't think it should include solicitation other
>than a link for more information and that link should really be located
>below the ACK instructions.

It's called desperation.

With Verisign's stock price at $5.76 and no recovery on the horizon (things
can only get worse) they only have two options.

1. Block transfers out, with underhanded tactics like this.

2. Keep buying up registrars - which is only a temporary measure, because
as soon as registrants find out they're back with Verisign/NSI, they
transfer out AGAIN.

The sooner stockholders and analysts realise that they've invested in a
SICK PIG, the better.

Me, I've laughing my arse off. All that stock that Joe Sims' Offshore Trust
probably got for that favourable re-write of the ICANN/Verisign contact
will be worth pennies on the dollar soon. He should have taken the cash.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 8 Jul 2002 19:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:
> 
> >There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was  
> >a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.
> 
> Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.

First, I decided not to attend in person on advice of counsel (due to my
litigation with ICANN).

Second, I had intended to participate by telephone.  However, it turned
out, very much to my surprise, that where I was had neither voice nor
internet connectivity.  (I could have driven 15km over an unpaved road to
get to a voice phone, but that would have meant sitting in an open parking
lot (in the rain) on a pay phone from midnight until dawn.)

This was the first public meeting of ICANN that I wasn't able to
participate in.

> >However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful 
> >to me that the outcome would have been any different.
> 
> Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered 
> membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because 
> "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he 
> should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the 
> word "unanimous" from the public reports.)

I have hardly given up.  There are, unfortunately only 24 hours in a day.

As for the "unanimous" aspect - It saddens me to see how completely ICANN 
has repudiated its responsibility to the public and has retreated into a 
kind of dark-ages oligarchic mentality.

I can understand the fear of the US that has driven some board members to
chose the so-called "evolution" approach.  However, my own sense is that
this "evolution" has derailed ICANN so badly that the "evolution" actually
makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that the US Gov't will step
in.

(There are some board members who are thoughtful and who make considered
judgements.  Unfortunately, ICANN's board is hermetically sealed off from
public commentary - ICANN spoon feeds pre-digested information to the
board [and you can guess who does the pre-digestion and what the result
looks and smells like].  Although all board members speak English, it is
not necessarily the language they are most comfortable with.  Thus it is
often difficult for some directors to obtain independent information.)

I spent the two weeks before the Bucharest meeting in DC - I testified
before a US Senate subcommittee, met with several people from both the
House and Senate, and also met with a number of people from the Department
of Commerce and other executive agencies.

I perceive a collision course between ICANN and the US government over
ICANN's failures, not the least being the failure of the so-called 
"reform" or "evolution" plan to comport with the obligations that ICANN 
undertook when it received the nod from the US government when ICANN was 
formed.

As for the GA: It is possible to find fault with anyone and anything.  My
own sense is that the GA is doing very well; that despite the differences,
most of the leadership and most of the membership is looking and pulling
in roughly the same direction.

Attacks on ourselves - on our own friends - are not a productive exercise.

I personally would like to see the GA more clearly define its procedures -
and since it is an assembly of indpendent people who chose to be there on
their own free will, I don't see why the GA needs to think that it has to
have permission from on high to institute those procedures (including
voting to ascertain the group opinion when it is reasonable to do so.)

> Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not  
> a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open 
> polls instead, and most of the problems go away.

This is the kind of issue that can become divisive if we let it be.  But
we don't have to let it be - we can take the constructive course and agree
to disagree - and eventually take a vote about the taking of votes ;-)

And, of course, we all need to learn not to feed the trolls.

		--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: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:30:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Is worldcom cranking up the PR machine?  CNBC article:"The wise OLD man of the Internet"

All assembly members,

  Is Worldcom cranking up the PR machine?
See:http://www.msnbc.com/news/776074.asp?0bl=-0

Or also on CNBC and CNN see:http://www.msnbc.com/news/777645.asp?0bl=-0
and http://www.msnbc.com/news/777194.asp?0dm=N12KB

  Seems that on the same day that SOME of Worldcom's
execs and Ex-Execs are grilled in congress and further
charges being considered by the SEC, that Worldcom's
BOD member Vint Cerf is being held out as a shining star.

  I would venture a guess that one would have to be nearly
a complete idiot not to understand and know that Vint
could not have not known what was happening inside
Worldcom...

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, 08 Jul 2002 22:20:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Karl and all assembly members,

  Thank you Karl for yet again setting straight our forgetful
chair as to your reasons for not attending in Bucharest.  It
somewhat reminded me of inviting a troll back into it's cage.  >;)

  I also agree with you as do our members, that the continuing
game of the GA members somehow or for some reason
needing permission as to what they can vote upon.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > On 2002-07-07 20:47:57 -0500, Don Brown wrote:
> >
> > >There could have been legal reasons or other reasons why Karl was
> > >a no-show.  He can be his own spokesman.
> >
> > Of course.  I'm still waiting for his _public_ expanation, though.
>
> First, I decided not to attend in person on advice of counsel (due to my
> litigation with ICANN).
>
> Second, I had intended to participate by telephone.  However, it turned
> out, very much to my surprise, that where I was had neither voice nor
> internet connectivity.  (I could have driven 15km over an unpaved road to
> get to a voice phone, but that would have meant sitting in an open parking
> lot (in the rain) on a pay phone from midnight until dawn.)
>
> This was the first public meeting of ICANN that I wasn't able to
> participate in.
>
> > >However, even if Karl had been present, it is extremely doubtful
> > >to me that the outcome would have been any different.
> >
> > Probably, yes.  Still, given Karl's analysis that a "fully empowered
> > membership is entirely feasible", and that it all happened because
> > "people ... kept creeping backwards", I'm wondering very much why he
> > should give up.  (In particular, he could at least have remvoed the
> > word "unanimous" from the public reports.)
>
> I have hardly given up.  There are, unfortunately only 24 hours in a day.
>
> As for the "unanimous" aspect - It saddens me to see how completely ICANN
> has repudiated its responsibility to the public and has retreated into a
> kind of dark-ages oligarchic mentality.
>
> I can understand the fear of the US that has driven some board members to
> chose the so-called "evolution" approach.  However, my own sense is that
> this "evolution" has derailed ICANN so badly that the "evolution" actually
> makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that the US Gov't will step
> in.
>
> (There are some board members who are thoughtful and who make considered
> judgements.  Unfortunately, ICANN's board is hermetically sealed off from
> public commentary - ICANN spoon feeds pre-digested information to the
> board [and you can guess who does the pre-digestion and what the result
> looks and smells like].  Although all board members speak English, it is
> not necessarily the language they are most comfortable with.  Thus it is
> often difficult for some directors to obtain independent information.)
>
> I spent the two weeks before the Bucharest meeting in DC - I testified
> before a US Senate subcommittee, met with several people from both the
> House and Senate, and also met with a number of people from the Department
> of Commerce and other executive agencies.
>
> I perceive a collision course between ICANN and the US government over
> ICANN's failures, not the least being the failure of the so-called
> "reform" or "evolution" plan to comport with the obligations that ICANN
> undertook when it received the nod from the US government when ICANN was
> formed.
>
> As for the GA: It is possible to find fault with anyone and anything.  My
> own sense is that the GA is doing very well; that despite the differences,
> most of the leadership and most of the membership is looking and pulling
> in roughly the same direction.
>
> Attacks on ourselves - on our own friends - are not a productive exercise.
>
> I personally would like to see the GA more clearly define its procedures -
> and since it is an assembly of indpendent people who chose to be there on
> their own free will, I don't see why the GA needs to think that it has to
> have permission from on high to institute those procedures (including
> voting to ascertain the group opinion when it is reasonable to do so.)
>
> > Note that I don't mention votes: I'm still convinced that it's not
> > a good idea to have the GA vote secretly on actual issues.  Use open
> > polls instead, and most of the problems go away.
>
> This is the kind of issue that can become divisive if we let it be.  But
> we don't have to let it be - we can take the constructive course and agree
> to disagree - and eventually take a vote about the taking of votes ;-)
>
> And, of course, we all need to learn not to feed the trolls.
>
>                 --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

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, 8 Jul 2002 23:59:09 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Karl's latest

<FONT face=3D"Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" si=
ze=3D2><DIV><BR></DIV><P>Karl's latest posting makes you wonder whether the=
 self-imposed responsibility for saving the Internet from the barbarians ha=
s finally gotten to him (and even to his lawyers, if they in fact gave him =
the strange advice he says they did).&nbsp; </P><P>What is most revealing, =
however, in this latest message is his obvious contempt for his fellow Boar=
d members, who according to him are hapless and helpless, in the steely gri=
p of a domineering staff and unable (some, according to Karl, because Engli=
sh is not their native language) to get the real truth of what is going on.=
&nbsp; Karl, by comparison, is a self-described big-time player, testifying=
 before Congress and meeting with important people in Washington.&nbsp; His=
 comparison in the last hearing to Senators and himself as being similar be=
cause both were elected was another manifestation of this&nbsp;self-delusio=
n, which is both amazing and a little sad.</P><P>In fact, if Karl ever&nbsp=
;actually spent any time with his fellow directors from outside the United =
States, he would discover that most of them speak considerably better Engli=
sh than he (or I) do, as if that had anything to do with their critical fac=
ulties.&nbsp; Indeed, the personal accomplishments of Alejandro Pisanty, or=
 Nii Quaynor, or Ivan Campos, or for that matter Vint Cerf and the rest of =
the&nbsp;ICANN directors, compare quite favorably to Karl's career record o=
f accomplishment, I would guess.&nbsp; And if he ever bothered to actually =
debate the merits of issues with them -- which he does not, because, of cou=
rse, he knows he already has the delivered wisdom -- he would know how hard=
 they have struggled with these complicated issues.&nbsp; If he ever bother=
ed to listen, he would have heard his fellow elected directors explain why,=
 for example, they thought that online elections were not a good way to sel=
ect ICANN Board members at this time -- but since Karl knows better, he doe=
s not listen or dismisses these views as the result of "fear of the US."&nb=
sp;&nbsp; But Karl tells us later that ICANN is headed for a "collision" wi=
th the US because it is failing to comply with its obligations (by which he=
 means elections).&nbsp; Which is it:&nbsp; fear of the US is buffaloing pe=
ople like Ivan Campos and Nii Quaynor into opposing elections even though t=
hey really think they are a good idea, or the US is going to force ICANN to=
, in Karl's words, "comport with their obligations?"&nbsp; Like many owners=
 of delivered wisdom, Karl is not troubled by internal inconsistency.</P><P=
>I invite readers to review the GAC Statement on Evolution and Reform issue=
d at Bucharest.&nbsp; The US, unlike Karl, was present for an intense 2 1/2=
 day meeting that produced a detailed statement basically endorsing the Blu=
eprint for Reform adopted by the Board.&nbsp; There were some dissents or d=
isassociations, like the ITU, but none from the US.&nbsp;&nbsp;If we are he=
aded for a collision, where are the signs?&nbsp; Ah, perhaps from his&nbsp;=
meetings with important people in Washington, but if so, who are they and w=
hy are they not speaking out?&nbsp; Could it be we have a transparency issu=
e with Karl?&nbsp; Horrors! Or perhaps he mostly has a hearing problem -- z=
ealots frequently hear what they want to hear, and only that.</P><P>The rea=
l issue is not public input into ICANN; there is no dispute from anyone tha=
t there must be effective mechanisms for the general public, including indi=
vidual users, to make their views known and to participate if they choose t=
o in the policy development process.&nbsp; Karl's position, and that of som=
e others, is that there is only one possible acceptable way for that to hap=
pen -- by electing directors.&nbsp; The views of many others are different =
- -- that there are numerous ways it can happen, and elections (at least toda=
y) are not the best of those options.&nbsp; This may be an issue that reaso=
nable people can differ on, but&nbsp;to Karl,&nbsp;those who disagree could=
 only do so because they are evil, or inept, or somehow constrained in thei=
r ability to think because English is not their native language.&nbsp; </P>=
<P>This is either utter nonsense or the ramblings of a zealot.&nbsp; In eit=
her case, it deserves the weight that it is getting.&nbsp; Karl asked to be=
 a member of the ICANN Board; nobody dragooned him.&nbsp; Once given that r=
esponsibility, he has chosen to ignore his fiduciary obligations to ICANN a=
nd to this fellow Board members,&nbsp;and to use that platform to feed his =
ego and advance a largely incoherent personal agenda.&nbsp;&nbsp;Being an I=
CANN director has given him prominence and attention, and apparently that i=
s what he wanted, since he has not even tried to do anything iwith his fell=
ow Board members that&nbsp;would possibly advance the cause he says he espo=
uses.&nbsp; He has never missed a Senate or House hearing, but he now excus=
es his lack of attendence at one of the most important ICANN Board meetings=
 ever on the fact that it was inconvenient for him (as compared, one suppos=
es, to those other Board members from around the world that were able to ad=
just their schedules to enable their attendence).&nbsp; Other excuses for o=
ther absences were that he was up late and fell asleep, and that he couldn'=
t get the phone to work.&nbsp; In America, every person apparently has the&=
nbsp;right to be irresponsible, but for heaven's sake, the rest of us don't=
 have to pretend that it is an attractive character trait.</P><P>Karl is pa=
rt of the old ICANN -- an organization that was as much a magnet for every =
person with grandiose ideas about global democracy as it was a serious work=
ing body.&nbsp; That old ICANN is gone -- and is being replaced with an org=
anization that still adheres to the core values of openness and transparenc=
y, of broad public input and participation, and of making policy by consens=
us whenever possible, but does so with the knowledge that it still has to a=
ll work.&nbsp; For people like Karl, the new ICANN may not have quite the m=
agnetic attraction of the old, but that is not a bad thing.&nbsp; It should=
 help get the decisions that must be made done in a timely and effective wa=
y.&nbsp; And that will be a good thing.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><BR=
><BR><BR>Joe&nbsp;Sims<BR>Jones&nbsp;Day&nbsp;Reavis&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Pogue<=
BR>51&nbsp;Louisiana&nbsp;Avenue&nbsp;NW<BR>Washington,&nbsp;D.C.&nbsp;2000=
1<BR>Direct&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.879.3863<BR>Direct&nbsp;Fax:&nbsp;=
&nbsp;1.202.626.1747<BR>Mobile&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.703.629.3963<BR><BR=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>The preceding e-mail message (including any attachmen=
ts) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the atto=
rney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public inform=
ation. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). I=
f you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the send=
er by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, di=
ssemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended re=
cipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D </P> <DI=
V><BR></DIV><BR></FONT>=
- --
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, 8 Jul 2002 21:12:54 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

Monday, July 08, 2002, 8:59:09 PM, Joe Sims wrote:

> know how hard they have struggled with these complicated issues.  If
> he ever bothered to listen, he would have  heard his fellow elected
> directors explain why, for example, they thought that online
> elections were not a good way to select ICANN Board members at this
> time

I'd sure like to see this, Joe, if in fact you are being genuine.
What are the solid reasons why they feel elections are not a good way
to select Board members?

I have my own opinion about the real reason, but I'll take you up on
your statement here that they are willing to share their reasons.

Please post the reference for us here, so we can all be enlightened by
their so called wisdom.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1318
*************************