Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1368
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1368

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:00:59 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

I support Elisabeth's views on this. ERC will make recommendations; the 
community will comment; the Board will make decisions... BUT, that doesn't 
mean that "flash cut"...  or "flag day" happens. :-)

One would expect transitions, and in the implementation of the version of the
Blueprint, would come the need to institutionalize the changes... for instance,the 
reestantiation of the policy council for the gTLD SO; likewise for hte ccTLD SO.

So, we should proceed. The worse thing that happens is that we need to make 
sure board candidates understand the situation and are committed to the 
outcomes that they could find themselves with a short term, or no term...

THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do. 
- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

Bret,

Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.

Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
> From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> 
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
> 
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities. 
> 
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> holding redundant elections?
> 
>         -- Bret
> 
> --
> 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

- --
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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:37:44 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> 
> THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do. 

You are paid by AT&T to do this, correct ?

If you were not paid, you would not be involved, correct ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:36:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS: Statistical note.

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Of course I must agree with you here.  Such skewing of statistics
cannot yield accurate or creditable results...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

>    One reader of the [1]WHOIS Task Force's report sent me a private
>    comment about the statitsical considerations section of that report,
>    pointing out that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics of
>    a self-selected sample can be modeled by a Gaussion or any other
>    random model. This is, of course, true: The fact that the respondents
>    were [2]self-selected can add any systematic bias, and we don't know
>    what that bias looks like. However, we know that this bias makes the
>    results worse. Thus, error margins derived from a random model
>    underestimate the errors. Put differently: If you couldn't derive a
>    conclusion assuming the sample is random, you certainly can't derive
>    it when the results come from a self-selected sample.
>
> References
>
>    1. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
>    2. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1935.html
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:51:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, at 09:55 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> holding redundant elections?

Maybe we can ask advice from ASO? They've elected a successor for Robert
Blokzijl 4 weeks ago. Blokzijl and Pisanty are out on the same day.

- --
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: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:03:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Bret and all assembly members,

  I am also as confused at this announcement as you are Bret.  For the
life of me it seems that your assumption regarding this announced election
and the "Black-and-Blueprint" supposed reform effort are jux posed...
???

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
>
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities.
>
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> holding redundant elections?
>
>         -- Bret
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce

i'll cc the list with the information and case number.

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Jeff Field wrote:

> FYI, I am looking up nothing.  I have received no directions (links?).  If
> you have links, Joe, please post them to the list.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> > Baptista
> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:37 PM
> > To: Jeff Field
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Neuman, Jeff
> > Subject: RE: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
> >
> >
> > jeff is looking them up.  i sent him directions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > --
> > Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> > a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Jeff Field wrote:
> >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Where are the court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz?  Please provide
> > > links.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > --
> > > jeff field
> > > 952-848-7626
> > > 952-848-7627 fax
> > > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> > > > Baptista
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:52 AM
> > > > To: Neuman, Jeff
> > > > Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] NeuStar letter to Department of Commerce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the .biz address provided is not seen in most of the alternative
> > > > namespace.  would love to read it but can't.
> > > >
> > > > but with respect to something completely different - are you
> > aware of the
> > > > court decisions regarding the ARNI .biz - and the fact those
> > decision will
> > > > also apply to .biz customers possibly resulting in some of
> > them loosing
> > > > their domain in future.  And have you provided your domain owners with
> > > > disclosure on this.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > joe
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > FYI, the following letter was sent by us to the Department
> > of Commerce
> > > > > yesterday in support of ICANN reform.  You can also access it at:
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?p
> > > ress_id=39
> > > > 2
> > > >
> > >
> <http://www.neustar.biz/pressroom/announcements/press_release.cfm?press_id=3
> > > 92>
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>

- --
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:13:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS: Statistical note.

Oh, I thought this thing you're talking about was called At Large, or
ALOC, or ALSO. Has the name changed again, and is it now WHOIS? And what
does it stand for?

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, at 11:56 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

>    One reader of the [1]WHOIS Task Force's report sent me a private
>    comment about the statitsical considerations section of that report,
>    pointing out that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics of
>    a self-selected sample can be modeled by a Gaussion or any other
>    random model. This is, of course, true: The fact that the respondents
>    were [2]self-selected can add any systematic bias, and we don't know
>    what that bias looks like. However, we know that this bias makes the
>    results worse. Thus, error margins derived from a random model
>    underestimate the errors. Put differently: If you couldn't derive a
>    conclusion assuming the sample is random, you certainly can't derive
>    it when the results come from a self-selected sample.
>
> References
>
>    1. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
>    2. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1935.html
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:19:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Danny and all assembly members,

  Thank you for this interesting reference from the NC archives.
I had read it before however.

  None the less this still does not explain in any reasonable way
Bret's very proper question and taking issue with the seemingly
purposeful confusion given the timing al la the "Black-and Blueprint"
reform and ERC effort....

  I also think you may be right though that the ICANN BoD and staff
are trying to figure out how to keep the At-Large in it's already
dug grave...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Bret,
>
> On August 1, Phil Sheppard sent this note to Louis Touton:  "at the NC
> meeting today it was agreed that unless we hear argument to the contrary the
> DNSO will go ahead with the election of a board director according to the
> usual timetable. I would be grateful for any comment you have in this
> regard."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00409.html
>
> Apparently, no argument to the contrary or comment was received, as a week
> later there are still no messages from ICANN management posted to the NC
> list.
>
> Is it stupid to move forward along these lines?  Obviously.  The issue of
> DNSO/GNSO elections has previously been raised with Vint Cerf who referred
> the matter to the ERC for clarification.  We haven't heard from the ERC
> either...  I guess that they're too preoccupied digging the grave for the
> At-Large to pay attention to mundane details regarding the DNSO.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:26:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Elisabeth and all assembly members,

  Ok.  But I hope the NC realizes this makes the ICANN BoD and staff
look very incompetent, and the NC also less than competent
but to a lesser degree than the ICANN BoD and staff...

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Bret,
>
> Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
> on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.
>
> Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
> for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
> letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
> Otherwise it is anarchy.
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> --
> > From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> > Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> >       candidates
> > From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> > To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > Mime-version: 1.0
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> > the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> > seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> > Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> > which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
> >
> > In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> > *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board representatives
> > might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their seats
> > without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new
> > status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> > priorities.
> >
> > Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort by
> > holding redundant elections?
> >
> >         -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > 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

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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:40:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ?:? .COOP

Ok, who is responsible for the return of Fleming's disruptions?

Friday, August 09, 2002, 6:28:29 PM, Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02906.html
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
> [registrars] .COOP Registry/Registrar Introduction
> =====

> Why was .COOP selected over more popular extensions ?

> http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html
> 10514 INC
> 9264 ONLINE
> 7288 NET
> 6472 USA
> 4481 GROUP
> 4101 WEB
> ...
> 67 COOP
> ====

> Does .COOP only have two servers ?

> Is IN-ADDR.COOP delegated ?

> Are there any .COOP IPv6 servers ?

> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

> ===========================================
> http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=coop&submit=Submit
> .coop - NS Resource Records.
> Click on any NS RR link below to do a ServerScan.

> ANIC : AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 1D IN NS ns1.nic.coop.
> coop. 1D IN NS ns2.nic.coop.

> BORN : Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
> .coop not found.

> CINICS : Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
> Result = No Response

> iDNS : i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.coop.
> coop. 2D IN NS NS1.NIC.coop.

> LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.coop.
> coop. 2D IN NS NS1.NIC.coop.

> NSpace : Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0. 
> .coop not found.

> Nnet : New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 2 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 1D IN NS NS2.NIC.coop.
> coop. 1D IN NS NS1.NIC.coop.

> ONIC : The OpenNIC Project : 131.161.247.226
> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 2D IN NS ns2.nic.coop.
> coop. 2D IN NS ns1.nic.coop.

> ORSC : Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
> Result = No Response

> ORSN : Open Root Server Network : 217.146.140.67
> VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 2 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 2D IN NS NS1.NIC.coop.
> coop. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.coop.

> TINC : The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
> Result = No Response

> TPR : The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
> VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2. 
> coop. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.coop.
> coop. 2D IN NS NS1.NIC.coop.

> TUR : The Universal Registry : 66.38.220.12
> Result = No Response

> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:53:06 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Marilyn:

I agree in part with the principles that you have discussed, however, it is
the outcome in which I respectfully disagree. I believe that when the Names
Council extended Philip's term as Chair, despite an understood rule that a
Chair serve no more than two consecutive 6 month terms, you were one of the
individuals that argued about the need for continuity during this critical
juncture of the Names Council.

Following this same line of logic which you previously advocated to extend
Philip's term, then Alejandro is really the only qualified candidate to
serve on the ICANN Board based upon the critical role which he has served
chairing the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee. Aside from his excellent
qualifications, the reasons I nominated him for a second term, regardless of
how short it may be, was because he is the most uniquely qualified
individual to serve in that capacity.

I would respectfully submit that you should ask Grant, your fellow Business
Constituency Names Council Representative, NOT to accept his nomination, and
support Alejandro's reelection/extension based on the same exact reasons
that Philip was granted an extension as Chair of the Names Council.

Just my two cents.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:01 PM
To: Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

I support Elisabeth's views on this. ERC will make recommendations; the
community will comment; the Board will make decisions... BUT, that doesn't
mean that "flash cut"...  or "flag day" happens. :-)

One would expect transitions, and in the implementation of the version of
the
Blueprint, would come the need to institutionalize the changes... for
instance,the
reestantiation of the policy council for the gTLD SO; likewise for hte ccTLD
SO.

So, we should proceed. The worse thing that happens is that we need to make
sure board candidates understand the situation and are committed to the
outcomes that they could find themselves with a short term, or no term...

THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

Bret,

Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.

Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
> From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
>
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board
representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their
seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new

> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities.
>
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort
by
> holding redundant elections?
>
>         -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

- --
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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:07:09 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Michael, I think you have misinterpreted my suggestions, which were about 
procedures, not really about principles.  Principles are very different. :-)

.....the rest of your message simply escapes me, probably because I tied up on other 
key activities ... 
BUT, I promise, I will try to play catch up on politics this week end... 

Regards, Marilyn Cade
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:53 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

Marilyn:

I agree in part with the principles that you have discussed, however, it is
the outcome in which I respectfully disagree. I believe that when the Names
Council extended Philip's term as Chair, despite an understood rule that a
Chair serve no more than two consecutive 6 month terms, you were one of the
individuals that argued about the need for continuity during this critical
juncture of the Names Council.

Following this same line of logic which you previously advocated to extend
Philip's term, then Alejandro is really the only qualified candidate to
serve on the ICANN Board based upon the critical role which he has served
chairing the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee. Aside from his excellent
qualifications, the reasons I nominated him for a second term, regardless of
how short it may be, was because he is the most uniquely qualified
individual to serve in that capacity.

I would respectfully submit that you should ask Grant, your fellow Business
Constituency Names Council Representative, NOT to accept his nomination, and
support Alejandro's reelection/extension based on the same exact reasons
that Philip was granted an extension as Chair of the Names Council.

Just my two cents.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:01 PM
To: Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

I support Elisabeth's views on this. ERC will make recommendations; the
community will comment; the Board will make decisions... BUT, that doesn't
mean that "flash cut"...  or "flag day" happens. :-)

One would expect transitions, and in the implementation of the version of
the
Blueprint, would come the need to institutionalize the changes... for
instance,the
reestantiation of the policy council for the gTLD SO; likewise for hte ccTLD
SO.

So, we should proceed. The worse thing that happens is that we need to make
sure board candidates understand the situation and are committed to the
outcomes that they could find themselves with a short term, or no term...

THAT doesn't mean that we don't take this seriously. I certainly do.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:10 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

Bret,

Today Bylaws set up obligations on each SOs, one of them is to proceed
on time and to elect ICANN Board directors.

Until we receive the clear implementation schedule and timeline
for ICANN 2 (whatever it is, as amended in Bucharest, work in progress,
letters to DoC in progress, see your own blog), we have to follow rules.
Otherwise it is anarchy.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
> From [email-masked] Fri Aug  9 18:56 MET 2002
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:55:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director
> 	candidates
> From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
> To: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> Can someone clarify what we're doing here? I'm a bit confused. By the time
> the new Director elected pursuant to the just announced process would be
> seated, the Reform process will have been completed. I'm assuming that the
> Blueprint, or something very close to it, will be in place at that point,
> which would give the GNSO only two Board seats.
>
> In the likely event the Blueprint passes, the GNSO then will need to hold
> *new* elections for its two Board seats. Existing DNSO Board
representatives
> might be reelected, but I wouldn't favor allowing them to retain their
seats
> without standing for election, as that wouldn't account for the GNSO's new

> status (which will have a new make-up to the constituencies) or its new
> priorities.
>
> Is there a way to compress this process so we don't waste time and effort
by
> holding redundant elections?
>
>         -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 #1368
*************************