Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1369
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1369

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:54:20 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

I will await your response. However, I am tired of politics and one of the
reasons that I have been supportive of ICANN reform from its inception. Now
there are other constituencies that can claim to have been supportive of
reform, but there were so many damn qualification/conditions in connection
with their support that it was effectively meaningless.

I support ICANN reform because the politics and horse trading of ICANN 1.0
make me sick to the stomach. While a select few people wear out their
welcome on the Hill and the Department of Commerce, there are small to
medium size businesses struggling to make a living. They do not have the
luxury to send an army of lobbyists to DC to manipulate the truth on a daily
basis.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:07 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
[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

- --
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 23:11:48 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Michael, I am sure that I am simply missing something here... and
can easily acknowledge that. But my response was about why there would
be an election, and had nothing to do, and still doesn't, with who gets 
nominated or stands.  Or even, ultimately, who I might, as an elected BC
rep endorse, or vote for. 

But I suggest that we all work hard to maintain our professional 
respect and regard for each others' views.

I am sure that you support that objective as we work through evolution and
reform.

Regards, Marilyn  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:54 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
Director candidates

I will await your response. However, I am tired of politics and one of the
reasons that I have been supportive of ICANN reform from its inception. Now
there are other constituencies that can claim to have been supportive of
reform, but there were so many damn qualification/conditions in connection
with their support that it was effectively meaningless.

I support ICANN reform because the politics and horse trading of ICANN 1.0
make me sick to the stomach. While a select few people wear out their
welcome on the Hill and the Department of Commerce, there are small to
medium size businesses struggling to make a living. They do not have the
luxury to send an army of lobbyists to DC to manipulate the truth on a daily
basis.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:07 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
[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

- --
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 23:27:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Michael, I am sure that I am simply missing something here... and
> can easily acknowledge that. But my response was about why there would
> be an election, and had nothing to do, and still doesn't, with who gets
> nominated or stands.  Or even, ultimately, who I might, as an elected BC
> rep endorse, or vote for.
>
> But I suggest that we all work hard to maintain our professional
> respect and regard for each others' views.

  Agreed.  But this becomes impossible as many of those views
are either not ethical (The ICANN Blueprint come to mind here),
or they are anti competition, which is non democratic as they
restrict participation and stakeholder/user voice and vote...

>
>
> I am sure that you support that objective as we work through evolution and
> reform.
>
> Regards, Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:54 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board
> Director candidates
>
> I will await your response. However, I am tired of politics and one of the
> reasons that I have been supportive of ICANN reform from its inception. Now
> there are other constituencies that can claim to have been supportive of
> reform, but there were so many damn qualification/conditions in connection
> with their support that it was effectively meaningless.
>
> I support ICANN reform because the politics and horse trading of ICANN 1.0
> make me sick to the stomach. While a select few people wear out their
> welcome on the Hill and the Department of Commerce, there are small to
> medium size businesses struggling to make a living. They do not have the
> luxury to send an army of lobbyists to DC to manipulate the truth on a daily
> basis.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:07 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked];
> [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
>
> --
> 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 10:24:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS: Statistical note.

You are confused. I'm talking about the report of the DNSO's WHOIS task 
force.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:13:52 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> To: Thomas Roessler <[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
>> 
- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:22:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN'S SMOKING GUN REVEALED

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0162_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0"

- ------=_NextPart_001_0162_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FYI

Internet overseer takes wrong path on accountability

By MICHAEL GEIST

Thursday, August 8, 2002 - Print Edition, Page B12
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020=
808/TWGEIS

- ------=_NextPart_001_0162_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>FYI<BR><BR><STRONG><FONT =
color=3D#000099=20
size=3D5>Internet overseer takes wrong path on=20
accountability</FONT></STRONG><BR><BR>By&nbsp;MICHAEL GEIST<BR><IMG =
height=3D2=20
alt=3Dspace src=3D"http://www.theglobeandmail.com/images/pixelshim.gif" =
width=3D1><BR=20
clear=3Dleft><IMG height=3D2 alt=3Dspace=20
src=3D"http://www.theglobeandmail.com/images/pixelshim.gif" =
width=3D1><BR=20
clear=3Dleft>Thursday, August 8, 2002&nbsp;=96&nbsp;Print Edition,=20
Page&nbsp;B12<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/g=
am/20020808/TWGEIS">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/pr=
intarticle/gam/20020808/TWGEIS</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_001_0162_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0--

- ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="pixelshim.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/images/pixelshim.gif

R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==

- ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C23FA7.CCEBF7E0--

- --
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 05:05:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN'S SMOKING GUN REVEALED

Thank you for forwarding this well written story.

Everyone here should read, as should every single board member.

Friday, August 09, 2002, 1:22:24 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> FYI

> Internet overseer takes wrong path on accountability

> By MICHAEL GEIST

> Thursday, August 8, 2002 - Print Edition, Page B12
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020808/TWGEIS

- -- 
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: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, at 22:54 [=GMT-0400], Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I support ICANN reform because the politics and horse trading of ICANN 1.0
> make me sick to the stomach. While a select few people wear out their
> welcome on the Hill and the Department of Commerce, there are small to
> medium size businesses struggling to make a living. They do not have the
> luxury to send an army of lobbyists to DC to manipulate the truth on a daily
> basis.

This is also true of non-commercial bodies, and users at large. Neither
they, nor your medium size businesses, will play a role in ICANN
2.0beta36. They hadn't that much chance in ICANN 1.0 either, but at least
some.

- --
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 14:23:36 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Leah
You know what is really funny is how the monopoly was formulated. It allows
only certain registrars to sell certain domain TLD's. This is the monopoly
per se, because the customer has no choice or need to have a choice in the
registry that services the names they applied for and purchased publication
of.

OK - That makes sense to some account and it is probably survivable. Now
take it the next step. Is the argument that this Monopoly hurts the customer
or the Registrars? Personally I think the Registrars have a good anti-trust
and conspiracy wrap against ICANN - which is why I keep asking ICANN members
about the Directors Insurance or who is the provider. And like Karl I have
been told that the will not be disclosing that to me. Mostly by just
refusing to answer, so its a comment in action rather than words mostly...
personally its not just Verisign that needs to be investigated by the US
Justice Department. Its ICANN too, and that may happen sooner than people
think...

In California,  with the number of Dot Bombs and several interesting cases
now in California Court, where the funding and board members are being held
liable for the operations of the company, I would not want to be ICANN
director's since it is becoming much easier in the State of California to
pierce the veil of the corporation, and not just a failed one, but one that
is obviously being operated against its own bylaws and charter, and then all
claims are off since the matter becomes one of the directors being
financially liable for the damages out of their own pockets.

Further with the issues in corporate theft and malfeasance at the highest
levels I would think that it would be critical to ICANN to publicly open its
books and show the world that as the keeper of the ARPA root, that is not
screwing anyone, or having its funds used inappropriately in  insider
actions.

Personally, one of the most powerful things that the GA can do in forcing
reform in ICANN is to take a mass petition to the California Secretary of
State demanding a formal audit of ICANN because of its global importance and
its refusal to play by normal NPO rules.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

>
>
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 20:32, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>
> > At 18:21 08/08/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
> > >Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
> >
> > no. The registry kept $6, but with more customers paid by the inverstors
in
> > the registrars which tried to "buy market shares" at discounted rates.
Once
> > thay had no more money VRSN purchased them back. And all the unecessary
DNs
> > purchased because cheaper are not renewed. jfc
> >
>
> Jefsey, I was referring to price reductions to the registrant overall.
The
> monopoly still exists and the registry still gets the $6, but the
registrant
> can now register for under $10 as opposed to the $35 demanded by
> Verisign when there were no alternatives available.
>
> Leah
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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 17:40:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN'S SMOKING GUN REVEALED

WXW, Michael and all assembly members,

  I appreciate Michael's writing up this piece.  However most of us that
have been around awhile now have known sense '99 about ICANN's
BoD and staff's tactics and their reaction to constructive or otherwise
criticism...

William X Walsh wrote:

> Thank you for forwarding this well written story.
>
> Everyone here should read, as should every single board member.
>
> Friday, August 09, 2002, 1:22:24 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > FYI
>
> > Internet overseer takes wrong path on accountability
>
> > By MICHAEL GEIST
>
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002 - Print Edition, Page B12
> > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20020808/TWGEIS
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1369
*************************