Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1377
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1377

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:24:20 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Keep it going

In the last forty eight hours I have be stabbed at and my girlfriend has
suffered a horrible motorbike accident.

Such are my parish neighbourhood in Linda Vista and the streets of
Saigon.

Do not dare let up, keep it going.

With more access to my internet the knifers' daughter could have sought
help in a productive and human way.
With more access my girl would have been wearing a helmet, because she
knew the importance.
Access is education and education is a freeing of the bonds of
ignorance, you all represent more than technology you represent the best
and the brightest of knowledge.

I ask all of you to keep this work going to make differences in our
lives.
please stay up all night post the posts and work out our differences
with respect and dignity.

e

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:25:17 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

Danny, if you haven't been following matters, Denise Michel and others are working hard on an At Large Assistance Committee and I believe with some luck and hard work it will be possible to develop this idea further. Whether it will be ripe for action during the near term remains an open question but eventually the possibility seems to be there.

vint

 At 01:52 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear members of the Board,
>
>In your opinion, would it serve the purposes of the Corporation to create an 
>additional Supporting Organization for the At-large?  
>
>After a year's worth of intensive discussion and analysis, your own 
>blue-ribbon committee headed up by the distinguished statesman, Carl Bildt, 
>presented such a consensus-based recommendation to you (the ALSO), and we 
>have not heard the nature of your objections, if any, to this concept.  Such 
>a Supporting Organization would allow every participant in the ICANN process 
>to participate in the election of directors --  none would be 
>disenfranchised, and you would put an end to the disparity between those 
>electoral rights accorded to current stakeholders and the lack of such 
>equivalent rights for the rest of the community.
>
>I would appreciate hearing your views.
>
>Best wishes,
>Danny Younger 

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:58:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

Hello Vint,

Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an 
Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not 
the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect 
representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board is 
not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC 
proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the 
only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect... 

I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I find 
it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative 
construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the 
Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify your 
thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated. 

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 00:29:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

Vint and all assembly members,

  Thank you Vint for you glowing affirmation of Denise's efforts.

  What is concerning and growing more so is that the ALOC-ALAC
is that is not transparent of open in any way as there is not method
of participation online such as ML forum...  This seems very questionable
as to being a good responsible effort as such.  It would seem from
Sotiris's notes at the recent meeting of which he attended and
reported back to the much more open and transparent "Atlarge"
effort underway at ICANNATLARGE.COM there seems to be
yet another poor repetition of the failed ALSC.
see: http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00660.html

  As you are very aware, Corporate Responsibility as the president in
Waco clearly pointed out is of paramount importance and necessary
to restore confidence in the public as well as the private sector.

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> Danny, if you haven't been following matters, Denise Michel and others are working hard on an At Large Assistance Committee and I believe with some luck and hard work it will be possible to develop this idea further. Whether it will be ripe for action during the near term remains an open question but eventually the possibility seems to be there.
>
> vint
>
>  At 01:52 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear members of the Board,
> >
> >In your opinion, would it serve the purposes of the Corporation to create an
> >additional Supporting Organization for the At-large?
> >
> >After a year's worth of intensive discussion and analysis, your own
> >blue-ribbon committee headed up by the distinguished statesman, Carl Bildt,
> >presented such a consensus-based recommendation to you (the ALSO), and we
> >have not heard the nature of your objections, if any, to this concept.  Such
> >a Supporting Organization would allow every participant in the ICANN process
> >to participate in the election of directors --  none would be
> >disenfranchised, and you would put an end to the disparity between those
> >electoral rights accorded to current stakeholders and the lack of such
> >equivalent rights for the rest of the community.
> >
> >I would appreciate hearing your views.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Danny Younger
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:46:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF and ICANN Staff support

Marilyn,

The NC unanimously passed this resolution at Marina del Rey:  “That the NC 
shows its support for the Transfer Task Force and the importance of its work. 
The NC requests ICANN staff to assist the task force in any legal definitions 
and the identification of any contract modifications that may be needed. The 
NC looks forward to receiving a resolution of this important issue by the 
Ghana meeting (March 2002).” 

Can you provide us with an update on ICANN Staff support so far regarding 
"the identification of any contract modifications that may be needed"?  Has 
Staff made any of these "identifications"?  Nine months is surely ample time 
for the Staff to do its job, isn't it?  As I haven't seen anything posted so 
far, perhaps you can enlighten those of us in the registrant community that 
aren't eligible to participate in your teleconferences (and for which there 
are still no minutes available).

P.S.  any progress on a timeline yet?  It's already way past the Ghana 
meeting, and I think we deserve to know when this process will come to an 
end, don't you?  I'm curious... why do you seem to have a problem abiding by 
the ERC recommendation to complete policy work within 30-45 days?  Is this 
your own way of defying the Board?
- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an 
> Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation...

Were this a labor-relations context, ICANN's captive at-large games could 
possibly be construed as an "unfair labor practice" as defined by 29 USC 
158(a)(2):
 
	It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -
        ...
        (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or
      administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
      or other support to it...

ICANN's attempts to create artificial substitutes for actual at-large
bodies are very much akin to the egregious "company union" practices that
were banned by the law mentioned above.

Such "company unions" replaced the actuality of participation with
company-run (analogous to ICANN-"coordinated") bodies.  It was no surprise
that such company unions turned into toadies that slavishly followed the
corporate diktat.  ICANN's sequence of AL*Cs is no different.

> ...  Is there a particular reason why the Board is not amenable to such
> representation for the At-large community?

Oligarchies through the ages have almost always felt that their judgement
was superior to that of the people who are affected by its decisions.  
ICANN is no exception - I have sat in ICANN meetings and listened again
and again to expressions containing unmasked disdain and contempt for the
ability of people to decide what is in their interest.  What I see and
hear from the board in its private forums is quite different than the
NewSpeak that comes forth from ICANN's organs of public "information."

ICANN has a symbiotic relationship with those who provide it with money or
support (the RIRs, the incumbants and aspirants of the DNS
registry/registrar system, and intellectual property interests) and its
law firm.  These bodies have a vested interest in an expansive ICANN.  
And ICANN has a vested interested in their continued good will.  The 
public is not allowed to be part of this equilibrium.

In addition, my initial examination of ICANN's records shows an
organization with a management system that is deeply flawed, with few
competencies, and with weak conceptions of ethical and legal obligations.  
This makes ICANN highly susceptable to the influence of those upon whom it
depends for money and political support.

It is not surprising, therefore, that ICANN is so afraid, indeed 
terrified, of the light that would shine on it were the public to be 
truly empowered within ICANN.

ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest.  ICANN's repudiation of 
the principles of public accountability and public oversight are not 
consistent with that purpose.

		--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: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 04:32:49 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Process/past/co-existance

There is a great process going on now.  There is questioning and
answering.
Within ICANN and from leaders on our board there is movement and
progress.

I believe that we must know others and keep the lessons of the past but
move forward.
It is not my decision what road this takes but I am certain we are
growing and doing better than we were a year ago.

The GA is truly what gives ICANN its stakeholder legitimacy.  And I
think it kind of does.  Not as much as we will have in the AL but it
does.

Perhaps a duality is in order here?

eric

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 04:44:10 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Well said Andy.
e

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 4:26 PM -0400 8/7/02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >I look forward to further thoughts on this.  For the first time, we are now
> >getting to the point where we can begin to compare real differences of the
> >thin and thick registry models in the gTLD space.
>
> The real difference is whether you believe in the "power of trust" or not.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:47:46 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

Danny,

The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the general perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before making deeper commitments. 

vint

At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Hello Vint,
>
>Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an 
>Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not 
>the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect 
>representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board is 
>not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC 
>proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the 
>only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect... 
>
>I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I find 
>it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative 
>construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the 
>Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify your 
>thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated. 
>
>Best regards,
>Danny

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 16:24:17 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

A number of questions have been asked and comments made regarding the ICANN
Board's recent decision to fund partly, for a limited period of time, the
GAC secretariat and chair functions, see 

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13aug02.htm

The following information, which is based on what I know, may answer some of
the questions that have been raised.

At the Accra meeting 11-12 March 2002, the Chair of GAC, Paul Twoomey,
stated:

"... the Chair advised that he will be resigning effective from the end of
the Shanghai meeting and the Australian Government will cease providing the
Secretariat function at the end of the Bucharest meeting."

The issue of replacing the GAC Secretariat was discussed at the 9-10 April
GAC meeting in Bruxelles and the 3-4 June GAC meeting in Canberra.

At both those meetings, some GAC members, and in particular ITU, offered to
provide some secretariat services as in-kind support for GAC.  Specifically,
ITU offered to provide the basic secretariat support for meetings, at no
cost to ICANN or to GAC (since the costs are already covered by ITU's
participation).

These offers were noted but not discussed.  It was noted that a global
discussion of the nature and role of the GAC secretariat should take place
in the context of ICANN reform.

The GAC meeting in Bucharest was essentially focussed on preparing comments
on the recently-published Blueprint for Reform.  At the very end of the
meeting, at 3am, Paul Twoomey announced that Australia had reversed its
previous decision to stop funding the Chair and the Secretariat and was
willing to fund both the Chair and the Secretariat for an interim period.
As a consequence, the Chair announced that Australia would continue to
provide the Secretariat.

I am informed that subsequently the Australian government informed ICANN
that it would be willing to perform the role of GAC Secretariat, but
indicated that it would no longer fund that role.  I am informed that the
Australian government subsequently raised with ICANN the issue of finding
alternative sources of funding.

As noted in previous E-Mails, the Board made a decision to provide up to
$75'000 dollars to the Australian goverment, to cover actual costs of chair
and secretariat services for a limited period of time.

I am informed that a draft budget for this funding, for the period 1 July to
15 November, is being prepared by the GAC Secretariat and will be circulated
to the GAC membership.

Best,
Richard

- -----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: [email-masked]
Study Group 2 email: [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, 16 Aug 2002 10:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

Why is it that the multiple previous efforts are inadequate?

What is it about the authors of the earlier reports, e.g. the Bildt
committee, or their analysis or conclusions that you found insufficient or
unpersuasive or lacking in 'objectivity'?

Why isn't it fairer to say that delaying this via the current process
"undermines" those previous and unanimous efforts?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

> Danny ,
> you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
> pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
> thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
> appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked at
> 'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this dialogue
> now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if after
> some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have every
> confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably' better
> represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
> consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom are
> American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can draw
> much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have an
> SO.  Lets chat in the Fall
> best regards
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: At-Large Supporting Organization
> 
> 
> Danny,
> 
> The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the general
> perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before
> making deeper commitments.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Hello Vint,
> >
> >Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an
> >Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not
> >the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect
> >representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board
> is
> >not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC
> >proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the
> >only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect...
> >
> >I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I
> find
> >it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative
> >construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the
> >Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify
> your
> >thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> 
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 17:32:31 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

On 16 Aug 2002, at 16:24, [email-masked] wrote:

> A number of questions have been asked and comments made regarding the ICANN
> Board's recent decision to fund partly, for a limited period of time, the
> GAC secretariat and chair functions, see 
> 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13aug02.htm
> 
> The following information, which is based on what I know, may answer some of
> the questions that have been raised.

Wouldn't it be great if ICANN staff would provide such information to the ga list instead 
of ridiculing those who are asking for it? 

Jeanette 
> 
> At the Accra meeting 11-12 March 2002, the Chair of GAC, Paul Twoomey,
> stated:
> 
> "... the Chair advised that he will be resigning effective from the end of
> the Shanghai meeting and the Australian Government will cease providing the
> Secretariat function at the end of the Bucharest meeting."
> 
> The issue of replacing the GAC Secretariat was discussed at the 9-10 April
> GAC meeting in Bruxelles and the 3-4 June GAC meeting in Canberra.
> 
> At both those meetings, some GAC members, and in particular ITU, offered to
> provide some secretariat services as in-kind support for GAC.  Specifically,
> ITU offered to provide the basic secretariat support for meetings, at no
> cost to ICANN or to GAC (since the costs are already covered by ITU's
> participation).
> 
> These offers were noted but not discussed.  It was noted that a global
> discussion of the nature and role of the GAC secretariat should take place
> in the context of ICANN reform.
> 
> The GAC meeting in Bucharest was essentially focussed on preparing comments
> on the recently-published Blueprint for Reform.  At the very end of the
> meeting, at 3am, Paul Twoomey announced that Australia had reversed its
> previous decision to stop funding the Chair and the Secretariat and was
> willing to fund both the Chair and the Secretariat for an interim period.
> As a consequence, the Chair announced that Australia would continue to
> provide the Secretariat.
> 
> I am informed that subsequently the Australian government informed ICANN
> that it would be willing to perform the role of GAC Secretariat, but
> indicated that it would no longer fund that role.  I am informed that the
> Australian government subsequently raised with ICANN the issue of finding
> alternative sources of funding.
> 
> As noted in previous E-Mails, the Board made a decision to provide up to
> $75'000 dollars to the Australian goverment, to cover actual costs of chair
> and secretariat services for a limited period of time.
> 
> I am informed that a draft budget for this funding, for the period 1 July to
> 15 November, is being prepared by the GAC Secretariat and will be circulated
> to the GAC membership.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> Richard Hill
> Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
> International Telecommunication Union
> Place des Nations
> CH-1211 Geneva 20
> Switzerland
> tel: +41 22 730 5887
> FAX: +41 22 730 5853
> Email: [email-masked]
> Study Group 2 email: [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
> 

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 11:03:57 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

>The ALSC
> proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support

Please catch up with current developments.  The ALSC proposal came up with
the wrong answer, and an answer which is irrelevant to the unknown future
structure of ICANN.  It has no bearing on anything going on in the current
process, and was a lovely way for its participants to spend their time.
There is no point in debating proposed structural reforms now, as a fait
accompli has not yet been presented for expedited approval.  There will then
be a two week comment period, and criticisms during that time which fail to
present a detailed alternative will not be deemed constructive.

When your input is wanted, Danny, you will be asked for it.  So please sit on
your hands.

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 10:49:28 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

Danny ,
you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked at
'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this dialogue
now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if after
some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have every
confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably' better
represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom are
American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can draw
much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have an
SO.  Lets chat in the Fall
best regards
Jonathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:48 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: At-Large Supporting Organization

Danny,

The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the general
perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before
making deeper commitments.

vint

At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Hello Vint,
>
>Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an
>Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not
>the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect
>representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board
is
>not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC
>proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the
>only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect...
>
>I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I
find
>it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative
>construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the
>Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify
your
>thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated.
>
>Best regards,
>Danny

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 11:20:48 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

Hi Michael, It certainly is a defensible point of view.I will answer your
Questions upon my return. I apologize but I am leaving for Eastern Europe
and Turkey within hours so I havent the time to discuss this. I will be back
on the 28th and will reply
best regards
Jonathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:51 AM
To: Jonathan Cohen
Cc: vinton g. cerf; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

Why is it that the multiple previous efforts are inadequate?

What is it about the authors of the earlier reports, e.g. the Bildt
committee, or their analysis or conclusions that you found insufficient or
unpersuasive or lacking in 'objectivity'?

Why isn't it fairer to say that delaying this via the current process
"undermines" those previous and unanimous efforts?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

> Danny ,
> you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
> pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
> thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
> appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked
at
> 'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this
dialogue
> now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if
after
> some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have
every
> confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably'
better
> represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
> consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom are
> American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can
draw
> much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have an
> SO.  Lets chat in the Fall
> best regards
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: At-Large Supporting Organization
>
>
> Danny,
>
> The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the
general
> perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before
> making deeper commitments.
>
> vint
>
> At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Hello Vint,
> >
> >Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an
> >Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is
not
> >the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect
> >representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board
> is
> >not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC
> >proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the
> >only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect...
> >
> >I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I
> find
> >it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative
> >construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the
> >Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify
> your
> >thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 13:18:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

Jon,

Thank you for offering your views on an At-Large Supporting Organization.  
Dialogue is important, and I am pleased to see that one of our DNSO-elected 
directors has joined in the conversation.  

At the heart of your commentary is the underlying question, "is it a wise 
decision to have a Supporting Organization for the At-Large"?

There are several respected members of our community that believe this action 
to be wise, that spent a year's time and an incredible amount of effort on 
worldwide outreach to arrive at this decision.  These include:

1.  The founding Chairman of the ICANN Board
2.  The former Vice Chairman of ICANN's Board of Directors and immediate past 
Chairman of the Asia and Pacific Internet Association
3.  The President of the Internet Society Chapter of Benin who also serves on 
the Board of Trustees of AfriNIC
4.  The Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the United Nations to the 
Balkans
5.  The Chairman of the French Chapter of the Internet Society 
6.  The Supervisor of the Taiwan Network Information Centre who also serves 
as a Commissioner on Taiwan's Consumer Protection Commission
7.  The President of the United States Council for International Business, 
and a former ambassador
8.  The co-founder of the Latin America and Caribbean Country Code Top-Level 
Domain Organization, and a Board Member of the Internet Society's Mexican 
chapter. 
9.  The former director of the Carter Center's Democracy Program, and former 
director of the Center for Democracy and Governance at the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) 

I consider this team to be sufficiently representative, well-credentialed, 
and eminently capable of reaching a wise decision after a year's worth of 
sustained effort.  The Board asked for a recommendation, and received a 
recommendation -- to create a Supporting Organization for the At-large.

In my view, I believe that it is now time for the Board to articulate why the 
recommendation of its own hand-selected committee of experts is "unwise".
- --
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 #1377
*************************