Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1392
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1392

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 11:08:37 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-abuse] [Monitor & Chair] Reminder and Final Warnings: Sims, Dierker, Field, Fleming

Kristy McKee wrote:

>
>So Roberto, if Joe jumped off a bridge you would follow his lead.

You seem not to understand the difference between posting a private message 
to a public list, which was done in 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03518.html, but not by me, and 
quoting a text already in the public domain, which is what I did.

>Somehow I had not taken you for the type.  You usually seem to be doing the 
>right thing - standing the moral ground.  On this point, I think you're a 
>little off.  Don't do things just because other people do them, keep 
>yourself within those great moral boundaries I think of you within.
>

Well, I appreciate that you went a long way from 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03529.html. While we still have 
different metrics for evaluation, I believe that we all have more important 
things to do than continuing this thread, so if you agree we can consider 
the matter closed.

We have both brought our points, everything is in the archives, and people 
can make up their own mind.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 08:29:48 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

I'll have to let Rita and Jeff speak for themselves. All I can talk to are
things that I directly know have been put forward.

First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
separation of users and producers.  And we have made clear that such a
separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point have
to come together.  It just is very ineffective to start together because of
the very divergent interests of the two groups.  A GNSO with essentially the
same composition as the DNSO today does not solve this problem. BTW, it
serves certain consituencies interests very well because they have been able
to capture the DNSO, but the results have not resulted in anything close to
a true consensus process, but rather a political process that caters to
special interests.

Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the recommendations,
the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
mission.  In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
deal with this.  In the final document all such language was deleted.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:52 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Chuck,

I honestly can't remember what Rita and/or Jeff may have proposed that was
rejected. Please refresh my recollection.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> The gTLD RC reps on the committee with you suggested alternatives.  They
> were rejected.  But it certainly doesn't make sense to perpetuate the
> current problems that exist.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:04 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
>> 
>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will
have
>>> the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
>>> won't.
>> 
>> What's the alternative then?
>> 
>>      -- 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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
> >- at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
> >somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
> >somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
> >certain matters is necessary at all.)
>
> I skipped the WLS-related part, as the vote has already taken place and the
> matter is no longer actual, but I would like to address the regulation
> thing.
>
> I have mixed feelings about the regulation. In principle, if ICANN is an
> industry self-management body, it should provide only recommendation on the
> ethic rules to be followed, but not get into regulation. But this can be
> true in a sector where competition exists: what if in the sector you have
> "natural monopolies" like the Registries?

I think that the failed experiment that is ICANN illustrates that a
private body should not be in the role of regulating monopolies. They have
neither the financial means, nor the will.

It is a job best left to governments. While I can't say I'm particularly happy
with my governments track record on that point as of late, at least I have
some semblance of representation, and my governments pockets are deep
enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits involving monopolists.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 08:47:37 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 07:17:58AM -0700, Patrick wrote:
> 
> I think that the failed experiment that is ICANN illustrates that a
> private body should not be in the role of regulating monopolies.

To the extent that people have tried to force ICANN into a quasi
governmental role of a regulator, with all the trappings of elections
and so on, it has been a failed experiment.  But if you operate from the
premise that ICANN has *never* been in the position of regulator, then
it has done quite well. 

> They have
> neither the financial means, nor the will.

Precisely correct.  ICANN was never intended to be a regulator, and,
contrary to popular delusion, it has *never* had the will to be one. 

As far as funding is concerned, even for its true restricted role, ICANN
is very underfunded.(+) The funding required to deal with the imaginary
"powerful ICANN" role would be vastly larger. 

> It is a job best left to governments.

And the part of government that has power to regulate domain registries,
and ICANN as well, is the part that deals with anti-trust issues.

It's worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in the bylaws or
structure of ICANN that have the magic ability to turn it into a
regulator, or to grant it more power.(*) ICANN is constrained at a much
more basic level, because its only instruments are contracts.  This
means that whatever policies ICANN may adopt through its policy-making
process can *always* be trumped by the legal realities of contract
negotiations.  In concrete terms, it doesn't matter what policies ICANN
comes up with -- if a large registry doesn't sign the resulting
contract, the policy is meaningless.  Of course, there are things that
ICANN can do to try to cajole the registry into signing contracts.  But
mostly that consists of persuading entities with bigger clubs that they
ought to lean on the registry. 
 
(+) There are a number of very mundane, essentially clerical tasks that
ICANN deals with that simply take human beings to deal with -- eg,
dealing with the large volume of email that is sent to the
"[email-masked]" address.

(*) I think most people realize that a small non-profit corporation
can't simply put "We are the regulators of the Internet" in its bylaws,
and actually regulate the Internet.  But there are many people who
simply don't understand that putting "We are the regulators of the
Internet, and we elect our directors and are therefore legitimate" in
the bylaws doesn't work any better. 

>  While I can't say I'm
> particularly happy with my governments track record on that point as
> of late, at least I have some semblance of representation, and my
> governments pockets are deep enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits
> involving monopolists. 

Precisely.  I'm absolutely amazed at the level of agreement we have 
reached :-)

Kent
- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 11:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Patrick wrote:

> I think that the failed experiment that is ICANN illustrates that a
> private body should not be in the role of regulating monopolies. They have
> neither the financial means, nor the will.
>
> It is a job best left to governments. While I can't say I'm particularly happy
> with my governments track record on that point as of late, at least I have
> some semblance of representation, and my governments pockets are deep
> enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits involving monopolists.

there's just one little problem here.  if icann or the doc control of the
roots were a monopoly then yes I can see support for your statement - but
the fact is no monopoly exists and governments have a very difficult time
controlling an open system where control resides at the end points (i.e.
the users).

in fact consider that the primary reason icann has failed.

regards
joe baptista

- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN moves to shut off debate -- closes WLS forum

Hi Andy,

- --- Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At 12:10 PM -0700 8/23/02, George Kirikos wrote:
> >Why has the ICANN WLS Forum been set to read-only, without the
> ability
> >to post?
> 
> I trust someone has made a back-up copy of it, just in case it
> "disappears"?

I've made an archival copy at:

http://www.antiwls.com/icannwlsforum/

in case it "accidentally" gets erased at ICANN's website. For anyone
looking to do the same, there's free software at:

http://www.httrack.com/

that will mirror websites.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:59:34 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

At 8:47 AM -0700 8/24/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 07:17:58AM -0700, Patrick wrote:
>>
>> I think that the failed experiment that is ICANN illustrates that a
>> private body should not be in the role of regulating monopolies.
>
>To the extent that people have tried to force ICANN into a quasi
>governmental role of a regulator, with all the trappings of elections
>and so on, it has been a failed experiment.  But if you operate from the
>premise that ICANN has *never* been in the position of regulator, then
>it has done quite well.

You've done quite well out of it, that's for sure.

>It's worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in the bylaws or
>structure of ICANN that have the magic ability to turn it into a
>regulator, or to grant it more power.(*) ICANN is constrained at a much
>more basic level, because its only instruments are contracts.  This
>means that whatever policies ICANN may adopt through its policy-making
>process can *always* be trumped by the legal realities of contract
>negotiations.

Ah. Contract negotiations.

Original registry contract written entirely by Joe Sims.

THat's including the broken bits.

New bits drafted entirely by JOE SIMS.

Verisign allows the holes to be plugged by negotiating to keep the registrar.

So mistakes by Joe Sims allowed the monopoly to perpetuate.

Joe Sims then tells us in a public meeting that the changes to the contract
are not-negotiable, expecting the contract changes he's written to get
rubber stamped by the board.

The contract Joe Sims writes gets rubber stamped by the board, INCLUDING
the NC reps who vote against the wishes of the NC.

DoC wades in and PROVES the contract changes ARE negotiable.

But Verisign gets to keep ownership of its registrar.

Joe Sims gets paid for the original work, gets paid to fix it and DOESN"T
get penalised 1 cent for allowing Verisign to butt-fuck ICANN and the
entire Internet community.

So we have ONE MONUMENTAL FUCK-UP by Joe Sims, that screwed up the entire
DoC mandate of ensuring competition, and Joe Sims is STILL THERE, and still
getting paid INCREDIBLY HUGE amounts of money, and he's STILL FUCKING IT
ALL UP - this time via his little "staff legal counsel" minion,  who has
more power over the BoD than the NC, DNSO, GA or anyone.

>(+) There are a number of very mundane, essentially clerical tasks that
>ICANN deals with that simply take human beings to deal with -- eg,
>dealing with the large volume of email that is sent to the
>"[email-masked]" address.

Well, gee-whiz Kent. Maybe if ICANN started ENFORCING its registrar contact
and PULLING ACCREDITATION, the number of complaints might go down?

And let's have one last rousing "FUCK YOU, JOE SIMS", just in case he
doesn't realise how much he's loathed.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:08:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Violations of the Bylaws?

Dear Vint,

Before I proceed to file a reconsideration request, I would appreciate an 
answer to the following questions:

1.  Our bylaws state:  "The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically 
a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance 
of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will 
be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably 
practicable, the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at 
least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings."  The notice of the special 
meeting of the Board was not posted 14 days in advance of such meeting -- Why?

2.  Our bylaws state:  "If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of 
a Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the 
Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of 
the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation.  If, after reasonable 
efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting 
Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this 
Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements 
between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from 
Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for 
prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a 
specific policy recommendation."   With respect to WLS, the Board declined to 
accept the recommendation of the DNSO yet failed to return the recommendation 
to the DNSO for further consideration -- Why?

I do not seek to challenge the Board's decision with regard to WLS, only the 
Board's conduct with respect to the Bylaws.  Can you offer a rational 
justification for the Board's violation of these bylaws?
- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 20:16:21 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dominance vs Concertance [was WLS Suggestion]

- --=======116C633F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7E621604; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:51 24/08/02, Joe Baptista said:
>there's just one little problem here.  if icann or the doc control of the
>roots were a monopoly then yes I can see support for your statement - but
>the fact is no monopoly exists and governments have a very difficult time
>controlling an open system where control resides at the end points (i.e.
>the users).

Dear Joe,
any system is made of three elements. Hardware, Software and Brainware. It 
is totally true that the hardware and the software are not under monopoly 
and government control. But Brainware (ie the way the users [are made to] 
believe the system works) has been influenced (washed ?) into believing 
such a monopoly does exist.

The only way to correct that is the one we are engaging, ie to experiment 
how to run a more stable, a more secure, a more open, a more innovative, a 
more rewarding DNS system. Because such an effort will necessarily show 
that security, stability, openness, innovation, sustainable development 
come  from concertance rather than from dominance.

On that point I fully agree with ICP-3, we should all reread. We need a 
concerted experimentation of multiple parallel asynchronous root servers 
systems, with separated data collections, operations and mutual consistency 
checking. With probably a few data collection, control, alarm, statistics, 
recording, view management added functions to get a professional and 
reliable public system.

After 20 years of centralized ARPA intranet DNS, time has come to analyze, 
study, develop and validate a second generation DNS system able to match 
the network needs of tomorrow, the legal requirements of 190 countries, the 
sovereign power of 190 Govs, the demands of 190 economies and the 
expectations of 190 national communities.

After IPv6 we need DNS.2 (and DNS+ for extended URL oriented services like 
iDNs, directories, smart resolutions). Hardware, Software and Brainware.

There is no monopoly, just a lack of vision from ourselves, but it will 
come. Once we understand the center of the Internet world is not ICANN but 
each of the users.
jfc

- --=======116C633F=======--

- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 17:11:56 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Danny,

I believe the board is operating within the ICANN Bylaws. If you think
otherwise, then you are free to submit a reconsideration request outlining
the specifics that you believe constitute a deviation from them.

Vint

At 12:08 PM 8/24/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Vint,
>
>Before I proceed to file a reconsideration request, I would appreciate an 
>answer to the following questions:
>
>1.  Our bylaws state:  "The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically 
>a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance 
>of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will 
>be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably 
>practicable, the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at 
>least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings."  The notice of the special 
>meeting of the Board was not posted 14 days in advance of such meeting -- Why?
>
>2.  Our bylaws state:  "If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of 
>a Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the 
>Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of 
>the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation.  If, after reasonable 
>efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting 
>Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this 
>Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements 
>between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from 
>Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for 
>prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a 
>specific policy recommendation."   With respect to WLS, the Board declined to 
>accept the recommendation of the DNSO yet failed to return the recommendation 
>to the DNSO for further consideration -- Why?
>
>I do not seek to challenge the Board's decision with regard to WLS, only the 
>Board's conduct with respect to the Bylaws.  Can you offer a rational 
>justification for the Board's violation of these bylaws? 

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: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 16:37:11 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
> separation of users and producers.  And we have made clear that such a
> separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point have
> to come together.  It just is very ineffective to start together because of
> the very divergent interests of the two groups.

There is absolutely no reason that "producers" can't collaborate on areas of
common interest prior to initiating a policy development process. Do what
you want in your constituencies and when you feel it's ready, THEN ask the
Names Council to begin the PDP. Even when the PDP is initiated, there's no
reason the two "producer" constituencies can't collaborate during the
initial constituency consultation period. I don't see the proposed structure
as in any way limiting the ability of those with common interests from
working together.
  
> Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the recommendations,
> the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
> mission.  In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
> deal with this.  In the final document all such language was deleted.

What do you think the language added? It parroted word for word language in
many of the registry contracts. Since we were trying to develop a process
for the GNSO as a whole, not just the registries, it seemed out of place.
The omission of the language though doesn't mean you're still not protected
if that same language is in your contract. (The Board can't amend contracts
by itself, and the adoption of our recommendation would have no effect on
your contracts. They say what they say.)

      -- 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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:35:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

Roberto and all assembly members,

  I think you Karl and Danny summed up the gist of this poor ICANN BOD
decision on WLS as well as showed clearly that all of the nonsense that
the ICANN BoD and staff has stated that consensus will be the guide
for their decisions on such issues and policies was just a lot of, pardon
me, BS.

  Now like with to other recent poor ICANN BOD decision on .ORG,
the only reasonable route for appeal would be to DOC/NTIA.

  As spokesman for INEGroup, and our members already determined
on both of these ICANN BoD decisions, I would register officially
that we strongly disagree and find in gross error these two decisions..
I would further recommend that an open forum be set up by DOC/NTIA
so as to garner or otherwise gather a more accurate and Internet
and stakeholder/user position on these two very important and
broad effect policy decisions before it is too late...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm
> >
>
> Well, it seems that by staying off the net for a couple of days I missed all
> the fun!
>
> Let´s see, if I can read correctly, it says:
> "The Board approved the above resolution by a 11-2-2 vote, with Mr. Abril i
> Abril and Mr. Auerbach opposed and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn
> abstaining"
>
> The good news is that my favourite Directors voted against (I will answer
> Karl´s message later).
> So, two out of three DNSO Directors voted against the consensus of the DNSO.
> While it is well understood that the Directors act in their own capacity,
> and do not represent their home organization, it seems odd that the NC
> expresses one opinion, and the NC-elected Directors express a different one.
>
> True, following the General Counsel report, the decision was slightly
> different than the initial WLS proposal, but the substance is mostly there.
> And anyway, it is common practice that in a negotiation you shoot high
> initially, and you settle for less.
> So, my analysis is that the big winner is Verisign, that with the excuse of
> giving one more option, it has de-facto wiped out all competition on the
> "second-hand DN" market and further consolidated the concept that .com is
> run by the Registry.
> Slowly slowly, firs with the amendment to the contract that allowed them to
> run Registry and Registrar, then by adding value to Registry part, Verisign
> is recovering from the losses due to increased competition.
> Who is the loser? Many, I believe, as always when a move goes towards
> favouring a monopoly. But who comes out with broken bones from this story,
> methinks, is the DNSO, that has once again the confirmation that its opinion
> is not held in great value.
> The funny thing is that a lot of us have complained about the little role
> that the GA has in the DNSO, where all the power is in the NC. Well, the
> power for doing what? For proposing consensus policy position that are
> disregarded by the Board, including NC-elected Directors? If I were the NC
> Chair, I would propose resignation en-masse of the NC. I know this will not
> happen, and that the NC will swallow also this one without reacting, well,
> maybe a formal message of complaint, but that will be it.
>
> Another final consideration is about how the Board meetings are held.
> I have no idea about the "special telephone meetings", but it has been
> noticed by many, including yours truly, on how the Staff excerces a heavy
> influence on the Board in public meetings. I honestly doubt that they will
> take a lower profile in private meetings. So the question might arise, what
> happens when we have a difference of opinion between the ICANN Staff and the
> Supporting Organization that is relevant for the matter discussed? The Staff
> has plenty of possibilities to attack the SO´s position and defend their
> own, but who defends the SO´s position? Not the SO´s own Directors, because
> they do not represent the SO in the Board, they just represent themselves
> (and this is proven by the fact that they can vote like loose guns).
> This is a serious question. When a matter on which a SO has jurisdiction
> goes to the Board, the SO has to be granted the possibility to participate
> to the debate directly, and not via intermediation of people that do not act
> in the interest of the SO. For instance, the NC Chair has to go and explain
> the reasons of the consensus.
> How can a judge give a fair judgement if plaintiff and defendant are not
> been given equal rights?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:47:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Violations of the Bylaws? - (The WLS Decision) 

Danny and all assembly members,

  I think you mean Joe Sims and Louis Toutons bylaws, not "Ours"...

  In any event these are good questions to ask.  As you may also
recall or have researched, this (There recent WLS vote) is one of many
times  that the ICANN BOD has violated the ICANN/Joe Sims
and Louis Touton bylaws.

  Of course I am sure you Danny as myself and I am sure others
are awaiting the usual Vint non-answer spin as answers to these
good questions you pose...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> Before I proceed to file a reconsideration request, I would appreciate an
> answer to the following questions:
>
> 1.  Our bylaws state:  "The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically
> a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance
> of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will
> be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably
> practicable, the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at
> least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings."  The notice of the special
> meeting of the Board was not posted 14 days in advance of such meeting -- Why?
>
> 2.  Our bylaws state:  "If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of
> a Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
> Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of
> the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation.  If, after reasonable
> efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
> Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
> Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
> between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from
> Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for
> prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a
> specific policy recommendation."   With respect to WLS, the Board declined to
> accept the recommendation of the DNSO yet failed to return the recommendation
> to the DNSO for further consideration -- Why?
>
> I do not seek to challenge the Board's decision with regard to WLS, only the
> Board's conduct with respect to the Bylaws.  Can you offer a rational
> justification for the Board's violation of these bylaws?
> --
> 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: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:59:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Vinton and all assembly members,

  You "Believe"??!!  Hummm, seems to me you either know or you
don't know Vint.   I would say given this expected spin sort of response,
that you don't know if the bylaws were violated or not...

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I believe the board is operating within the ICANN Bylaws. If you think
> otherwise, then you are free to submit a reconsideration request outlining
> the specifics that you believe constitute a deviation from them.
>
> Vint
>
> At 12:08 PM 8/24/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Vint,
> >
> >Before I proceed to file a reconsideration request, I would appreciate an
> >answer to the following questions:
> >
> >1.  Our bylaws state:  "The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically
> >a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance
> >of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will
> >be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably
> >practicable, the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at
> >least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings."  The notice of the special
> >meeting of the Board was not posted 14 days in advance of such meeting -- Why?
> >
> >2.  Our bylaws state:  "If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of
> >a Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
> >Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of
> >the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation.  If, after reasonable
> >efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
> >Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
> >Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
> >between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from
> >Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for
> >prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a
> >specific policy recommendation."   With respect to WLS, the Board declined to
> >accept the recommendation of the DNSO yet failed to return the recommendation
> >to the DNSO for further consideration -- Why?
> >
> >I do not seek to challenge the Board's decision with regard to WLS, only the
> >Board's conduct with respect to the Bylaws.  Can you offer a rational
> >justification for the Board's violation of these bylaws?
>
> 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: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:38:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

At 05:11 p.m. 24/08/2002 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>Danny,
>
>I believe the board is operating within the ICANN Bylaws. If you think
>otherwise, then you are free to submit a reconsideration request outlining
>the specifics that you believe constitute a deviation from them.

Oh, how much does this sound like the arrogance of a  government 
department, secure in the knowledge that the reconsideration will be 
undertaken by themselves.

For a California non-profit under siege, tasked with the technical 
co-ordination of the Internet under an MoU that is due for review, it is 
breathtaking.

Why didn't you just make an attempt to give your considered answer to the 
questions, Vint?

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   initial webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 22:12:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Bret, Chuck and all assembly members,

   Chuck, of course there are divergent interests between Stakholders/users
and what you call producers.  However most stakeholders/users are
them selves also producers if not all are...  Hence this argument is one
borne of some other motivation than you or Verisign seem to be
outwardly projecting...

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > First of all, we have consistently tried to point out there needs to be a
> > separation of users and producers.  And we have made clear that such a
> > separation does not mean that users and producers do not at some point have
> > to come together.  It just is very ineffective to start together because of
> > the very divergent interests of the two groups.
>
> There is absolutely no reason that "producers" can't collaborate on areas of
> common interest prior to initiating a policy development process. Do what
> you want in your constituencies and when you feel it's ready, THEN ask the
> Names Council to begin the PDP. Even when the PDP is initiated, there's no
> reason the two "producer" constituencies can't collaborate during the
> initial constituency consultation period. I don't see the proposed structure
> as in any way limiting the ability of those with common interests from
> working together.
>
> > Secondly, and this is one of the serious problems with the recommendations,
> > the GNSO should not be involved in issues that are outside of ICANN's
> > mission.  In the next to last draft that I saw, there was some language to
> > deal with this.  In the final document all such language was deleted.
>
> What do you think the language added? It parroted word for word language in
> many of the registry contracts. Since we were trying to develop a process
> for the GNSO as a whole, not just the registries, it seemed out of place.
> The omission of the language though doesn't mean you're still not protected
> if that same language is in your contract. (The Board can't amend contracts
> by itself, and the adoption of our recommendation would have no effect on
> your contracts. They say what they say.)
>
>       -- 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 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 #1392
*************************