Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1454
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 3 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1454

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

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:24:19 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On 2002-10-02 07:36:46 -0400, Chuck Gomes wrote:

>So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that 
>prevents any one group from having so much power that they can 
>control the process and thereby remove incentives to work on 
>solutions that all stakeholders might be willing to support.

One possible way to achieve that (which is, by the way, also  
suggested in the latest Markle report; Bret has a link in his blog)  
is to ask for multiple majorities: A majority of all votes on the  
council AND a majority of suppliers' votes, or something like that. 

There's a large variety of ways in which these parameters can be  
adjusted.

Of course, that approach still doesn't solve situations where  
various groups of users may have opposing interests, for instance  
present domain name holders on the one side and intellectual  
property holders interested in obtaining existing domain names on 
the other side.

(Probably, in these cases, the best solution is one which isn't  
satisfactory for _any_ side...  Which reminds me of a saying: There  
are three kinds of international contracts - (1) those where one  
party is excited and one is unsatisfied.  These contracts will be  
broken at the earliest opportunity.  (2) Those where both parties  
are excited.  These contracts won't hold when reality comes in and  
excitement stops.  (3) Those where no party is really satisfied.   
These are the contracts which hold.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:15:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency 

Ram,

You write:  "the new GNSO does provide users with a substantial voice".  Not 
exactly true.  The new GNSO provides only a very small subset of users with a 
voice, the BC-IPC-ISP-NHDNHC group.  But what about folks like Roberto 
Gaetano, Alex Svensson, Thomas Roessler, Jon Weinberg, Leah Gallegos, Abel 
Weisman or Joanna Lane?  What about the remaining 500+ members of the DNSO 
General Assembly that are not constituency members that have no voting voice 
whatsoever?  

We participate regularly in this effort, we involve ourselves in debate, 
discussion, and have demonstrated an ongoing resolve to work at arriving at 
solutions to the problems we all face.  But we are inequitably denied a 
voting voice.

All of us are dissatisfied with the current decision model, and everyone is 
looking for a voting model that truly reflects consensus -- so why not try 
pure democracy, a system that most everyone can readily accept?  I'm sure 
that the DNSO Secretariat has a roster of every constituency member and every 
registered General Assembly voting member -- if you need an honest voting 
system that reflects the wishes of all members of the DNSO so that the DNSO 
consensus can be firmly quantified, why not put all issues to a plebiscite of 
the members?  

- --
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:49:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck and all assembly members,

  You again point up some good points here Chuck that if you recall
have been hashed and re-hashed before the constituency model was
adopted/forced, than limited by the ICANN BoD and staff.  Your
comments below yet again also point up the inherent problems with the
Constituency model in policy making.  Hence again, I would have to agree
with Danny Youngers long ago idea that each stakeholders, regardless
or their status with interests in DNS policy, become members of the
DNSO GA, with a one person/one vote process for determining
DNS policy issues and eliminate the Constituency's all together.
However a the time when Danny proposed this approach, the
BC and Verisign strongly opposed Danny's idea...  So here we
are yet again trying to solve the original problem with process
and structure of the DNSO...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any one
> group from having so much power that they can control the process and
> thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
> be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about those
> under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
> other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
> best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not be
> to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has the
> voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
> compromise.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
>
> As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
> allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take UDRP
> revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders and
> domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting representation"
> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make any
> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.
>
>          -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 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: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:28:02 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Sounds like a goal I support . How do we bell this cat?

regards
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<[email-masked]>; "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>; "'Michael D.
Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any
one
> group from having so much power that they can control the process and
> thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
> be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about
those
> under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
> other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
> best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not
be
> to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has
the
> voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
> compromise.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
>
> As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
> allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take
UDRP
> revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders
and
> domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting
representation"
> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make
any
> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> vote on each and every issue.
>
>          -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:43:01 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

That's easy.  All stakeholders have an equal vote.  One voice - one
vote.

No parties, constituencies, contracting parties and no factions. Just
the individual grass roots stakeholders, all on an equal basis. It
sounds kind of democratic, doesn't it?

However, we're really only addressing the symptoms and not the
disease. The disease is that the ICANN BoD ignores consensus and does
whatever they want to do.  The Blueprint for reform officially
disenfranchises all individual stakeholders in favor of factions or
parties or constituencies - whatever the description, the result is
the same.  "Divide and conquer" comes to mind.

Thanks,

Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 5:28:02 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <[email-masked]> wrote:
PDT> Sounds like a goal I support . How do we bell this cat?

PDT> regards
PDT> ----- Original Message -----
PDT> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
PDT> To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
PDT> <[email-masked]>; "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>; "'Michael D.
PDT> Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
PDT> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:36 PM
PDT> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

>> So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any
PDT> one
>> group from having so much power that they can control the process and
>> thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
>> be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about
PDT> those
>> under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
>> other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
>> best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not
PDT> be
>> to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has
PDT> the
>> voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
>> compromise.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
>> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>>
>>
>> > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
>>
>> As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
>> allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take
PDT> UDRP
>> revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders
PDT> and
>> domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
>> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting
PDT> representation"
>> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
>> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make
PDT> any
>> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
>> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
>> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
>> vote on each and every issue.
>>
>>          -- 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
>>

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:44:26 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Peter, Chuck and all assembly members,

  From what I can gather the only way I know of that this "Cat can
be belled" >;) is that the constituencies go away, and the DNSO
be the GA with each interested party/stakeholder/user a one
man one vote situation and elect x number of BOD members.
Of course this would require that the NC also go away, and the
ICANN bylaws be changed to reflect this structure...

  This structure would achieve everything that Jeff Nueman, Chuck
and the ccTLD's want or need, but would also give the stakeholders/users
a larger potential voice and vote as well.  So, the existing constituencies
once merged into the GA, would need to garner support for their issues
based on merit, not special standing.

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Sounds like a goal I support . How do we bell this cat?
>
> regards
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> <[email-masked]>; "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>; "'Michael D.
> Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> > So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any
> one
> > group from having so much power that they can control the process and
> > thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
> > be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about
> those
> > under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
> > other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
> > best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not
> be
> > to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has
> the
> > voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
> > compromise.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >
> > > We ask for EQUAL voting representation.
> >
> > As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
> > allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take
> UDRP
> > revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders
> and
> > domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
> > where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting
> representation"
> > plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
> > Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make
> any
> > sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
> > distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
> > Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
> > vote on each and every issue.
> >
> >          -- 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

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: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 07:50:35 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oct02.htm

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

Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
Final Implementation Report and Recommendations
2 October 2002

Contents
1. The Purpose of Reform
2. How These Recommendations Respond to the Identified Problems
   A. Mission Statement
   B. The Structure of ICANN
   C. ICANN's Processes
   D. Funding
   E. Participation by Critical Entities
3. The New Bylaws
   A. ICANN's Mission
   B. Board of Directors
   C. Supporting Organizations
   D. Advisory Committees
   E. Nominating Committee
4. Policy and Process
5. Transparency and Accountability
6. Government Participation
7. Funding
8. Conclusion

Proposed new bylaws
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm

Comments will be most useful if they are made by 24 October 2002. 
- ----------------

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 3 Oct 2002 18:21:52 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

>
>
>
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc
t02.htm

here's a consensus position on the future of this assembly, from the above
report:
"Therefore, the ERC recommends that in the steady-state future there be no
GNSO General Assembly. "

Regards

- --
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:38:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

Peter,

Your group will have a General Assembly of Users, Correct?
e

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:50 PM
> Subject: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws
>
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc
> t02.htm
>
> here's a consensus position on the future of this assembly, from the above
> report:
> "Therefore, the ERC recommends that in the steady-state future there be no
> GNSO General Assembly. "
>
> Regards
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

ARTICLE XVII: MEMBERS

ICANN shall not have members, as defined in the California Nonprofit
Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the
term "Member" in these Bylaws, in any ICANN document, or in any action of
the ICANN Board or staff.

and there goes the baby with the bath water....

- -rick

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:50 PM
> Subject: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc
> t02.htm
>
>
> here's a consensus position on the future of this assembly, from the above
> report:
> "Therefore, the ERC recommends that in the steady-state future there be no
> GNSO General Assembly. "
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:18:29 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

> Peter,
>
> Your group will have a General Assembly of Users, Correct?

No -it is proposed to have a list called the International Assembly, which
will be open to all. It will be moderated by a VP in charge of policy
production, who will be responsible for developing ideas raised in the IA
through to a vote by the International Council - if sufficient thresholds
are met.

It is not intended that this would be a body, with officers or ever meet.

It would not deal with gTLD issues, nor with issues which were properly the
affair of any one cctld -or a group.

regards

- --
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, 3 Oct 2002 20:26:01 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

>
>
> ARTICLE XVII: MEMBERS
>
>
> ICANN shall not have members, as defined in the California Nonprofit
> Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the
> term "Member" in these Bylaws, in any ICANN document, or in any action of
> the ICANN Board or staff.
>
> and there goes the baby with the bath water....
>
>
These have been missing for some time....
and no calls in the reform debate for their re-instatement..?

Andrew M. explained in Santiago why they were to be removed - the staff were
afraid that if members could be identified -and there were real problems
with this (remember the MAC?) that some would waste no time in bringing
"representative" or shareholder actions against the company, to compel it to
behave according to its Articles or bylaws every time there was a
disagreement.

regards

- --
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, 03 Oct 2002 11:16:26 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ERC: Charts, individual participation

Dear all,

I have prepared some charts to illustrate the 2 October 
ERC recommendations. As usual, they're an (unofficial)
help to clarify things a bit; if you think you have
found a mistake, please let me know.

The URL is http://www.icannchannel.de/erc-02oct.pdf
(PDF file, 290 kB). If you're on a slow connection,
a 62 kB zipped PDF file is available at
http://www.icannchannel.de/erc-02oct.zip

It consists of the following eight pages:

- - Proposed new ICANN structure
- - The ICANN Nominating Committee
- - The GNSO Council
- - The GNSO Council (transitional)
- - GNSO Policy Development Process
- - GNSO Policy Development: Task force approach
- - GNSO Policy Development: Approach without task forces
- - Reconsideration, review and ombudsman

- ---

Regarding individual participation, this ERC recommendation
- - does not mention the creation of a place for individual 
  domain name holders in the GNSO
- - proposes "that in the steady-state future there be no 
  GNSO General Assembly"
- - replaces the seats for individual domain name holders
  on the NomCom with ALAC seats (where ALAC members
  are appointed by the Board)
- - abolishes the right of individuals to raise issues in
  the GNSO proposed by the Names Policy Development
  Assistance Group (see proposed Bylaws, Annex A, 1)

In other words, it fails to provide individual users and
domain name registrants with a voice and a seat at the
table. Very disappointing.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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, 03 Oct 2002 22:44:48 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ERC: Charts, individual participation

On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 11:16:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I have prepared some charts to illustrate the 2 October 
>ERC recommendations. As usual, they're an (unofficial)
>help to clarify things a bit; if you think you have
>found a mistake, please let me know.

Thanks for these again Alexander.  It continues to amaze me that ICANN
with its 20c/domain name can't provide these when you do it so quickly
at 0c/name!

>- replaces the seats for individual domain name holders
>  on the NomCom with ALAC seats (where ALAC members
>  are appointed by the Board)

I think people need to be very aware of this.  The ALAC is not bottom
up but a top down board appointed structure that will have zero
accountability to internet users.  Obscure promises that one day it
may be bottom up should be treated with the same scepticism as Esther
Dyson's solemn pledge to Congress that ICANN would never remove the
elected at large seats.

>In other words, it fails to provide individual users and
>domain name registrants with a voice and a seat at the
>table. Very disappointing.

Incredibly disappointing but not just in this important area.  It
hasn't dealt with ccTLD or RIR issues at all so has left the ccTLDs
out and hasn't changed anything with the ASO.  There is no detail
about the transition board (which will have full powers to change
bylaws in future) and which directors will stay on.

What it appears to do is set ICANN up to do nothing but review itself
for the next two years or so, no doubt claiming ongoing reform efforts
will be a substitute for actual achievements.

The ERC blueprint will make ICANN the IOC of the Internet -
unaccountable and self perpetuating.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 3 Oct 2002 12:57:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ERC: Charts, individual participation

DPF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Incredibly disappointing but not just in this important area.  It
> hasn't dealt with ccTLD or RIR issues at all so has left the ccTLDs
> out and hasn't changed anything with the ASO.  There is no detail
> about the transition board (which will have full powers to change
> bylaws in future) and which directors will stay on.
> 

I find utmostly interesting the role of TAC, and how, de facto
the ccTLD Managers and the RIRs has been given 
to the TAC within their proposed mission, while at the same time 
the TAC "will have no role whatsoever in connection with the 
IANA's work for the IAB/IETF/IRTF".

By doing so ICANN does not care if the ccNSO is and will remain empty.
They may even agree with us there is no global ccTLD policy matters.

Best,
Elisabeth
- --

In D.Advisory Committees:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oct02.htm#3D

   The ERC has prepared a carefully limited charter for the Technical 
   Advisory Committee (which does not presently exist) based on input 
   from the bodies to be included in that committee. It is important 
   to note that the Technical Advisory Committee will have no role 
   whatsoever in connection with the IANA's work for the IAB/IETF/IRTF. 
   The Technical Advisory Committee has been painstakingly designed 
   to accommodate numerous, differing views as to what structure 
   will best contribute to its limited purpose.

The TAC Charter is in:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm#XI-2.2
It reads on TAC's responsibilities:

   2. To communicate on technical matters with a broad range of 
      persons and organizations, including (i) the operators and 
      managers of Internet naming and address allocation infrastructure 
      services; (ii) companies and individuals who implement the 
      Internet naming and addressing standards; and (iii) those bodies 
      with direct responsibility for Internet naming and address 
      allocation matters (including, in addition to the organizations 
      represented on the TAC itself, the regional Internet registries 
      ("RIRs"), name registries, registrars, etc). The TAC is expected 
      to advise the Board of the relevance and progress of technical 
      activities in any of these quarters that could affect Board 
      decisions or other ICANN actions, and to draw attention to 
      global technical standards issues that affect policy development 
      within the scope of ICANN's mission.

   3. To report periodically to the Board on its activities.

- --
- --
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, 03 Oct 2002 07:21:27 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [Anuncios] Candidaturas al AC/ AC Candidates]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------8FB7DAE987AADDDD636F97C3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think this announcement and what they are doing is extremely important
to us all.

e
- --------------8FB7DAE987AADDDD636F97C3
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="nsmailCQ.TMP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="nsmailCQ.TMP"

Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
From: "Adriana Rivero" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Importance: Normal
Subject: [Anuncios] Candidaturas al AC/ AC Candidates
Sender: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:03:27 -0300

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C26A0B.B74DA9E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

LACNIC recuerda a los interesados en nominar y/o expresar apoyos a los
candidatos al Address Council (AC) del ASO (Address Supporting Organization)
en representacion de la región de LACNIC que el plazo tanto para nominar
como para expresar apoyos a los candidatos vence el próximo jueves 10 de
Octubre. Rogamos a las personas que aún no hayan expresado su apoyo o tengan
intención de nominar algún candidato, se dirijan a nuestra página web:
http://lacnic.net/sp/ac-election.html a dichos efectos.

LACNIC announces that the deadline for nominating and/or supporting
candidates for the AC (Address Council) of the ASO (Address Supporting
Organization) representatives of LACNIC region, is Thursday October 10th.
Therefore, we invite people interested whether in nominating or supporting a
candidate to do so as soon as posible.  Please find the information at:
http://lacnic.net/en/ac-election.html

 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C26A0B.B74DA9E0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
	name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="winmail.dat"

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C26A0B.B74DA9E0--

_______________________________________________
Anuncios mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.lacnic.org/mailman/listinfo/anuncios

- --------------8FB7DAE987AADDDD636F97C3--

- --
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 #1454
*************************