Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #156
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 25 2000          Volume 01 : Number 156

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

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:02:55 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 05:34:41PM -0400, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> So if the rules don't make sense, let's see if we can find some rules
> that do. 

Given that "the rules" are based on the following premises:

    1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
    representation problem  

    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice

    3) the purpose of the nomination procedure is simply to get a
    reasonable slate of candidates for the NC to chose among, not to
    prevent NC members from proposing candidates

    4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view

what is the problem with "the rules"?

Or, do you wish to dispute the premises?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 24 Sep 2000 16:22:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Kent,

Sunday, September 24, 2000, 3:02:55 PM, you wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 05:34:41PM -0400, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> So if the rules don't make sense, let's see if we can find some rules
>> that do. 

> Given that "the rules" are based on the following premises:

>     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
>     representation problem  

And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?

>     2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice

No, the purpose of the DNSO is to be the Domain Name Supporting
Organization.  The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
small subset of those effected by such policy, and as such, should not
be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
DNSO, including election of the board members.

>     3) the purpose of the nomination procedure is simply to get a
>     reasonable slate of candidates for the NC to chose among, not to
>     prevent NC members from proposing candidates

The problem is that the names council is firmly in the control of a
very small sect of special interests, who can and infact have shown
that they will ignore any and all suggestions and select a candidate
who represents their view.

If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
over with.

>     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view

The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
are beholden to the IP interests.  Any "dissent" is token.  As it was
intended, Kent.  But you knew this, since you were involved in that
betrayal.

> what is the problem with "the rules"?

See above.

> Or, do you wish to dispute the premises?

The "premises" were disputed long before you posted them.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:48:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 04:22:39PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
> >     representation problem  
> 
> And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?

The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.

> >     2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
> 
> No, the purpose of the DNSO is to be the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization.

Yes.  And the DNSO, like all the SO's was intended to provide focussed,
"expert" input relative to the subject matter involved.  The other SOs 
are also heavily dominated by the interests involved.

> The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
> small subset of those effected by such policy,

Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are registered by
commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?

> and as such, should not
> be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
> DNSO, including election of the board members.

The atlarge board members are intended to address that issue.

> >     3) the purpose of the nomination procedure is simply to get a
> >     reasonable slate of candidates for the NC to chose among, not to
> >     prevent NC members from proposing candidates
> 
> The problem is that the names council is firmly in the control of a
> very small sect of special interests,

In numerical terms the primary imbalance in representation in the NC is,
in fact, the registries and registrars -- more than a third of the 
votes in the NC are reserved for that very narrow slice of humanity.  
However, they make the claim (with some justification) that they are 
the entities most directly affected by ICANN's actions, and that they 
also represent the greatest amount of expertise concerning the issues 
that affect registries and registrars.

> who can and infact have shown
> that they will ignore any and all suggestions and select a candidate
> who represents their view.

So you think that Jonathan Cohen is particularly representative of the 
registrars and the registries point of view?

> If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
> over with.

It is just silly to claim that the NC only represents IP interests.

> >     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view
> 
> The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
> are beholden to the IP interests.

Nonsense.  IP interests have significant influence, no doubt about it. 
But 5 of the 7 constituencies -- the registries, registrars, ISPs, and
non-commercial -- are not by any means under the "control" of IP
interests. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 24 Sep 2000 21:49:53 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Kent,

Sunday, September 24, 2000, 8:48:17 PM, you wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 04:22:39PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> >     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
>> >     representation problem  
>> 
>> And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?

> The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.

It doesn't.  And nothing proposed would duplicate the at-large.
This is a fallacy you are propagating.

>> >     2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
>> 
>> No, the purpose of the DNSO is to be the Domain Name Supporting
>> Organization.

> Yes.  And the DNSO, like all the SO's was intended to provide focussed,
> "expert" input relative to the subject matter involved.  The other SOs 
> are also heavily dominated by the interests involved.

Exactly.  So please, point out to me where the average domain name
owner, who is most effected by these decisions, is represented in the
DNSO, Kent.

Also, please, educate us on how the IP constituency is an expert in
the subject of the DNS.  Remember, this is the group that elected a
board member who thinks that people shouldn't be allowed to have
domain names of common words like patents.com.  Very intelligent, lots
of expertise there, Kent.

>> The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
>> small subset of those effected by such policy,

> Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are registered by
> commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?

I love this, Kent.  Talk about a manipulation of terms.  "Commercial
interests" includes those small businesses, Kent, which do not fit
into any of these constituencies.  So while they VASTLY are more
closely "individual" domain owners, they are also commercial, and when
they register their domains, they do so in a commercial manner, and
are thus commercial entities.  Those statistics are also impossible to
verify.  There is absolutely no way that that number could have been
arrived at with any level of accuracy.

>> and as such, should not
>> be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
>> DNSO, including election of the board members.

> The atlarge board members are intended to address that issue.

No, Kent, they are not.

Further, the At Large board members are selected by ICANN as the least
threatening choices, and not representative of those with an
individual and specific interest and stake in the domain name system.

>> >     3) the purpose of the nomination procedure is simply to get a
>> >     reasonable slate of candidates for the NC to chose among, not to
>> >     prevent NC members from proposing candidates
>> 
>> The problem is that the names council is firmly in the control of a
>> very small sect of special interests,

> In numerical terms the primary imbalance in representation in the NC is,
> in fact, the registries and registrars -- more than a third of the 
> votes in the NC are reserved for that very narrow slice of humanity.  
> However, they make the claim (with some justification) that they are 
> the entities most directly affected by ICANN's actions, and that they 
> also represent the greatest amount of expertise concerning the issues 
> that affect registries and registrars.

1/3 is not domination, Kent.

>> who can and infact have shown
>> that they will ignore any and all suggestions and select a candidate
>> who represents their view.

> So you think that Jonathan Cohen is particularly representative of the 
> registrars and the registries point of view?

No, I do not.  They do not dominate the NC.  You and I both know it.

>> If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
>> over with.

> It is just silly to claim that the NC only represents IP interests.

It is?  I stand by it, and the track record of this NC backs my words
up 110%.  The "election" of Jonathan Cohen is a perfect example of
that.

>> >     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view
>> 
>> The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
>> are beholden to the IP interests.

> Nonsense.  IP interests have significant influence, no doubt about it. 
> But 5 of the 7 constituencies -- the registries, registrars, ISPs, and
> non-commercial -- are not by any means under the "control" of IP
> interests. 

The ISPs, Kent?  The ISPs are supposedly represented by two lobbying
groups, who by no stretch represent the average ISP.  The largest
members of the ISP constituency also have strong ties to interests
in the IP area.  The same is true of those in the commercial area.
The non-commercial even is strongly dominated by the ISOC, which has
almost always historically sided with the IP interests, in the
interests of political expediency to get what they want.  After all,
they are the ISOC, they know what is best for us even if we don't,
right?

Kent, anyone claiming this NC is fair and balanced is either on drugs,
mentally incompetent, or very good at stretching the truth.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:35:49 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

> From: Kent Crispin : Sunday, September 24, 2000 8:48 PM
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 04:22:39PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >     1) the at large election to the board is to cover the popular
> > >     representation problem  
> > 
> > And what does that have to do with the DNSO GA?
> 
> The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.

Minor nit; the GA existed BEFORE the AtLarge. How can it possibly have
been intended to duplicate the AtLarge? 
Major bitch: The GA has no visible role. No power, no role, verstanden
sie?

> > The problem is that the constituencies are only a very
> > small subset of those effected by such policy,
> 
> Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are 
> registered by
> commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?

Yes. MHSC is not respresented in ANY constituency. Please explain where
it is. Personally, I am not represented either, yet another major bitch.

> > and as such, should not
> > be the sole voice on matters relating to the decisions made in the
> > DNSO, including election of the board members.
> 
> The atlarge board members are intended to address that issue.

HAH! Would this be those same AtLarge board members that won their seats
due to incompetent election process, where fewer that 50% or the
registered AtLarge even had the ability to vote? (I'm being kind in not
calling it "rigged")

> > If this is what was intended, rename the DNSO to the IPSO and get it
> > over with.
> 
> It is just silly to claim that the NC only represents IP interests.

You offer what evidence that this is "just silly"?

> > >     4) the NC is not a body with a single point of view
> > 
> > The names council is firmly in control by IP interests, or those who
> > are beholden to the IP interests.
> 
> Nonsense.  IP interests have significant influence, no doubt 
> about it. 
> But 5 of the 7 constituencies -- the registries, registrars, ISPs, and
> non-commercial -- are not by any means under the "control" of IP
> interests. 

Boy, you must score really well in telepathy. ... so sure of yourself,
aren't you?
- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:31:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 09:49:53PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > The GA was not intended to duplicate the role of the atlarge.
> 
> It doesn't.  And nothing proposed would duplicate the at-large.

If the GA directly elected board members, it would effectively 
duplicate the atlarge.

[...]

> > Yes.  And the DNSO, like all the SO's was intended to provide focussed,
> > "expert" input relative to the subject matter involved.  The other SOs 
> > are also heavily dominated by the interests involved.
> 
> Exactly.  So please, point out to me where the average domain name
> owner, who is most effected by these decisions, is represented in the
> DNSO, Kent.

I did, but you didn't read.  The average domain owner is a business.

> Also, please, educate us on how the IP constituency is an expert in
> the subject of the DNS.

"Expertise" in the SO's was not intended to only be technical 
expertise. Any relevant expert opinion would be included.  It is a fact 
that on a policy level, domain names interact with trademarks.  
Experts in that area are necessary.

[...]

> > Completely and utterly false.  You really should know better than to
> > spread such a myth.  The vast majority of domain names are registered by
> > commercial entities -- 80% or more of all domain names are commercial,
> > according to NSI.  But wait -- maybe you are claiming that the clear 
> > majority of domain name holders -- ie, commercial interests -- are 
> > inadequately represented in the DNSO?  Could that be it?
> 
> I love this, Kent.  Talk about a manipulation of terms.  "Commercial
> interests" includes those small businesses, Kent, which do not fit
> into any of these constituencies.

Here are some relevant sections from the business constituency charter:

    "a) Any association representing or organization comprised of
    for-profit corporations whose primary goals include representation
    of the business and/or business development interests of their
    members..."

    "b) Any legally recognized for-profit business enterprise that has been
    delegated a domain, that uses the Internet to conduct for-profit
    business and that has been in business for at least one year." 

    "1.  Business Constituency funding requirements shall be fulfilled
    through membership fees that are raised in such a way as to ensure
    that no unreasonable barriers are created for membership in the
    Business Constituency for commercial/business entities or business
    organizations or any kind or size."

The membership fee for small businesses is set at 100 euros/year, and 
associations of small businesses can be formed to split those costs.  
There are no effective barriers to membership for a business of any 
size.  There is nothing preventing *you* from joining.

>  So while they VASTLY are more
> closely "individual" domain owners, they are also commercial, and when
> they register their domains, they do so in a commercial manner, and
> are thus commercial entities.  Those statistics are also impossible to
> verify.  There is absolutely no way that that number could have been
> arrived at with any level of accuracy.

The figures came from NSI, quite some time ago.  But it is completely
obvious to anyone who doesn't take pride in ideological blindness that
the vast majority of growth in domain names has been driven by
commercial entities.  This is just a fact.  There is a reason that .com 
is by far the largest TLD...

[...]

> > In numerical terms the primary imbalance in representation in the NC is,
> > in fact, the registries and registrars -- more than a third of the 
> > votes in the NC are reserved for that very narrow slice of humanity.  
> > However, they make the claim (with some justification) that they are 
> > the entities most directly affected by ICANN's actions, and that they 
> > also represent the greatest amount of expertise concerning the issues 
> > that affect registries and registrars.
> 
> 1/3 is not domination, Kent.

No, I didn't claim it was.  It is a substantial independent block; you 
claimed that the NC was *entirely* domainated by IP interests.  I was 
illustrating your error.

[...]

> The ISPs, Kent?  The ISPs are supposedly represented by two lobbying
> groups, who by no stretch represent the average ISP.

Actually, there are 34 members of the ISPCP, not 2.

> The largest
> members of the ISP constituency also have strong ties to interests
> in the IP area.  The same is true of those in the commercial area.

Large entities are more likely to own trademarks and understand them 
as objects of value, than small entities.  This is not the same as 
"having strong ties".

> The non-commercial even is strongly dominated by the ISOC,

This is simply nonsense.  

[...]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 08:06:19 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:35:49AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Yes. MHSC is not respresented in ANY constituency. Please explain where
> it is.

For 100 euros/year you can join the business constituency.

[...]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:05:21 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

You've just explained where I can donate/throw away/burn 100 Euros per
year. Their value proposition sux! They do NOT represent MHSC, even if I
paid them the money. There is no connection between MHSC membership and
actions of the Business constituency and no visible way to make it so.
In short, it is not a constituency in other than name. Rather, it is the
private playground for a few, whom are milking it for what it is worth
(nada). Gee, that sorta sounds like this whole ICANN schtick.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 
> years term
> a t the ICANN Board
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:35:49AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > Yes. MHSC is not respresented in ANY constituency. Please 
> explain where
> > it is.
> 
> For 100 euros/year you can join the business constituency.
> 
> [...]
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 17:47:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Harald,
At 14:47 25/09/00, you wrote:
>>If I am correct, the DNSO has two Directors and two heads.
>Three, serving overlapping 3-year terms.
>One is selected every year.

True. It was humor. I read a post not so long ago explaining
that one of the Director was de facto selected by the BoD?

>>Why not just to have one Director representing the GA and elected
>>by the GA and one representing the NC and elected by the NC?
>>
>>Just an idea (probably opposed by Joe Sims as elections can
>>only be carried by ICANN Members - who ever they are - others
>>ones carriying selections due to the way ICANN pretend to
>>observe Calif. law).
>Irrelevant. How the three DNSO board members are selected is a DNSO 
>matter, not an At-Large matter.

I do not understand the reference to @large?
(I suppose you have a basic knowledge in constitutionnal laws).

>Better read those bylaws....

I do not understand either, modifying the bylaws is not reading them.
Jefsey

- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:24:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Kent,

At 16:31 25/09/00, Kent wrote:
>If the GA directly elected board members, it would effectively
>duplicate the atlarge.

Translation: if the Club Med had some elections, it would duplicate the
@large as any @large Member may also be a Club Med Member.

IMHO Kent, you have good arguments on some points. Do not kill
them with such remarks. We are grown boys: every member of the
constituency is also a Member of the GA. True: there is a risk of the
GA being over populated if a future IDNO is at individual level. The risk
was the same with the business constituency: experience shows
that welcoming associations permits the Business Constituency to
claim representing 28000 businesses with only 54 Members. Look,
Jeff Williams is only one vote and represents 112.000 individuals.
Obviously the thread is that such constituencies seriously develop
out of control and overcome the ICANN at the end of the day?

>The membership fee for small businesses is set at 100 euros/year, and
>associations of small businesses can be formed to split those costs.
>There are no effective barriers to membership for a business of any
>size.  There is nothing preventing *you* from joining.

I tried. I sent a fax with my company data. I am still waiting. On the phone
the CIGREF tells you not to send money ... just a fax (very Internet).
Then nothing, not even a welcome (?) nor an ack message? Would that be
because my company is 1/10000 smaller than average members?
I am sure not !
Jefsey

- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:59:00 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:05:21AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> You've just explained where I can donate/throw away/burn 100 Euros per
> year. Their value proposition sux! They do NOT represent MHSC, even if I
> paid them the money. There is no connection between MHSC membership and
> actions of the Business constituency and no visible way to make it so.

You join, you get a vote for NC rep -- just like every other member. 
You could *run* for NC -- just like any other member.  If your ideas
were shared by others, they would be adopted.  

But of course, that is not your game.  You would rather heckle from the
outside, and make lame excuses.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:18:29 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Kent,
> 
> At 16:31 25/09/00, Kent wrote:
> >If the GA directly elected board members, it would effectively
> >duplicate the atlarge.
> 
> Translation: if the Club Med had some elections, it would duplicate the
> @large as any @large Member may also be a Club Med Member.
> 
> IMHO Kent, you have good arguments on some points. Do not kill
> them with such remarks. We are grown boys: every member of the
> constituency is also a Member of the GA.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding.  Not every member of the GA is
a member of a constituency.  The GA is open to anyone without regard to
constituency membership.  If it were announced that the GA was going to
directly elect 3 board members the GA membership would swell
astronomically in a very short time.   You would have all the problems 
that the atlarge had.

> >There are no effective barriers to membership for a business of any
> >size.  There is nothing preventing *you* from joining.
> 
> I tried. I sent a fax with my company data. I am still waiting. On the phone
> the CIGREF tells you not to send money ... just a fax (very Internet).
> Then nothing, not even a welcome (?) nor an ack message? Would that be
> because my company is 1/10000 smaller than average members?
> I am sure not !

There could be all kinds of reasons.  However, Fausett, Gaeta & Lund,
LLP is a member, and I know they are a small company.  Perhaps you
should try again... 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:51:04 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:59 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 
> years term
> a t the ICANN Board
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:05:21AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > You've just explained where I can donate/throw away/burn 
> 100 Euros per
> > year. Their value proposition sux! They do NOT represent 
> MHSC, even if I
> > paid them the money. There is no connection between MHSC 
> membership and
> > actions of the Business constituency and no visible way to 
> make it so.
> 
> You join, you get a vote for NC rep -- just like every other member. 
> You could *run* for NC -- just like any other member.  If your ideas
> were shared by others, they would be adopted.  

Are you a member of this constituency? If so, how do you square that
with ALSO being a member of the NCDNHC? If you are not a member then how
do you deign to speak with such authority?

> But of course, that is not your game.  You would rather 
> heckle from the outside, and make lame excuses.

Be that as it may, you would rather heckle from the "inside"? Actually,
you made a false statement, I don't heckle. If I did, there would be no
doubt that I was, I can be quite good at it. The truth is that every
group or constituency I have ever been involved with, in this arena, has
been either marginalized or nullified. This includes DNSO/WG-B and
DNSO/WG-C, as well as ORSC and BWG. I also worked on the ORSC newco
draft proposal, considered by the DOC/NTIA and later the ICANN/DNSO
draft proposal submitted by the ORSC. If you call this heckling from the
outside then you are indeed lame. You are certainly being disingenuous.
But, I have always considered you to be less than honest.

- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:17:49 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

> > You join, you get a vote for NC rep -- just like every other member.
> > You could *run* for NC -- just like any other member.  If your ideas
> > were shared by others, they would be adopted.
>
> Are you a member of this constituency? If so, how do you square that
> with ALSO being a member of the NCDNHC? If you are not a member then how
> do you deign to speak with such authority?

I'm a member. The B&C Constituency is not a monolithic unified set of
interests, though it would benefit from more small business interests.
You're welcome to join Roeland. If you have questions, let me know off-list.

          -- 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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:00:33 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years  term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Jefsey,

Monday, September 25, 2000, 9:24:11 AM, you wrote:

> I tried. I sent a fax with my company data. I am still waiting. On the phone
> the CIGREF tells you not to send money ... just a fax (very Internet).
> Then nothing, not even a welcome (?) nor an ack message? Would that be
> because my company is 1/10000 smaller than average members?
> I am sure not !

The same thing has happened to many ISPs who have tried to join the
ISPC, and who finally abandoned it when it became clear to them it was
a futile effort.  They may say they allow non-organizational members,
but the reality is they don't want you there.

I would imagine it is the same with the business constituency.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:20:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

At 19:18 25/09/00, you wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Kent,
> > At 16:31 25/09/00, Kent wrote:
> > >If the GA directly elected board members, it would effectively
> > >duplicate the atlarge.
> > Translation: if the Club Med had some elections, it would duplicate the
> > @large as any @large Member may also be a Club Med Member.
> >
> > IMHO Kent, you have good arguments on some points. Do not kill
> > them with such remarks. We are grown boys: every member of the
> > constituency is also a Member of the GA.
>
>You have a fundamental misunderstanding.  Not every member of the GA is
>a member of a constituency.  The GA is open to anyone without regard to
>constituency membership.  If it were announced that the GA was going to
>directly elect 3 board members the GA membership would swell
>astronomically in a very short time.   You would have all the problems
>that the atlarge had.

Kent,
please read what I wrote. I said every member of a constituency is Member
of the GA (I do not know if this is true ML wise but legally when you are a
Member of a Group in an assembly, you are Member of the assembly). I
also said any person may be Member of the GA, would you be against that:
this is the way the ICANN and DNSO work. I have nothing against the DNSO
being wider than the @large (actually I would love it). Not the same charter.
Eventually I did not say the GA would elect three directors, I proposed the
BoD continue to select one, the NC elects one on behalf of constituencies
and the GA elects one.

> > >There are no effective barriers to membership for a business of any
> > >size.  There is nothing preventing *you* from joining.
> > I tried. I sent a fax with my company data. I am still waiting. On the 
> phone
> > the CIGREF tells you not to send money ... just a fax (very Internet).
> > Then nothing, not even a welcome (?) nor an ack message? Would that be
> > because my company is 1/10000 smaller than average members?
> > I am sure not !
>There could be all kinds of reasons.  However, Fausett, Gaeta & Lund,
>LLP is a member, and I know they are a small company.  Perhaps you
>should try again...

I do not think there could be any. Unless it is something non disclosed,
which would make Roeland's point. I am sorry but "Perhaps you should try
again to get your due" is not my vision of equity. I hope it is only delays.
But then it would mean that the BC is dramatically unorganized.
Jefsey

- --
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years  term at the  ICANN Board

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Jefsey,
> 
> Monday, September 25, 2000, 9:24:11 AM, you wrote:
> 
> > I tried. I sent a fax with my company data. I am still waiting. On the phone
> > the CIGREF tells you not to send money ... just a fax (very Internet).
> > Then nothing, not even a welcome (?) nor an ack message? Would that be
> > because my company is 1/10000 smaller than average members?
> > I am sure not !
> 
> The same thing has happened to many ISPs who have tried to join the
> ISPC, and who finally abandoned it when it became clear to them it was
> a futile effort.  They may say they allow non-organizational members,
> but the reality is they don't want you there.

William, perhaps it was that they just didn't want *you* there. Who are
these "many ISPs" that you are imagining?

The ISP/C does indeed allow non-organizational members and always
has. I'm one.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell                          
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 #156
************************