Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #157
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 27 2000        Volume 01 : Number 157

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

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:56:56 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

your line of questioning has me a bit confused . are you trying to say that
someone cannot be a member of more than one constituancy or for that  matter
more than one supporting organization

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:51 PM
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
>

- --
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 22:13:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Kent,

>
>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

Indeed.
But we are not talking about direct elections by AtLarge, we are talking
 about the best way to meaningfully propose a set of candidates for the 
NC to elect.
Again, nobody is claiming (correction: I am not claiming) that the GA 
should elect the DNSO ICANN Director, only that in providing the 
nominees there should be "added value", or the process is useless (and 
therefore should be abolished, as every useless thing).

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

And what about those who do not belong to any constituency (like myself,
 for instance)? Should they be banned from the DNSO?
I think that the DNSO is to give a voice to all those who are interested
 in Domain Name issues. Those who are lucky enough to belong to a 
recognized constituency can also have a *vote*, which is a different 
thing. Please let us have at least the voice, if not the vote. 

>
>    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

Nobody is preventing the NC to propose candidates.
I am just saying that the current limit of 10 endorsement is ridiculous.
 Everybody can have 10 friends subscribing to the GA and endorsing him/
her, so the slate cannot be guaranteed to be reasonable.

What exactly do you have against the proposal to abolish the endorsement
 procedure, and let the NC elect directly?

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

Neither the GA.
So what?

>
>what is the problem with "the rules"?
>
>Or, do you wish to dispute the premises?

See above.
Regards
Roberto
- --
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 22:40:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Kent,

>> 
>> OK.
>> If people buy in the fact that the GA shall not have any 
representative 
>> or governing role, then the nomination/endorsement of the DNSO-
elected 
>> ICANN Director does not make sense. Let's remove it. Let's say 
>> "everything is done at the NC level" and we may find that we don't 
need 
>> a GA at all.
>
>It really strikes me that you, like so many others, appear to think 
that
>"representative or governing roles" are the only things that matter. 

I said exactly the contrary.
I bought your argument that the GA should not have "representative or 
governing roles". In an effort to rationalize, and eliminate useless 
things, I proposed to eliminate the endorsement of the candidates by the
 GA, and leave it completely to who has the "representative or governing
 roles", i.e. the NC.
Fair enough?

>For people trained as lawyers or political scientists or even
>economists, such a blunder is perhaps excusable.  But you are a
>technical person, so I am finding it hard to understand why you are 
>missing this...
>
>People go to IETF meetings primarily to participate in individual
>working groups; the plenary meetings (which might be the closest thing
>to a "GA of the IETF") don't have a significant representative or
>governing role in the matters of the IETF; most of the real work of the

>IETF takes place in the working groups, the IAB, the IESG, the
>nominating committee, and so on.  Occasionally rough polls are taken in

>the plenary meetings to guage the feelings of the IETF participants as 
a
>whole -- these are more opinion surveys than elections; Jon Postel gave

>a presentation of what the "new IANA" would look like at an IETF
>plenary; the IAHC gave a presentation at an IETF plenary etc etc.

Good.
So, who does the nominations in the IETF? The NomCom, or the plenary?
You see my point now?

>[...]
>> 
>> So what?
>> You reason as if I was unhappy about the election of Jon Cohen.
>> I am unhappy about the process, and specifically the role of the GA 
in 
>> the process.
>> If the output of the "endorsement phase" is (n) candidates to NC, and
 
>> Jon, Peter, Jamie, or whoever else is one of the (n), what happens 
next 
>> is not GA business.
>
>That's PRECISELY and EXPLICITLY what the output of the endorsement 
phase
>is supposed to be.  It is supposed to be a slate of nominees from which
 
>the NC will elect a director.

I keep my point. So organized, it is useless.
Anybody can get 10 endorsements.

>
>> But the output of the process will be a Director that can claim:
>> - support of the majority of the NC
>> - a certain level of "popularity".
>> Again, if the second is not needed, lets take it away!
>
>The second is your fantasy.

Well, then take it away, as I said!

Regards
Roberto
- --
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 22:47:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Speaking about elections...

.. my term ends at the end of the year.
Last time we accepted a fancy procedure, by which the NC, not the GA, 
elected the GA Chair.
It was OK, considering that we were all in "bootstrap mode", but this 
time I think that the Chairman should be elected directly by the GA.

We have a Voting Registry, therefore there should be no problem. If 
Constituencies members not actively participating to the GA want to vote
, no pb., just join the Voting Registry.

What do you think?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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 14:14:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years  term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Patrick,

Monday, September 25, 2000, 1:02:54 PM, you wrote:

> 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?

Patrick, I've never applied for that constituency, but have done
extensive recruitment on ISP lists for people to join it.  I have
later received numerous emails from people who have encounted
obstacles and non-responses to their queries on joining the
constituency.  As a matter of fact, for the longest time the email
address to write to for joining was non-existent.

Perhaps, since you claim to be a member of said constituency, you
could endeavor to help them better define their new membership
process?

- -- 
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 14:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years  term at the  ICANN Board

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

> >> 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?
> 
> Patrick, I've never applied for that constituency, but have done
> extensive recruitment on ISP lists for people to join it.  I have
> later received numerous emails from people who have encounted
> obstacles and non-responses to their queries on joining the
> constituency.  As a matter of fact, for the longest time the email
> address to write to for joining was non-existent.

Ahh, namespace conflict ;-) . You are referring to the ISP Constituency of
ICANN, not the ISP/C (Internet Service Providers Consortium), correct? My
apologies.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:45:51 -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 10:13:55PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> But we are not talking about direct elections by AtLarge, we are talking
> about the best way to meaningfully propose a set of candidates for the 
> NC to elect.
> Again, nobody is claiming (correction: I am not claiming) that the GA 
> should elect the DNSO ICANN Director, only that in providing the 
> nominees there should be "added value", or the process is useless (and 
> therefore should be abolished, as every useless thing).

The "added value" I see is simply that a group of reasonable candidates
were proposed.  That is, the requirements of the task were met.  What
additional added value do you want? 

The DNSO has to have SOME process to propose a slate of candidates. 
Another approach would be to have a nominating committee -- indeed, that
might be better.  But the IETF nomcom process has gone through multiple
iterations -- there is a debate about it on the poised list that is 
just winding down, in fact.

> >    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
> 
> And what about those who do not belong to any constituency (like myself,
>  for instance)? Should they be banned from the DNSO?

You don't look like you are banned... :-)

> I think that the DNSO is to give a voice to all those who are interested
>  in Domain Name issues. Those who are lucky enough to belong to a 
> recognized constituency can also have a *vote*, which is a different 
> thing. Please let us have at least the voice, if not the vote. 

You obviously have a voice -- this letter is proof of that.

[...]

> Nobody is preventing the NC to propose candidates.
> I am just saying that the current limit of 10 endorsement is ridiculous.
> Everybody can have 10 friends subscribing to the GA and endorsing him/
> her, 

How, then, do you explain the withdrawal of Ms Keogh?  

The fact is that the endorsements do serve a useful function: they 
convey information about the reputation of the endorsee within this
context.  A bunch of glowing endorsements from unknown people doesn't 
carry the same weight as endorsements from people that you know.

> so the slate cannot be guaranteed to be reasonable.

There is no need to guarantee that the slate be reasonable.  The only 
real need is that the process generate at least one reasonable 
candidate.  

Kent

- -- 
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 15:15:43 -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 10:40:10PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> >It really strikes me that you, like so many others, appear to think that
> >"representative or governing roles" are the only things that matter. 
> 
> I said exactly the contrary.

Yes, but the rest of your position doesn't seem to me to be consistent
with that statement. 

> I bought your argument that the GA should not have "representative or 
> governing roles". In an effort to rationalize, and eliminate useless 
> things, I proposed to eliminate the endorsement of the candidates by the
> GA, and leave it completely to who has the "representative or governing
> roles", i.e. the NC.
> Fair enough?

In all honesty, this just sounds like sour grapes, to me.  There has to 
be SOME process for proposing candidates.  This one isn't perfect, by 
any means, but if you want to eliminate it you have to propose a 
realistic alternative.

[...]
> >a presentation of what the "new IANA" would look like at an IETF
> >plenary; the IAHC gave a presentation at an IETF plenary etc etc.
> 
> 
> Good.
> So, who does the nominations in the IETF? The NomCom, or the plenary?
> You see my point now?

No.  Not really.  Indeed, the IETF has a process for selecting 
nominees, and we might at some point consider that model.  It's 
different than the model we have, though, and it would take amending 
the bylaws to change, and I haven't heard any reason from 
you why we should change that I consider at all compelling.

[...]
> >That's PRECISELY and EXPLICITLY what the output of the endorsement phase
> >is supposed to be.  It is supposed to be a slate of nominees from which 
> >the NC will elect a director.
> 
> I keep my point. So organized, it is useless.
> Anybody can get 10 endorsements.

Once again, that just doesn't matter -- indeed the process allows that
ringers or other unsavory characters could be proposed -- there is a
barrier, but it is a relatively low barrier.  On the other hand, a
scheme that allowed good candidates to be pushed out by bad would be a 
disaster.  [An example of such a rule would be one that said that only 
the candidates with the 5 most endorsements would be proposed.]

- -- 
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 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Conflicts of interest Policy

I wonder if from time to time the GA should invite participants in its
debates to declare financial interests in matters under discussion?

If so, what kinds of interests?

1.  Payments by ICANN?

2.  Payments by or share-holdings in entities regulated by ICANN or having
contracts with it?

3.  Payments by or share-holdings in entities planning or hoping to enter
into contractual relations with ICANN (or apply for gTLDs, for example)?

4. Others?

Comments?

[ObDisclosure:  I am a founder of disputes.org, the partner to
eResolution.ca, the UDRP services provider.]

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:31:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Speaking about elections...

I second that.
Jefsey

At 22:47 25/09/00, you wrote:
>.. my term ends at the end of the year.
>Last time we accepted a fancy procedure, by which the NC, not the GA,
>elected the GA Chair.
>It was OK, considering that we were all in "bootstrap mode", but this
>time I think that the Chairman should be elected directly by the GA.
>
>We have a Voting Registry, therefore there should be no problem. If
>Constituencies members not actively participating to the GA want to vote
>, no pb., just join the Voting Registry.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>--
>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 20:36:22 -0400
From: "Newell, Craig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Speaking about elections...

I agree with you completely.

Craig

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 4:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Speaking about elections...

.. my term ends at the end of the year.
Last time we accepted a fancy procedure, by which the NC, not the GA, 
elected the GA Chair.
It was OK, considering that we were all in "bootstrap mode", but this 
time I think that the Chairman should be elected directly by the GA.

We have a Voting Registry, therefore there should be no problem. If 
Constituencies members not actively participating to the GA want to vote
, no pb., just join the Voting Registry.

What do you think?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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 20:52:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflicts of interest Policy

I think this is a good topic for discussion.   I was surprised that the
DNSO candidates for the ICANN board were never asked any questions about
conflicts.    Jamie

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I wonder if from time to time the GA should invite participants in its
> debates to declare financial interests in matters under discussion?
> 
> If so, what kinds of interests?
> 
> 1.  Payments by ICANN?
> 
> 2.  Payments by or share-holdings in entities regulated by ICANN or having
> contracts with it?
> 
> 3.  Payments by or share-holdings in entities planning or hoping to enter
> into contractual relations with ICANN (or apply for gTLDs, for example)?
> 
> 4. Others?
> 
> Comments?
> 
> [ObDisclosure:  I am a founder of disputes.org, the partner to
> eResolution.ca, the UDRP services provider.]
> 
> -- 
> 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's humid here.<--
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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 20:28:28 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflicts of interest Policy

At 8:52 pm -0400 9/25/00, James Love wrote:
>I think this is a good topic for discussion.   I was surprised that the
>DNSO candidates for the ICANN board were never asked any questions about
>conflicts.    Jamie

Were the original "ring-in" board members/ICANN staff questioned about
conflicts of interest?

The Navy Man's .edu conflict springs to mind immediately.

- -- 
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.domain-owners.org 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: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:20:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Kent,

>
>> >    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
>> 
>> And what about those who do not belong to any constituency (like 
myself,
>>  for instance)? Should they be banned from the DNSO?
>
>You don't look like you are banned... :-)

Exactly.
But I am not in any constituency: I don't qualify for any of them.
This proves your statement 2) above incorrect.

>
>> I think that the DNSO is to give a voice to all those who are 
interested
>>  in Domain Name issues. Those who are lucky enough to belong to a 
>> recognized constituency can also have a *vote*, which is a different 

>> thing. Please let us have at least the voice, if not the vote. 
>
>You obviously have a voice -- this letter is proof of that.

And, again, this proves 2) incorrect.
(of course, you can still argue that "the purpose of the DNSO is to give
 constituencies a voice", and the fact that others also will have a 
voice is an unplanned side effect - in that case, yes, you may be right)

Regards
Roberto
- --
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: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:19:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

The present structure is designed to give certain groups more power than
everyone else.  The groups that have less power are not too thrilled
with the outcome, which should not come as a big surprise.  Like many
others, I think the DNSO power structure is too stacked for big
corporate interests.  Some like it that way, and see this as a feature,
not a flaw.

  Jamie

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Kent,
> 
> >
> >> >    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
> >> 
> >> And what about those who do not belong to any constituency (like 
> myself,
> >>  for instance)? Should they be banned from the DNSO?
> >
> >You don't look like you are banned... :-)
> 
> Exactly.
> But I am not in any constituency: I don't qualify for any of them.
> This proves your statement 2) above incorrect.
> 
> >
> >> I think that the DNSO is to give a voice to all those who are 
> interested
> >>  in Domain Name issues. Those who are lucky enough to belong to a 
> >> recognized constituency can also have a *vote*, which is a different 
> 
> >> thing. Please let us have at least the voice, if not the vote. 
> >
> >You obviously have a voice -- this letter is proof of that.
> 
> And, again, this proves 2) incorrect.
> (of course, you can still argue that "the purpose of the DNSO is to give
>  constituencies a voice", and the fact that others also will have a 
> voice is an unplanned side effect - in that case, yes, you may be right)
> 
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> 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: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:00:53 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

At 21:02 24/09/2000 -0700, Kent Crispin 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:

...

>    2) the purpose of the DNSO is to give constituencies a voice
>
>what is the problem with "the rules"?
>
>Or, do you wish to dispute the premises?

I dispute your premise 2).
I think the purpose of the DNSO is to give the ICANN BoD the best advice 
possible in matters related to the Domain Name System.

If the candidate chosen by the NC is not the one best able to give such 
advice, the process is wrong.

My PERSONAL opinion (as you can tell from my endorsement) is that I think 
Peter de Blanc would have given the board better advice on DNS matters than 
Josh Cohen has been able to. The NC did not agree with me, as shown by 
their selection.

This does not mean that either of us is "right". But the rules gave more 
weight to their opinion than to mine. What we're discussing is whether this 
is how the rules should be.

               Harald

- --
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, 27 Sep 2000 07:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS

Bob,

could you provide refrences? 

thanks,

- -rick

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Bob Davis wrote:

> Rick and everybody,
> 
> This is incorrect as stated.  As I had already posted to this list
> other DNSSEC implementation's have been done and some are documented.  
> I have participated in a couple myself.
> 

- --
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 #157
************************