Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1607
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 23 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1607

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:13:49 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

On 00:25 22/02/03, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 11:38 p.m. 21/02/2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>>I am always open to constructive dialog :-)
>
>But you also like your Board predictable. :-)

Not necessarily. The point is to speak their language. Some of them are 
culturally very ahead, some are outdated and a few are out of the picture. 
And may be one or two are out for political hunting (ask the NTIA if they 
are happy about the renewal). ICANN is a US private agency to manage the 
Legacy inherited from the 1984 "inter netting" (cf. ICP-3/RFC 920).

Do not forget the duality: "private" and "US agency". And the law: 47 USC 
230 (f)(1) whch tells their leading cultural understanding. You want to 
incorporate in Tonga which is the way you see the world wide net, they are 
incorporated in California, USA, which is the way they see the global net.

Vint, IMHO the wrong word is "dialog". It says all. The word for a 
distributed network is "polylog". This is where there is a cultural gap. 
The word "global" in American translates into "a dialog between me and the 
rest of the globe", while in English/French it translates into "a polylog 
among the members of the globe, including me". This confusion is everywhere 
nowadays and does not help much to understand each others. Millions may die 
from that, says the UN

Louis Touton wants IANA to be the Internet Pope, fine: I am OK with this. 
But let Louis be a Roman Catholic first, and understand how a network may 
last 2.000 years. The Pope is the servant of the servants of the people. 
The day ICANN is the servant of the TLDs Managers themselves the servants 
of the users, there will be no problem anymore, even with Joop. Please 
reread Jon Postel's RFC 920. He does not use "servant of the people": he 
uses "trustee of the registrants". But the idea is the same. Nothing new 
under the sun. And if you do not like the Pope, look at the way Alexander, 
Ramses II,  Caesar, Napoleon or Victoria managed their empire. Subsidiarity 
is the way, ie the concerted respect of the other's duties to others. Add 
capillarity, making that others innumerable, and you will have internet.

Obviously, there is a technical problem: TCP/IP only permits concertation 
(European meaning) through layer violation, what creates a 
technico/cultural unbalance we see everywhere: patches instead of harmony.

But, may be, will you find a solution sometimes.
jfc

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:12:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Decisions Not Arbitrations Under FAA

Leah and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

L. Gallegos wrote:

> There was a thread last month regarding the argument over whether the UDRP
> consituted 'arbitration' as defined by the FAA.  The following is a timely
> decision that precisely addresses this issue.  Following that is part of
> the text of the relevant thread from January of this year.
>
> Leah
>
> 3RD CIRCUIT RULES UDRP DECISIONS NOT ARBITRATIONS UNDER FAA
> The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ICANN UDRP
> decisions are not entitled to "extremely deferential" review
> in the federal courts since UDRP cases do not fall under the
> Federal Arbitration Act.
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/013713p.pdf

  Thank you for reposting this Leah.  I had read it back in Jan I believe
and made some comments/observations in it's regard.  Why the
UDRP Task force has been dragging it's feet is really in part
a mystery to many here, but I suspect, that it is due to the IPC
and BC's lack of willingness to address their obvious errors
in judgment in light of recent and ongoing events, as well
as past poor decisions heavily influencing the ICANN BoD
when the UDRP was forced down the stakeholders throats..

>
>
> (text from former thread)
>
> > I stick by the simple, non-US law-based definitino of
> > arbitration.
>
> You can do that, of course, but in the UDRP rules it is still considered
> to be an "administrative procedure" and forced upon so-called
> participants.  Using an academinc definition doesn't change the fact or
> the rules.  Courts are under no obligation to refer to or use the
> decisions made by UDRP panelists.  Many do not consider them at all.

  Exactly right.  It should be recognized that the UDRP in it's current
form is rejected entirely by some Federal Circuit courts which I
pointed out some time ago with references.  The 9th and 10th are
two examples..

>
>
> >
> > (from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
> >
> > arbitrate
> > verb
> > to make a judgment in (an argument), usually because
> > asked to do so by those involved
> >
> > arbitration
> > noun [U]
> > to have the disagreement solved by an outside person
> > who has been chosen by both sides
> >
> > arbitrator
> > noun [C]
> > An arbitrator is a person whose official role is to
> > make a decision between two people or groups who do
> > not agree.
> >
> > The real-world effects of a UDRP decision in the case
> > of transfer are dramatic.  UDRP participants manifest
> > consent when registering a domain name and by not
> > choosing to go to national courts.
>
> In a contract of adhesion, yes.  Hopefully that will change. One cannot,
> at this time, register a domain under the ICANN system without agreeing to
>
> UDRP, so this is forced or consent under duress.  It is certainly not
> voluntary if one wishes to have an internet presence in the USG root.

  Exactly right here as well.  And this defense has been successfully used
on a number of well publicized occasions as I believe you already
know Leah.  What amazes me is that the ICANN BoD, legal counsel,
and now it seems that UDRP Task Force do not seem to understand
this very well if at all...

>
>
> >
> > Andrew Mansfield
> >
> > --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D."
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 5. The footnote below is just plain wrong.  Dr.
> > > > Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
> > > > "arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
> > > > arbitration with the definition of "arbitration."
> > > Any
> > > > binding decision making process in which both
> > > sides
> > > > make a presentation and a third party renders a
> > > > decision based on principles of equity or law is
> > > an
> > > > arbitration.
> > >
> > > Someone had better bring this to the attention of
> > > the folks who wrote the
> > > UDRP, as they seem to make a distinction between an
> > > administrative proceeding
> > > under the UDRP and an arbitration in UDRP Paragraph
> > > 8. (and, of course, the
> > > word "binding" is right out in accordance with Rule
> > > 4)  No court has applied
> > > a standard of review less than _de novo_ to a UDRP
> > > decision, because a
> > > "challenge" to a UDRP decision is not really a
> > > challenge to the UDRP
> > > decision, but an independent determination under the
> > > Lanham Act (see, e.g.
> > > the 1st Circuit's analysis of the corinthians.com
> > > case, or the Ontario
> > > Court's determination that the canadian.biz decision
> > > was right screwy).  The
> > > standard of review applied to a binding arbitration
> > > is much different than
> > > the manner that any court has treated a UDRP
> > > decision, which by its own terms
> > > is not binding on the parties.  In point of fact, a
> > > UDRP decision is not
> > > directed at the parties at all - it is directed to
> > > the registrar, since the
> > > registrar is the ONLY party who is ordered by a UDRP
> > > panel to do, or refrain
> > > from doing, anything at all.
> > >
> > > But, if there is an explanation for the distinction
> > > between condition (a) and
> > > condition (b) in Paragraph 8, I'm all ears:
> > >
> > > ---------
> > > 8. Transfers During a Dispute.
> > >
> > > a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You
> > > may not transfer your
> > > domain name registration to another holder (i)
> > > during a pending
> > > administrative proceeding brought pursuant to
> > > Paragraph 4 or for a period of
> > > fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the
> > > location of our principal
> > > place of business) after such proceeding is
> > > concluded; or (ii) during a
> > > pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced
> > > regarding your domain name
> > > unless the party to whom the domain name
> > > registration is being transferred
> > > agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of
> > > the court or arbitrator.
> > > ----------
> > >
> > > Now, under Par. 8 of the UDRP, is a UDRP proceeding
> > > itself an arbitration?
> > > If it is, then it sure makes one hash of that
> > > paragraph.  Why use two
> > > different words for the same thing?
> > >
>
> --
> 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 23 Feb 2003 02:21:24 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Comment to the proposed Bylaws modifications
by the At Large Advisory Committee
- --------------------------------------------

The ALAC has had a limited amount of (email) discussion about the
proposed bylaw changes. Although not all ALAC members have addressed
this issues, those that have would like to leave the bylaw language
concerning At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations as
open as possible, with the understanding that details will be
addressed in the RALO's MoUs with ICANN, and that the ALAC and ICANN
will be responsible for ensuring that the MoU meets basic criteria for
involving individual Internet users and advancing their interests
within ICANN.

While the ALAC wants to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
At-Large Structures represent the voices of individuals, not
organizations, the Committee does not want a formalism in the bylaws
to block participation of groups that genuinely represent individuals
but also accept organizational/corporate members.  The ALAC
acknowledges that ICANN needs to be mindful of two possible scenarios:
an individuals-only policy blocks ISOC chapters and other individual
participation, or lack of such a policy permits some company to
"organize" an At-Large Structure and capture its RALO.  The ALAC
thinks the problem of preventing organizational capture should be left
to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too detailed a policy may
hamper the groups most effectively representing individuals.

In addition to some ISOC chapters, there is concern that some of the
groups listed below, which could be considered potential candidates
for At-Large Structures, could not fully participate under the
proposed bylaws (note: these are hypothetical examples and do not
indicate any commitment or interest on the part of these
organizations):

  a.. Association for Internet Professionals (AIP)
(http://www.association.org/) has both individual and corporate
memberships
  b.. ISOC ECC and CECUA have only organizational members and have
asked to be included as At-Large Structures (although it is not clear
why they should receive this delegation rather than each of their
members being delegated an ALS)
  c.. www.stikom.edu - appears to provide individuals with news,
education, and community discussion on issues relevant to At-Large,
but does not have memberships
  d.. LatinoamerICANN (http://www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) is
an apendix of the Alfa-Redi Society, which is an international
membership-only society of lawyers specializing in computing law
(http://www.alfa-redi.org); to members LatinoamerICANN provides
information on the DNS and related issues.
  e.. Arab Knowledge Management Society (www.akms.org) - non profit
education service addressing "digital divide issues" with no
memberships
  f.. Institute for Study of Information Tech and Society --
http://communityconnections.heinz.cmu.edu/insites/about --  nonprofit
group for teaching, research and public outreach on information
technology policy, has corporate members/supporters
  g.. Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute
(http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.htm) and EPIC (Electronic
Privacy Information Center) (http://www.epic.org/) -- have some
compatible objectives, involve individuals in their policy development
and other activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue
debates, but are not membership organizations

  With this in mind, the ALAC offers the following draft language for
the Committee's consideration:

          (h) Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting At-Large
          Structures within its Geographic Region, certified to meet
          the requirements of the RALO's Memorandum of Understanding
          with ICANN according to paragraph 4(i) of this Section.  If
          so provided by its memorandum of understanding with ICANN, a
          RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users
          who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
          Geographic Region. Any RALO must, through its at-large
          structures or through direct membership, be open for
          participation of all individual Internet users who are
          citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
          Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI).

          (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
          meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
          The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
          Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
          established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
          ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
          that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
          characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
          stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
          the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
          At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
          individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
          the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
          de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
          criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
          members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
          to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
          give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
          meets the applicable criteria and standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:53:46 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Quote of the Day

"this Reform Process will be another lubricant"
- - Jonathan Cohen
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00095.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: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:53:46 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Quote of the Day

"this Reform Process will be another lubricant"
- - Jonathan Cohen
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00095.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: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:52:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quote of the Day

John, Johnathan and all former DNSO GA members,

  I can only wonder what sort of "Lubricant" Jonathan is referring to...

I suppose it depends on how far and how often, the stakeholders
will need to bend over?  I seems from the "Tone" of the rest
of Jonathan's post you kindly provided John, that questions
answer will be, far, and often...

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> "this Reform Process will be another lubricant"
> - Jonathan Cohen
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00095.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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 23 Feb 2003 10:53:31 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Vittorio -

How do you see these geographical RALOs self-organising?

If, on the one hand, you have organisations claiming to represent the
interests of hundreds or thousands, and on the other hand, you also have
individual users in the RALOs, what procedures do you propose to determine
the policies, demands and leadership of any given RALO?

If there is no democratic organisation within the RALOs, how do you
determine policy and viewpoints?

If there *is* to be democratic organisation, how do you balance the votes of
individuals against the 'weight' of various-sized organisations?

My fear is that, not only is the whole ICANN structure part of an ICANN
agenda to contain and sideline At Large power inside ICANN, but that there
seem to be no proposals for democratic process within the RALOs, thereby
removing the ability of individual At Large internet users to determine the
direction of the organisation which purports to represent them.

Exactly *how* will RALOs choose their policies and leadership and
representatives?

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:21 AM
Subject: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

> Comment to the proposed Bylaws modifications
> by the At Large Advisory Committee
> --------------------------------------------
>
> The ALAC has had a limited amount of (email) discussion about the
> proposed bylaw changes. Although not all ALAC members have addressed
> this issues, those that have would like to leave the bylaw language
> concerning At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations as
> open as possible, with the understanding that details will be
> addressed in the RALO's MoUs with ICANN, and that the ALAC and ICANN
> will be responsible for ensuring that the MoU meets basic criteria for
> involving individual Internet users and advancing their interests
> within ICANN.
>
> While the ALAC wants to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
> At-Large Structures represent the voices of individuals, not
> organizations, the Committee does not want a formalism in the bylaws
> to block participation of groups that genuinely represent individuals
> but also accept organizational/corporate members.  The ALAC
> acknowledges that ICANN needs to be mindful of two possible scenarios:
> an individuals-only policy blocks ISOC chapters and other individual
> participation, or lack of such a policy permits some company to
> "organize" an At-Large Structure and capture its RALO.  The ALAC
> thinks the problem of preventing organizational capture should be left
> to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too detailed a policy may
> hamper the groups most effectively representing individuals.
>
> In addition to some ISOC chapters, there is concern that some of the
> groups listed below, which could be considered potential candidates
> for At-Large Structures, could not fully participate under the
> proposed bylaws (note: these are hypothetical examples and do not
> indicate any commitment or interest on the part of these
> organizations):
>
>   a.. Association for Internet Professionals (AIP)
> (http://www.association.org/) has both individual and corporate
> memberships
>   b.. ISOC ECC and CECUA have only organizational members and have
> asked to be included as At-Large Structures (although it is not clear
> why they should receive this delegation rather than each of their
> members being delegated an ALS)
>   c.. www.stikom.edu - appears to provide individuals with news,
> education, and community discussion on issues relevant to At-Large,
> but does not have memberships
>   d.. LatinoamerICANN (http://www.latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar) is
> an apendix of the Alfa-Redi Society, which is an international
> membership-only society of lawyers specializing in computing law
> (http://www.alfa-redi.org); to members LatinoamerICANN provides
> information on the DNS and related issues.
>   e.. Arab Knowledge Management Society (www.akms.org) - non profit
> education service addressing "digital divide issues" with no
> memberships
>   f.. Institute for Study of Information Tech and Society --
> http://communityconnections.heinz.cmu.edu/insites/about --  nonprofit
> group for teaching, research and public outreach on information
> technology policy, has corporate members/supporters
>   g.. Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute
> (http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.htm) and EPIC (Electronic
> Privacy Information Center) (http://www.epic.org/) -- have some
> compatible objectives, involve individuals in their policy development
> and other activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue
> debates, but are not membership organizations
>
>   With this in mind, the ALAC offers the following draft language for
> the Committee's consideration:
>
>           (h) Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting At-Large
>           Structures within its Geographic Region, certified to meet
>           the requirements of the RALO's Memorandum of Understanding
>           with ICANN according to paragraph 4(i) of this Section.  If
>           so provided by its memorandum of understanding with ICANN, a
>           RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users
>           who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>           Geographic Region. Any RALO must, through its at-large
>           structures or through direct membership, be open for
>           participation of all individual Internet users who are
>           citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
>           Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI).
>
>           (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
>           meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
>           The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
>           Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
>           established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
>           ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
>           that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
>           characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
>           stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
>           the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
>           At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
>           individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
>           the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
>           de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
>           criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
>           members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
>           to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
>           give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
>           meets the applicable criteria and standards.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
>
> The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee
> --
> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> --
> 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:22:26 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At Large : Self-organising or "top down" management?

Thank you, Jim, for the link you have provided below, from ALAC chair
Vittorio Bertola to Bruce Tonkin.

I quote from it:

"Underpinning the ALAC will be a network of self-organizing, self-supporting
At-Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users
at the local or issue level. The At-Large Structures (either existing
organizations or newly formed for this purpose) will self-organize into five
Regional At-Large Organizations (one in each ICANN region - Africa,
Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America). The
Regional At-Large Organizations will manage outreach and public involvement
and will be the main forum and coordination point in each region for public
input to ICANN."

Will the "self-organizing, self-supporting structures" be run by democratic
consent? Will all participants have a right to vote individually on their
RALO's policies, actions and decisions?

If not, then are the RALOs in reality a representation of internet users?
How can internet users be sure that these 'appointed' organisations will
represent their real views and desires?

Are the RALOs in reality a replacement for the democratic election of user
representatives to the ICANN Board? In short, has democracy and *true*
representation been replaced by an invented process which sets out to
distance the Board from the democratic voice and criticisms of the millions
and millions of ordinary internet users?

Is a "top-down" At Large structure, imposed by ICANN, acceptable to defend
user rights and interests?

What election has taken place - anywhere - to demonstrate that the interests
of internet users are represented by the nominees who inhabit this imposed
ICANN structure?

My friends, this is just the Board "at it" again.

In the only genuine poll taken on the At Large structure and the RALOs to
date (through the Icannatlarge organisation) 90% of voters said they did not
trust the ICANN structure, and a big majority wanted an At Large structure
to be developed, not inside ICANN where it was effectively captured, but
outside ICANN with local, national, and regional organisations developed
independent of ICANN, and developed upon the principles of a clear
democratic process.

As I have said before, the RALOs and the whole powerless At Large structure
(which was not asked for) are a means of trying to legitimise those 'reform'
processes which decided to EXPEL the elected representatives of internet
users from the Board. Instead, the At Large is being "contained" within a
mechanism that offers internet users no democracy, no power, and in fact,
just endless process.

Process which the Board can ignore at will.

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: Fw: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00086.html

> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00086.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1607
*************************