Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1633
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, March 15 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1633

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:48:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, at 09:33 [=GMT+0100], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:28:03PM +0100,
>  Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 28 lines which said:
>
> > You are right that the fact that we have to pay to read the ITU texts, is
> > not central in the discussion.
>
> It is central. Because it shows, among other things, that the ITU is
> still the closed and secret bureaucractic and inefficient monster it
> was when it created X400 (and tried to force people to use it).

I think I said something similar, slightly more friendly, in the part of
my message you do not quote.

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:12:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

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

  I agree with Stephane here and believe that most here also do as well
Indeed it does matter greatly that to charge to read the ITU recommendations
is a method of limiting participation, and being somewhat secretive and
closed organization, despite Richard Hill's good attempts here to lobby in the
ITU's behalf to suggest otherwise.  It is also true in what Stephane
proports in that the ITU has no individual members or membership.

  What's even more interesting and I think somewhat missed in these
discussions/lobbying is that ICANN is doing some of the same
things in this regard sense Stuart Lynn's "Reform" effort has been
underway.  Perhaps this is due to the ITU's influence on the GAC,
support from the IPC and BC( AKA Marilyn Cade Constituency)...

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:28:03PM +0100,
>  Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 28 lines which said:
>
> > You are right that the fact that we have to pay to read the ITU texts, is
> > not central in the discussion.
>
> It is central. Because it shows, among other things, that the ITU is
> still the closed and secret bureaucractic and inefficient monster it
> was when it created X400 (and tried to force people to use it).
> --
> 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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:21:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, at 15:06 [=GMT-0500], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
> > recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
> > If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.
>
> That's great, but then how do you pay the electric bill at the end of the
> month?

As Richard Hill pointed out, the ITU does a lot for free. It could also
charge for other things than texts, do with less staff, save on flight
tickets, hotels, coffee, new furniture. And I doubt that the income from
downloaded texts is very high. And the fact that they have to pay their
bills, is a very poor excuse. I am surprised to hear it from you. It
certainly does not justify charging for texts _in particular_.

In fact, charging for texts not to recover costs for printing, as was the
case in the past, but to make some money to pay the bills, shows how
easily organizations like the ITU turn into a tax levying body. The ITU is
not the only (quasi) government body that does this. I see it around me.
Here, in Holland (and elsewhere I would guess), in the past some civil
servant had to type on a typing machine and check whether everything was
copied accurately when one needed a birth certificate. Now they just press
a button and pick it up from the printer, and probably go through all the
trouble of putting a stamp on it. The charge has not gone down.

- -- 
[04] We value you like our close relations.
http://logoff.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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:39:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, at 16:57 [=GMT-0600], Eric Weisberg wrote:

> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >Personally I think that all such texts, whether we call them
> >recommendations or standards, should be freely available on the internet.
> >If only because making them more accessible, makes them more effective.
> >If you take yourself serious, you don't hide what you have to offer.
> >
> >As soon as there is participation of those governed into the governing
> >organization it becomes _imperative_ that all material is accessible.
> >Otherwise it would be most easy to disqualify would-be participants for
> >lack of knowledge. That is precisely what we want to avoid, I would hope.
> >
> >
> I have been following this discussion with some interest.  The issue
> extends beyond proposed and enacted standards
> to include laws and treaties  I represent Peter Veeck in litigation
> currently pending  before
> the US Supreme Court contesting copyright of city ordinances (in our
> case, building codes).  The same arguments
> are being made in our litigation as on this list.  Anyone interested in
> the court filings, etc., may visit Pete's site
> <http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr>

This is a most interesting topic. So far the texts of laws have been free
of copyright, in my country (the Netherlands) in any case. But there are
problems. The state does only publish individual texts and changes. It
does not take care of some up to date full edition with all changes
included. Companies do make the texts accessible. And they don't like
others to reprint their work, or put it on the net. I am afraid that new
European rules tend to favour the position of the publishing companies in
granting protection to some types of compilations.

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:52:11 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 14 March 2003 9:34
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC
> comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)
> 
> 
> It is central. Because it shows, among other things, that the ITU is
> still the closed and secret bureaucractic and inefficient monster it
> was when it created X400 (and tried to force people to use it).

I'm not aware of anything that the ITU did to try to force people to use
X.400.

By the way, PKI is based on X.509, which developed at the same time as
X.400.  I'm not aware of anybody being forced to use X.509.

Best,
Richard

> 
- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 02:27:15 -0800
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: (Fwd) a cctld representative

Dear Peter -- I am not sure I have posting privileges, but I am sure 
you can arrange that.

One important point to remember is that this appointment is just a 
temporary one as required by the Bylaws. The Board's role is merely a 
transition role. The Bylaws call for the ccNSO,  once it is formed, 
to make the regular appointment to the NomCom. And the Bylaws also 
now call for the NomCom to make certain Board appointments. And the 
Board and I must legally follow the Bylaws as they are now written.

I will check today as to whether there is anything (such as implied 
privacy) that inhibits me from sharing the candidate information.

Stuart

At 5:51 PM +1300 3/14/03, [email-masked] wrote:
>     Dear Stuart,
>     I'd prefer this exchange to stay on the public lists, and assume 
>you have no problem
>     with that.
>
>     On 13 Mar 2003 at 18:54, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>     > Dear Peter:
>     >
>     > Thank you for your input.
>
>     > I find it odd that you should think that a board as globally diverse
>     > as is that of ICANN selected Mr. Staley because of his alleged (by
>     > you)  pro-U.S. bias.  I also find it odd that you should consider a
>     > process to be closed and secretive when solicitations and nominations
>     > were openly posted on our website and an email request for suggestions
>     > went to every ccTLD administrator.
>
>     I should be very glad to see the nominations that were made, and 
>what result there
>     was to the solicitations made. Can you point me to where the 
>nominations are
>     listed? Thanks. 
>     > Could it be that Mr. Staley is in fact very well-qualified if you
>     > analyze the requirements for a member of the Nominating Committee?
>     > Independent of his nationality. Or am I perceiving traditional rivalry
>     > between Australia and New Zealand?
>     >
>     I make no coment at all about Mr Staley's suitability. but about 
>the process of
>     appointment.
>
>     > And then again, I did not see any interesting nominations come in from
>     > you or for you. Or from any member of the ccTLD Admin. Or from the
>     > ccTLD Admin collectively.  Did we miss something? I come from a school
>     > that believes that if one does not choose to participate in a process,
>     > one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.
>
>     Yes, you missed something.
>
>     The solicitation read in part:
>     
>     "To the ccTLD community:
>
>        ICANN's reform process has resulted in adoption of a 
>Nominating Committee
>        mechanism for selection of qualified candidates to ICANN's 
>Board of Directors (8
>        seats), the At-Large Advisory Committee (5 seats), and the 
>GNSO Council (3
>        seats). (When the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization 
>is formed, three
>        of its eighteen members will also be selected by the 
>Nominating Committee.)"
>
>     I for one found this final statement breathtakingly arrogant.
>
>     The cctld opposition to having appointments from the Nominating 
>Committee is well
>     publicised and well known. It can be seen, for example in the 
>first statements made
>     in response to the Blueprint in Bucharest, and most recently 
>confirmed at the
>     APTLD AGM by that regional association. An extract from the 
>AGM's statement is
>     pasted below, and has been sent to the Icann reeform site:
>
>     Preliminary Recommendations on ccNSO Council
>    
>3.1.APTLD confirms that the council comprise fifteen voting members
>     being three from each geographical region[1]. The ccTLDs have established
>     regular liaisons with the other ICANN constituencies and SOs and because
>     of our responsibilities to the local Internet communities have taken into
>     account the interests and viewpoints of the wider Internet stakeholders.
>    
>3.2.Should the Board ignore the strong feeling and appoint council
>     members via the Nominating Committee, then natural justice requires that
>     ccTLDs be represented on that committee.
>
>     I understand that at least Centr has also continued with its 
>rejection of this feature.
>
>     How you can be publishing a statement like that in the 
>solicitation, when the issue of
>     the ccSO hangs in the balance simply escapes me.
>
>     We have been led to believe that if the cctlds come to Rio, and 
>debate the report of
>     the assistance group, or the ERC comments on it, that that 
>debate will actually be
>     taken into account in framing any bylaws setting up an SO.
>
>     This statement makes it clear that despite a continuation of 
>unanimous rejection of
>     that principle by the cctlds, at least the Chair of the ERC 
>intends to carry on with a
>     SO which suits him, not the intended members.
>
>     I'd be very interested in your view about this point.
>
>     Do you accept that rejection of this principle by the cctlds 
>meeting in Rio will result
>     in this feature of the Blueprint being removed?
>
>     If not, what is to be gained by debate in the face of 
>pre-determined positions?
>
>     So, you see that the issue of the Nominating Committee rather 
>turns on the issue of
>     the shape of the SO.
>
>     If the cctlds don't like it, and decide in any reasonable 
>numbers not to join ICANN,
>     they have little or no interest in who sits on the Appointments Committee.
>
>     If they do get an SO in a form which they choose to join, they don't need
>     membership of that committee, as it will not be making 
>appointments to their
>     Council, and they see it as inappropriate to have a voice in 
>making appointments to
>     other bodies.
>
>     If there is to be appointments by an appointments committee to 
>the ccSO, ( lets not
>     rule out this, for the sake of argument ) then you can expect to 
>hear from the cc's on
>     what they consider is an appropriate level of membership - one 
>out 19 members
>     strikes us as rather limited.
>
>     So I rather think this uncertainty is behind why you heard 
>nothing from the Adcom
>     and from other cctlds.
>
>
>     > And your statement about obtaining consensus views shows that you do
>     > not understand how the Nominating Committee is supposed to work.
>     > Members are delegates not representatives.
>
>     Probably true -its irrelevance to the possible place for cctlds 
>in ICANN has meant
>     few of us have studied it much. I personally think its a camel of an idea.
>
>      Once appointed, they act in
>     > the way they think best bringing their own broad experiences and
>     > contacts to the table. As far as directors with a representative
>     > flavor are concerned, the ccNSO, once formed, would elect two
>     > Directors.
>     >
>     Which raises another interesting issue. If an SO is formed and 
>only a few countries
>     join, say the few countries who have signed contracts, would 
>those few still be
>     entitled to two board seats? Why?
>     > Cheers -- hope to see you in Rio.
>     >
>     Absolutely. I think organising cctld meetings alongside ICANN's 
>meetings is useful
>     way to exhange ideas, and trust that it continues.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Peter
>     > Stuart
>     >
>     > >------- Forwarded message follows -------
>     > >From:         	Self <[email-masked]>
>     > >To:           	[email-masked], lynn@icann,
>     > >	org
>     > >Subject:      	a cctld representative
>     > >Copies to:    	[email-masked], [email-masked]
>     > >Date sent:    	Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:42:13 +1300
>     > >
>     > >Dear Board,
>     > >I gather the board has appointed a representative to act as the cctld
>     > >representative on the Nominating committee.
>     > >
>     > >The board is to be congratulated. Faced with the huge diversity of
>     > >opinion, geography, legal tradition, ethnicity and language that the
>     > >cctlds represent, which causes we elected officials of cctld
>     > >instituitions so much time and trouble in establishing consensus
>     > >positions on key matters, the board has been able, by a secret
>     > >process, to appoint a white, middle- aged male, from a country with
>     > >an Anglo-Saxon based linguistic and legal tradition closely similar
>     > >to that of the US.
>     > >
>     > >Of course, the board is also entirely justified in selecting someone
>     > >from one of the very few countries to actually sign a contract with
>     > >ICANN.
>     > >
>     > >Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest
>     > >that such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the
>     > >board will be able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact
>     > >that Australia is one of the few countries in the world supporting
>     > >the current US approach to honouring UN resolutions, or that the next
>     > >Chair of ICANN is from Australia, or that Australia's long term
>     > >support of the GAC has anything to do with this appointment.
>     > >
>     > >All of these answers will no doubt ring with the authenticity of a
>     > >board devoted to the principles of open and transparent process, and
>     > >with an eye to persuading the cctlds that ICANN is an organisation
>     > >which they should join.
>     > >
>     > >I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be
>     > >provided with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out
>     > >the function. Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and
>     > >consultative process will be adopted, as a result of which cctlds
>     > >will be told what their representative has done.
>     > >
>     > >My regards
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >Peter Dengate Thrush
>     > >
>     > >------- End of forwarded message -------
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > __________________
>     > Stuart Lynn
>     > President and CEO
>     > ICANN
>     > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>     > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>     > Tel: 310-823-9358
>     > Fax: 310-823-8649
>     > Email: [email-masked]

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:05:42 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a cctld representative

Karl,

You are indeed fortunate.  According to what I can determine, mine 
landed in my e-mail inbox about 3 minutes later (local time EST), 
probably because my name begins with the letter "S".  I had less than 
 two minutes of meaningful public commentary available to me.  And I had 
not brewed any coffee yet..

Karl Auerbach wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>  
>
>>I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be provided 
>>with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out the function. 
>>Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and  consultative process will 
>>be adopted, as a result of which cctlds will be told what their 
>>representative has done. 
>>    
>>
>
>Well, I first heard the name of Mr. Staley in an email that landed in my
>e-mail inbox at 4:54am PST on the morning of March 12.  The board meeting
>in which that person was selected from among a slate consisting of two
>candidates, started about six minutes later, at 5am PST.
>
>6 minutes. 
>
>6 minutes for meaningful public commentary, for a bottom-up, transparent, 
>consultative process.  Yup, six minutes.
>
>		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>  
>

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:01:13 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comments on  proposed Bylaws modifications)

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> ...Companies do make the texts accessible. And they don't like
> others to reprint their work, or put it on the net. I am afraid that new
> European rules tend to favour the position of the publishing companies in
> granting protection to some types of compilations.

That is and will remain the case in the US, even if our challenge ultimately prevails
(i.e. if the en banc decision of the 5th Cir. Court of Appeals is not overturned by the S. Ct.).

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:04:42 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On 09:33 14/03/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
> > You are right that the fact that we have to pay to read the ITU texts, is
> > not central in the discussion.
>
>It is central. Because it shows, among other things, that the ITU is
>still the closed and secret bureaucractic and inefficient monster it
>was when it created X400 (and tried to force people to use it).

As far as I known it CCITT was not a monster. X.400 as you know
introduced/stabilized key network features. X.500 was the monster.
I always wandered who was the mad guy who proposed it :-)

X.7X series were nice work. No spam in those days. Had you
been there you would certainly have enjoyed working in there:
people were nice, efficient and polite. People like Larry Roberts
and Barry Wesler, were welcome, etc. Everyone known everything
to the minute ... yellow pages all over the place.

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:20:33 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

Without any fanfare, ICANN Staff has launched alac.icann.org as the website 
for the At-Large Community.  Apparently, this must have been approved by the 
toadies on the At-Large Advisory Committee (and what else could you possibly 
expect from those all-too-eager to lick the boots of the ICANN Board and 
Staff?), but there seems to be no record of such a decision on the ALAC 
discussion list.

As a variant on the defunct members.icann.org website, we are now graciously 
provided with a "background" on the ALAC which conveniently fails to mention 
that the ALAC only exists because ICANN, after lying to the At-Large 
community for years, has finally eliminated all public representation on its 
board (along with crushing dissent in the General Assembly by eliminating its 
democratic structures).  

In the event that we should want to write to the ALAC, we are provided with a 
convenient mailing address that routes the mail to the ICANN staff so that 
they can decide whether the correspondence warrants being forwarded to the 
Committee's discussion list.

Most amusing is the comment on the website that "ICANN... will rely on the 
ALAC and its supporting infrastructure to involve and << represent >> in 
ICANN a broad set of individual user interests.  

Will the members of the ALAC ever demonstrate any backbone and put up their 
own website independent of ICANN Staff control?  Don't count on it.  Sham 
institutions populated by Board-appointed "representives" are now the 
hallmark of the ICANN process.  

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:53:42 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:20:33PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> Without any fanfare, ICANN Staff has launched alac.icann.org as the
> website for the At-Large Community.
[unnecessary inflamatory rhetoric deleted]

ALAC stands for "At-Large Advisory Committee", not "At-Large Community". 
As I understand it, the ALAC is the interface between ICANN and the
At-Large, and consequently, if there wasn't an ICANN web site for the
ALAC, you most certainly would be complaining bitterly about it. 
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the "At-Large
Community", or portions of it, from forming one or more websites of
their own, and I'm sure that they will. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:13:34 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

Kent,

Thanks for the clarification.  Maybe next time the Board will think of 
designating a more appropriate name for such "interfaces" ... perhaps the 
"Assistance For Users Committee" -- that way we could all readily relate to 
the acronym AFUC which more appropriately describes ICANN Board actions 
relative to the At-Large.
- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:18:51 +0000
From: Nigel Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [cctld-discuss] a cctld representative

Dr Eberhard W. Lisse wrote:
> Dear Board,
> 
> for all it is worth, that man is not representing .NA, and any
> candidate nominated by a committee of which he is a member is not be
> accepteable to .NA.
> 
> el

Let's use English correctly. This "Nominating Commitee" should properly
be terms "Appointments Committee", since it will appoint ICANN Board Members
subject to ratification by the existing Board, who will have a veto
on the "nominations".

The day such a system of self-appointment may seen to work is when gives an
equal chance at "nomination" to people like Karl Auerbach, Willie Black (UK)
or even Eberhard Lisse (.NA) as ICANN Board Members.

Nigel Roberts

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:08:24 -0500
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [cctld-discuss] a cctld representative

> "Similarly, the board will be able to ridicule any who were to suggest
> that the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the world
> supporting the current US approach to honouring UN resolutions...... has
> anything to do with this appointment."
> 
> Well, frankly, that comment is deserving of ridicule.

nice to hear from austrialia.  you should be embarrassed, but it's
clear it's not in your vocabulary.

randy

- --
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:04:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [cctld-discuss] a cctld representative

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

  Thank you Nigel for you very accurate correction.  Well done!

Nigel Roberts wrote:

> Dr Eberhard W. Lisse wrote:
> > Dear Board,
> >
> > for all it is worth, that man is not representing .NA, and any
> > candidate nominated by a committee of which he is a member is not be
> > accepteable to .NA.
> >
> > el
>
> Let's use English correctly. This "Nominating Commitee" should properly
> be terms "Appointments Committee", since it will appoint ICANN Board Members
> subject to ratification by the existing Board, who will have a veto
> on the "nominations".
>
> The day such a system of self-appointment may seen to work is when gives an
> equal chance at "nomination" to people like Karl Auerbach, Willie Black (UK)
> or even Eberhard Lisse (.NA) as ICANN Board Members.
>
> Nigel Roberts
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:35:05 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

Excellent summary - says it all

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:20 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

> Without any fanfare, ICANN Staff has launched alac.icann.org as the
website
> for the At-Large Community.  Apparently, this must have been approved by
the
> toadies on the At-Large Advisory Committee (and what else could you
possibly
> expect from those all-too-eager to lick the boots of the ICANN Board and
> Staff?), but there seems to be no record of such a decision on the ALAC
> discussion list.
>
> As a variant on the defunct members.icann.org website, we are now
graciously
> provided with a "background" on the ALAC which conveniently fails to
mention
> that the ALAC only exists because ICANN, after lying to the At-Large
> community for years, has finally eliminated all public representation on
its
> board (along with crushing dissent in the General Assembly by eliminating
its
> democratic structures).
>
> In the event that we should want to write to the ALAC, we are provided
with a
> convenient mailing address that routes the mail to the ICANN staff so that
> they can decide whether the correspondence warrants being forwarded to the
> Committee's discussion list.
>
> Most amusing is the comment on the website that "ICANN... will rely on the
> ALAC and its supporting infrastructure to involve and << represent >> in
> ICANN a broad set of individual user interests.
>
> Will the members of the ALAC ever demonstrate any backbone and put up
their
> own website independent of ICANN Staff control?  Don't count on it.  Sham
> institutions populated by Board-appointed "representives" are now the
> hallmark of the ICANN process.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:40:01 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

Yes! ALAC is the *interface* between ICANN and the real At Large. It is an
imposed *interface*. The more *interfaces* ICANN puts between itself and the
democratic self-determination of the real At Large of ordinary internet
users, the better, from ICANN's point of view!

That's the whole game, isn't it?

Keep the people at arm's length. Keep democracy at a distance. Keep critics
at a distance. Create *interfaces* filled with appointed individuals.

Danny is absolutely right.

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:20:33PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> > Without any fanfare, ICANN Staff has launched alac.icann.org as the
> > website for the At-Large Community.
> [unnecessary inflamatory rhetoric deleted]
>
> ALAC stands for "At-Large Advisory Committee", not "At-Large Community".
> As I understand it, the ALAC is the interface between ICANN and the
> At-Large, and consequently, if there wasn't an ICANN web site for the
> ALAC, you most certainly would be complaining bitterly about it.
> Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the "At-Large
> Community", or portions of it, from forming one or more websites of
> their own, and I'm sure that they will.
>
> Kent
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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, 15 Mar 2003 09:22:56 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Staff's at-large website

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:20:33 EST, you wrote:

>Without any fanfare, ICANN Staff has launched alac.icann.org as the website 
>for the At-Large Community.  Apparently, this must have been approved by the 
>toadies on the At-Large Advisory Committee (and what else could you possibly 
>expect from those all-too-eager to lick the boots of the ICANN Board and 
>Staff?), but there seems to be no record of such a decision on the ALAC 
>discussion list.

The Committee has not approved any rules or procedures for management
of its website yet. This will be an item of discussion during our Rio
meeting next week. Personally, I think that the Committee should
review and approve the content of its website before it goes live -
something that has not happened in this case, but I am confident will
happen in the future.
- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1633
*************************