Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1675
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 24 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1675

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:52:54 -0500
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

- --------------17AB07B98B1EE7E3E395CA5E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position that
> > privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...
>
> However section 6330 of the California corporations code - ICANN *is* a
> California corporation - requires that "members" have the right to
> "Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and
> voting rights..."
>
> (See
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6330-6338

You might also consider whether Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105, 109 (9th
Cir. 1992) applies.

     Cal-Almond argues that there is a First Amendment right of access to voter lists.  See
     generally
     Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986)
     (Press-Enterprise
     II).  In considering claims of First Amendment access a court  must look to two
     considerations: (1) whether
     historical experience counsels in favor of public access, and (2) whether public access
     would play a "significant
     positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id. at 8, 106 S.Ct.
     at 2740; Times Mirror Co.
     v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1989).  It seems likely that a tradition of
     public access to voter lists exists.

- --------------17AB07B98B1EE7E3E395CA5E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Karl Auerbach wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School
of Law wrote:
<p>> the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position
that
<br>> privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...
<p>However section 6330 of the California corporations code - ICANN *is*
a
<br>California corporation - requires that "members" have the right to
<br>"Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and
<br>voting rights..."
<p>(See
<br><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6330-6338">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&amp;group=06001-07000&amp;file=6330-6338</a></blockquote>
You might also consider whether <i>Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture,</i>
960 F.2d 105, 109 (9th Cir. 1992) applies.
<blockquote>Cal-Almond argues that there is a First Amendment right of
access to voter lists.&nbsp; See generally
<br>Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735,
92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise
<br>II).&nbsp; In considering claims of First Amendment access a court&nbsp;
must look to two considerations: (1) whether
<br>historical experience counsels in favor of public access, and (2) whether
public access would play a "significant
<br>positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."
Id. at 8, 106 S.Ct. at 2740; Times Mirror Co.
<br>v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1989).&nbsp; It seems
likely that a tradition of public access to voter lists exists.</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------17AB07B98B1EE7E3E395CA5E--

- --
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, 23 Apr 2003 23:14:34 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

This is just Denise scrabbling about desperately for credibility!

ALAC has been appointed top down. ICANN want to kick out the Board Members
who have actually been elected by a democratic process. Has Denise ever been
elected to represent individual users? Has Esther been elected to represent
individual users?

This is an ICANN initiative, imposed top down, and being marketed to DoC as
a user initiative. The credibility just isn't there. Indeed, individual
users are among ALAC's most vociferous critics.

So ... um ... rake out that old e-mail list!

This is just really amateurish.

Richard H

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
To: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Cc: Denise Michel <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 8:21 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

> the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position that
> privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
> > bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it does not
in
> > fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
> > number?
> >
> > Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than have
actually
> > participated in the At Large debate since the end of the Elections in
2000.
> > Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
> > constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices. Even
serious
> > lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists failed
to
> > raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time on any
list.
> > So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?
> >
> > In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large, each grown
from
> > the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
> > people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
> > verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these lists
multiple
> > times using different names and email addresses. What steps are ICANN
Staff
> > taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?
> >
> > Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
> > matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the
opportunity to
> > vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic foundations,
viewed
> > as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
> > venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not ongoing from
the
> > At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
> > founded in democratic principles.
> >
> > Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000 and
subtract
> > the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
> > would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
> > participation over the last 3 years.
> >
> > For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-
> >
> > 1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
> > 2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
> > numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more than 1
year
> > ago.
> > 3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
> > ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the leadership
of
> > Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
> > remain active today.
> >
> > By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [ga] 6000+ names
> > >
> > >
> > > Just posted:
> > >
> > > ICANN's technical staff is working on combining past At-Large announce
> > > lists (with 6000 + names) for the ALAC's use and an announce list
> > > subscribe/un-subscribe mechanism for the ALAC's website.  I expect
this
> > > to be operational very soon.
> > >
> > > Denise
> > >
> > > http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00189.html
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 warm 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: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:04:35 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

At 06:01 a.m. 24/04/2003, Joanna Lane wrote:

>1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
>2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
>numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more than 1 year
>ago.

How did you know the number of subscribers to the ALSC announce list?

>3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
>ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the leadership of
>Denise Michel.

Updated information on the funding of icannatlarge.com can be found here: 
www.icannatlarge.com/funding.php

The initial funding was advanced by Pindar Wong, who would be offended to 
be called ICANN staff and another $1000 was armtwisted out of Esther Dyson, 
(who was not staff either) after she announced that she had $10.000 set 
aside for the At Large organizing.

Denise Michel was then appointed by Esther  and put on the ICANN/ALAC 
payroll well after the icannatlarge.com effort had been started in February 
2002, clearly in an attempt to do an end-run around  icannatlarge.

>Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
>remain active today.

Around 137 icannatlarge.com members have voted in recent polls and can be 
considered active.
Around a 1020 working addresses are on its announce list.

>By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.

The publicly signed-up members of icannatlarge should not be confused with 
the unknown 6000 people on Denise Michel's announce list.

- -joop-

- --
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, 23 Apr 2003 19:41:24 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

Then contrary to the political spin, "Joe Public" (the user) will actually
be outnumbered by something along the lines of 5:1 by internet professionals
such as yourself.

However, there's no ambiguity in Denise Michel's statement "ICANN's
technical staff is working on combining past At-Large announce lists (with
6000 + names)". That's a claim to 6000+ non existent Joe Publics, so they
must be rallied from sleepers and/ or internet professionals, either way I
do not really care, the result is likely the same.  Overwhelming domination
of the At Large by internet professionals already represented within the
process, reducing ICANN to the level of a Trade Body.

Regards,
Joanna

 From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:41 PM
> Dear Joanna,
> I am afraid you are not yet accustomed to the ICANN ways .... ICANN has
> called upon existing groups to join. If you add the GA, the different
> constituencies, the different press people wanting to be informed
> that way,
> etc. you will probably get a total of 2000 addresses. If you add all the
> people which at a time or another have sent a mail to ICANN or to
> Denise in
> scanning the archives, you will probably het another 1500. Then
> add all the
> ISOC addresses they have obtained or which will redirect them. You will
> probably get 5750, what they are entitled to quote as 6000+ soon.
> jfc
>
>
> On 20:01 23/04/03, Joanna Lane said:
>
> >ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
> >bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it
> does not in
> >fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
> >number?
> >
> >Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than have actually
> >participated in the At Large debate since the end of the
> Elections in 2000.
> >Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
> >constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices.
> Even serious
> >lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists failed to
> >raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time
> on any list.
> >So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?
> >
> >In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large, each
> grown from
> >the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
> >people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
> >verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these
> lists multiple
> >times using different names and email addresses. What steps are
> ICANN Staff
> >taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?
> >
> >Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
> >matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the
> opportunity to
> >vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic
> foundations, viewed
> >as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
> >venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not
> ongoing from the
> >At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
> >founded in democratic principles.
> >
> >Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000
> and subtract
> >the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
> >would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
> >participation over the last 3 years.
> >
> >For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-
> >
> >1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
> >2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
> >numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more
> than 1 year
> >ago.
> >3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
> >ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the
> leadership of
> >Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
> >remain active today.
> >
> >By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Joanna
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [ga] 6000+ names
> > >
> > >
> > > Just posted:
> > >
> > > ICANN's technical staff is working on combining past At-Large announce
> > > lists (with 6000 + names) for the ALAC's use and an announce list
> > > subscribe/un-subscribe mechanism for the ALAC's website.  I
> expect this
> > > to be operational very soon.
> > >
> > > Denise
> > >
> > > http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00189.html
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/03
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:04:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, at 14:41 [=GMT-0400], Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Spoken as a CIRA member and Canadian citizen. Sorry Danny, my "role" in
> the CCSO continues no matter whom I work for - buy a .ca name - you
> might like what you get. I got a say.

Do you still accept immigrants in Canada? You've convinced me it is the
best country in the world. And the Name! One that you can whisper, unlike
EU or US. Lots of Space there, right?

Seriously, I do not disagree with you, but there is more to it. Just
imagine you would get through CIRA and the CCNSO unto the ICANN Board. You
won't get money for that. So you can't quit Tucows.

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:15:56 +1200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

On 23 Apr 2003 at 13:34, [email-masked] wrote:

> With the issuance of the ERC's Fifth Supplemental Implementation
> Report we are moving a step closer toward discarding all pretense
> about the true nature of ICANN -- the organization is evolving into a
> true Cartel with a brand new trade association for ccTLD
> administrators (the ccNSO) . 
> 
Depends on what you mean by a "trade Association"

> No longer are other constituent groups entitled to be members of a
> Supporting Organization in the reformed ICANN -- this SO will consist
> only of ccTLD managers.
> 
Which is something I and others have fought hard for since we began this process 
in Marina del Rey in 2000

In fact, the ERC proposal does not meet the cctld requirements - clearly visible and 
explained to the ERC and the board of ICANN (see 
http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html) in that the ERC in this 
proposal still seeks to impose, in classic top down fashion, 3 voting councillors.

This would be acceptable only if cctlds had a balanced membership on the 
Appointments committee, rather than the one out of 21 or so voting members. Even 
one of the user constituencies of the GNSO gets 2 votes, yet the 242 territorial 
entities get only one... This may yet be subject to an amendment, but don't hold 
your breath.

> Step-by-step the rights of user communities are being eradicated
> within ICANN.  It began with the elimination of At-Large directors, it
> continued with the elimination of the democratic mechanisms of the
> DNSO General Assembly, it next proceeded with enhanced voting rights
> for GNSO "suppliers", and it now manifests itself in a new SO that
> relegates user constituencies to the sidelines.

This just not so in relation the proposed ccSO. Almost all cctld registries ( and all 
the large ones taking part in this process) are subject to national policy making 
controls, involving a varied mix of governmental and private sector input: Canada 
has CIRA, New Zealand has InternetNZ, Nominet has a Policy advisory 
board.....That is where the interests of cctld user constituencies are already 
provided for -in the balance of domestic interests. That's where isues of domestic 
law, such as IP rights, privacy, whois and other matters are also dealt with.

ccTLDs are not prepared to go thru the expensive, time consuming balancing of all 
those interests in the development of national policies, that meet the needs of their 
Local Internet Communities, only to have them re-litigated in another forum not 
responsible for such matters.

For that reason, the cc's have limted the power of their SO to make binding policy 
only in relation to entries in the IANA data base. 

Hard to see what global user issue that affects.

Having said that, I have also worked to ensure that a cctld SO has functioning 
liason with other parts of the ICANN structure, and expect this to continue.

If there are actual issues of interest to a global user community, and that are 
properly discussed in a global, rather than a domestic forum, I would welcome them 
and their proponents at our SO meetings and on lists set up to discuss them.

It remains to be seen what the final form of an SO will look like, and whether 
enough cctlds will join to pass the activation threshold (curently 20: 4 from each of 
the 5 regions). In any event, I think you can assume that the only format will be one 
in which the voting members will be the cctlds, representing the policy making of 
their LIC's including governments.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair, APTLD
ccTLD Adcom 

- --
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, 23 Apr 2003 20:51:36 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

Joop Teernstra Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:05 PM

> >3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
> >ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the
> leadership of
> >Denise Michel.
>
> Updated information on the funding of icannatlarge.com can be found here:
> www.icannatlarge.com/funding.php
>
> The initial funding was advanced by Pindar Wong, who would be offended to
> be called ICANN staff ......

You are right about Pindar, whom I believe acted with the best of intentions
and used personal funds. No offense intended.

and another $1000 was armtwisted out of
> Esther Dyson,
> (who was not staff either) after she announced that she had $10.000 set
> aside for the At Large organizing.

No. Esther used ALSC surplus funding to secure Denise Michel in a key
position to control the At Large, which she did first by heading up
Icannatlarge.com, later shifting the emphasis to Kent Crispin's operation
at-large.org once that was up and running. There was no arm twisting. It was
Staff approved, if not instigated.
>
> Denise Michel was then appointed by Esther

No. Esther wanted Alexander Svennsson. Denise was Stuart Lynn's choice. She
answered directly to him and from the outset, worked under contract with
ICANN as a member of Staff.

  and put on the ICANN/ALAC
> payroll well after the icannatlarge.com effort had been started
> in February
> 2002, clearly in an attempt to do an end-run around  icannatlarge.

No. See above. The end run was planned much earlier. ICANN manipulates
proactively, not reactively.

> The publicly signed-up members of icannatlarge should not be
> confused with
> the unknown 6000 people on Denise Michel's announce list.

If ICANN were really serious about the At Large, which it is not, then an
OUTREACH POLICY to foster fresh blood for a thriving user community would
have been adopted already. The absence of funding for the At Large, (save
executive expense accounts for internet professionals to travel the 5 star
hotels), speaks volumes about the willingness of other stakeholder groups to
unreservedly include real representatives of the user community in its key
decision making processes. Clearly, this is a not an option that is
available to the genuine At Large community, and probably never was. But
what it leaves behind, is the difficult task of filling in for insufficient
At Large members with zero incentives to hand to attract the numbers in
foreseeable future.

In effect, ICANN Reform of the At Large has reduced it to the rather
questionable level of claiming the members of other groups as its own, which
nicely muddies the waters on which to build a facade.

Regards,
Joanna

>
> -joop-
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, at 12:15 [=GMT+1200], [email-masked] wrote:

> ccTLDs are not prepared to go thru the expensive, time consuming balancing of all
> those interests in the development of national policies, that meet the needs of their
> Local Internet Communities, only to have them re-litigated in another forum not
> responsible for such matters.
>
> For that reason, the cc's have limted the power of their SO to make binding policy
> only in relation to entries in the IANA data base.

Question: What does this mean on a practical level? That the CCNSO decides
which is a country?

> Hard to see what global user issue that affects.

- --
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, 23 Apr 2003 21:36:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My comment - Was Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Karl and all fellow members or other interested parties,

  Excellent comments, remarks and suggestions here Karl.

  We {INEGroup] as you know have been on record for some time
as  to transparency and openness as well that is equitable to any
and all Stakeholders/users or Interested parties as laid out in the
original MoU as well at the White Paper.  Hence you last suggestion
is well taken.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > ...and the things we still have to do (such as getting
> > the archival of comments up and running).
>
> Because the apparently is no place for people to view the comments, here's
> what I sent in...
>
>                 --karl--
>
> This message contains various items, all of which concern the "Proposed
> Criteria and Accreditation Process for At-Large Structures, and Proposed
> Guidelines for Regional At-Large Organizations' (RALOs) Memorandum of
> Understanding (MOU) with ICANN Draft for Public Comment 9 April 2003".
>
> First: Where is the public posting of the comments?  It appears that it
> has not been established.
>
> Without there being public posting of comments *while* the discussion
> period is open there is no ability for the development of ideas through
> the exchange of ideas.  Without the public being able to see the postings
> as they occur the whole idea of informed public comment is crippled, if
> not rendered a mockery.
>
> Second: The first point under "Proposed minimum criteria for an At-Large
> Structure (ALS)" says "...relates to ICANN's technical management
> responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system..."
>
> I find this linkage of an ALS to "technical" matters to be disingenuous -
> ICANN rarely, if ever, deals with technical matters.  ICANN is primarily a
> body that deals with legal, social, economic, and business regulatory
> matters that have no meaningful relationship to any technical matter
> whatsoever.
>
> None of ICANN's other "stakeholders" are obligated to demonstrate that
> their concerns or representative organizations arise out of a technical
> foundation.  This completely artifical limitation of a "technical"
> relationship should not be imposed on those of the internet community or
> upon any organizations they chose to represent their views.
>
> Third:  Worthy as many of the criteria are (such as the requirement that
> ALS's disclose funding to reveal any conflicts), no similar criteria are
> imposed on ICANN's other "stakeholders".  Unless and until such criteria
> are imposed equally on all other ICANN "stakeholders" and their
> constituent organizations it is unfair to impose these conditions on those
> in the internet community or upon any organizations they chose to
> represent their views.
>
>                 --karl--
>                 Karl Auerbach
>                 Elected Director for North America
>                 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>                 (ICANN)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+pkyD1vJeUn0EFVoRAk4LAJ9C7Ntnyq3remwSaZ0urei4Ie8LRgCfYJtq
> oKXspAR+U3NVwCKBMULqUbI=
> =+J1k
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:45:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] So where's the ALAC comments archive?

As a general rule, whenever ICANN posts a Request for Comments on a major 
topic of interest it is usually only a matter of a few days until a comments 
archive is established.  When the Whois Accuracy and Bulk Access Discussion 
Paper was released, it took only three days to have the comments archive up 
and running.  But here we are still waiting for the creation of a comments 
archive for the ALAC.

The ALAC has been soliciting comments with the [email-masked] 
address since Feb. 19 -- so why is there no comment archive ready yet?  The 
only answer we have is the following explanation from Denise Michel:  

"The intention is for the ALAC to have a sorted, indexed public comment forum
on its website -- the beginnings of which are already there. The idea is to
build upon past public comment mechanisms to foster a productive,
substantive public discourse for At-Large issues.  It is not yet fully
operational due to the complexities of off-site access to the website's
server (and security issues)."  
http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00196.html

One has to wonder why special provisions need to be made for off-site access, 
who will be granted such access, and more importantly why the At-Large 
continues to be put through all these extra hoops...  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:50:50 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

Dear Peter,
I am afraid you only forget one small thing: ccTLDs carry quite no 
investment, are of quite no use and only waste our small money either to 
protect us from ICANN and to permit ICANN to try to bluff our Govs.

You job is to support concertation (in a dominance situation to protect us 
from that dominance).
- - is there a single ccTLD entrepreneur with a new economical model? no.. .
- - was is a single ccTLD at the IETF WG-IDN to make IDNA workable for 
ccTLDs? no.
- - has a single ccTLD devised and started a new service to the users? no.
Your only job is to protect us and innovation from the consequences of 47 
USC 230 (f)(1).

You will only deliver if ...

On 02:15 24/04/03, [email-masked] said:

>On 23 Apr 2003 at 13:34, [email-masked] wrote:
>If there are actual issues of interest to a global user community, and 
>that are
>properly discussed in a global, rather than a domestic forum, I would 
>welcome them
>and their proponents at our SO meetings and on lists set up to discuss them.

... you ally with entrepreneurs, engineers, prohect developers to build 
that global forum.

Let be realistic. International initiatives of some magintude can only be 
non-profit, international, large; innovation oriented ONGs, powerfull 
enough to resist the stakeholders blockade. We can set them up easily. But 
we need your help and our conceration.

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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:59:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Danny Younger lack of good memory? - was: Re: JW on transparency and openness

Danny and all former DNSO GA members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff, regarding your comment on the GA list:
>
> "We {INEGroup] as you know have been on record for some time
> as  to transparency and openness as well that is equitable to any
> and all Stakeholders/users or Interested parties as laid out in the
> original MoU as well at the White Paper.  Hence you last suggestion
> is well taken."
>
> If INEGroup is indeed a proponent of openness and transparency, then I
> suppose we can all look forward to the publication of the INEGroup roster of
> members.

  Been done already Danny.  It is available to anyone. Always has been
as you already know, and I have stated as spokesman for INEGroup
on a number of occasions on this an other forums. All that is needed
is an FOIA request to the FEC as you already know, to retrieve
that data if you should so choose that method...  As far as posting
the whole membership list to this or any other Mailing list forum, that
is not
possible as there are too many members to do that with without violating
the
list rules of this forum, and exceeds my E-Mail limit of 32k.

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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Danny Younger lack of good memory? - was: Re: JW on transparency and openness

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> that data if you should so choose that method...  As far as posting
> the whole membership list to this or any other Mailing list forum,
> that
> is not
> possible as there are too many members to do that with without
> violating
> the
> list rules of this forum, and exceeds my E-Mail limit of 32k.

Plonk!

Is there a way, under the Rules of this list, to remove "Jeff"
permanently, given the constant phony references to his "INEGroup" with
100,000+ members? If a call for votes is all that's necessary, is there
a seconder?

From: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

there is mention of "a minimum of decorum", with 2 examples provided,
but I'm certain they are not meant to be exhaustive. Constant
references to phony organizations, in my view, does not meet that
decorum standard. And furthermore at:

http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html

it mentions that one of the 2 main principles of the list is:

"the respect of participants is mandatory"

Constant references to a phony organization shows a great disrespect to
the legitimate participants of this list.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1675
*************************