Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1676
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, April 25 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1676

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:02:07 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

Dear Peter,

Nice and pricise answers. Its amazing that some people out there still think
(and maybe even believes) that a sovereign country would ever allow policies
developed by "foreigners" put on their infrastructure against their will.

Regards
Per
CEO
DK Hostmaster A/S

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cctld-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss
>

- --
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 09:39:03 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

It is clear that they intent to use the GA list because other lists as
mentioned are out of date and closed which in this day and age means
that they are worthless.

The use of email addresses collected from other then direct subscription
for any form of announcement made by others then the list "owner" on
topics not directly related to that list are most likely spam, perhaps
some of the lawyers on this list can explain this somewhat better. 
The use of email addresses without permission of the owner is as far as
I know illegal and the disclosure of the membership of those lists to
any 3de party imo a breach of privacy rules as they exist in California.

Usage of any list other the ALAC list to which people willingly
subscribed is therefore in my opinion illegal and at best immoral and my
wondering is whether if this usage takes place there is room for a
law-suit against ICANN.

Regards

Abel

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard
Henderson
Sent: 23 April 2003 23:15
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Joanna Lane
Cc: Denise Michel; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[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

- --
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 13:19:26 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

You may not remember that before they revamped the BC site (or may be 
still) the DNSO/BC claimed to represent 18.000 Members through the members 
of their Members.

I think that if you add all the members of the organizations that are 
listed on the ALAC site, you will find a number of 6000+ realistic. What 
may be more complex willbe ofr them to know if the names are or not 
duplicated (people using several addresses). The real question we have is: 
is this 6000+ list an unique list under the control of ICANN or a meta-list 
gathering the ALAC members lists.

We will soon know in seeing if we receive (and how many times) mails from 
Vittorio (BTW I cleaned he icannatlarge.com one: I do hope that its members 
are not listed as such on the ALAC list).

jfc

At 10:39 24/04/03, Abel Wisman wrote:

>It is clear that they intent to use the GA list because other lists as
>mentioned are out of date and closed which in this day and age means
>that they are worthless.
>
>The use of email addresses collected from other then direct subscription
>for any form of announcement made by others then the list "owner" on
>topics not directly related to that list are most likely spam, perhaps
>some of the lawyers on this list can explain this somewhat better.
>The use of email addresses without permission of the owner is as far as
>I know illegal and the disclosure of the membership of those lists to
>any 3de party imo a breach of privacy rules as they exist in California.
>
>Usage of any list other the ALAC list to which people willingly
>subscribed is therefore in my opinion illegal and at best immoral and my
>wondering is whether if this usage takes place there is room for a
>law-suit against ICANN.
>
>Regards
>
>
>Abel
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard
>Henderson
>Sent: 23 April 2003 23:15
>To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Joanna Lane
>Cc: Denise Michel; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[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
>
>--
>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: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 18/04/03

- --
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 07:56:45 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Do the math...$250,000 per person per year...Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

> Danny - We have (and I am sure you have) seen this coming for a long time. 
> 
> ICANN is nothing more than a monopoly supporting organization that uses the
> excuse that the namespace needs "regulation" as a pretense for shutting other
> TLD operators out of their monopolistic cartel.
> 

The equation is very simple, just take the gross revenue and divide by $250,000 and that equals
the number of "staff members" the organization is able to pay to occupy desks (which they rarely use).
You can not fault people for taking those positions and playing the role in the Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) empire.

Do the math...
If a TLD like .ORG has 3,000,000 names at $6 per name per year, then, that is $18,000,000.
Divide $18,000,000 by $250,000 and you get 72...the count of the number of people "on the staff".
You then have to make up 72 titles, divide those people into paper-tiger groups, and pay them to watch the paint
dry and to travel around the world all year to parties and galas. Those people will then sing the praises of
"the community" that donates the $6 per name, per year, to fund their lifestyles.

Those 72 people then pay about 1/3 of their $250,000 to the U.S. Government which amounts to about $80,000
per year. Each group of 3 people then fund ONE U.S. Government employee to also have a title and a desk
(which they rarely use). Those U.S. Government employees then sing the praises of the 3 people who fund them.
The 3 people of course sing the praises of the one U.S. Government employee who writes their contracts. The
72 people fund 24 U.S. Government employees, who also travel all year and show up at the parties and galas.
You now have 96 people who sing the praises of "the community" that funds them.

If a TLD only attracts 1,000,000 owners, then you divide the 96 by 3 and the result is 32 people,
which is 24 "staff" and 8 U.S. Government (or GAC) employees to endorse that "staff".

If those 32 people did not have a vested interest in protecting their $250,000 annual compensation,
then, free market forces show that most TLDs would attract about 50,000 owners. At $6 per name per
year, that is $300,000 per TLD, which is only enough to fund one person and part of a GAC person.
Fractional people do not function, and one person singing the praises of the community to fund them does
not sell. Therefore, only the TLDs with at least 1,000,000 supporters are interesting to the people who
live off the community that funds them and the governments that endorse them.

Behind the scenes is of course the Address Space Leasing business. At $12,565 per /8 per year, a so-called
RIR, can live like royalty, because they can then break that /8 up into 256 blocks which each have 65,536
addresses which are leased by ISPs for $10 per month. $655,360 per month for a $12,565 per year fee.
That $655,360 can fund about 2 people per month or 24 people on an annual basis. Toss in 8 GAC people
and you are back to the 32-person (per /8) critical mass to launch a so-called RIR. Those 32 people will of
course sing the praises of "the community" that supports them.

http://aso.icann.org/meetings/ac/ac-20030402.html
As long as people use the 0:0 .ARPA address space, they will be subject to...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg09193.html
ICANN SUPPORT $188,480.00
=================
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
063/8   Apr 97   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net) 
064/8   Jul 99   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net) 
065/8   Jul 00   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
066/8   Jul 00   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
067/8   May 01   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
068/8   Jun 01   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
069/8   Aug 02   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
199/8   May 93   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
204/8   Mar 94   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
205/8   Mar 94   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
206/8   Apr 95   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
207/8   Nov 95   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
208/8   Apr 96   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
209/8   Jun 96   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
216/8   Apr 98   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
===========================================
$188,480 / 15 = $12,565 per /8 per year....?

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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 20:24:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] To the ALAC members

Dear ALAC members (who still don't have your e-mail contact addresses posted 
on the ALAC website),

I have some questions regarding the following message I received from Denise 
Michel:

The ALAC is instituting a publicly archived forum.  If you would like your
comments to be posted on the ALAC's website, please re-send them to
<[email-masked]>.  We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate
your patience as the ALAC works with ICANN to make its website, forum, and
other communication mechanisms fully operational.

Denise Michel
[email-masked]
http://alac.icann.org/

1.  What is the URL for the forum?  -- it doesn't seem to be published 
anywhere
2.  By the way, your website states:  "Welcome to the ALAC Public Comment 
Forum. This page is under construction, but will be operational after the 
ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro, March 23-27 2003."  It's already been a 
month since Rio, is this the type of performance we can continue to expect 
from your group?
3.  Can you explain why should I have to re-submit my comments to another 
address?  I already know that Denise received them, didn't you receive them? 
4.  Will comments (present and future) sent to [email-masked] not be 
archived?  Is this supposed to be a mailbox for non-open and non-transparent 
communications?  If not, what is the URL for the alac-comments archive?  I 
would assume this to be an address different from that of the unknown forum 
address...
5.  As the comment period is now over, how many comments did you receive 
pertaining to the criteria for At-Large structures and RALOs?  Who in the 
community (if any) expressed support for your initiative?  What is your 
assessment of the overall response?  

Thanks for looking into this,
Danny

- --
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 16:37:02 -0700
From: "Denise Michel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

Allow me to clear-up your confusion regarding the At-Large announce list
(note that it is an *announce list*, not a *membership list*).

In early 2001, ICANN sent an announcement to the list that was generated as
part of the 2000 At-Large election, inviting individuals to opt-in to an
At-Large announce list.  5000+ people did so.  The At-Large Study Committee
(http://www.atlargestudy.org/)  then used and maintained this announce list,
and another 1000+ individuals joined the list through the ALSC's website
during the course of the Committee's work.  Additional names were added to
the list last year through the efforts of the At-Large Organizing Committee
(http://www.at-large.org/).  The list will now be used and maintained by the
At-Large Advisory Committee (http://alac.icann.org/).

Denise Michel
[email-masked]
http://alac.icann.org/

>RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>To: Denise Michel <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
>[email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:01:16 -0400
>Importance: Normal
>In-reply-to: <000501c3096d$e2bf50e0$3712a8c0@medusa>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>----
>
>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
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>----
>
>Follow-Ups:
>RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
>RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
>RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?
>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
>References:
>RE: [ga] 6000+ names
>From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>----
>
><<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>----
>

- --
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 #1676
*************************