Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1685
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 6 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1685

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:43:56 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

ummmmmm....Danny,

does the phrase "out of line" mean anything to you?
I suggest you take a few minutes, go calm yourself...then come back 
re-read your post ...and think about
a) what good it did?
b) what harm it did?
c) what (if anything) useful could result?
d) how time might be better spent?

Danny, you and the rest of the list have the power in your hands. If you 
choose to let others words inflame you, then you are letting them 
control you. You lose. bzzzzzzt!   Do you honestly want that? It is as 
simple as that. You own your feelings. No one else.
Its not a domain name. There is absolutely no question who owns your 
feelings or what form of ownership it is :)
You can choose to let things affect you. Or not. It is always your choice.

Peace

[email-masked] wrote:

>Thomas, drawing a parallel between Vittorio Bertola and the fascist Benito 
>Mussolini was off the mark, but not by much.  
>
>It is perhaps more appropriate to compare Vittorio, yourself, and all the 
>other members of the ALAC to those that collaborated with the fascist regimes 
>during World War II.  The collaborators of that era willingly accepted the 
>elimination of democratic institutions and then scrambled for power within 
>the new fascist regime -- much like your own course of action in doing 
>absolutely nothing when the voting mechanisms of the General Assembly were 
>forever denied to the membership.
>
>You presided over the demise of the General Assembly, and you were rewarded 
>for your complicity.  Vittorio presided over the demise of icannatlarge and 
>he similarly was rewarded for his complicity.  ALSC members Esther Dyson, 
>Pierre Dandjinou and Denise Michel helped to orchestrate the end of At-Large 
>directors in ICANN, and they too were rewarded.
>
>All of you now find yourself seated on a body, the ALAC, whose goal is to 
>legitimitize the total elimination of public representation on the Board of 
>ICANN.  You are in truth nothing more than collaborators intent on spreading 
>the self-serving propaganda of this ICANN regime.
>
>So, enjoy the tyranny that comes with your position as appointed "moderator" 
>of the list .  You have earned it.  Let there be no more "comparisons" made 
>during your tenure.  Free speech is not compatible with an organization that 
>seeks to deny the public voice.
>
>--
>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: Mon, 05 May 2003 18:06:58 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

On Mon, 5 May 2003 11:00:05 EDT, you wrote:

>Thomas, drawing a parallel between Vittorio Bertola and the fascist Benito 
>Mussolini was off the mark, but not by much.  
>
>It is perhaps more appropriate to compare Vittorio, yourself, and all the 
>other members of the ALAC to those that collaborated with the fascist regimes 
>during World War II.

Personally, I didn't care at all about Jeff Williams' post - I think
that everyone is free to say what he wants, at least until others are
not prevented from talking too.

However, I find it a little scary to see the ease which you and Jeff
use this kind of comparisons. Perhaps my sensitivity is due to my
grandmother's tales about life under fascism, but you should really be
sure that you actually mean what you say. I mean, you are free to
think what you want about ICANN, but please note that neither ICANN
nor the ALAC members have ever killed anyone for his opinions, or
helped anyone to do so.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:58:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Vittorio,

There are those that are willing to collaborate with ICANN to 
institutionalize the loss of the public's representative rights -- precisely 
what you and your fellow ALAC members are doing -- and others that find such 
collaboration reprehensible.  

You have chosen to support a plan that eliminates all public representation 
in a significant public resource.  I cannot support this course of action, 
and view you and your associates as naive collaborators that are performing a 
disservice to the At-Large.  

As you review the discussion list at icannatlarge, ask yourself how many 
members have come out in support of your ALAC initiative... not even one.  
How many organizations have supported your proposed criteria for At-Large 
structures... not even one.  You have extended the comment period on the 
RALOs.  How many new comments did you get in support of RALOs... not even 
one.  

Your ALAC isn't wanted.  Your RALOs aren't wanted.  You have no At-Large 
support.

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

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 17:30:03 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Hi Dan!

I thought Danny Younger's remarks were right on target.

"the elimination of democratic institutions"... yep... goodbye to the
elected representatives of the At Large on the ICANN Board, and replacement
with a powerless group of top-down nominees

"the voting mechanisms of the General Assembly were forever denied to the
membership"... yep... goodbye to another layer of democracy and potential
dissent... long-live the self-perpetuating ICANN Board

"ALAC, whose goal is to legitimitize the total elimination of public
representation on the Board of ICANN"... yep... the whole point of ALAC is
to minimise and contain the impact of the internet user community and to
perpetuate the expulsion of the At Large directors

"Free speech is not compatible with an organization that seeks to deny the
public voice"... note the gradual elimination of the public forums (which
Stuart Lynn marginalised as "a joke")... note the failure of the ALAC public
forum to publish my critical mail last week (censorship again)...

ICANN is regarded with disdain because it is perceived as a self-serving
clique of insiders, working on behalf of the US Government, to administer
the DNS in the interests of the US, of commercial entities, of the IP lobby,
of its registry/registrar financiers, without accountability to the millions
of ordinary internet users to whom the Internet really belongs...

The comments of Jeff Williams were insubstantial. The instinct to "control"
and "dominate" from the top down, though, was again sadly indicative of a
mentality which could be seen as institutionally fascist and arrogant.

Lone voices of dissent can be marginalised, but Danny's is still the voice
of sanity and human decency.

I congratulate Danny Younger for his scrutiny, his perception, and his
analysis.

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; GA <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

> ummmmmm....Danny,
>
> does the phrase "out of line" mean anything to you?
> I suggest you take a few minutes, go calm yourself...then come back
> re-read your post ...and think about
> a) what good it did?
> b) what harm it did?
> c) what (if anything) useful could result?
> d) how time might be better spent?
>
> Danny, you and the rest of the list have the power in your hands. If you
> choose to let others words inflame you, then you are letting them
> control you. You lose. bzzzzzzt!   Do you honestly want that? It is as
> simple as that. You own your feelings. No one else.
> Its not a domain name. There is absolutely no question who owns your
> feelings or what form of ownership it is :)
> You can choose to let things affect you. Or not. It is always your choice.
>
> Peace
>
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >Thomas, drawing a parallel between Vittorio Bertola and the fascist
Benito
> >Mussolini was off the mark, but not by much.
> >
> >It is perhaps more appropriate to compare Vittorio, yourself, and all the
> >other members of the ALAC to those that collaborated with the fascist
regimes
> >during World War II.  The collaborators of that era willingly accepted
the
> >elimination of democratic institutions and then scrambled for power
within
> >the new fascist regime -- much like your own course of action in doing
> >absolutely nothing when the voting mechanisms of the General Assembly
were
> >forever denied to the membership.
> >
> >You presided over the demise of the General Assembly, and you were
rewarded
> >for your complicity.  Vittorio presided over the demise of icannatlarge
and
> >he similarly was rewarded for his complicity.  ALSC members Esther Dyson,
> >Pierre Dandjinou and Denise Michel helped to orchestrate the end of
At-Large
> >directors in ICANN, and they too were rewarded.
> >
> >All of you now find yourself seated on a body, the ALAC, whose goal is to
> >legitimitize the total elimination of public representation on the Board
of
> >ICANN.  You are in truth nothing more than collaborators intent on
spreading
> >the self-serving propaganda of this ICANN regime.
> >
> >So, enjoy the tyranny that comes with your position as appointed
"moderator"
> >of the list .  You have earned it.  Let there be no more "comparisons"
made
> >during your tenure.  Free speech is not compatible with an organization
that
> >seeks to deny the public voice.
> >
> >--
> >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
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 13:09:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

At 10:56 AM 5/5/2003 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>The posting rights of Jeff Williams have been suspended until May 19
>for comparing Vittorio Bertola to Benito Mussolini.  Personal
>offenses are *not* compatible with the list rules.
>
>Regards,
>--
>Thomas Roessler                 <[email-masked]>
>
>

Thomas,

The exception being that you allow posters to claim Mr. Williams does not 
exist which is much more awful and cruel than anything he writes to anyone.

Vittorio is not doing a great job of creating an avenue for user 
participation, (neither are you, Thomas).  This fact that a disappointed 
constituent is being censored should be a loud wake up call to all netizens.

:(

~k

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

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 18:50:34 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

message below

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>

> Vittorio,
>
> Your ALAC isn't wanted.  Your RALOs aren't wanted.  You have no At-Large
> support.

I respect Vittorio as a person and believe in him.

However, I agree with Danny's assessment.

ALAC was made by ICANN for ICANN.

The At Large did not want it. It is widely recognised as a trick to contain
the At Large movement. It is a top-down initiative by the ICANN Board to
create the illusion of user participation while, in fact, diminishing the
role of individual internet users. The real intent of the ICANN Board was
shown by its expulsion of the democratically elected representatives of the
At Large from the ICANN Board.

ALAC is an attempt to legitimise and perpetuate the "Reform Coup". It's an
exercise in damage limitation. The Board can go to DoC and say "See! Here is
the At Large!"

... But ... the At Large is not there...

Richard Henderson

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

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:40:33 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Ok...im getting a bit annoyed here.
I think Thomas has shown remarkable restraint over the past few decades.
I think he showed incredible restraint in *not* suspending Danny Younger 
for his post earlier today.

Kristy McKee wrote:

>
> At 10:56 AM 5/5/2003 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>> The posting rights of Jeff Williams have been suspended until May 19
>> for comparing Vittorio Bertola to Benito Mussolini.  Personal
>> offenses are *not* compatible with the list rules.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -- 
>> Thomas Roessler                 <[email-masked]>
>>
>>
>
> Thomas,
>
> The exception being that you allow posters to claim Mr. Williams does 
> not exist which is much more awful and cruel than anything he writes 
> to anyone.
>
> Vittorio is not doing a great job of creating an avenue for user 
> participation, (neither are you, Thomas).  This fact that a 
> disappointed constituent is being censored should be a loud wake up 
> call to all netizens.
>
> :(
>
> ~k
>
>
> -- 
> 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: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:48:40 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Or take a look at the language of Joe Sims in a distasteful attack on
Michael Froomkin, here on the GA list on 18th August 2002:

"You ... hoping to rescue an otherwise UNIMPRESSIVE CAREER by finding a
niche where you can be perceived as the expert... It does not appear that
your constant criticism has much impact, on anything... just posting rants
on the GA list... and exercising your ego to run a webpage... the real
SNEERS here from serious people are reserved for folks like you... JUNK like
the stuff you post is exactly the reason why more people do not participate
in this or other similar forums, because it is a waste of time." Joe Sims,
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, 51 Louisiana Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.

In this diatribe, Joe Sims belittled Michael Froomkin's career (irrelevant
to the thread and surely a personal attack), and called his mail "rants" and
"junk" (abusive).

Action taken against Joe Sims? None?

In contrast, Jeff Williams has been suspended for saying "I guess it is akin
to Mousilinni's saying he made the trains run". My reading of this is that
Jeff was saying that on some major things Vittorio gets things wrong, even
if he achieves a few small victories... NOT that Vittorio is like Mussolini
in any personal way. The comparison was about a few minor things which
should not outweigh the greater errors. The comparison was not at all "You
are another Mussolini."

Compared to the direct personal abuse Joe Sims heaped on Michael Froomkin,
this was just a passing comment, which was expressed as a personal opinion.

Oh, but I forgot! Joe Sims was part of the ICANN clique. Jeff Williams is
just an easy target.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

>
> At 10:56 AM 5/5/2003 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >The posting rights of Jeff Williams have been suspended until May 19
> >for comparing Vittorio Bertola to Benito Mussolini.  Personal
> >offenses are *not* compatible with the list rules.
> >
> >Regards,
> >--
> >Thomas Roessler                 <[email-masked]>
> >
> >
>
> Thomas,
>
> The exception being that you allow posters to claim Mr. Williams does not
> exist which is much more awful and cruel than anything he writes to
anyone.
>
> Vittorio is not doing a great job of creating an avenue for user
> participation, (neither are you, Thomas).  This fact that a disappointed
> constituent is being censored should be a loud wake up call to all
netizens.
>
> :(
>
> ~k
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 22:50:55 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO 

On 4 May 2003 at 21:39, [email-masked] wrote:

> Vittorio,
> 
> You wrote:  "The Interim At Large Advisory Committee supports the idea of a 
> Country
> Code Names Supporting Organization as devised in the Report [referring to the 
> Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report of ICANN's Evolution and Reform 
> Committee]".  http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00247.html
> 
> May I ask why the ALAC is endorsing the ERC/ccNSO Assistance Group 
> recommendations instead of the "Resolutions adopted by the ccTLD Managers 
> meeting in Rio" posted at 
> http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html ?
> 
> How did you arrive at your conclusion?

I find these questions very valid and would care for an answer by ALAC 
members. 

Jeanette

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

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 23:03:18 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Dear Danny,
I think you have not well understood WW II. This might be important while 
we fight WWW.

  17:43 05/05/03, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>All of you now find yourself seated on a body, the ALAC, whose goal is to 
>legitimitize the total elimination of public representation on the Board 
>of ICANN.  You are in truth nothing more than collaborators intent on 
>spreading the self-serving propaganda of this ICANN regime.

Collaborators were often people who faced a dilmna. Is it better to 
influence from within with some chances or to fight it from outside with no 
chance. That dilemna was increased by the fact that millions of their 
countrymen were to be fed and that no one came from the west to help.

I can testify that Vittorio shared that dilemna and that at a time I 
advised him to stay and spy, to help from inside. Not an easy task. I 
accept that after that he went too far and betrayed us.

>So, enjoy the tyranny that comes with your position as appointed 
>"moderator" of the list .  You have earned it.  Let there be no more 
>"comparisons" made during your tenure.  Free speech is not compatible with 
>an organization that seeks to deny the public voice.

Thomas is not appointed anymore. And he is not a tyrant, yet. Just testing 
Patriot I may be. Times are changing, Danny. You have to become used to this.

But most of all Danny, I will not cry on you. For years now I have proposed 
that we ally and build something which can seriously contain and complete 
ICANN. You have constantly refused and tried to fight ICANN - certainly 
with talents but alone. All by yourself as when you were GA Chair you were 
the whole GA by yourself. Again, and again, unless we ally and build better 
than ICANN (and this is possible) we will go nowhere. You want to play 
chess. Alone. We can only win at GO, together.

I certainly understand that some have a try. This is just Another 
Ludicruious Attempt Commitee, but if they believe that they will suceed 
where everyone was fooled. They just delay the things and help the 
administrativia. Well...

It would be so easy to change all this, would a few ally and want to really 
work and build ...

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: Mon, 5 May 2003 22:07:24 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

Thomas and Alexander S point out to me that Joe Sims was, in fact, warned
here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03478.html

So I stand corrected on that point.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>
To: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.

> Or take a look at the language of Joe Sims in a distasteful attack on
> Michael Froomkin, here on the GA list on 18th August 2002:
>
> "You ... hoping to rescue an otherwise UNIMPRESSIVE CAREER by finding a
> niche where you can be perceived as the expert... It does not appear that
> your constant criticism has much impact, on anything... just posting rants
> on the GA list... and exercising your ego to run a webpage... the real
> SNEERS here from serious people are reserved for folks like you... JUNK
like
> the stuff you post is exactly the reason why more people do not
participate
> in this or other similar forums, because it is a waste of time." Joe Sims,
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, 51 Louisiana Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
>
> In this diatribe, Joe Sims belittled Michael Froomkin's career (irrelevant
> to the thread and surely a personal attack), and called his mail "rants"
and
> "junk" (abusive).
>
> Action taken against Joe Sims? None?
>
> In contrast, Jeff Williams has been suspended for saying "I guess it is
akin
> to Mousilinni's saying he made the trains run". My reading of this is that
> Jeff was saying that on some major things Vittorio gets things wrong, even
> if he achieves a few small victories... NOT that Vittorio is like
Mussolini
> in any personal way. The comparison was about a few minor things which
> should not outweigh the greater errors. The comparison was not at all "You
> are another Mussolini."
>
> Compared to the direct personal abuse Joe Sims heaped on Michael Froomkin,
> this was just a passing comment, which was expressed as a personal
opinion.
>
> Oh, but I forgot! Joe Sims was part of the ICANN clique. Jeff Williams is
> just an easy target.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
> To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams suspended for 14 days.
>
>
> >
> > At 10:56 AM 5/5/2003 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > >The posting rights of Jeff Williams have been suspended until May 19
> > >for comparing Vittorio Bertola to Benito Mussolini.  Personal
> > >offenses are *not* compatible with the list rules.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >--
> > >Thomas Roessler                 <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > The exception being that you allow posters to claim Mr. Williams does
not
> > exist which is much more awful and cruel than anything he writes to
> anyone.
> >
> > Vittorio is not doing a great job of creating an avenue for user
> > participation, (neither are you, Thomas).  This fact that a disappointed
> > constituent is being censored should be a loud wake up call to all
> netizens.
> >
> > :(
> >
> > ~k
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:18:40 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder of GA List Moderation Guidelines

Folks,

Over the last 24 hours there has been a lot of conversation regarding
moderation of the GA-List. 

First, I'd like to point out that most of this traffic has been
off-topic. 

Second, I'd like to remind everyone that there are moderation guidelines
in place that everyone, by virtue of having subscribed to this list, has
agreed to play by. My hope is that moderation on this list will be found
in your respective capabilities to engage in a modest level of
self-control and respect for one another. Failing that, imposed
moderation will continue to be the default rule. 

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

1. Anybody interested in the [GNSO] issues may subscribe to this list,
only subscribers may write to this list 
2. Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999,
explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new
subscriber: 
 - the non cross-posting rule is reinforced 
 - the respect of participants is mandatory 
3. More explicit rules of order defined in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html 
4. More about GA list monitoring in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html 
5. Currently, there is a limit of FIVE postings per day on the GA
mailing list 
6. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list, please
send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe ga (or
unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message. 

                       -rwr

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- - Soren Kierkegaard

Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Tue, 06 May 2003 11:51:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO 

At 08:50 a.m. 6/05/2003, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>On 4 May 2003 at 21:39, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Vittorio,
> >
> > You wrote:  "The Interim At Large Advisory Committee supports the idea 
> of a
> > Country
> > Code Names Supporting Organization as devised in the Report [referring 
> to the
> > Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report of ICANN's Evolution and Reform
> > Committee]".  http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00247.html
> >
> > May I ask why the ALAC is endorsing the ERC/ccNSO Assistance Group
> > recommendations instead of the "Resolutions adopted by the ccTLD Managers
> > meeting in Rio" posted at
> > http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html ?
> >
> > How did you arrive at your conclusion?
>
>I find these questions very valid and would care for an answer by ALAC
>members.

So would I.

- -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: Mon, 05 May 2003 20:47:16 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 08:50 a.m. 6/05/2003, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>> On 4 May 2003 at 21:39, [email-masked] wrote:
>>
>> > Vittorio,
>> >
>> > You wrote:  "The Interim At Large Advisory Committee supports the 
>> idea of a
>> > Country
>> > Code Names Supporting Organization as devised in the Report 
>> [referring to the
>> > Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report of ICANN's Evolution and 
>> Reform
>> > Committee]".  http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00247.html
>> >
>> > May I ask why the ALAC is endorsing the ERC/ccNSO Assistance Group
>> > recommendations instead of the "Resolutions adopted by the ccTLD 
>> Managers
>> > meeting in Rio" posted at
>> > http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html ?
>> >
>> > How did you arrive at your conclusion?
>>
>> I find these questions very valid and would care for an answer by ALAC
>> members.
>
>
> So would I. 

Consider the interest factor trebled.

- --Sotiris

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:27:18 +1200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] (Fwd) RE: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003

Folks
Some responses from the ERC.
I have passed on your thanks to them for these answers

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senor Vice  Chair
APTLD

ccTLD Adcom

- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	"Theresa Swinehart" <[email-masked]>
To:             	<[email-masked]>
Copies to:      	<[email-masked]>, "Alejandro Pisanty" 
<[email-masked]>,
	"Hans Kraaijenbrink" <[email-masked]>
Subject:        	RE: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003
Date sent:      	Mon, 5 May 2003 16:48:14 -0700

Peter,

Thank you for your note. I forwarded it to Alejandro and Hans, key
points of contact on the ccNSO issues within the ERC, for their
feedback, if possible, within the time-frame that you'd indicated.
They provided me with the note below, which Alejandro, Chair of the
ERC, asked that forward the note below on his behalf.

Kind regards,

Theresa

******************************************

Hi!

The scope link *is* there but maybe not everyone is able to find it
easily. (I've also received queries about its "disappearance".) Maybe
it would be useful to modify the posting a bit to make it even more
visible outside and not only inside the text. We are working on this.

The links are in
Annex A, Recommendations on Policy-Development Process (ccPDP) of the
ccNSO;

2. Creation of the Issue Report:
e. A recommendation from the Issue Manager as to whether the Council
should move to initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Manager
Recommendation"). Each Manager Recommendation shall include the
opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue is
properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process as it pertains
to ccTLDs. In coming to his opinion, the General Counsel shall examine
whether the issue: 1) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission
statement; 2) Is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSO's
Scope Matrix;

Re other points:

1. At this point in time modifying the composition of the NomCom to
include the number of cc delegates mentioned is simply not achievable.
All elements of ICANN's structure will be subject to periodic review
however. In two years time it may be given consideration.

2. The ccNSO is planned to be an entity with a high weight in the
policy process. The scope has been addressed in a way that satisfies
the needs and views expressed by the cc community of global vs. local
policies, and the policy development process assumes a goodwill
approach but otherwise limits the cc administrators only very
tenuously. Here we have made an enormous opening for this valued
community, to the outermost reach where serious imbalances with other
ICANN sectors would break the delicately balanced system we have
built.

3. A long debate ensued about the various options for decision-making
in both the AG and the ERC. The ERC believes that the present proposal
offers a right balance of powers. The ERC is conscious of the fact
that any system can be subject to capture or blockage. Nevertheless
the ERC hopes that the ccNSO Council vote will carry weight and
authority in the cc community.

Kind regards,

Alx

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:13 PM To: theresa Swinehart Cc:
> [email-masked] Subject: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003
>
>
> Dear Theresa,
>
> The APTLD will be reviewing the ERC recommendations in a chat
> meeting tomorrow, and I'd appreciate any information I can present
> to that meeting on the basis for the recommendations, where they
> differ from the cctld Rio recommendations.
>
> I paste below some questions sent on the APTLD list to Chris, who
> unfortunately won't be able to make the session - which you should
> also be able to provide some insight into.
>
> Information on any additional items will also be gratefully
> received.
>
> At least Centr of the other regional organisations is also going
> thru this review process, so explication of the basis for rejecting
> the cctld positions in favour of others will be useful to a wide
> audience.
>
> I think an explanation of the choices made by the ERC ie
> indicating what balances
> have been struck between identified differing positions, is
> merited by the nature of
> the debate, required under the ICANN mantra of bottom up and
> transparent process
> and an appropriate response to the cctlds which have spent
> hundreds of thousands
> of dollars and other resources in developing their position at
> meetings around the
> world.
>
>
> (BTW - I note the explicit linking of the Scope matrix to the
> recommendations has
> not yet been made.)
>
> My regards
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> APTLD
>
>
> ******************************************************************
> ******************* Sorry to miss you in this discussion  - the
> short time frame posed by the ICANN staff/ERC  for responding to the
> ERC report makes full participation unlikely.
>
> Nevertheless, I am sure we would all appreciate any contribution you
> can make by email in the next 24 to tomorrow's discussion? For eg,
> is there an Australian view on the ERC paper?
>
> In particular, what is your view on the remaining areas where the
> ERC has declined to adopt the recommendations of the cctlds?
>
> Do you know why the ERC insists on imposing 3 outside reps to the
> Council in the face of constant rejection of this concept by the
> ccTLDs in meetings since Bucharest where it emerged ?   This is
> where your membership of the AG might be useful - who's idea is it?
> It is not the policy of the GNSO, nor of any individual constituency
> of that body except the Intellectual Property Constituency, who urge
> ( see http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/ccnsoag/msg00018.html)
> that there be such appointees - in fact that there be six!.
>
> I and many others in this debate have always been willing to debate
> the merits of each proposal, but can never get any response from ERC
> members or staff as to who wants this, and why.
>
> If it is just a demand from the IP community alone , this may help
> to explain what is intended.
>
> Can you tell us whether anyone else has a position on this, and why
> they are so  insistent in the face of the cctld rejection?
>
> There has been no reaction either to the Rio suggestion that the
> cctlds would accept outside appointments if there were an increase
> in the number of cctld appointments to the Appointmets Committee.
>
>
> Why also is the cctlds preferred voting mechanism rejected?
>
> In Marina del Rey 2001 (from memory) the cctlds agreed that a
> conservative approach to the creation of binding policy was
> required, and they set up 66% of members in each region as the
> threshold level .
>
> This means that a majority of members in each region needs to be in
> agreement before there is a change in policy
>
> Under the ERC proposal, only a majority of 66% of all members is
> required.
>
> This means (obviously) that a region such as, say Europe, which
> might have 40 members, could vote in changes despite opposition from
> the 4 other regions if those memberships were spread out as, say
> AsiaPacific 8, Latin America 6, North America 3 and Africa 3.
>
> Even more likely, it would take only a slight collaboration between
> two large (ie multi-membered) regions say  Europe and AsiaPacic to
> impose policy on the rest of the world.
>
> Do you know whose idea this is? The cctld position is well
> documented and clearly argued. Can you point to any published
> submissions by any group, or any other arguments that support the
> ERC position? If we knew where it was coming from, and who was
> supporting it, we might be better able to discern some value behind
> it.
>
> Again, sorry you will not be taking part -look forward to any light
> you can throw on these issues.
>
> regards
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> APTLD

- ------- End of forwarded message -------
- --
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 #1685
*************************