Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1737
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, July 4 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1737

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

Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:04:32 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> So ICANN Directors and other officials cannot express personal opinions?
> That's weird!

Roberto,
A personal opinion is no substitute for a proper answer. In this case, an
ICANN Director has patronized the complainant by expressing sympathy, but in
the same breath has absolved himself absolutely from taking any
responsibility for actually doing anything about it, citing "personal
opinion". This does absolutely nothing to answer the very serious questions
raised in Richard's position paper about the TLD Evaluation process, which
adversely effects failed applicants to the sum of several hundreds of
thousands of dollars. The point is, what are the ICANN Director's proposing
to do about it apart from express personal opinions?

> I see the benefit of reading the personal opinion of Mr. Palage
> (of course,
> in stating this I talk in my personal capacity, not as Interim
> ALAC Member
> ;>), and therefore I will not engage the ALAC position on the
> matter, if you
> allow me to do so). The alternative is to stop communicating altogether:
> what will be the benefit, and for whom?

No, the choice is not simply giving personal opinions, or not communicating
at all. For goodness sake, you people have been appointed to positions of
responsibility. You are answerable to the community, and that means
justifying polices that have been imposed from the top down with more than a
"personal opinion". Expecting an official response from an ICANN Director is
not an unreasonable expectation, and what's weird is that you seem to think
the ALAC and ICANN Board can dictate terms that more often than not go
completely against community consensus, then distance yourself from failures
that result.

>
> Incidentally, this is not the only forum available to the public, and
> Michael did not call any press conference, he was only kind enough to
> provide an opinion on an issue raised by a member of this mailing list.

> Maybe things should be put in the right perspective...

Yes, I think I've done that now.
Joanna

>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>

- --
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, 03 Jul 2003 17:55:56 +0800
From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...

I give my thanks to God every night for this GA list, which gives birth 
to a handful of entertaining folks who never fails to sharing their 
bizzard concept of how the world on wide ranging topics.

And the topic of of the day is "Freedom of Speech" (except when you are 
an ICANN director, thank god I am not). Amazing is it?

The world is a wonderful place. Amem.

- -James Seng

Joanna Lane wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>So ICANN Directors and other officials cannot express personal opinions?
>>That's weird!
> 
> 
> Roberto,
> A personal opinion is no substitute for a proper answer. In this case, an
> ICANN Director has patronized the complainant by expressing sympathy, but in
> the same breath has absolved himself absolutely from taking any
> responsibility for actually doing anything about it, citing "personal
> opinion". This does absolutely nothing to answer the very serious questions
> raised in Richard's position paper about the TLD Evaluation process, which
> adversely effects failed applicants to the sum of several hundreds of
> thousands of dollars. The point is, what are the ICANN Director's proposing
> to do about it apart from express personal opinions?
> 
> 
> 
>>I see the benefit of reading the personal opinion of Mr. Palage
>>(of course,
>>in stating this I talk in my personal capacity, not as Interim
>>ALAC Member
>>;>), and therefore I will not engage the ALAC position on the
>>matter, if you
>>allow me to do so). The alternative is to stop communicating altogether:
>>what will be the benefit, and for whom?
> 
> 
> No, the choice is not simply giving personal opinions, or not communicating
> at all. For goodness sake, you people have been appointed to positions of
> responsibility. You are answerable to the community, and that means
> justifying polices that have been imposed from the top down with more than a
> "personal opinion". Expecting an official response from an ICANN Director is
> not an unreasonable expectation, and what's weird is that you seem to think
> the ALAC and ICANN Board can dictate terms that more often than not go
> completely against community consensus, then distance yourself from failures
> that result.
> 
> 
>>Incidentally, this is not the only forum available to the public, and
>>Michael did not call any press conference, he was only kind enough to
>>provide an opinion on an issue raised by a member of this mailing list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Maybe things should be put in the right perspective...
> 
> 
> Yes, I think I've done that now.
> Joanna
> 
> 
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
> 
> 
> --
> 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, 3 Jul 2003 12:07:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP issues report

Dear Bruce,

From the minutes of the April 17, 2003 GNSO teleconference:

Marilyn Cade proposed, seconded by Laurence Djolakian

·         To thank the current UDRP task force for the work done

·         To close down the current UDRP task force that was created under
the Names Council

·         To initiate the policy development process

·         To seek an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager and that one
of the inputs to the issues report is the existing material and analysis
from the current UDRP task force.

·         That the issues report be done in a 45 day period

Motion carried unanimously.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00250.html

It's already one month past the "45 day period", and I don't think that I 
have seen the UDRP issues report.  Has it been posted?  Has the policy 
development process been initiated?
- --
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, 3 Jul 2003 19:45:42 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

On 2003-07-03 12:07:38 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

> It's already one month past the "45 day period", and I don't
> think that I have seen the UDRP issues report.  Has it been
> posted?  Has the policy development process been initiated?

Discussing an issues report on the UDRP (and possibly initiating a
task force on the topic) was on the GNSO council's agenda for the
Montreal meeting. However, no issues report had emerged from ICANN
staff by that time.

(I haven't seen one since, either.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			      <[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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:10:36 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...

> A personal opinion is no substitute for a proper answer. In this case, an
> ICANN Director has patronized the complainant by expressing sympathy, but
in
> the same breath has absolved himself absolutely from taking any
> responsibility for actually doing anything about it, citing "personal
> opinion".

So what?  Did you ever jump down Karl Auerbach's throat for doing the same
thing?

> "personal opinion". Expecting an official response from an ICANN Director
is
> not an unreasonable expectation, and what's weird is that you seem to think
> the ALAC and ICANN Board can dictate terms that more often than not go
> completely against community consensus, then distance yourself from
failures
> that result.

No single ICANN director is authorized to formulate or express an "official
response".

- --
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, 3 Jul 2003 14:49:12 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP issues report

Just a point of more detailed clarification: the issue was on Council agenda; staff advised council that due to other commitments, etc. that the Issues Report had not yet been completed. 

And, given the high number of other items to be dealt with, and the very significant progress made with the ccTLDs in the achievement of mutually acceptable agreements which now lead to the creation of a ccNSO, as well as related work on the bylaws; the RFP for the new gTLDs, it is understandable that this issue report was not possible to complete.

I don't have my notes in front of me, but I believe that there was a statement about undertaking completing the Issues Report following Montreal.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

On 2003-07-03 12:07:38 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

> It's already one month past the "45 day period", and I don't
> think that I have seen the UDRP issues report.  Has it been
> posted?  Has the policy development process been initiated?

Discussing an issues report on the UDRP (and possibly initiating a
task force on the topic) was on the GNSO council's agenda for the
Montreal meeting. However, no issues report had emerged from ICANN
staff by that time.

(I haven't seen one since, either.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			      <[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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:53:53 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

Re:  << However, no issues report had emerged from ICANN staff by that time. 
>>

Thomas,

Did anyone on the Council ask ICANN Staff why it had failed to produce the 
requested report?  Did anyone inquire as to which ICANN staff member was 
responsible for generating the issues report?  Perhaps Mr. Twomey should start 
kicking some staff butt... 

What's the point of having a "streamlined" PDP process to enhance efficiency 
if we are held up at square one by ICANN's paid employees?  
- --
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, 3 Jul 2003 16:06:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

Marilyn,

There will always be "other commitments", "other items to be dealt with", 
"related work", and RFPs to produce... that is not an acceptable excuse for a 
paid staff not to get the work done.  We are not talking about taking to task a 
group of volunteers...  we are talking about an organization already bloated 
beyond reason with 40 full-time employees who should be expected to handle their 
obligations within the timeframes established.  If these staff members can't 
get the job done on time, they should be replaced by those that will take 
their responsibilities more seriously.

Let me remind you that the bylaws call for the creation of an issue report by 
the Staff Manager within "15 days".  The Council allotted 45 days for this 
task, and we are already beyond 75 days.  This is not acceptable.  

You may choose to cozy up to the ICANN staff and defend their lack of 
results; I would rather see you acting like a member of the business constituency 
that you allegedly represent and hold them to a higher, more business-like, 
standard of performance.   
- --
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, 03 Jul 2003 19:41:12 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

AS is well known, the UDRP review was sabotaged by its chair.  There is 
no report, nor was there any attempt to draft one.  All serious 
suggestions for reforms, or even processes that might produce one, were 
opposed by the chair.

[email-masked] wrote:

>Dear Bruce,
>
>>From the minutes of the April 17, 2003 GNSO teleconference:
>
>Marilyn Cade proposed, seconded by Laurence Djolakian
>
>·         To thank the current UDRP task force for the work done
>
>·         To close down the current UDRP task force that was created under
>the Names Council
>
>·         To initiate the policy development process
>
>·         To seek an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager and that one
>of the inputs to the issues report is the existing material and analysis
>from the current UDRP task force.
>
>·         That the issues report be done in a 45 day period
>
>Motion carried unanimously.
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00250.html
>
>It's already one month past the "45 day period", and I don't think that I 
>have seen the UDRP issues report.  Has it been posted?  Has the policy 
>development process been initiated?
>--
>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, 03 Jul 2003 18:02:38 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP issues report

Since when is a bylaws requirement put on the back burner for an RFP or other 
business?  If a deadline is not met in most corporations, what ususally occurs with 
staff?  And how are priorities set for ICANN staff?  Does the Board direct them or 
they the board?  The UDRP must be handled prior to any further work on new 
gTLDs of any kind and is a work in progress.  I find it extrememly difficult to fathom 
the workings of ICANN management or mismanagement.

Leah

On 3 Jul 2003 at 14:49, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:

> Just a point of more detailed clarification: the issue was on Council
> agenda; staff advised council that due to other commitments, etc. that the
> Issues Report had not yet been completed. 
> 
> And, given the high number of other items to be dealt with, and the very
> significant progress made with the ccTLDs in the achievement of mutually
> acceptable agreements which now lead to the creation of a ccNSO, as well as
> related work on the bylaws; the RFP for the new gTLDs, it is understandable
> that this issue report was not possible to complete.
> 
> I don't have my notes in front of me, but I believe that there was a
> statement about undertaking completing the Issues Report following
> Montreal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:46 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report
> 
> 
> On 2003-07-03 12:07:38 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > It's already one month past the "45 day period", and I don't
> > think that I have seen the UDRP issues report.  Has it been
> > posted?  Has the policy development process been initiated?
> 
> Discussing an issues report on the UDRP (and possibly initiating a
> task force on the topic) was on the GNSO council's agenda for the
> Montreal meeting. However, no issues report had emerged from ICANN
> staff by that time.
> 
> (I haven't seen one since, either.)
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler			      <[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
> 
> 

- --
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, 3 Jul 2003 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_UDRP_issues_report?=

Marilyn,
You know that I like you and respect you, but you should also know that I 
was known as Delay Dierker in my years as a criminal defense lawyer.
I can spot a delay tactic or a fillibuster a mile away with only my nose.
Later we blocked NAFTA for over two years while pretending to support it.
Will CN get full status in IMF of WTO, will UK play with EU?
Do not play these games as you are too high profile.

eric

> Marilyn,
> 
> There will always be "other commitments", "other items to be dealt
> with",  "related work", and RFPs to produce... that is not an
> acceptable excuse for a  paid staff not to get the work done.  We are
> not talking about taking to task a  group of volunteers...  we are
> talking about an organization already bloated  beyond reason with 40
> full-time employees who should be expected to handle their  obligations
> within the timeframes established.  If these staff members can't  get
> the job done on time, they should be replaced by those that will take 
> their responsibilities more seriously.
> 
> Let me remind you that the bylaws call for the creation of an issue
> report by  the Staff Manager within "15 days".  The Council allotted 45
> days for this  task, and we are already beyond 75 days.  This is not
> acceptable.  
> 
> You may choose to cozy up to the ICANN staff and defend their lack of 
> results; I would rather see you acting like a member of the business
> constituency  that you allegedly represent and hold them to a higher,
> more business-like,  standard of performance.   
> --
> 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, 3 Jul 2003 15:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_UDRP_issues_report?=

I hate this freaking word Streamline it is nothing more than an excuse.
e

> Re:  << However, no issues report had emerged from ICANN staff by that
> time. 
>>>
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> Did anyone on the Council ask ICANN Staff why it had failed to produce
> the  requested report?  Did anyone inquire as to which ICANN staff
> member was  responsible for generating the issues report?  Perhaps Mr.
> Twomey should start  kicking some staff butt... 
> 
> What's the point of having a "streamlined" PDP process to enhance
> efficiency  if we are held up at square one by ICANN's paid employees? 
> 
> --
> 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, 03 Jul 2003 18:40:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...

James and all fellow members,

  First off there is no freedom of speech on this DNSO GA
forum as I am currently banned long past the 14 day
suspension I was supposed to be suspended for.
Second, to thank God for that is utterly amazing
and I am sure with my intimate relationship with
the lord god almighty, he does not appreciate his
good name being invoked for such nonsense/untruth's.
Third, the subject is not Freedom of Speech but
rather the comments made by a BoD member
in relation to New TLD's evaluation and doing so
as if it were JUST his personal opinion on a semi-public
forum as if such were gospel...

It may be wise or prudent for you, Michael, and
Roberto to review the Ten Commandments again....

James Seng wrote:

> I give my thanks to God every night for this GA list, which gives birth
> to a handful of entertaining folks who never fails to sharing their
> bizzard concept of how the world on wide ranging topics.
>
> And the topic of of the day is "Freedom of Speech" (except when you are
> an ICANN director, thank god I am not). Amazing is it?
>
> The world is a wonderful place. Amem.
>
> -James Seng
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >>So ICANN Directors and other officials cannot express personal opinions?
> >>That's weird!
> >
> >
> > Roberto,
> > A personal opinion is no substitute for a proper answer. In this case, an
> > ICANN Director has patronized the complainant by expressing sympathy, but in
> > the same breath has absolved himself absolutely from taking any
> > responsibility for actually doing anything about it, citing "personal
> > opinion". This does absolutely nothing to answer the very serious questions
> > raised in Richard's position paper about the TLD Evaluation process, which
> > adversely effects failed applicants to the sum of several hundreds of
> > thousands of dollars. The point is, what are the ICANN Director's proposing
> > to do about it apart from express personal opinions?
> >
> >
> >
> >>I see the benefit of reading the personal opinion of Mr. Palage
> >>(of course,
> >>in stating this I talk in my personal capacity, not as Interim
> >>ALAC Member
> >>;>), and therefore I will not engage the ALAC position on the
> >>matter, if you
> >>allow me to do so). The alternative is to stop communicating altogether:
> >>what will be the benefit, and for whom?
> >
> >
> > No, the choice is not simply giving personal opinions, or not communicating
> > at all. For goodness sake, you people have been appointed to positions of
> > responsibility. You are answerable to the community, and that means
> > justifying polices that have been imposed from the top down with more than a
> > "personal opinion". Expecting an official response from an ICANN Director is
> > not an unreasonable expectation, and what's weird is that you seem to think
> > the ALAC and ICANN Board can dictate terms that more often than not go
> > completely against community consensus, then distance yourself from failures
> > that result.
> >
> >
> >>Incidentally, this is not the only forum available to the public, and
> >>Michael did not call any press conference, he was only kind enough to
> >>provide an opinion on an issue raised by a member of this mailing list.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Maybe things should be put in the right perspective...
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think I've done that now.
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> >>Regards
> >>Roberto
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> >>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] jeff williams would like to point out

fromm jeff williams

that his suspension (penance) is long past due.  kindly restore his
posting privilages.

regards
joe

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

another useless fact ....
In the world, an average of 16 million thunderstorms are formed per
year.

- --
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, 03 Jul 2003 20:10:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

Eric and all former DNSO GA members,

  Eric, Marilyn has been playing these games for years as has
most of the AT&T BoD and been getting away with doing
so for many years.  However now that she and some of
Telecom "Old Hands" have been exposed to the internet
they can't escape being seen for what they really are.
Hence Mairlyn can no longer get away unscaved
as easily as she was once most likely accustomed
to doing and can't yet quite grasp why that is so.

  I am sure that it irritates her to some degree or another
especially when she is called on it over and over the past
2 or 3 years she has been.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Marilyn,
> You know that I like you and respect you, but you should also know that I
> was known as Delay Dierker in my years as a criminal defense lawyer.
> I can spot a delay tactic or a fillibuster a mile away with only my nose.
> Later we blocked NAFTA for over two years while pretending to support it.
> Will CN get full status in IMF of WTO, will UK play with EU?
> Do not play these games as you are too high profile.
>
> eric
>
> > Marilyn,
> >
> > There will always be "other commitments", "other items to be dealt
> > with",  "related work", and RFPs to produce... that is not an
> > acceptable excuse for a  paid staff not to get the work done.  We are
> > not talking about taking to task a  group of volunteers...  we are
> > talking about an organization already bloated  beyond reason with 40
> > full-time employees who should be expected to handle their  obligations
> > within the timeframes established.  If these staff members can't  get
> > the job done on time, they should be replaced by those that will take
> > their responsibilities more seriously.
> >
> > Let me remind you that the bylaws call for the creation of an issue
> > report by  the Staff Manager within "15 days".  The Council allotted 45
> > days for this  task, and we are already beyond 75 days.  This is not
> > acceptable.
> >
> > You may choose to cozy up to the ICANN staff and defend their lack of
> > results; I would rather see you acting like a member of the business
> > constituency  that you allegedly represent and hold them to a higher,
> > more business-like,  standard of performance.
> > --
> > 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
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: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Some Interesting Reading Material

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> ICANN's Seventh Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of
> Understanding http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-30jun03.htm

Was this shown to you before it was sent?  (It certainly wasn't shown to
me while I was on the board.  But that's understandable, there were two
business days left in the quarter after my term ended and no doubt the
drafting on this report wasn't begun until ICANN's staff got back into the
office on the last day of the quarter. ;-)

My reading of the report doesn't leave me very impressed.  At ICANN's
current level of staffing (26) and budget ($6,000,000/year, or $1,500,000
for the period covered by the report), this report represents the work of
a lot of people spending a lot of money.  Yet this report, like its
predecessor, reminds me of a child pushing peas around on a plate in an
effort to convince the parents that something has actually been
accomplished.

ICANN has some solid accomplishments - the nominating commitee did a fine
job. And ICANN's role in IDN's has been, as I mentioned in my final report
to the board, an example of ICANN at its finest - acting as a facilitator
helping others to reach agreement and closure.  I think that ICANN could
justifiably crow a bit about that discussions of privacy versus whois are
finally happening.

But the report contains too many effusive adjectives that mask important
tasks that have not moved forward - such as coming to an accord with the
Root Server Operators or the RIRs.  (I don't count the status quo of
mutual recognition across a no-mans land of suspicion, even if there is a
conveyance of cash involved, to be the kind of ICANN-overisight role that
was contemplated when ICANN was formed.)  And I have yet to see a flow of
people into the AL*C that is more than an already drying-up trickle; it
certainly pales when compared to the rate of sign-ups, cumulating to
178,000 people, that happened during year 2000 when there were direct
elections to be held.

And security of root servers is still in a deep freeze.

The IANA function - the report lists lots of numbers assigned.  I estimate
that each number takes far less than 5 minutes work to assign.  However,
even with that estimate, this absolutely core function, perhaps ICANN's
only technical function, takes about 41 hours per month - one person
quarter time.  Toss in a couple of hours for web page updates for new 
lists of numbers (registry creation) and we still have trouble covering a 
half-time person.  This leaves a question about what those other 25.5 
people on staff are doing.

By-the-way how many new TLDs were allocated during the quarter?  (or past
year, or past two years... ?)  ;-)

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:10:50 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP issues report

On 2003-07-03 19:41:12 +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:

> AS is well known, the UDRP review was sabotaged by its chair.
> There is no report, nor was there any attempt to draft one.

You are confusing the DNSO's UDRP Review Task Force (which has been
shut down by now) with the GNSO's request that ICANN staff prepare
an issues report for a fresh policy-development process.  Danny was
referring to the latter.

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

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

Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:53:50 +0800
From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...

It been a long time since I have any urge to have any meaningful 
discussion with certain individual on GA list.

The only and only reason I still on the defunct GA list is because it is 
_entertaining_. Once you appreciate that the list only serves to 
entertain you, you find peace...I am sure I am not the only one here 
feeling so. :-)

So, thank you. Please keep it going...

- -James Seng

Jeff Williams wrote:
> James and all fellow members,
> 
>   First off there is no freedom of speech on this DNSO GA
> forum as I am currently banned long past the 14 day
> suspension I was supposed to be suspended for.
> Second, to thank God for that is utterly amazing
> and I am sure with my intimate relationship with
> the lord god almighty, he does not appreciate his
> good name being invoked for such nonsense/untruth's.
> Third, the subject is not Freedom of Speech but
> rather the comments made by a BoD member
> in relation to New TLD's evaluation and doing so
> as if it were JUST his personal opinion on a semi-public
> forum as if such were gospel...
> 
> It may be wise or prudent for you, Michael, and
> Roberto to review the Ten Commandments again....
> 
> James Seng wrote:
> 
> 
>>I give my thanks to God every night for this GA list, which gives birth
>>to a handful of entertaining folks who never fails to sharing their
>>bizzard concept of how the world on wide ranging topics.
>>
>>And the topic of of the day is "Freedom of Speech" (except when you are
>>an ICANN director, thank god I am not). Amazing is it?
>>
>>The world is a wonderful place. Amem.
>>
>>-James Seng
>>
>>Joanna Lane wrote:
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>>>So ICANN Directors and other officials cannot express personal opinions?
>>>>That's weird!
>>>
>>>
>>>Roberto,
>>>A personal opinion is no substitute for a proper answer. In this case, an
>>>ICANN Director has patronized the complainant by expressing sympathy, but in
>>>the same breath has absolved himself absolutely from taking any
>>>responsibility for actually doing anything about it, citing "personal
>>>opinion". This does absolutely nothing to answer the very serious questions
>>>raised in Richard's position paper about the TLD Evaluation process, which
>>>adversely effects failed applicants to the sum of several hundreds of
>>>thousands of dollars. The point is, what are the ICANN Director's proposing
>>>to do about it apart from express personal opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I see the benefit of reading the personal opinion of Mr. Palage
>>>>(of course,
>>>>in stating this I talk in my personal capacity, not as Interim
>>>>ALAC Member
>>>>;>), and therefore I will not engage the ALAC position on the
>>>>matter, if you
>>>>allow me to do so). The alternative is to stop communicating altogether:
>>>>what will be the benefit, and for whom?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, the choice is not simply giving personal opinions, or not communicating
>>>at all. For goodness sake, you people have been appointed to positions of
>>>responsibility. You are answerable to the community, and that means
>>>justifying polices that have been imposed from the top down with more than a
>>>"personal opinion". Expecting an official response from an ICANN Director is
>>>not an unreasonable expectation, and what's weird is that you seem to think
>>>the ALAC and ICANN Board can dictate terms that more often than not go
>>>completely against community consensus, then distance yourself from failures
>>>that result.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Incidentally, this is not the only forum available to the public, and
>>>>Michael did not call any press conference, he was only kind enough to
>>>>provide an opinion on an issue raised by a member of this mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe things should be put in the right perspective...
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I think I've done that now.
>>>Joanna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Roberto
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>>>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
>     Pierre Abelard
> ===============================================================
> 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
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 #1737
*************************