Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #176
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 31 2000          Volume 01 : Number 176

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:45:37 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA  Chairmanelection]

I second the motion.
Michael McNulty

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 21:37 30/10/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >As you know, my term will finish at the end of the year, and the
> >mechanism for the election of my successor is, according to the ICANN
> >Bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 2(i)) via a vote of the Name Council.
> >
> >I believe that the situation has been changed since this article has
> >been written, and that the GA should have the right of electing its own
> >Chairman.
>
> Dear Roberto,
>
> Without a Chair, the GA cannot act at all. With an appointed Chair, it has
> proven to be powerless as well.
> But as current Chair, you can process a motion to
>
> 1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the email
> adresses on the DNSO website)
> 2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
> new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
> elected Chair a legitimate role.
>
> I am herewith making such a motion.
> Any seconds?
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> the Cyberspace Association and
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.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

- --
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, 30 Oct 2000 20:10:30 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA Chairman  election]

Monday, October 30, 2000, 5:00:19 PM, you wrote:

> 1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the email
> adresses on the DNSO website)
> 2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
> new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
> elected Chair a legitimate role.

#3 needs to be accomplished first.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:22:58 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA Chairman  election]

At 20:10 30/10/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Monday, October 30, 2000, 5:00:19 PM, you wrote:
>
>> 1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the email
>> adresses on the DNSO website)
>> 2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
>> new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>> elected Chair a legitimate role.
>
>#3 needs to be accomplished first.
>
No.

Joop Teernstra  LL.M.

"Liberty is not only given, it is also taken."
- --
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, 30 Oct 2000 22:31:09 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA  Chairman  election]

Hello Joop,

Monday, October 30, 2000, 9:22:58 PM, you wrote:

> At 20:10 30/10/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Monday, October 30, 2000, 5:00:19 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the email
>>> adresses on the DNSO website)
>>> 2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
>>> new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>>> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>>> elected Chair a legitimate role.
>>
>>#3 needs to be accomplished first.
>>
> No.

We know, Joop, that you enjoy engaging in meaningless elections (like
the election of reprentatives to the Names Council from the IDNO), but
it really is pointless to hold a full election until we know for
certain that such an election will be recognized as valid.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:17:02 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA  Chairman  election]

I agree with William that point #3 needs to be done first, the reason 
being that I would like to have an endorsement of the principle of a GA-
elected Chairman before knowing who the selected person will be.

As a side note, I would encourage you all to let the discussion go for a
 couple of days before jumping on motions.

Regards
Roberto

>Hello Joop,
>
>Monday, October 30, 2000, 9:22:58 PM, you wrote:
>
>> At 20:10 30/10/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>Monday, October 30, 2000, 5:00:19 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the
 email
>>>> adresses on the DNSO website)
>>>> 2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so
 that a
>>>> new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>>>> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a 
GA
>>>> elected Chair a legitimate role.
>>>
>>>#3 needs to be accomplished first.
>>>
>> No.
>
>We know, Joop, that you enjoy engaging in meaningless elections (like
>the election of reprentatives to the Names Council from the IDNO), but
>it really is pointless to hold a full election until we know for
>certain that such an election will be recognized as valid.
>
>-- 
>Best regards,
> William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:27:39 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA Chairman election]

Incidentally,

#1 has been already done, we have a voting Register

Regards
Roberto

>At 21:37 30/10/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>Hi.
>>
>>As you know, my term will finish at the end of the year, and the 
>>mechanism for the election of my successor is, according to the ICANN 

>>Bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 2(i)) via a vote of the Name Council.
>>
>>I believe that the situation has been changed since this article has 
>>been written, and that the GA should have the right of electing its 
own 
>>Chairman.
>
>Dear Roberto,
>
>Without a Chair, the GA cannot act at all. With an appointed Chair, it 
has
>proven to be powerless as well.
>But as current Chair, you can process a motion to
>
>1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the 
email
>adresses on the DNSO website)
>2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so 
that a
>new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>elected Chair a legitimate role.
>
>I am herewith making such a motion.
>Any seconds?
>
>
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
>the Cyberspace Association and 
>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>http://www.idno.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
>
>
>
>
- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 08:35:17 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chairman election

Kendall,

>I thought that this is what they set up @Large Membership for...

???
I think we are talking about two different things.
AtLarge is electing some (5 and hopefully 9 in the future) ICANN Board 
Directors.
What we are discussing is the election of the GA Chairperson.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 08:52:32 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA Chairman election]

At 14:00 31/10/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>But as current Chair, you can process a motion to
>
>1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the email
>adresses on the DNSO website)

Already done.

>2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
>new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>elected Chair a legitimate role.

Given the success of the AtLarge, we will inevitably be asked if the few 
hundred members of the GA voting registry are truly representative of the 
much larger set of interested parties.
In such a small group within a much larger group, there is a very real risk 
of "capture by special interests" (other than the present suspects).
So a "tripwire" function to "legally" precipitate a crisis when a problem 
occurs is a Good Thing, I think.

I would want to amend the Bylaws (copy from 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/aboutdnso.html) from:

 >(i) The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually.

to:

 >(i) The GA elects its own chair.
 >The NC must confirm the election before the chair can take office.

If the election is confirmed, no problem.
If some election is not confirmed, we have a crisis.

>I am herewith making such a motion.

I am herewith motioning to continue debate before making a motion.

(also, before we can have an election, we need to discuss election 
procedures. The ones used for the AtLarge, which I think were Instant 
Runoff, seem to have been accepted reasonably well.)

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:10:57 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] GA Chairman election

Rick,

>
>how do we go about electing someone?
>

We have already the voting register.
We need to agree (vote on?) a mechanism, i.e. simple majority, staggered
, ...
Some debate about this took place some times ago, but we need to revamp 
it before making a motion.
Personally, I tend to favor the system that ICANN has used for the 
AtLarge. It worked, and to have different systems will increase 
confusion.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 01:13:25 -0800
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA Chairman election]

I would be pleased to second the motion!

Ken Stoen
PMIW

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
>Gaetano
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 11:28 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA
>Chairman election]
>
>
>Incidentally,
>
>#1 has been already done, we have a voting Register
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>
>>At 21:37 30/10/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>>Hi.
>>>
>>>As you know, my term will finish at the end of the year, and the 
>>>mechanism for the election of my successor is, according to the ICANN 
>
>>>Bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 2(i)) via a vote of the Name Council.
>>>
>>>I believe that the situation has been changed since this article has 
>>>been written, and that the GA should have the right of electing its 
>own 
>>>Chairman.
>>
>>Dear Roberto,
>>
>>Without a Chair, the GA cannot act at all. With an appointed Chair, it 
>has
>>proven to be powerless as well.
>>But as current Chair, you can process a motion to
>>
>>1. Create a voters' roll for the GA (publish the names, but not the 
>email
>>adresses on the DNSO website)
>>2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so 
>that a
>>new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>>3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>>elected Chair a legitimate role.
>>
>>I am herewith making such a motion.
>>Any seconds?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
>>the Cyberspace Association and 
>>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>>http://www.idno.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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>--
>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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:41:12 -0800
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Chairman election

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 12:37 PM
>
> As you know, my term will finish at the end of the year, and
the
> mechanism for the election of my successor is, according to the
ICANN
> Bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 2(i)) via a vote of the Name
Council.
>
> I believe that the situation has been changed since this
article has
> been written, and that the GA should have the right of
> electing its own
> Chairman.
>
> What do you think?

R U Kidding? I never agreed with the way that article was written
in the first place. Nothing has changed as far as that goes. The
GA should not only have elected its own chair, but the NC as
well. The ICANN rewriting the NDSO charter to allow appointments
was real bad. The NC should be electing ICANN BoD seats (I know
it does) and the GA should be electing a NC, in its entirety.

- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 01:44:10 -0800
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Chairman election

Nope. The @Large is for the ICANN itself. The DNSO, like the ASO,
is a different house.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Dawson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 3:19 PM
> To: Rick H Wesson
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chairman election
>
>
> I thought that this is what they set up @Large Membership
for...
>
>
> At 01:57 PM 10/30/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >how do we go about electing someone?
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:50:59 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chairman election

Hi Roberto,

I am also a member of the DNSO General Assembly voting registry.

I was actually suggesting that if ICANN (and the GA of the DNSO) really 
wanted the "ground-up" approach they always claim that they do -- they 
should start to hold more public elections. Too often the elections take 
place on conference calls and we read about the results later.

Is their any reason that the @Large Membership can't vote on other issues 
*besides* the Board Members? ICANN has already spent plenty of money to set 
it up, sent out the snail-mail letters and upgrade the servers to handle 
the traffic.  I think that we tend to overlook many of the resources that 
have already set up and paid for --  usually wasting time creating brand 
new resources only to be used once.

Just my opinion though.

Kendall

At 08:35 AM 10/31/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>Kendall,
>
> >I thought that this is what they set up @Large Membership for...
>
>???
>I think we are talking about two different things.
>AtLarge is electing some (5 and hopefully 9 in the future) ICANN Board
>Directors.
>What we are discussing is the election of the GA Chairperson.
>
>Regards
>Roberto

- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 19:52:23 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chairman election

Hi, Kendall.

>I was actually suggesting that if ICANN (and the GA of the DNSO) really
 
>wanted the "ground-up" approach they always claim that they do -- they 

>should start to hold more public elections. Too often the elections 
take 
>place on conference calls and we read about the results later.

To the best of my knowledge the GA has never taken decisions on 
conference calls. In fact, we never had any conference calls at all.
About ICANN, I cannot judge, but I can tell you that I am surely not 
happy about the situation.

>
>Is their any reason that the @Large Membership can't vote on other 
issues 
>*besides* the Board Members? ICANN has already spent plenty of money to
 set 
>it up, sent out the snail-mail letters and upgrade the servers to 
handle 
>the traffic.  I think that we tend to overlook many of the resources 
that 
>have already set up and paid for --  usually wasting time creating 
brand 
>new resources only to be used once.

The reason is in the Bylaws, that assign this role to the atLarge.
Anyway, there is a lot of discussion going on, in particular in Europe 
in the European AtLarge list, about the role of the atLarge membership. 
And, BTW, there may be some relationship btw AL and GA.
For those who will go to the ICANN meeting, there will be a session on 
the AtLarge, with participation of the newly elected Directors, on 
Sunday 12.
The election of 5 Directors is the beginning. We don't know what will be
 the future.

Regards
Roberto

>
>Just my opinion though.
>
>Kendall
>
>
>At 08:35 AM 10/31/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>>Kendall,
>>
>> >I thought that this is what they set up @Large Membership for...
>>
>>???
>>I think we are talking about two different things.
>>AtLarge is electing some (5 and hopefully 9 in the future) ICANN Board

>>Directors.
>>What we are discussing is the election of the GA Chairperson.
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>
>--
>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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:59:17 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Chairman election

Roeland,

>>
>> I believe that the situation has been changed since this
>article has
>> been written, and that the GA should have the right of
>> electing its own
>> Chairman.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>R U Kidding? I never agreed with the way that article was written
>in the first place. Nothing has changed as far as that goes. The
>GA should not only have elected its own chair, but the NC as
>well. The ICANN rewriting the NDSO charter to allow appointments
>was real bad. The NC should be electing ICANN BoD seats (I know
>it does) and the GA should be electing a NC, in its entirety.

Can I assume this to be an endorsement of the proposal of having the GA 
elect its Chairman, for the time being?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 31 Oct 2000 14:37:29 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fuzz about Froomkin

Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> 
> In Sweden there's now great fuzz about Michael Froomkins Beware the ICANN
> Board Squatters:
> http://personal.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/boardsquat.htm
> 
> I haven't heard much about it from my international colleagues. Is this
> because you haven't read Mr Froomkins paper or do you just not consider it
> interesting?

I certainly consider it interesting. It seems to me quite obvious that
Froomkin has a good point, though there are details I'd quibble over.

Is this the appropriate forum for discussion of this? If not, what ia a
better one?

Can we actually do anything about this? Does anything we might say on
the topic actually matter? What would we do? ask the directors to resign?
Ask the board to expel them?

I'll make a formal motion that the GA call for the resignations of the
directors Froomkin names if the chair tells me that is possible 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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:14:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fuzz about Froomkin

Hello Sandy,

Tuesday, October 31, 2000, 11:37:29 AM, you wrote:

> I'll make a formal motion that the GA call for the resignations of the
> directors Froomkin names if the chair tells me that is possible here.

Might be worth it just for the headline value.  "Organization Within
ICANN calls for board members resignations"

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:47:53 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fuzz about Froomkin

Dear Sandy
I would suggest you discuss that on the [email-masked]
mailing list? Unless you want the DNSO as an internal ICANN body to start
a Secession War. I centrainly personnally resent this CyberSquatting,
but IMHO it hardly falls under the DNSO's charter.
Jefsey

At 20:37 31/10/00, you wrote:
>Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> >
> > In Sweden there's now great fuzz about Michael Froomkins Beware the ICANN
> > Board Squatters:
> > http://personal.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/boardsquat.htm
> >
> > I haven't heard much about it from my international colleagues. Is this
> > because you haven't read Mr Froomkins paper or do you just not consider it
> > interesting?
>
>I certainly consider it interesting. It seems to me quite obvious that
>Froomkin has a good point, though there are details I'd quibble over.
>
>Is this the appropriate forum for discussion of this? If not, what ia a
>better one?
>
>Can we actually do anything about this? Does anything we might say on
>the topic actually matter? What would we do? ask the directors to resign?
>Ask the board to expel them?
>
>I'll make a formal motion that the GA call for the resignations of the
>directors Froomkin names if the chair tells me that is possible here.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:02:37 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fuzz about Froomkin

At 14:37 31/10/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

>I certainly consider it interesting. It seems to me quite obvious that
>Froomkin has a good point, though there are details I'd quibble over.
>
>Is this the appropriate forum for discussion of this? If not, what ia a
>better one?
>
>Can we actually do anything about this? Does anything we might say on
>the topic actually matter? What would we do? ask the directors to resign?
>Ask the board to expel them?
>
>I'll make a formal motion that the GA call for the resignations of the
>directors Froomkin names if the chair tells me that is possible here.

the more interesting point is what we should propose to replace them.
I think a motion that calls for Frank Fitzsimmons, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Jun 
Murai, and Linda Wilson to resign from the board and leave the chairs empty 
until the rest of the board has decided upon a procedure to fill the 4 
seats would be more complete than a proposal to just have them resign.

The spectre of four empty seats was the excuse for leaving them on in the 
first place. That this is worrying is something I don't understand.

Oh well - I might understand more after Los Angeles.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:47:10 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections 

At 22:31 30/10/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>>>> 3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>>>> elected Chair a legitimate role.
>>>
>>>#3 needs to be accomplished first.
>>>
>> No.
>
>We know, Joop, that you enjoy engaging in meaningless elections (like
>the election of reprentatives to the Names Council from the IDNO), but
>it really is pointless to hold a full election until we know for
>certain that such an election will be recognized as valid.
>

There is a deep philosophical difference between two points of view. What
WXW calls meaningless,  others  call bottom-up.
If this Assembly agrees to elect a Chair for itself and elects one, it is
this Assembly's valid choice.

If the NC does not recognize it as valid, that's the NC's problem.
A bottom-up election surely should provide guidance for the NC. :-)

If the NC wishes to appoint another Chair, as Harald says, we have a crisis.

If the Board agrees to amend the Bylaws on this specific point prior to 31
december , life will be made easier for the NC.
But we have to agree on how those amendments should look.
This could take a lot of discussion and is a useful avenue for those who
want to stall the GA. 

Electing a Chair, in comparison, is a simple matter.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.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: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:38:16 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to prepare for Chair elections [was: GA  Chairman election]

At 08:52 31/10/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>>2. hold elections for Chair as soon as this roll is established, so that a
>>new Chair can take his place as your term expires.
>>3. petition the Board for a Bylaw amendment that will give such a GA
>>elected Chair a legitimate role.
>
>Given the success of the AtLarge, we will inevitably be asked if the few 
>hundred members of the GA voting registry are truly representative of the 
>much larger set of interested parties.

All that is being proposed is that this small group elects for itself a
Chair to preside over it's meetings.
The Chair does not have to be representative of anything. All he/she needs
to be is effective, unbiased and decisive, so that this GA can actually
become meaningful.

>In such a small group within a much larger group, there is a very real risk 
>of "capture by special interests" (other than the present suspects).

If you mean "the recognized constituencies as represented in the NC" as
present suspects, then the "capture" of the GA by "other special interests"
(if I look at the composition of the GA, it could only be DN holders'
interests) would actually be a Good Thing. It would reflect that these
interests are currently not represented on the NC.

But a Chair election will not facilitate such capture.

>So a "tripwire" function to "legally" precipitate a crisis when a problem 
>occurs is a Good Thing, I think.
>
>I would want to amend the Bylaws (copy from 
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/aboutdnso.html) from:
>
> >(i) The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually.
>
>to:
>
> >(i) The GA elects its own chair.
> >The NC must confirm the election before the chair can take office.
>
I respectfully disagree with that last clause, Harald. The NC should not
have the power to render the GA chairless.

Otherwise, I agree with you that instant runoff would be the best method
for electing a Chair.
But first: nominations.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #176
************************