Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #179
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, November 5 2000           Volume 01 : Number 179

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

Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 22:32:46 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Roberto,

the Cairo decision was indeed the point at which we wish we had seen this.

However, I have been told that the decision in Cairo was made after hearing 
many conflicting views and options, including an explicit proposal to leave 
the four seats empty (which I think the current incumbents would probably 
have preferred).

I still have not heard a word from the people who were in favour of this 
decision rather than the "leave them empty" one.
This worries me quite a bit - fielding a proposal for motion without having 
heard anything from the "other side" seems worrisome to me.

You were in Cairo. Do you know anyone who can offer an opinion?

[BTW - I am coming to the conclusion that the bylaws of ICANN are horribly 
badly written. They mix up the functions of "contract between the community 
and the organization" and "activities ongoing at the moment" most 
throughly. The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review 
committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue - 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into the 
BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]

                    Harald
- --
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:01:02 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda for Los Angeles General Assembly meeting

[elisabeth, please forward to the ICANN webkeepers]

Agenda of the General Assembly meeting
Los Angeles, USA, Tuesday November 14, 0900-1200

1. status report, to include:

- - report from Secretariat (DNSO administrivia)          	10 min
- - report from the Chair (what on the list since Yokohama)       10 min
- - discussion                                            	 5 min

2. other reports                                        09:30
- - constituency meetings (held the day before) - 4 minutes each
   - ccTLD
   - Commercial
   - gTLD
   - ISP
   - Non-commercial
   - Registrars
   - Trademark
- - WGs and Committees                                    10 min/group from 10:00
   - if there are any, please notify me
- - questions/comments                                            10 min

3. debate on issues                                     10:30

- - Individual Constituency					10 min
   Proposals for going forward on this issue are welcomed.
- - procedures for GA Chair elections				10 min
   Procedures functionally similar to At Large elections suggested
- - relationship GA/@Large                        		 5 min
- - multilingual testbed						 5 min
   for orientation - see Monday's workshop for details
- - new TLDs - status review and suggestions for action (if any)   5 min

- - DNSO Review                                   		40 min
   introductions to the issues of DNSO organization sought

4. AOB                                  15 min, @11:45
   please have items ready for proposal at the start of the meeting, if 
possible
- --
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 22:37:08 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft agenda

At 22:20 29/10/2000 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>Did the Multilingual Testbed make it onto the DNSO Agenda? Where is the
>Agenda posted?

I am posting it in a few minutes.
Note: There is a separate workshop on the Multilingual Testbeds issues.
See http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr03nov00.htm

I think this is enough that we can get away with 5 mins for the IDN issue.

- --
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:50:34 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

At 22:27 04/11/2000 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>I wander about the proposed gTLD ".tel" (there might be others,
>now or in the future in the same case). IMHO such propositions
>concerning a telecom or an internet service should be prevented
>from being allocated a TLD (and the DNSO should warn the BoD
>against such an error)

There are 3 different applications for .tel - pulver, number.tel and telnic.

pulver basically replicates e164.arpa under the root, but wants to keep 
ownership of all numbers "to promote competition for number-related services".
It already has an operational structure under e164.com, btw.

number.tel wants a flat namespace under .tel, and should be rejected for 
operational preposterousness.

the telnic proposal seems to be for an open TLD.

So I think you are only criticizing the pulver proposal?

My personal comment is that I'd like to propose to ICANN that no 
application for a purpose that can easily be fulfilled using a subdomain of 
an existing domain be accepted - but that could easily be taken to reject 
ALL proposals, and that argument was lost long ago.....

- --
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: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:32:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

Harald,

using simular logic how do you feel about .GEO or .DIR?

.GEO would never have registrations beloning to another entity, and you
couldn't transfer registrations. Users would *never* type in a .GEO SLD.

.DIR A parallel to .COM?

- -rick

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 22:27 04/11/2000 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >I wander about the proposed gTLD ".tel" (there might be others,
> >now or in the future in the same case). IMHO such propositions
> >concerning a telecom or an internet service should be prevented
> >from being allocated a TLD (and the DNSO should warn the BoD
> >against such an error)
> 
> There are 3 different applications for .tel - pulver, number.tel and telnic.
> 
> pulver basically replicates e164.arpa under the root, but wants to keep 
> ownership of all numbers "to promote competition for number-related services".
> It already has an operational structure under e164.com, btw.
> 
> number.tel wants a flat namespace under .tel, and should be rejected for 
> operational preposterousness.
> 
> the telnic proposal seems to be for an open TLD.
> 
> So I think you are only criticizing the pulver proposal?
> 
> My personal comment is that I'd like to propose to ICANN that no 
> application for a purpose that can easily be fulfilled using a subdomain of 
> an existing domain be accepted - but that could easily be taken to reject 
> ALL proposals, and that argument was lost long ago.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- --
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:49:11 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Agenda Point 3, proposal to go forward

>3. Individual Constituency					10 min
> Proposals for going forward on this issue are welcomed.

The decision to create or allow a constituency for Individual Domain Name
Owners in the DNSO is not up to the DNSO, but to the Board.

The best the DNSO General Assembly or , more effectively, its Names Council
can do is  recommend to the Board to give recognition in principle to the
existence of such a constituency  at the earliest opportunity. 

If the Board does this in MdR, then a WG could  be formed to ease the
entrance of this constituency into the Names Council.
I understand the Board takes it time to approve constituency Charters.
AFAIK even the NCDNHC charter is not yet accepted by the Board. Please
correct me if this has now happened.
Perhaps the WG can help facilitate the early acceptance of the IDNO Charter.

Individual DN holders, organized in the IDNO, have petitioned the Board
since April  last year to recognize their interests as separate of those of
the 7 represented constituencies and to allow their representatives to sit
on the NC.
It is a scandal that  the Board has never formally replied to this petition.

The way to go forward on this issue is to draft a strongly worded
resolution for acceptance in MdRey, reminding both the NC and the  Board
that this is the third time that the GA has spoken with regards to this
festering issue and that it can no longer be dodged.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 13:15:11 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 22:32 4/11/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

 The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review 
>committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue - 
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into the 
>BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>

Harald,

What if it's deliberate?

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
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: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:02:13 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Roberto,

Could you please re-post the MDR adgenda?

As I stated earlier, I lost an entire Host when the RAID array failed. It it
still down. All email prior to Wed is inaccessible to me at the moment.
- --
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: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:21:06 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

Hello Rick,

Saturday, November 04, 2000, 5:32:02 PM, you wrote:
> .GEO would never have registrations beloning to another entity, and you
> couldn't transfer registrations. Users would *never* type in a .GEO SLD.

Then there is no need for a public TLD for it at all.

- -- 
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:06:40 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
 
> I wander about the proposed gTLD ".tel" (there might be others,
> now or in the future in the same case). IMHO such propositions
> concerning a telecom or an internet service should be prevented
> from being allocated a TLD (and the DNSO should warn the BoD
> against such an error) because:
> 
> -  telephone is not a new way of organizing web sites,

Nor is DNS "a way of organising web sites". In one sense it is much
less than that, just a way of mapping names to addresses. In
another, it is much more since it names many things other than web
sites.

> -  but a new way to interface with existing site owners.

More a net interface to another system -- phone numbers and
phone directories -- more-or-less orthogonal to network names.
 
> I certainly accept the ".tel" as the ".air" or the ".org" TLDs
> for Telcos as ".air" would be for air transportation and ".org"
> for NGOs., example http://att.tel for AT&T http://twa.air for TWA
> as http://www.icann.org is for ICANN.

That would make sense, although it isn't clear to me that it
would be of great value.

If you're going to do TLDs by industry, then are .air and .car
second levels under .transport or independent TLDs? In either
case, is there a .bike or .mule?

Or should we just have a .ind for all industries? Let only
major (definition?) industry associations have names in it.
They can hand out gm.car.ind, att.tel.ind etc. if they choose.

How is that better than just letting the associations live in
.org and point to their members at gm.com and att.com? It isn't
in any way I can see.  
 
> But the telephone link to the IBM call center should be
> something like tel://ibm.com , and I should be sometime
> able to call the ICANN with the tel://icann.org URL.

In that context, phone:// is clearer than tel://
This would, I think, require protocol changes. The browser would
have to understand "phone:" (change to HTTP or HTML) and be able
to look up a phone number for "ibm.com" (new type of DNS record?
new convention for use of TXT records? a separate directory?).

I therefore think such links are neither a good idea nor at all
likely to be implemented.

It might be feasible to allow links along the lines of
phone://44-123-45678 where the "44" is a UK country code.
Then the www.example.uk could provide links to one number
for sales, another for tech support, ...  My guess would
be that this would be quite difficult because of all the
variation in phone systems round the world.

In any case, that is outside our scope.
  
> An address like http://12101234567.tel would only mean the
> web site of the owner of the (210) 123 45 67 telephone number.
> As some have already theirs under ".com" or others ccTLDs.

This strikes me as madness. If I know his phone number, likely
I know his name. If not, some sort of directory may be in order
but not such a lunatic extension to the domain name system.
 
> Any other way restricting the telephone numbering plan
> to a TLD (like xxxx.e164.arpa) is protecting an old approach (E-164
> telephone plan) in a new system (internet).

This sounds plausible. I'm not at all sure it is needed.
- --
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 00:28:16 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Harald,

	I was there.  The Board went into the Cairo meeting expecting to go
forward with indirect elections, via the At-Large Council.  Hallway
discussion and the outcry at the Board's public forum made clear the extent
and depth of opposition to that approach.  As a result, on the final day of
the conference, the Board ended up adopting a *new* plan that had never
been publicly mooted .  It may well be that the board heard "many
conflicting views and options" in private consultations during the meeting.
 I don't know; those consultations were private, and I wasn't privy to
them.  Nor do I know who the Board chose for its private consultations.  I
do know that there were no consultations on that issue open to the public.
The public forum was devoted to detailing the undesirability of indirect
elections; the issue of holdover "board-squatting" directors was not
discussed then.  The idea that some of the initial directors might stay on
past November was first publicly raised during the board's meeting the
following day, when there was no longer any opportunity for outside input.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 10:32 PM 11/4/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>the Cairo decision was indeed the point at which we wish we had seen this.
>
>However, I have been told that the decision in Cairo was made after hearing 
>many conflicting views and options, including an explicit proposal to leave 
>the four seats empty (which I think the current incumbents would probably 
>have preferred).
>
>I still have not heard a word from the people who were in favour of this 
>decision rather than the "leave them empty" one.
>This worries me quite a bit - fielding a proposal for motion without having 
>heard anything from the "other side" seems worrisome to me.
>
>You were in Cairo. Do you know anyone who can offer an opinion?
>
>[BTW - I am coming to the conclusion that the bylaws of ICANN are horribly 
>badly written. They mix up the functions of "contract between the community 
>and the organization" and "activities ongoing at the moment" most 
>throughly. The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review 
>committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue - 
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into the 
>BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>
>                    Harald
>--
>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
>
>
- --
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: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:03:49 -0800
From: "Yvan G. Leclerc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

Rick,

  Domain names in .geo do indeed belong to other entities.  They are called
GeoRegistries.  Any entity can apply for accreditation as a GeoRegistry and
register domain names in .geo.  The domain names correspond to servers that
are responsible for storing "geodata" refering to square areas of different
sizes called cells.  More than one GeoRegistry can register a domain name for
a given cell, thereby providing competition for cells.

  End-users, on the other hand, do not register domain names.  Instead, they
register "geodata", which is a summary of their data (web page, image, vrml
file, map, audio file, ...) that includes the location or area that the data
refers to (plus keywords, url to data, and other attributes).  Geodata
provides a much richer representation than a domain name, thereby enabling
more precise discovery of data in general, and more particularly, enabling
discovery of data according to the geographic location that the data refers to.

  Please read the TLD policies section for more details.

Yvan
dot-geo project director

Rick H Wesson wrote:
> 
> Harald,
> 
> using simular logic how do you feel about .GEO or .DIR?
> 
> .GEO would never have registrations beloning to another entity, and you
> couldn't transfer registrations. Users would *never* type in a .GEO SLD.
> 
> .DIR A parallel to .COM?
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> > At 22:27 04/11/2000 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >I wander about the proposed gTLD ".tel" (there might be others,
> > >now or in the future in the same case). IMHO such propositions
> > >concerning a telecom or an internet service should be prevented
> > >from being allocated a TLD (and the DNSO should warn the BoD
> > >against such an error)
> >
> > There are 3 different applications for .tel - pulver, number.tel and telnic.
> >
> > pulver basically replicates e164.arpa under the root, but wants to keep
> > ownership of all numbers "to promote competition for number-related services".
> > It already has an operational structure under e164.com, btw.
> >
> > number.tel wants a flat namespace under .tel, and should be rejected for
> > operational preposterousness.
> >
> > the telnic proposal seems to be for an open TLD.
> >
> > So I think you are only criticizing the pulver proposal?
> >
> > My personal comment is that I'd like to propose to ICANN that no
> > application for a purpose that can easily be fulfilled using a subdomain of
> > an existing domain be accepted - but that could easily be taken to reject
> > ALL proposals, and that argument was lost long ago.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
_________________________________________________________ __    __
Yvan Leclerc                                              \ \  / /
                                                           \ \/ /
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.ai.sri.com/~leclerc/      /
Tel: (650) 859-6153              Fax: (650) 859-3735          /  ___
_________________________________________________________    /_____/
- --
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 10:28:21 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

At 23:06 04/11/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>In that context, phone:// is clearer than tel://
>This would, I think, require protocol changes. The browser would
>have to understand "phone:" (change to HTTP or HTML) and be able
>to look up a phone number for "ibm.com" (new type of DNS record?
>new convention for use of TXT records? a separate directory?).

The tel:, fax: and modem: URLs are standardized by the IETF in RFC 2806.

- --
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 10:18:10 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review
> >committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue -
> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into the
> >BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
> >
>
>Harald,
>
>What if it's deliberate?

In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the bylaws?`

- --
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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 10:21:44 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ".tel" proposed gTLD, and the like

At 17:32 04/11/2000 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>using simular logic how do you feel about .GEO or .DIR?
>
>.GEO would never have registrations beloning to another entity, and you
>couldn't transfer registrations. Users would *never* type in a .GEO SLD.

without having read the registration - it sounds about as bad as the pulver 
.tel - if you want to offer a monopoly service for geo location, offer it 
under .yourchoiceofmark.com.

>.DIR A parallel to .COM?

I feel pretty certain that at least one, probably more, of the new TLDs 
will be open TLDs, and thus parallel to .com. I've decided I don't care how 
many .coms there are.

- --
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: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:58:52 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for Los Angeles General Assembly meeting

The agenda for LA/Marina del Rey DNSO General Assembly meeting
has been posted in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001114.GAmdr-agenda.html

If you have any additional documents/URLs to reference in the agenda,
please let me know.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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, 06 Nov 2000 00:07:17 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 10:18 5/11/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review
>> >committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue -
>> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into
the
>> >BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
>> >
>>
>>Harald,
>>
>>What if it's deliberate?
>
>In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the bylaws?`
>
Harald,
 to some such a tradition (the longer you get away with it, the more it
becomes a tradition) has turned out to be useful. :-)

The DoC approved Bylaws contained an equal number of @large directors to
achieve a balance in representation.
This was the product of a negotiation process.

How convenient that later the goal posts can be moved without the need for
renewed negotiation.

Will the Board also  "amend" the inconvenient Art VI-B section 3 a and d?

ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
participation in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to
the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall
recognize a Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in
(b) below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to
exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
…
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be
posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion
it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final
decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing
all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or
recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify
the names council and will consider any response to that notification prior
to taking action.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
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: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:51:08 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: ICANN Members Forum: CALL FOR PROPOSALS

                 * * Please Forward * *
  =======================================================

                  CALL FOR PROPOSALS:
        SELF-ORGANIZATION OF THE ICANN MEMBERSHIP

                  ICANN Members Forum
                  Sunday, November 12
                     8 AM-12:30 PM
       Marina Beach Marriott Hotel, Marina del Rey                        

              http://www.ICANNmembers.org
  =======================================================

On the Sunday before the upcoming ICANN Board meeting, there will be an
ICANN Members Forum.  The purpose of this event is to promote the
self-organization of the membership so that it can continue to have a voice
in ICANN activities.

Since many members cannot come to Los Angeles, everyone is invited to
submit written proposals in advance.

Topic Areas
===========
The following list of topics is suggestive only. 

1. The Membership 
- -----------------
What might be appropriate funding models for members and elections? 
What constitutes appropriate access to the ICANN membership database? 
What is the relationship between ICANN members and different countries'
local Internet communities (which ccTLD registries are committed to serve)? 

2. Member Forums
- ----------------
What mechanisms allow public discussion among members? 
What mechanisms allow public discussion between members and elected
officials? 
Is the Q+A model used in the recent elections appropriate? 
What listservs have emerged and how well do they work? 
How can forums balance "signal" and "noise"? 
Would a formal list and web structure be useful? 

3. Members Committee
- -------------------- 
How can elected directors get assistance and feedback? 
Who can mediate between directors (few) and members (many)? 
Is a member committee useful and appropriate at the sub-Board level? 
Should a members committee be modeled after the GAC (Governmental Advisory
Committee)? 
How would a committee be constituted? 
Is a committee a bad idea?  Would such a body risk disenfranchising voters
and directors? 

4. Directors
- ------------
Can volunteer directors manage the demands of their position? 
What alternatives are there to dependence on ICANN staff for support? 

5. Next Steps 
- -------------
What would a members committee do? Should there be member studies of: 
    the At Large elections 
    UDRP Review 
    the At Large Concept 

Proposal Format
- ---------------
Everyone is urged to submit their ideas in writing. 
Length: 1-5 pages 
Format: text (preferably with formatted HTML attachment for fast web posting)
Address to send proposals: [email-masked] 

Statements will be posted as received. There will be an on-going comment
and discussion period until the Forum in Los Angeles. 
Posting site: HTTP://WWW.ICANNMEMBERS.ORG
Proposals will be presented and discussed at the ICANN Members Forum on
November 12.

Proposals should be submitted by:
     Monday, November 6
to give everyone time to review and comment on them.  (Later submissions
will be posted, but may suffer from a lack of public review.)

Program Committee
- -----------------
The ICANN Members Forum is a bottom-up, self-organizing activity planned
independently of the staff of ICANN.   The Program Committee list can be
viewed at:
http://www.ICANNmembers.org/Forum.html#Program-Committee

For more information see: http://www.ICANNmembers.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: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 15:12:05 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

- --=====================_10752816==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Roberto, Harald, Joop and all others,

IMHO this petty, poor and boring comedy should be simply addressed in
having a petition signed during the MDR meeting to sue the ICANN, demanding
the respect of the CA law regarding the Members. ie that every person sharing
into the process of electing a Board Director is a Member. A non profit
organization without Member and a permanent "interim" board, changing the
very nature of the Board at unexpected will, is pure joke. As Esther Dyson 
says,
it has no legitimacy.

We need members (@large plus representative entities) as an ICANN GA,
the by laws changes to be approved by the ICANN GA, as anywhere else
in the world. Such an action could be carried through a Political Action 
Comity
or  equivalent (I propose ICAPAC for a name easy to recall and make press),
with a Membership fee of $100 to pay for the costs. I am ready to subscribe.

The DNSO GA is probably the largest group to know its members (@large
entities are not organized yet), many of its members have shown their
disagreement with the current boardsquattering: I think it is to us to move.
A first strong signal will be to vote the proposed motion for the DNSO GA
Chair to be elected by the DNSO GA. A second one to review the NC
composition and election method, them willing it or not. In parallel, I
understand that would be braodly seconded a motion to be proposed to all
the other ICANN related entities to request the resignation of the Squattering
Fours.

The ICANN is not a gift from Mrs. Becky Burr (cf. some of the Board motion)
but a common property of the Internet users.

We happen to be that internet users.

I note that the BoD is made today of :

- -  5 @large directors elect not allowed yet to seat
- -  4 @large permanent interim directors
- -  4 Directors already prevented to vote on the most controversed issue
- -  several others under scrutiny for that issue which may totally block
    the development of the Internet (should the remaining happy few
    vote for the ".tel" gTLD, look at the ITU position:
    http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/index.html#OtherCorrespondence
    we are not talking about small issues)

Is that really serious?
Jefsey

At 12:07 05/11/00, you wrote:
>At 10:18 5/11/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >>The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review
> >> >committee on whether or how the At Large representation should continue -
> >> >http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5 - is written into
>the
> >> >BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]
> >> >
> >>
> >>Harald,
> >>
> >>What if it's deliberate?
> >
> >In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the bylaws?`
> >
>Harald,
>  to some such a tradition (the longer you get away with it, the more it
>becomes a tradition) has turned out to be useful. :-)
>
>The DoC approved Bylaws contained an equal number of @large directors to
>achieve a balance in representation.
>This was the product of a negotiation process.
>
>How convenient that later the goal posts can be moved without the need for
>renewed negotiation.
>
>Will the Board also  "amend" the inconvenient Art VI-B section 3 a and d?
>
>ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
>Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
>(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
>criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
>excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
>participation in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to
>the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
>consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall
>recognize a Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in
>(b) below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to
>exist for purposes of these Bylaws.
>…
>(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
>recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be
>posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may
>create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
>motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
>Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion
>it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
>desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final
>decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing
>all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or
>recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify
>the names council and will consider any response to that notification prior
>to taking action.
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>the Cyberspace Association and
>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>Elected representative.
>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

- --=====================_10752816==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Roberto, Harald, Joop and all others, <br>
<br>
IMHO this petty, poor and boring comedy should be simply addressed in
<br>
having a petition signed during the MDR meeting to sue the ICANN,
demanding <br>
the respect of the CA law regarding the Members. ie that every person
sharing <br>
into the process of electing a Board Director is a Member. A non profit
<br>
organization without Member and a permanent &quot;interim&quot; board,
changing the <br>
very nature of the Board at unexpected will, is pure joke. As Esther
Dyson says, <br>
it has no legitimacy. <br>
<br>
We need members (@large plus representative entities) as an ICANN
GA,<br>
the by laws changes to be approved by the ICANN GA, as anywhere else
<br>
in the world. Such an action could be carried through a Political Action
Comity <br>
or&nbsp; equivalent (I propose ICAPAC for a name easy to recall and make
press), <br>
with a Membership fee of $100 to pay for the costs. I am ready to
subscribe.<br>
<br>
The DNSO GA is probably the largest group to know its members
(@large<br>
entities are not organized yet), many of its members have shown their
<br>
disagreement with the current boardsquattering: I think it is to us to
move. <br>
A first strong signal will be to vote the proposed motion for the DNSO GA
<br>
Chair to be elected by the DNSO GA. A second one to review the NC <br>
composition and election method, them willing it or not. In parallel, I
<br>
understand that would be braodly seconded a motion to be proposed to all
<br>
the other ICANN related entities to request the resignation of the
Squattering <br>
Fours. <br>
<br>
The ICANN is not a gift from Mrs. Becky Burr (cf. some of the Board
motion) <br>
but a common property of the Internet users. <br>
<br>
We happen to be that internet users.<br>
<br>
I note that the BoD is made today of :<br>
<br>
- -&nbsp; 5 @large directors elect not allowed yet to seat<br>
- -&nbsp; 4 @large permanent interim directors<br>
- -&nbsp; 4 Directors already prevented to vote on the most controversed
issue<br>
- -&nbsp; several others under scrutiny for that issue which may totally
block <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; the development of the Internet (should the remaining happy
few <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; vote for the &quot;.tel&quot; gTLD, look at the ITU
position: <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;
<font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/index.html#OtherCorrespondence<br>
</u></font>&nbsp;&nbsp; we are not talking about small issues)<br>
<br>
Is that really serious?<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:07 05/11/00, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 10:18 5/11/00 +0100, Harald
Alvestrand wrote:<br>
&gt;At 13:15 05/11/2000 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;The most glaring example is that the schedule of the review<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;committee on whether or how the At Large representation
should continue -<br>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;<a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#II-5</a>
- - is written into<br>
the<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;BYLAWS, not just a board decision. This is stupid.]<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;Harald,<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;What if it's deliberate?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;In order to achieve what? A tradition of instability of the
bylaws?`<br>
&gt;<br>
Harald,<br>
&nbsp;to some such a tradition (the longer you get away with it, the more
it<br>
becomes a tradition) has turned out to be useful. :-)<br>
<br>
The DoC approved Bylaws contained an equal number of @large directors
to<br>
achieve a balance in representation.<br>
This was the product of a negotiation process.<br>
<br>
How convenient that later the goal posts can be moved without the need
for<br>
renewed negotiation.<br>
<br>
Will the Board also&nbsp; &quot;amend&quot; the inconvenient Art VI-B
section 3 a and d?<br>
<br>
ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION<br>
Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES<br>
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its
own<br>
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall
be<br>
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of<br>
participation in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate
to<br>
the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and<br>
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board
shall<br>
recognize a Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described
in<br>
(b) below) by a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed
to<br>
exist for purposes of these Bylaws.<br>
…<br>
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for<br>
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
be<br>
posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board
may<br>
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its
own<br>
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of
the<br>
Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own
motion<br>
it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary
or<br>
desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a
final<br>
decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after
reviewing<br>
all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or<br>
recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will
notify<br>
the names council and will consider any response to that notification
prior<br>
to taking action.<br>
<br>
<br>
- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--&nbsp; <br>
the Cyberspace Association and <br>
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners<br>
Elected representative.<br>
<a href="http://www.idno.org /" eudora="autourl">http://www.idno.org </a>
<br>
<br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_10752816==_.ALT--

- --
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 #179
************************