Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #181
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 7 2000          Volume 01 : Number 181

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

Date: Mon,  6 Nov 2000 18:26:48 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Thomas,

>
>I do agree with you that the current process for bylaw changes is
>inappropriate, and should be changed in a way which makes it much
>harder for the board to change the rules of the game.

This has been an issue since the beginning, but we hqve been unqble to 
define things this way.
Maybe in the initial phase it could have been useful to be "flexible", 
but now we should definitibelytarget at a more stable situation.

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: Mon,  6 Nov 2000 18:57:39 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Jonathan,

>	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.

Vint Cerf proposed to keep 4 out of 9 initial directors, to have the 
total of 9 at-large.
I replied that I was less concerned about the number of at-large as much
 I was concerned about the method of elections: the point was "how" to 
elect the Directors, not "how many".
Off my memory, nobody else intervened on this hypothesis, so I agree, 
there was not a lot of debate.

Regards
Roberto

> 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
>
>
>
>
- --
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 14:34:22 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
> First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
>  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
> 
How is this?

I move that the GA make two recommendations:

1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
	before the general meeting, not after.

2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
	their original time should immediately resign.
- --
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, 6 Nov 2000 14:59:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

second

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Sandy Harris wrote:

> 1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> 	before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> 	their original time should immediately resign.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 21:43:58 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

To all.
I am back. It seems my mail has had the impact I wished. Now I want to
explain.

For several days, people have toyed with two ideas:
- - motioning to have the Chair elected by the GA
- - motioning to fight a decision of the Board (seatsquattering).

I supported the democratic election of the Chair and a bold motion plus
lobbyng as the only for it to happen (it is fully documented that this is the
normal by law upgrade procedure within ICANN).

I suggested that the icann-candidates ML to be used for discussing
BoD decisions, for the reasons developped here by Thomas, rather than
this ML.

Then I found that the petty usual boring comedy was under way once again
- -  a few actors were going too far, exciting enthusiats, confusing Chair and
    Seatsquatting issues,  to be sure nothing would happen
- -  then accepting my motion but making it a bore, my demand becoming a
    plea, my ultimatum becoming a delayed possibility.

This protection scheme is a well oiled loop: it is permitted because the
ICANN has no Members and it permits the ICANN to run without Members.
This way a few individuals have the power: a new point? let over do it; then
let bury it in a non-vote, this keeps everyone happy, the best being to vote
about voting, and then to vote a study about the way we voted.

I wished to expose these individuals, so I over-over-did it and when called to
the voting order I accepted it as supposedly a way to over-over-over-doing it
what they had to cool down. The rest is public mail.

BTW ...

I maintain my seconded motion demanding the Chair of the DNSO to
be elected from today on by the DNSO/GA.
Jefsey

At 12:00 06/11/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-11-05 15:12:05 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Don't mix up legitimacy (which is certainly problematic) and
>legality (which is just an open question).

IMHO you may not question the legality of a legitimate move. You
should question every iligitimate moves, even legal. This is just a
side thinking.

>Some even say that the "At Large Members trick" in the bylaws -
>basically, don't put elections into the bylaws, but do a board
>decision instead - may be a nice and effective way to work around
>the California law's provisions.  One comment I heared was: "if that
>law really looks like this, it's just inviting work-arounds".
>
> > 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.
>
>I do agree with you that the current process for bylaw changes is
>inappropriate, and should be changed in a way which makes it much
>harder for the board to change the rules of the game.
>
>--
>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: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:47:07 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists

On the request of GA' Chairs the Secretariat is initiating today
the General Assembly vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists.
All subscribers to the Voting Registry, 252 persons, will receive
ballots shortly.

DNSO Secretariat
- --

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
                Vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists
                                    b02

6 November 2000

Vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly of the
DNSO

Basic outline of the voting for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists

   * Basic outline http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-b02-outline.html

Electorate and Voting Registry

   * Electorate. Voting roster
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b02rosterindex.html, as of 6 November
     2000, at the time the ballot was sent out.
   * Voting Registry
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

Voting Rules used by the DNSO General Assembly

   * Voting rules http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

Time for the vote

   * Begins: Monday 6 November 23:00 UTC
     (15:00 LA, 18:00 New York, 24:00 Paris, 07:00 next day Tokyo)
   * Ends: Monday 17 November 23:00 UTC
     (15:00 LA, 18:00 New York, 24:00 Paris, 07:00 next day Tokyo)

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO GA's Chair

- --
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, 6 Nov 2000 16:03:04 -0500
From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

I second Sandy's motion.

Dennis Schaefer
- -----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
>> First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
>>  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
>> 
>How is this?
>
>I move that the GA make two recommendations:
>
>1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> before the general meeting, not after.
>
>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> their original time should immediately resign.
>--
>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, 06 Nov 2000 23:07:05 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rules of vote

To all.
I received a mail from [email-masked] concerning the new rules of vote
and seeking my vote about them.

Sorry this is new to me. If someone could help me with the following:

1. is that a normal procedure
2. what are the main changes with existing procedure
3. I disapporve the GA representation to the BoD to be filtered by the NC.
4. I see no Chair presentation

Would that not be an appropriate place to address the BoD, NC and
Chair issues in reading:

"d) The GA shall elect, pursuant to procedures approved by the Board,
      its Chairman and persons to serve on the Board in those seats
      reserved for the DNSO and on the NC in those seats reserved for
      the GA."

Jefsey 

- --
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 17:47:26 -0800
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules of vote

Jefsey,

I agree with your comments: "d" should be more specific.  I
do recall a discussion about the need to clarify the rules; but
the gavote email was the only result from that I saw.  Whomever
put the email together did a great job; but could improve a
couple things.  One would be "d" as you pointed out the other
is what must be a typo under "Rights to Post":

"Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may
cause monitoring to be applied to other members' posts. This is to be
avoided as far as possible."

I would think that, "... be avoided as much as possible", reads more
clearly and accurately.

~k

At 02:07 PM 11/6/2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>To all.
>I received a mail from [email-masked] concerning the new rules of vote
>and seeking my vote about them.
>
>Sorry this is new to me. If someone could help me with the following:
>
>1. is that a normal procedure
>2. what are the main changes with existing procedure
>3. I disapporve the GA representation to the BoD to be filtered by the NC.
>4. I see no Chair presentation
>
>Would that not be an appropriate place to address the BoD, NC and
>Chair issues in reading:
>
>"d) The GA shall elect, pursuant to procedures approved by the Board,
>      its Chairman and persons to serve on the Board in those seats
>      reserved for the DNSO and on the NC in those seats reserved for
>      the GA."
>
>Jefsey
>--
>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, 6 Nov 2000 21:58:06 -0500
From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules of vote

Jefsy --

Excellent approach!

>Dennis Schaefer
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 5:07 PM
Subject: [ga] Rules of vote

> To all.
> I received a mail from [email-masked] concerning the new rules of vote
> and seeking my vote about them.
>
> Sorry this is new to me. If someone could help me with the following:
>
> 1. is that a normal procedure
> 2. what are the main changes with existing procedure
> 3. I disapporve the GA representation to the BoD to be filtered by the NC.
> 4. I see no Chair presentation
>
> Would that not be an appropriate place to address the BoD, NC and
> Chair issues in reading:
>
> "d) The GA shall elect, pursuant to procedures approved by the Board,
>       its Chairman and persons to serve on the Board in those seats
>       reserved for the DNSO and on the NC in those seats reserved for
>       the GA."
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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, 06 Nov 2000 23:49:40 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

	I support the motion as well.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 04:03 PM 11/6/00 -0500, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>I second Sandy's motion.
>
>Dennis Schaefer
>[snip]
>>
>>I move that the GA make two recommendations:
>>
>>1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
>> before the general meeting, not after.
>>
>>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
>> their original time should immediately resign.
- --
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, 6 Nov 2000 22:56:55 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 11:49 pm -0500 11/6/00, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>	I support the motion as well.
>

Likewise

>
>At 04:03 PM 11/6/00 -0500, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>>I second Sandy's motion.
>>
>>Dennis Schaefer
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>I move that the GA make two recommendations:
>>>
>>>1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
>>> before the general meeting, not after.
>>>
>>>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
>>> their original time should immediately resign.
>--
>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

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 6 Nov 2000 22:01:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Sandy,

Excelent! We have agreement now how can we make this statement more
influencial to the NC and BoD.

- -rick

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Sandy Harris wrote:

> I move that the GA make two recommendations:
> 
> 1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> 	before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> 	their original time should immediately resign.

- --
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, 7 Nov 2000 09:22:51 +0100
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Sandy,

I think it is a waste of time for the DNSO GA to decide anything about the
composition of the Board. The DNSO should give advice to the Board about
DNSO matters. Of course, we can have an opinion about it, but I think other
channels than the DNSO have to be used if the goal is to change the
composition of the Board.

Best regards,
Alf H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sandy
> Harris
> Sent: 6. november 2000 20:34
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
>
>
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
> > First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
> >  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
> >
> How is this?
>
> I move that the GA make two recommendations:
>
> 1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> 	before the general meeting, not after.
>
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> 	their original time should immediately resign.
> --
> 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, 7 Nov 2000 10:18:02 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, at 22:56 [=GMT-0600], Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 11:49 pm -0500 11/6/00, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >	I support the motion as well.
> >
> 
> Likewise

And me too.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

> 
> >
> >At 04:03 PM 11/6/00 -0500, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
> >>I second Sandy's motion.
> >>
> >>Dennis Schaefer
> >>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>I move that the GA make two recommendations:
> >>>
> >>>1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> >>> before the general meeting, not after.
> >>>
> >>>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> >>> their original time should immediately resign.

- --
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, 07 Nov 2000 18:54:34 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 14:34 6/11/00 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
>> First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
>>  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
>> 
>How is this?
>
>I move that the GA make two recommendations:
>
>1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
>	before the general meeting, not after.
>
>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
>	their original time should immediately resign.
>--

Yes. I support this.

- --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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:33:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, at 09:22 [=GMT+0100], Alf Hansen wrote:

> I think it is a waste of time for the DNSO GA to decide anything about the
> composition of the Board. The DNSO should give advice to the Board about
> DNSO matters. Of course, we can have an opinion about it, but I think other
> channels than the DNSO have to be used if the goal is to change the
> composition of the Board.

Perhaps you have other channels. I have not. 
Perhaps you can use those other channels? For those of us, who are not
'inside', making a statement is about the only thing. And I wouldn't
mind getting it out in the open. 
I am sure ICANN is also much in favour of that, given its bottom-up
approach and transparency.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sandy
> > Harris
> > Sent: 6. november 2000 20:34
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> >
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
> > > First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
> > >  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
> > >
> > How is this?
> >
> > I move that the GA make two recommendations:
> >
> > 1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> > 	before the general meeting, not after.
> >
> > 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> > 	their original time should immediately resign.
> > --
> > 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, 07 Nov 2000 11:53:48 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

I am afraid Folks, Alf is totally right.

- - either you want a revolution and you create an external comity with the
   support of everyone you may convince, collect money (this will show the
   real support you have) and hire a good attorney having a CA licence to
   look into the legality of ICANN rules and doings.
   Here you are no more DNSO or Harald would be right asking you to vote, what
   you cannot do since your motion and expenses are out of the DNSO scope.

- - or you take an internal route. voting on internal DNSO issues conflicting 
with
   the present written rules and lobby hard in the Hall, as it seems to be the
   validated procedure at ICANN with on the fly final decisions.

   In such a case you already have two opportunities:

   -  to support the motion seconded by Jeff Williams demanding an immediate
      by laws update so the next DNSO Chair is elected by the GA and rejecting
      the modified version by Harald pleading for such a change at a later date

   -  to refuse the currently proposed voting rules until the (d) paragraph 
concerning
      the GA is modified and says that the GA elects its Chair and its DNSO 
and
      NC representatives.

- - or/and you personally file a complaint according to the ICANN rules because
   you feel the present behavior of the ICANN, of some Directors or of some 
Chair
   hurts your personal interests. I would say this should be a prerequisite 
for anyone
   with an objective. But I acknowledge that our American lawyers members 
should
   take the lead so everyone know how to write a proper filing.

As a general comment - as per my previous mail - if you want to do something
you must watch your steps carefully as several who shout with you are just 
trying
to lead you into dead end directions. In particular do not discuss the 
personal
integrity of any Director. There is so much money at stake and the BoD is so
clumsy at handling the issue that this is "normal procedure" for some 
interests.
Please do not fall into such traps.

I think that all of us want the best of the ICANN. It not being a governing 
body,
nor a dwindling kernel of uncontrolled/contested persons, but a nice, 
efficient
and competent "net keeper" team. Every of us may have his own ideas about
the way to reach that goal, but please keep in mind we want to BUILD, not to
destroy.
Jefsey

At 09:22 07/11/00, you wrote:
>Sandy,
>
>I think it is a waste of time for the DNSO GA to decide anything about the
>composition of the Board. The DNSO should give advice to the Board about
>DNSO matters. Of course, we can have an opinion about it, but I think other
>channels than the DNSO have to be used if the goal is to change the
>composition of the Board.
>
>Best regards,
>Alf H
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sandy
> > Harris
> > Sent: 6. november 2000 20:34
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> >
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I wouls like to give my two cents on this.
> > > First of all, Sandy has asked whether the Chair would oppose a motion: I
> > >  would not oppose it, but I would suggest to be careful in the contents.
> > >
> > How is this?
> >
> > I move that the GA make two recommendations:
> >
> > 1) The newly elected board members should take their seats
> >       before the general meeting, not after.
> >
> > 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> >       their original time should immediately resign.
> > --
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #181
************************