Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #182
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 7 2000          Volume 01 : Number 182

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:29 +0100
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Marc,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
> Schneiders
> Sent: 7. november 2000 10:33
> To: Alf Hansen
> Cc: Sandy Harris; [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.
>

I have no such channels, either. I just think we should focus on things we
can do something about and act as a Domain Name Support Organisation, not as
the Owner of the ICANN company. We can play that we are the owners, but it
will be a waste of time. Let us make some progress on the issues on item 3
on the Agenda for LA:

          - Individual Constituency, 10 min
          - Procedures for GA Chair elections, 10 min
          - Relationship GA/@Large, 5 min
          - Multilingual testbed, 5 min
          - New TLDs,  5 min
          - DNSO Review, 40 min

As you see, there are very few minutes per item, so we need to cover them on
line on beforehand.

Just my opinion.

Best regards,
Alf H

- --
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 07:52:45 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:47:29PM +0100, Alf Hansen wrote:
[...]
> I have no such channels, either.  I just think we should focus on
> things we can do something about and act as a Domain Name Support
> Organisation, not as the Owner of the ICANN company.  We can play that
> we are the owners, but it will be a waste of time.  Let us make some
> progress on the issues on item 3 on the Agenda for LA:
> 
>           - Individual Constituency, 10 min
>           - Procedures for GA Chair elections, 10 min
>           - Relationship GA/@Large, 5 min
>           - Multilingual testbed, 5 min
>           - New TLDs,  5 min
>           - DNSO Review, 40 min
> 
>As you see, there are very few minutes per item, so we need to cover them on
>line on beforehand.

There are three issues of potential substance (Multilingual testbed, new
tlds, dnso review), one issue too vague to be discussed (GA/AtLarge),
and two issues that are basically ratholes:

1) there is nothing of consequence about an individual constituency 
that can be accomplished in 10 minutes.  Moreover, it overlaps with the 
DNSO review topic.

2) we have a perfectly adequate procedure for selecting a chair. 
moreover, if one examines the endorsements for board candidates, one
notes a disturbing pattern of *large* numbers of people who have never
participated in the DNSO in any way suddenly turning up to endorse
candidates (for example, Jamie Love had well over 100 endorsements, most
of who had never in any aspect of ICANN previously).   While this might 
be satisfying to supporters of Jamie Love, it illustrates perfectly 
that an election by the GA is terribly susceptible to capture.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 08:26:47 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Alf,

Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 12:22:51 AM, 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.

What other channels would you recommend that would have the ability to
actually affect it?

- -- 
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, 07 Nov 2000 11:45:26 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Alf Hansen wrote:
> 
> Sandy,
> 
> I think it is a waste of time for the DNSO GA to decide anything about the
> composition of the Board.

We clearly cannot decide this. Methinks we can recommend. I wasn't entirely
certain on that point, which is why I asked the chair if such a motion would
be in order. Not whether it would be effective, just in order. I understood
the answer to be 'yes'.

> The DNSO should give advice to the Board about DNSO matters. Of course,
> we can have an opinion about it,

It is a rather serious matter. Methinks we have an obligation to express
that opinion.

> but I think other channels than the DNSO have to be used if the goal is
> to change the composition of the Board.

By all means use other channels as well. I'm sure various other people will.
Some already have, e.g. Froomkin posting his paper. I'd be very surprised
indeed if this issue is not raised from the floor at the meeting. 

> > 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.

When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the above two points
are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.
- --
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 11:54:02 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> Marc,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marc
> > Schneiders Sent: 7. november 2000 10:33 To: Alf Hansen Cc: Sandy
> > Harris; [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.
> >
> 
> I have no such channels, either. I just think we should focus on
> things we can do something about and act as a Domain Name Support
> Organisation, not as the Owner of the ICANN company. 

Just who are the "owners" of ICANN?  It is a non-profit organization 
whose membership is supposed to drive it.  Part of the problem with 
ICANN is its refusal to recognize its membership.  According to 
California law, anyone who votes for board members is a member 
with all rights of a member.  Just because the BoD changed the 
bylaws, it doesn't change the law.  The bylaws changes may be 
against the law.

If the GA does not make a statement representing its membership, 
then why bother at all?  Why shouldn't the GA stand up and make 
it's wishes known?  Since one of the greatest hurdles we have to 
face is the make-up of the BoD, and just about everyone in the GA 
agrees that it requires change, where will it come from if not the GA 
and the MAL?  The BoD may have attempted to disenfranchise us, 
and we can let them OR the GA can raise its voice OR we can allow 
ICANN to continue on its present course and totally disenfranchise 
all individuals and small businesses.

Leah Gallegos

We can play that
> we are the owners, but it will be a waste of time. Let us make some
> progress on the issues on item 3 on the Agenda for LA:
> 
>           - Individual Constituency, 10 min
>           - Procedures for GA Chair elections, 10 min
>           - Relationship GA/@Large, 5 min
>           - Multilingual testbed, 5 min
>           - New TLDs,  5 min
>           - DNSO Review, 40 min
> 
> As you see, there are very few minutes per item, so we need to cover
> them on line on beforehand.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> 
> --
> 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

- --
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 08:55:37 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:27 AM
> 
> Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 12:22:51 AM, 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.
> 
> What other channels would you recommend that would have the ability to
> actually affect it?

Huh?! Are we talking about the same crowd? The answer is that there are
zero/none/nada channels.
- --
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 08:59:51 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Roeland,

Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 8:55:37 AM, you wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:27 AM
>> 
>> Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 12:22:51 AM, 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.
>> 
>> What other channels would you recommend that would have the ability to
>> actually affect it?

> Huh?! Are we talking about the same crowd? The answer is that there are
> zero/none/nada channels.

That was my point, Roeland.  He is saying another channel would be
more appropriate, and I wanted to know what channel he thought woudl
be appropriate, because I certainly don't know of one.

- -- 
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, 7 Nov 2000 09:09:26 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:45:26AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the above two points
> are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.

I am opposed to the recommendations.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 09:12:56 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Well, there is another option, that may be called another channel. However,
I don't see enough of a coalition in order to pull it off.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:00 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: Alf Hansen; Sandy Harris; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> 
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 8:55:37 AM, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:27 AM
> >> 
> >> Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 12:22:51 AM, 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.
> >> 
> >> What other channels would you recommend that would have 
> the ability to
> >> actually affect it?
> 
> > Huh?! Are we talking about the same crowd? The answer is 
> that there are
> > zero/none/nada channels.
> 
> That was my point, Roeland.  He is saying another channel would be
> more appropriate, and I wanted to know what channel he thought woudl
> be appropriate, because I certainly don't know of one.
> 
> -- 
> 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, 7 Nov 2000 09:42:31 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> 1) there is nothing of consequence about an individual
> constituency that can be accomplished in 10 minutes.
> Moreover, it overlaps with the DNSO review topic.

There is a possible constructive presentation of this topic. Specifically,
if there are persons or organizations interested in forming such a
constituency, they should be given a brief opportunity to address the
Assembly, announce their intention and solicit participation. Such an
announcement opportunity should always be open at all GA meetings to any
group seeking to form a new constituency, regardless of whether it's for
individuals or something else.

Similarly, once such a group has self-organized, it should be allowed time
at a GA meeting to present the proposed new constituency, its charter, and
its proposed membership criteria.

      -- Bret

- --
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 18:16:39 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 13:47 07/11/00, you wrote:
>Marc,
>We can play that we are the owners, but it will be a waste of time.

Alf, the problem is we *are* the co-owners. The initial by laws have been
tailored for a progressive transfer of the ownership from the USG to the
@large, ie the users. With a lot of warranties and counter powers. This
has been well devised and discussed so the stability of the network would
be protected and even enforced. The constant changes in the by laws
are progressively destabilizing the whole process, and have a direct
impact on the technical issues you quote as you may realize.

If people feel there is neither by laws stability nor sensible organization
at the "net keeper" organization they will hardly be interested in subjects
dependant from that organization's credibility and from the network
harmonious and stable technical development. Restoring the ICANN
and DNSO GA quietness is a prerequisite to discuss all this.

So, I would propose to reverse the order and to start with the DNSO
reviw, so people may be satisfied that the other subjects are based upon
a common understanding of the DNSO's role and target under the present
circumstances. Otherwise, each subject will include that question and
notheing will be achieved.

>Let us make some progress on the issues on item 3 on the Agenda for LA:
>
>           - Individual Constituency, 10 min
>           - Procedures for GA Chair elections, 10 min
>           - Relationship GA/@Large, 5 min
>           - Multilingual testbed, 5 min
>           - New TLDs,  5 min
>           - DNSO Review, 40 min
>
>As you see, there are very few minutes per item, so we need to cover them on
>line on beforehand.
>
>Just my opinion.

Just an opinion too.
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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:38:36 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> 
> There are three issues of potential substance (Multilingual testbed,
> new tlds, dnso review), one issue too vague to be discussed
> (GA/AtLarge), and two issues that are basically ratholes:
> 
> 1) there is nothing of consequence about an individual constituency
> that can be accomplished in 10 minutes.  Moreover, it overlaps with
> the DNSO review topic.
> 
> 2) we have a perfectly adequate procedure for selecting a chair.
> moreover, if one examines the endorsements for board candidates, one
> notes a disturbing pattern of *large* numbers of people who have never
> participated in the DNSO in any way suddenly turning up to endorse
> candidates (for example, Jamie Love had well over 100 endorsements,
> most of who had never in any aspect of ICANN previously).   While this
> might be satisfying to supporters of Jamie Love, it illustrates
> perfectly that an election by the GA is terribly susceptible to
> capture.
> 
Or could it be that those, like me, who have lurked on the GA finally 
had a reason to speak out for individuals?  There was finally an 
individual running who was on the side of of the GA membership 
rather than a puppet.  If "capture" means that the public raises its 
voice and chooses a representative, then "capture" is what we 
need.

You seem to think that not participating in some of the ridiculous 
arguments on this list means non-caring or non-involvement.  What 
I have seen is the issues bringing out more and more people who do 
care and who have thus far been uninformed.  It's amazing what a 
little information to the public can do, isn't it?

Leah Gallegos
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> -- 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

- --
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 12:43:19 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Of course you are. It is to be expected.

> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:45:26AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > 
> > When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the above two
> > points are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.
> 
> I am opposed to the recommendations.  
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> -- 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

- --
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 12:42:41 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

I know this is old news - but, I think this spoke volumes! When Kent says 
"susceptible to capture" do you think he mean by corporate interests?
Lets review the math again --  (maybe it's "fuzzy math"?)

Jonathan Cohen - 31 nominations
Peter de Blanc - 45 nominations
Jill Keogh - 1 nomination
James P. Love - 127 nominations
Ronald N. Weikers - 53 nominations

Yet, to spite the HUGE support for Love,  Cohen gets elected. How does this 
work? I think the overwhelming support for Love was a statement that people 
want more representation for individuals and non-corporate interests. I 
don't think that it is "susceptible to capture" --  it's already been captured.

At 07:52 AM 11/07/2000 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>Jamie Love had well over 100 endorsements, most
>of who had never in any aspect of ICANN previously.   While this might
>be satisfying to supporters of Jamie Love, it illustrates perfectly
>that an election by the GA is terribly susceptible to capture.

- --
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 10:45:27 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 9:09:26 AM, you wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:45:26AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>> 
>> When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the above two points
>> are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.

> I am opposed to the recommendations.  

To give you the benefit of the doubt that your opposition is meant
constructively, would you care to share why you are opposed to these
recommendations, so you can contribute to the thought process here?

- -- 
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, 7 Nov 2000 10:43:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> 2) we have a perfectly adequate procedure for selecting a chair.
> moreover, if one examines the endorsements for board candidates, one
> notes a disturbing pattern of *large* numbers of people who have never
> participated in the DNSO in any way suddenly turning up to endorse
> candidates (for example, Jamie Love had well over 100 endorsements,
> most of who had never in any aspect of ICANN previously).   While this
> might be satisfying to supporters of Jamie Love, it illustrates
> perfectly that an election by the GA is terribly susceptible to
> capture.

We have thousands of people in the U.S. going to the polls today that have
never actively participated in the U.S. government previously.

It's called democracy Kent(well strictly speaking we operate in a
republic.)

Get used to it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell                          
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 11:39:36 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:54 AM

> and the MAL?  The BoD may have attempted to disenfranchise us, 
> and we can let them OR the GA can raise its voice OR we can allow 
> ICANN to continue on its present course and totally disenfranchise 
> all individuals and small businesses.
> 
> Leah Gallegos

This latter case is interesting. Possible scenarios are;

that the CA AG does nothing, not unprecedented.
DOC does nothing, also not unprecedented
and US Congress does nothing, very much not unprecedented.

We wont consider CA legislature, they never do anything.

Don't forget the part about prosecutorial descretion, the CA AG doesn't HAVE
to do anything. He just prioritizes the issue near the bottom of his stack,
only to be dislodged via tactical nuke.

In this case, what are the possible options? The legally allowed options
actually run the gamut from passive boycotting (simply ceding the filed to
the opponent) to setting up a whole new organization in opposition.

However, the old Chinese admonishment applies ... "be careful whom you pick
as an enemy, for that is who you will become."
- --
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 11:43:42 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Of course! However, I register in favor of the recommendations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:09 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:45:26AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > 
> > When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the 
> above two points
> > are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.
> 
> I am opposed to the recommendations.  
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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 12:05:10 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

As do I.

As has been pointed out many times, consensus does not mean
unanimous consent.

- --
Christopher Ambler
CTO, Image Online Design, Inc.
The .Web Internet Domain Registry
[email-masked]
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> Of course! However, I register in favor of the recommendations.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:09 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:45:26AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > 
> > > When the issue does come up, I'd like to ensure that the 
> > above two points
> > > are mentioned as consensus recommendations from the DNSO GA.
> > 
> > I am opposed to the recommendations.  
> > 
> > -- 
> > Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> > [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > 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, 7 Nov 2000 12:54:02 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 06:16:39PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> At 13:47 07/11/00, you wrote:
> >Marc,
> >We can play that we are the owners, but it will be a waste of time.
> 
> Alf, the problem is we *are* the co-owners. The initial by laws have been
> tailored for a progressive transfer of the ownership from the USG to the
> @large, ie the users.

No, they have not.  The initial bylaws are tailored for self-regulation 
of an industry, with user input.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 08 Nov 2000 10:11:37 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 09:42 7/11/00 -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> 1) there is nothing of consequence about an individual
>> constituency that can be accomplished in 10 minutes.
>> Moreover, it overlaps with the DNSO review topic.
>
>There is a possible constructive presentation of this topic. Specifically,
>if there are persons or organizations interested in forming such a
>constituency, they should be given a brief opportunity to address the
>Assembly, announce their intention and solicit participation. Such an
>announcement opportunity should always be open at all GA meetings to any
>group seeking to form a new constituency, regardless of whether it's for
>individuals or something else.
>
>Similarly, once such a group has self-organized, it should be allowed time
>at a GA meeting to present the proposed new constituency, its charter, and
>its proposed membership criteria.
>

Yes. This is the way to go about it. There is overlap with the DNSO review
topic, but an existing constituency that has been  petitioning for
recognition for 18 months, that has a Charter, membership criteria  and
elected representatives should be a key factor in that review.
The Reviewers should be fully aware of all the facts pertaining to it.

- --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 13:20:35 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Christopher,

Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 12:05:10 PM, you wrote:

> As do I.

> As has been pointed out many times, consensus does not mean
> unanimous consent.

Right, it means whatever the business/corporate/IP Interests say it
is.

Right?

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #182
************************