Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #183
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 8 2000         Volume 01 : Number 183

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:07:11 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Geez, I do wish that you'd be more specific when gloming all corporate
interests together. We are not all the same and some of us are getting
slammed along with everybody else. BTW, aren't you also under a corp
umbrella?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:21 PM
> To: Christopher Ambler
> Cc: [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
> 
- --
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 14:14:48 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 1:11:37 PM, you wrote:

> 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.

Including the fact that there are numerous flaws in its charter and
its administration.

- -- 
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 14:47:55 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 02:14:48PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Joop,
> 
> Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 1:11:37 PM, you wrote:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Including the fact that there are numerous flaws in its charter and
> its administration.

Yes, it is a dead horse, and we needn't flog it further.

Steps to an individual's constituency:

1) get the NC's "intake committee" working.
2) use the intake committee to start a working group on the subject 
of an individual's constituency.
3) hash out the details
4) come up with a recommendation to the NC
5) have the NC pass it to the board.

An individual's constituency can't be formed without the agreement of 
the current constituencies and the concurrence of the NC.  This is 
obvious.  Therefore, we should just use the processes in place.  By far 
the most important missing component at this point is the "intake 
committee" -- there is no way to get something on the NC's agenda.  

- -- 
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 15:19:45 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> Steps to an individual's constituency:
> 
> 1) get the NC's "intake committee" working.
> 2) use the intake committee to start a working group on the subject 
> of an individual's constituency.
> 3) hash out the details
> 4) come up with a recommendation to the NC
> 5) have the NC pass it to the board.
> 
> An individual's constituency can't be formed without the agreement of 
> the current constituencies and the concurrence of the NC.  This is 
> obvious.  Therefore, we should just use the processes in 
> place.  By far 
> the most important missing component at this point is the "intake 
> committee" -- there is no way to get something on the NC's agenda.  

Ahhhha! Now the light shines clear!

None of the other constituencies had to go through with this. Why, what is
arguably the single most important constituency, have to go through this?
The reason is that the ICANN BoD doesn't want it to exist! That is why they
didn't instantiate it in Berlin. Now a process has been put in place to
place speed-bump after speed-bump in the way of this constituency. 

This is also blatant goal-post moving. I would expect to to be ashamed for
this, but I know better.
- --
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 16:05:33 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Hello Kent,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this post about the IDNO,
but I am still waiting for your response to a previous post where I
asked you this:

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 16:04:48 -0800
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 03:19:45PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > Steps to an individual's constituency:
> > 
> > 1) get the NC's "intake committee" working.
> > 2) use the intake committee to start a working group on the subject 
> > of an individual's constituency.
> > 3) hash out the details
> > 4) come up with a recommendation to the NC
> > 5) have the NC pass it to the board.
> > 
> > An individual's constituency can't be formed without the agreement of 
> > the current constituencies and the concurrence of the NC.  This is 
> > obvious.  Therefore, we should just use the processes in 
> > place.  By far 
> > the most important missing component at this point is the "intake 
> > committee" -- there is no way to get something on the NC's agenda.  
> 
> 
> Ahhhha! Now the light shines clear!
> 
> None of the other constituencies had to go through with this. Why, what is
> arguably the single most important constituency, have to go through this?

Stop whining.  You do what you have to do.

> The reason is that the ICANN BoD doesn't want it to exist!

Nope.  If the DNSO as a whole comes up with a plan for an individual's 
constituency, the BOD won't stand in the way.

> That is why they
> didn't instantiate it in Berlin.

They didn't instantiate it because 1) there is a lot of opposition to it 
in the DNSO; and because 2) there was no creditable effort in place.  
Joops hobby does not count as a creditable effort

- -- 
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, 07 Nov 2000 23:49:35 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] we are the owners 

Kent,
I am afraid you have missed something here. We learned a long ago in France
with the Minitel (and the Internet makes it obvious now to every one): @large
are *both* the users and the producers. They make the media and a stable 
content.
They are both the supply and the demand. In a market driven society they 
have the
leadership.

What you call "industry" is a changing complex set of industrial, 
financial, legal
entities and interests which care about the medium. In a very technology 
oriented
environment they allow the today system to operate. Usual images are the road
and the traffic+transport, telecommunications and information+documentation.
They are neither the supply nor the demand, they are the shop.

Initial bylaws were not perfect, and I do not want to know if it was by wisdom
or by luck, but they limited the interim Directors to one year and they 
gave the
the market an owneship balanced by the control of what you call the 
"industry".
They made both of us right: you could say they were industry self-regulated
with inputs from the users, or user self-regulated with the input of the 
industry.

In delaying and blocking that mechanism the "industry" as created a supsicious
unbalance and endangers the stability of the network. To the point the ICANN
may not survive the post "gTLD+Squattering Fours" investigations to come.
That would be a disaster.
Jefsey

At 21:54 07/11/00, you wrote:
>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

- --
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, 8 Nov 2000 02:32:49 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Things the At Large Members may ask for at MDR

- --xB0nW4MQa6jZONgY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Please find attached a possible list of At Large Member demands
towards ICANN prepared by Jeanette Hofmann and myself.

Most likely, some version of this list will be presented at the At
Large Forum in Marina Del Rey next sunday, see
<http://www.icannmembers.org/>.

A prettier version of the presentation can be found at
<http://www.guug.de/~roessler/requirements.pdf>.  Please report any
omissions, typos, and nonsense to Jeanette and me.

Thanks,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>

- --xB0nW4MQa6jZONgY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="requirements.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

		       At Large Members Forum

		Requests for Bylaw Changes and Board
			 Decisions/Practice

	      Requirements for the At Large Membership
				Study

		Requirements for the Executive Search
			      Committee

				  =20
			  Jeanette Hofmann
		    <[email-masked]>
				  =20
			   Thomas Roessler
		    <[email-masked]>

		       At Large Members Forum

       Requests for Bylaw Changes and Board Decisions/Practice

  * Changing the Bylaws

    The board should no longer be permitted to change the bylaws by
    simple resolution. Require consent from (or at least give veto
    right to) SOs and At Large Members / At Large Council.

  * Seating of Directors/Pending Decisions

    Postpone controversial decisions until new directors are seated.
    The current board's legitimacy to decide on such questions would
    appear to be questionable.

  * Expiration of Terms

    Introduce equal treatment for elected At Large Directors and all
    others. In particular, the elected At Large Directors should
    continue to hold office until their successors are selected.
    (Affects Art. V, S. 9 Bylaws.)

  * Filling At Large Director Vacancies

     =AD New At Large Directors should be selected by existing At
       Large Directors only. Rationale: There is no reason why
       SO-selected directors should have a vote when filling At
       Large seats. At Large Directors don't have a vote in filling
       SO vacancies, either.

     =AD When some kind of representative At Large Council has been
       established, it should have the right to fill At Large
       Director vacancies. Note: This should remain the exception -
       stick with direct elections for regular director selection!!

    (Affects Art. V, S. 12 Bylaws.)

  *  . . .

		       At Large Members Forum

	   Requirements for the At Large Membership Study

  * Examine member registration/activation process.

    Why did 50% of the registered members not activate their
    membership?

  * How can a structured At Large Membership be funded?

  * The study should call for input from the existing At Large
    Members' community.

  * The Advisory Committee on Membership (or its successor) should
    be extended by at least one elected At Large Director and at
    least one recognized individual from the At Large Members'
    community.

	   Requirements for the Executive Search Committee

  * Include at least one elected At Large Director in the Board's
    Executive Search Committee.

  * Solicit input from the general Internet community on possible
    candidates to serve as ICANN's CEO and President.

- --xB0nW4MQa6jZONgY--
- --
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

- --
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

- --
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 15:34:00 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules of vote

At 23:07 06/11/2000 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>To all.
>I received a mail from [email-masked] concerning the new rules of vote
>and seeking my vote about them.

Not rules of vote. Rules of list management.

>Sorry this is new to me. If someone could help me with the following:
>
>1. is that a normal procedure

Yes. The Chair called for this vote on October 26.

>2. what are the main changes with existing procedure

No major changes - changing the name of the list monitor function was the 
biggest one.
Read GA archives for discussion. (Hey, you were a member last month too!)

>3. I disapporve the GA representation to the BoD to be filtered by the NC.

Not on this ballot. One thing at a time.

>4. I see no Chair presentation

Not on this ballot. One thing at a time.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:28:28 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the IDNO [was: Extension of the Interim Board Directors]

At 14:14 7/11/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Joop,
>
>Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 1:11:37 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Including the fact that there are numerous flaws in its charter and
>its administration.
>
I'm sure there is room for further improvement. 
In fact the ICANN Board may come with its own demands.

But it has been a serious effort by an elected charter committee.
The site to check it out is www.idno.org/organiz.htm
The ML to criticize it is idno-discuss.

- --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: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:35:57 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the IDNO [was: Extension of the Interim Board Directors]

At 16:04 7/11/00 -0800, 'Kent Crispin' wrote:

>
>Stop whining.  You do what you have to do.
>

Only the Board could say this and be listened to.
But the Board didn't say anything. 
Does it now speak through you?

>> The reason is that the ICANN BoD doesn't want it to exist!
>
>Nope.  If the DNSO as a whole comes up with a plan for an individual's 
>constituency, the BOD won't stand in the way.
>
That is not what the Bylaws say. There is no role for the DNSO to "stand in
the way" or "clear the way".
The DNSO GA's role is to make it's collective consensus known to the Board.
It already did this in Yokohama. 

>> That is why they
>> didn't instantiate it in Berlin.
>
>They didn't instantiate it because 1) there is a lot of opposition to it 
>in the DNSO; and because 2) there was no creditable effort in place.  
>Joops hobby does not count as a creditable effort
>
Nobody pays me to do this, that's true. Does that make an Individual DN
holders' constituency unworthy of recognition? Or more worthy?
It is an effort of many people. All unpaid. 

GA members  might want to look at the members' list and see who have joined
lately. www.idno.org/members.htm

- --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: Wed,  8 Nov 2000 14:03:50 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Kent,

I think that the two points are adequate.

You 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.

We fell into this trap in Yokohama (sorry, my fault).
We moved fro a WG, the NC trapped us into a "wide scope" DNSO review, 
and the DNSO Review committee is going nowhere, simply there is zip 
discussion in the NC, obviously because there's no interest in changing.

That we are not progressing in the Individual Constituency is another 
issue. But this should not prevent us from re-addressing the problem.

>
>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.

So what?
You may be right (even if I'm not sure I would agree) about the election
 of the DNSO Board Members, but definitively we are talking about the GA
 Chair. Who else should be electing the GA Chair if not the GA? ANd why?

If it is @captured@, so what? Under the current circumstances it is 
worse than having the risk to be captyured, it is certain not to be 
representative of the GA.

Regards
Roberto

>
>-- 
>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: Wed,  8 Nov 2000 14:16:44 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Sandy,

>
>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'.

To make my mind clear, "yes", it is in order, even if it is not strictly
 related to DNS issues (and even this is arguable), because it is 
something inherent the life of the organization (ICANN) of which we are 
part of, as General Assembly of the DNSO.
We have a word to say on the ICANN Board, even if I have to agree with 
Kent, from the practical point of view it will be useless.
Even if the motion gets consensus, I am assuming you don't expect some 
Board Directors to resign, after all the efforts made to be there in 
first place, just because the GA/DNSO thinks so ;>).
We are not a decision-making body, at least for the matters related to 
ICANN Board composition, but it is in order for us to express our 
opinion. Of course, this has to be weighted with the other bodies (ASO, 
PSO, other parts of the DNSO, AtLarge, ...). That synthesis is left to 
the ICVANN Board, I assume.

Even if we will probably have not a lot of time to vote on the ML, for 
sure I will not prevent a debate (of limited duration) in MdR.

Regards
Roberto

>
>> 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
>
>--
>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: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:08:38 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the IDNO [was: Extension of the Interim Board Directors]

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, November 08, 2000, 1:35:57 AM, you wrote:

> GA members  might want to look at the members' list and see who have joined
> lately. www.idno.org/members.htm

They might be more interested to know that only a small fraction are
voting and participating, and that you have not made a concerted
effort to verify ongoing membership and qualifications.

I've verified that at least 2 on your membership list are no longer
eligible under your "charter" rules, and how many joined thinking it
was something else, but are no longer interested at all?

Only you can tell us this, since you are the only one with access to
the membership list, and for all we know, half of those people are
made up.

- -- 
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: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:14:25 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the IDNO

At 09:08 8/11/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Joop,
>
>Wednesday, November 08, 2000, 1:35:57 AM, you wrote:
>
>> GA members  might want to look at the members' list and see who have joined
>> lately. www.idno.org/members.htm
>
>They might be more interested to know that only a small fraction are
>voting and participating, and that you have not made a concerted
>effort to verify ongoing membership and qualifications.
>
Roughly 25% of the membership is voting and participating at the moment.
The rest just wants to be represented. A big membership drive will probably
see the percentage of actively involved members drop even further. Not
untypical for a democracy.

>I've verified that at least 2 on your membership list are no longer
>eligible under your "charter" rules, and how many joined thinking it
>was something else, but are no longer interested at all?
>
The list will need tidying up by the new membership committee, and a few
may drop off, but this is not relevant to support your or Kent's wishful
assertion that the IDNO is "a dead horse".
The Charter has been recently ratified by 44 votes against 3.  Your opinion
about it is not widely shared.

>Only you can tell us this, since you are the only one with access to
>the membership list, and for all we know, half of those people are
>made up.
>
The Charter provides for an elected membership comittee to address
membership issues. The election process has started. 
I'll ignore the slur on my integrity.
Please confine yourself here to what is relevant for the GA. 

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #183
************************