Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #185
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, November 9 2000          Volume 01 : Number 185

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:15:36 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ANNOUNCE: "Pressing Issues II" Briefing Materials, incl TLD Application Analysis Chart

As part of the preparation for the Berkman Center's "Pressing Issues II:
Understanding and Critiquing ICANN's Policy Agenda" conference in LA this
Sunday (<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>), Harvard
Law students have prepared briefing materials relating to subjects to be
discussed.  Their work is published in the online briefing book at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook>.

Among the documents included in the briefing book is a chart analysing each
of the TLD applications on each of the nine ICANN staff evaluation criteria.
The chart is now in final editing stages and may undergo further revisions
before printing, but members of the GA may be interested in reviewing it now
and commenting on it in the discussion space linked from the document.
You'll find this document at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/tld-appl
ication-chart.html>.

(Some clarification is perhaps helpful in keeping clear the status of this
document: The analysis in the TLD chart is intended to serve as a quick
reference for those considering the TLD application process, and it is in no
way a substitute for a full reading of the applications.  The analysis
presents the opinions of three students, and it does not represent the
position of the Berkman Center itself.  In addition, the analysis is not an
official evaluation in any sense, and, to our knowledge, will not be used by
ICANN for any purpose.)

Those wishing to participate in the Pressing Issues II conference, in person
or via webcast, should preregister via
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

- --
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, 9 Nov 2000 12:47:38 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

please explain how a legitimate "concensus" was reached on these 2 points

all i see here is a very "limited" number of  people who share a specific
opinion

ken stubbs
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:09 PM
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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:47:07 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Good Day All....

I would like draw your attention to the "GA" archives of this specific
discussion and  point out that this archive  reflects that mailing list
discussion on this specific topic  involved less than 25 participants

respectfully

Ken Stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:40 PM
Subject: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

> The Domain Name Supporting Organization General Assembly mailing list has
> discussed adopting resolutions dealing with the composition of the ICANN
board.
>
> The mailing list has rough consensus on the resolutions that in its
opinion:
>
> 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.
>
> The DNSO General Assembly wishes to take a vote on item 2) as soon as
> possible, so that it can be stated as a voted resolution of the General
> Assembly, but since the time left until the ICANN general meeting is less
> than that required for a GA vote, the Alternate Chair has taken it upon
> himself to make the Board aware of this consensus position on item 1)
> before the general meeting of ICANN next week.
>
> Speaking for the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization
>
>               Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>                 Alternate Chair
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:47:51 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

again i feel that any proposed correspondence should reflect that "
approximately 25 parties participated in this specific mailing list
discussion"

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> Sandy,
>
> At 14:34 06/11/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >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.
>
> I believe that the list has shown strong support for this.
>
> As Roberto is probably incommunicando at the moment, I will send a note to
> the Board in my role as GA Alternate Chair saying that this opinion
appears
> to be the consensus of the GA mailing list, but that time did not allow us
> to take a vote of the GA.
> It is rather obvious that voting (which incurs at least 1 week of delay)
> would make the voicing of this opinion meaningless.
>
> >2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> >         their original time should immediately resign.
>
> This issue will not age as quickly. I believe we should take a vote on the
> issue, after having discussed it in LA.
> I have added this issue to my copy of the GA agenda, and will present it
as
> a proposed amendment to the published agenda in Los Angeles, taking 10
> minutes away from the discussion of the DNSO Review.
>
> OK?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:37:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

suzan ...
in the interest of transparency & disclosure, i believe it would be
appropriate to state in any correspondence on this matter that

"approximately 25 parties participated in the mail-list forum on this
specific topic"

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> Suzan,
> I would suggest you to prepare a letter to the Directors, documenting
> Harald's mail, that we could co-sign.
> Jefsey
>
>
> At 21:24 08/11/00, you wrote:
> >Sandy,
> >
> >At 14:34 06/11/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >I believe that the list has shown strong support for this.
> >
> >As Roberto is probably incommunicando at the moment, I will send a note
to
> >the Board in my role as GA Alternate Chair saying that this opinion
> >appears to be the consensus of the GA mailing list, but that time did not
> >allow us to take a vote of the GA.
> >It is rather obvious that voting (which incurs at least 1 week of delay)
> >would make the voicing of this opinion meaningless.
> >
> >>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> >>         their original time should immediately resign.
> >
> >This issue will not age as quickly. I believe we should take a vote on
the
> >issue, after having discussed it in LA.
> >I have added this issue to my copy of the GA agenda, and will present it
> >as a proposed amendment to the published agenda in Los Angeles, taking 10
> >minutes away from the discussion of the DNSO Review.
> >
> >OK?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:56:08 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Consensus was probably reached the same way that the consensus
that the names council claimed existed for how many new TLDs
were recommended.

Since you refused to answer that question in Yokohama, one must
assume that the obvious answer is correct.

Only the entrenched and the apologists for the entrenched are
saying there isn't consensus. Plainly there is.

The tide turns...

Christopher

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>; "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

> again i feel that any proposed correspondence should reflect that "
> approximately 25 parties participated in this specific mailing list
> discussion"
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
>
>
> > Sandy,
> >
> > At 14:34 06/11/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > I believe that the list has shown strong support for this.
> >
> > As Roberto is probably incommunicando at the moment, I will send a note
to
> > the Board in my role as GA Alternate Chair saying that this opinion
> appears
> > to be the consensus of the GA mailing list, but that time did not allow
us
> > to take a vote of the GA.
> > It is rather obvious that voting (which incurs at least 1 week of delay)
> > would make the voicing of this opinion meaningless.
> >
> > >2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> > >         their original time should immediately resign.
> >
> > This issue will not age as quickly. I believe we should take a vote on
the
> > issue, after having discussed it in LA.
> > I have added this issue to my copy of the GA agenda, and will present it
> as
> > a proposed amendment to the published agenda in Los Angeles, taking 10
> > minutes away from the discussion of the DNSO Review.
> >
> > OK?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:18:53 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The mailing list has rough consensus on the resolutions that in its opinion:
> ...

Just did some counting: There were 18 people in
favour of the motion, 3 explicitly against it
and 2 questioned whether there is rough consensus.
It's a pity we didn't manage to hold a vote;
there are currently 262 people in the voting
registry. My guess is that there would have been
a clear majority for the recommendation, but IMHO
declaring rough consensus is not a suitable substitute
for a vote just because the time for a vote is lacking.
Harsh? Well, if we want ICANN to follow the rule book,
we have to do so, too.

Best,
/// Alexander
- --
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 14:25:26 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> I would like draw your attention to the "GA" archives of this specific discussion and  point out that this
> archive  reflects that mailing list
> discussion on this specific topic  involved less than 25 participants

Should we poll the list for a more definitive reflection of opinion?

- --
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 21:39:13 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What is ICANN?

Kent,
you cannot change that ICANN must have an owner and a market. Either
the owner is @large and the market will be large or the owner is small and
there will be competition to the ICANN.
Also, this does not prevent ICANN to have to abide by the law and to be
subject to investigation as anyone else. What people terms democracy is
in most of  the case customer quality and legality control.
Normal market and business rules applies as you ask for. To the ICANN
too. Anti Trust rules too: Either they operate as a consensus ("democracy")
or theyr are not (monopoly). Their choice and their destiny.
Jefsey

At 02:33 09/11/00, you wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:43:44AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
>However, ICANN is not, and cannot be, a democracy.  You might as well
>get used to that.
>
>Instead, ICANN is a small non-profit CORPORATION.  It renders certain
>Internet services on a cost-recovery basis (but still FOR MONEY), to
>certain entities.  You could think of it as similar to one of the
>Internet Exchange companies.  (It is a non-profit to ameliorate concerns
>about anti-trust).  The entities to which ICANN markets its services are
>not "the people" -- the entities are other corporations, standards
>bodies, and so on.  The services in question are coordination of certain
>activities, acting as a central clearing house for number assignments
>and name assignments, management of the root zone (a glop of information
>shared among many of the the corporations for which ICANN provides
>service), managing a process by which names can be added to the root
>zone, etc.
>
>This coordination is a valuable service to these entities -- without it
>they certainly face heavy government regulation. (Of course, they may
>face such regulation anyway, but ICANN at least gives the hope of industry
>self-regulation.)
>
>--
>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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:45:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> again i feel that any proposed correspondence should reflect that "
> approximately 25 parties participated in this specific mailing list
> discussion"

25 is a hell of a lot more than ICANN has used to justify many of its'
decisions.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:50:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> please explain how a legitimate "concensus" was reached on these 2 points

Please explain what purpose yourself, Dave Crocker, and Kent serve on this
list other than to attempt to impede any progress towards 
self-organization of the GA.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:52:31 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello Ken,

Thursday, November 09, 2000, 9:47:07 AM, you wrote:

> Good Day All....

> I would like draw your attention to the "GA" archives of this specific
> discussion and  point out that this archive  reflects that mailing list
> discussion on this specific topic  involved less than 25 participants

The number is not significant.

If people have opposition, they should participate in their
opposition.

Effectively, if you don't speak up, don't complain later you were not
heard.

- -- 
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 16:34:27 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Harald - I support both of these resolutions

>The Domain Name Supporting Organization General Assembly mailing list has
>discussed adopting resolutions dealing with the composition of the ICANN
>board.
>
>The mailing list has rough consensus on the resolutions that in its opinion:
>
>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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:41:52 +0100
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO focus.

Hi,

Again, I think it would have been more productive to discuss how the DNSO GA
could be more self-organized, than to discuss the composition of the ICANN
Board.

Perhaps we could learn something from the AT Large people, look at

   http://www.ICANNmembers.org/

During very short time, they have focused on some issues in the direction of
self-organization. I think we in the DNSO also should focus on our identity,
how can we play a productive role in ICANN, etc. We need to pull in the same
direction, and we need more than 25 people.

Again, just my opinion.

Best regards,
Alf H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Patrick
> Greenwell
> Sent: 9. november 2000 21:51
> To: Ken Stubbs
> Cc: General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > please explain how a legitimate "concensus" was reached on
> these 2 points
>
> Please explain what purpose yourself, Dave Crocker, and Kent serve on this
> list other than to attempt to impede any progress towards
> self-organization of the GA.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> /\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                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

- --
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, 9 Nov 2000 07:51:20 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 10:02:58AM +0100, Robin Miller wrote:
[...]
> > > --
> > > Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> > > [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> 
> Mr. Crispin needs to check his quote. To do and to be are not synonyms. In
> Twain's own handwriting: http://www.twainquotes.com/Lonesome.html

Yes -- thanks for the pointer, and I will change it -- I was doing the
quote from memory when I did the sig.  See also
http://joy.songbird.com/kent/twain.html

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will 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: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:05:37 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

I wonder if Mr. Stubbs will ever answer the question?

At 11:56 AM 11/09/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>Since you refused to answer that question in Yokohama, one must
>assume that the obvious answer is correct.

DNSO Names Council (NC) section of ICANN's Yokohama meeting:

Ambler: "Am I going to get an answer? No?"
Stubbs: "Not at this time, sir, no."

I think Mr. Ambler is correct in stating that only the entrenched and the 
apologists for the entrenched are saying there isn't consensus. The only 
people who have opposed it as far as I can see are - Dave Crocker, Kent 
Crispin, Ken Stubbs, and Chuck Gomes. Did I miss anyone?

BTW: if you ever read the roving_reporter 
(http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/) there is a good article from 
yesterday titled:

Election envy; Or, The Boardsquatters fight back

Here is a snippet:
- -------------------
"ICANN is the regulator of a market worth about US $50 billion," said Mr. 
Cohen, "and it is the first organization to attempt a world-wide election 
online. Every aspect of this election occurred online - campaigning, 
nomination, acceptance, voter registration and voting. The implications for 
a democratic global voting process for the future are astounding."

But all this time ICANN has been insisting that its "mandate is not to 'run 
the Internet.' Rather, it is to coordinate the management of only those 
specific technical, managerial and policy development tasks that require 
central coordination-- the assignment of globally unique names, addresses, 
and protocol parameters." Yet here we learn -- from a boardmember entering 
his second term, no less -- that ICANN is the regulator of a $50 
billion-dollar market.
- -------------------

. 

- --
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, 9 Nov 2000 17:30:14 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Make that one more, and several "lurkers."

> again i feel that any proposed correspondence should reflect that "
> approximately 25 parties participated in this specific mailing list
> discussion"
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> To: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors
> 
> 
> > Sandy,
> >
> > At 14:34 06/11/2000 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > I believe that the list has shown strong support for this.
> >
> > As Roberto is probably incommunicando at the moment, I will send a
> > note to the Board in my role as GA Alternate Chair saying that this
> > opinion
> appears
> > to be the consensus of the GA mailing list, but that time did not
> > allow us to take a vote of the GA. It is rather obvious that voting
> > (which incurs at least 1 week of delay) would make the voicing of
> > this opinion meaningless.
> >
> > >2) All non-elected members whose terms have been extended beyond
> > >         their original time should immediately resign.
> >
> > This issue will not age as quickly. I believe we should take a vote
> > on the issue, after having discussed it in LA. I have added this
> > issue to my copy of the GA agenda, and will present it
> as
> > a proposed amendment to the published agenda in Los Angeles, taking
> > 10 minutes away from the discussion of the DNSO Review.
> >
> > OK?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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-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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:41:33 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

It would also seem obvious by simply looking at the 
answers/agreement of the participants that with a public 
discussion, if there were objections, those who receive the posts 
would have done so.  Therefore, it stands to reason that the 
member sampling who did participate have a consensus.  To my 
knowledge, there is no quorum requirement, and these proposals are 
in the best interests of all the ga, and the at-large as well.  I am a 
member of both.

Leah Gallegos

> Making a general statement that there is rough consensus without
> backing it up with some objective, measurable data makes the process
> unreasonably subjective.
> 
> What is the definition of rough consensus?  What measurable evidence
> is there that rough consensus was reached?  From what sample of the
> overall population did the data come?  Does that sample effectively
> represent the total population?  What efforts were made to involve
> underrepresented or uninvolved members of the population?
> 
> Questions such as these need to be answered before any level of
> consensus could be concluded.  Ideally, a detailed process including
> documentation, required measurements, etc. should be agreed to before
> efforts are made to come to consensus positions.  Otherwise, it
> becomes to easy to subjectively reach whatever conclusion the active
> participants wish.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
> 
> 
> The Domain Name Supporting Organization General Assembly mailing list
> has discussed adopting resolutions dealing with the composition of the
> ICANN board.
> 
> The mailing list has rough consensus on the resolutions that in its
> opinion:
> 
> 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.
> 
> The DNSO General Assembly wishes to take a vote on item 2) as soon as
> possible, so that it can be stated as a voted resolution of the
> General Assembly, but since the time left until the ICANN general
> meeting is less than that required for a GA vote, the Alternate Chair
> has taken it upon himself to make the Board aware of this consensus
> position on item 1) before the general meeting of ICANN next week.
> 
> Speaking for the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization
> 
>               Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>                 Alternate Chair
> --
> 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-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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #185
************************