Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #186
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, November 10 2000          Volume 01 : Number 186

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:50:42 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter to the Board on the At-Large Study

I just wanted to forward to the group a letter that CDT and several 
other organizations recently sent to ICANN, regarding the 
soon-to-be-commissioned study of the At-Large Membership. To my mind, 
this is one of the most important decisions that will be made in 
L.A., and I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments that the GA might 
have on this. Thanks,

r

* * *

November 9, 2000

Esther Dyson
Chairman of the Board
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Dear Ms. Dyson:

On behalf of the undersigned public interest and research 
organizations, we are writing to suggest guiding principles for the 
ICANN board to follow in commissioning the study to take place after 
the Los Angeles board meeting about the future of the At Large 
directors.

As you know, many of us have been working over the last year to 
ensure that the internal governance processes of ICANN are fair, open 
and representative.

We believe that the nine At-Large Directors, and the goal of broad 
representation of the public's interest in ICANN, have been 
fundamental parts of the balance of interests in ICANN's governance 
structure. We remain concerned about the attempts of some to diminish 
this essential component of broad participation.

We have been supportive of many of the steps taken by the board to 
make the recent election of At-Large Directors more broadly 
representative of the Internet community. In particular, we applauded 
the decision made by the board at the Cairo meeting to make the 
election a direct rather than indirect vote of the membership. We 
were also pleased by some of the procedural decisions regarding the 
election made at the Yokohama meeting, in particular the decision to 
lower the petition threshold for a candidate to gain access to the 
ballot.

On the other hand, we were concerned by proposed by-law changes 
developed by the staff prior to the Yokohama meeting that appeared to 
phase out the At Large seats in anticipation of the study. Our 
understanding of the agreement reached in Cairo was that the board 
would hold a direct election for five of the nine At Large seats, 
pause to study the election process, make improvements to the process 
based on the experience in the first election, and then proceed to 
elect the remaining four At Large directors.

At Yokohama, this compromise was modified. The scope of the 
post-election study was significantly expanded by the Board to 
include explicitly the question of whether there should be any At 
Large directors at all. Although the board did not adopt the staff's 
proposed by-law change to begin an automatic phase out of the At 
Large directors, it did for the first time place that possibility on 
the study agenda.

Given this context, we believe it is crucial that the board conduct 
the post-election study in a way that commands the respect of the 
many diverse interests in ICANN. In particular, because the study 
will address the question of whether to have any At Large directors 
at all, it is important that the study process be - and be perceived 
to be - independent, fair, open, inclusive and representative.

With this background, we want to propose six principles that should 
govern the board in establishing the study process:

1.   *The study should be commissioned as an independent study.* This 
is a study that will address the basic structural composition of 
ICANN's internal governance. To be credible, the study should be 
conducted independently of ICANN's current board and staff, which 
has, at a minimum, the appearance of a vested interest in the outcome 
of the study. Further, to the extent the study may review actions and 
decisions made by the staff and board (such as in the conduct of the 
election), it is manifestly inappropriate for the study to be 
conducted by, or controlled by, those who themselves are under 
scrutiny.

It is not infrequent that a company or governmental entity commission 
an independent outside study of its structure or operations. This is 
done precisely in order to ensure objectivity and credibility for the 
conduct of the study. This kind of precedent is directly applicable 
here. The ICANN board should charge a working group outside of ICANN 
itself to undertake this study.

2.  *The group charged with conducting the study should be fairly 
balanced to reflect the interests of multiple stakeholders in ICANN.* 
Not only should the study, for the reasons set forth above, be 
conducted independently of the ICANN board and staff, but it should 
be conducted by a group that reflects the views and voices of the 
broad interests in ICANN - those of the non-commercial and public 
interest constituencies most affected by the issue of whether to have 
At Large seats, but also those in the commercial sector and from the 
supporting organizations. We also urge that there be included in the 
working group representatives of those who have raised concerns about 
ICANN's governance in the past. Only by opening the group to include 
the voices of critics will the study attain the legitimacy necessary 
to its effectiveness. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being dismissed 
from the start by the public. Finally, ICANN should make every effort 
to ensure that the group is substantially international, and is 
thereby reflective of the Internet's global reach.

3.  *The scope of the study should include the proper composition of 
the board as a whole, not just the At Large seats.* The original 
purpose of the study as proposed in Cairo was to assess how well the 
election for the first five At Large seats worked, and what 
modifications should be made before holding the election for the 
other four seats. This was changed in Yokohama to include the broader 
issue of whether there should be At Large seats at all, and if so, 
how many.

The study cannot address this larger question of whether to have At 
Large seats without examining it in the context of the overall 
composition of the board, its mission, its staffing, and its resource 
infrastructure. Thus, the study should review not only the purpose of 
the At Large seats, but also the role of the Supporting Organization 
seats as well. Only by developing a comprehensive proposal about 
which stakeholders should be represented on the board, how seats 
should be allotted to those stakeholders, and the proportions between 
interests that ought to be established, can the study fairly address 
the question of how many At Large seats there should be.

4.  *The study should be conducted by open procedures. Meetings of 
the group should be held with prior notice and be open to the 
public.* The group should engage in meaningful outreach to disparate 
views on an international basis, in order to make the study process 
inclusive. Memoranda, studies, data and other documents considered by 
the group should be available to the public. And members of the ICANN 
community should have the opportunity to present their views to the 
study group and to comment on any proposed recommendations made by 
the study group before they are adopted.

5.  *There should be open public access to all data and information 
about the recent election.* One key task of the study is to assess 
the election held last month for the first five At Large seats. The 
study should evaluate what went right and what went wrong with the 
election, what lessons can be learned, and what changes should be 
made for the future. In doing this, to the extent consistent with 
maintaining the privacy of voters, the study should review all data 
relevant to the election, including computer records relating to the 
registration and verification of memberships, and the process of 
voting itself. The study group also should have the ability to 
interview those who played key roles in the process, including staff 
at ICANN and at the outside vendor, election.com.

These records should also be made available to the public, so there 
can be independent scrutiny of the underlying facts necessary to 
evaluate the election. So too, records of interviews with staff 
should be maintained and made available for review by the public.

6.  *The board should devote sufficient resources to conducting the 
study.* Obviously, resources will be required in order to implement 
the principles outlined above. The board should ensure the necessary 
resources are made available so that the study group can do its job. 
There should be a budget for the study and staff available to 
facilitate its work.

***

The study to be commissioned at the Los Angeles meeting is important 
to the future of ICANN. The board must do this study right, so that 
its conclusions will command broad acceptance by the ICANN community. 
Any effort to pre-determine the conclusions of the study by stacking 
the deck of who does the study, how it is done, or what results it 
should reach, will simply undermine the credibility of those results, 
and ultimately, the credibility of the board itself.

Each of us would be pleased to assist you and the board on this 
matter in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Jerry Berman
Executive Director
Center for Democracy and Technology

Scott Harshbarger
President
Common Cause

Rick Weingarten
Director, Office for Information Technology Policy
American Library Association

Stefaan Verhulst
Director
Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy
University of Oxford

cc:	ICANN Directors and Directors-elect
	Mike Roberts
	Andrew McLaughlin
	Louis Touton, Esq.

- --

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
[email-masked]
http://www.cdt.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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:26:03 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 12:47 9/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>again i feel that any proposed correspondence should reflect that "
>approximately 25 parties participated in this specific mailing list
>discussion"
>

This is  the "participants-fallacy".
Readers of a list are often content to let others speak for them.

Only a proper poll can bring out the truth.

And then there will be an outvoted  minority  who say that the small number
of voters reflects the apathy of the rest and they will try to suggest that
not voting equals support of  their minority view.....

- --Joop--
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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:46:23 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: [ga] Extension of Interim Directors

- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	JandL <[email-masked]>
To:             	"Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject:        	Re: [ga] Extension of Interim Directors
Send reply to:  	[email-masked]
Date sent:      	Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:45:48 -0500

And if they are retained, the newly elected directors have zero 
voice for those who elected them.  Personally, I would rather have
that voice now than reserve the right to slap existing directors on
the hand.

> I was aware that this was being discussed by some members on the
> list but what evidence is there of consensus?
> 
> IMHO  any move to seat new Directors before the AGM  would seriously
> impact on the power of the members to hold the previous Directors
> accountable for their management.  If they are dismissed before an
> AGM, they are relieved of the necessity to account to the AGM and
> the AGM starts to look a bit pointless.
> 
> erica
> 
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 09:40:33PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >
> 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:
> 
> 
> 

- ------- End of forwarded message -------
- --
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 17:55:13 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter to the Board, re: At-Large study

Attached is a letter that CDT, along with several other organzations, 
recently transmitted to the Board. It offers some recommendations and 
principles for the Board to consider as it constitutes the upcoming 
study of the At-Large Membership--since that study could have *very* 
significant consequences on the way that the public is represented on 
the Board in the future. I wanted to bring this to the GA's 
attention, and I'd certainly appreciate any comments or questions 
that the group has.

Thanks

r

* * *

November 9, 2000

Esther Dyson
Chairman of the Board
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Dear Ms. Dyson:

On behalf of the undersigned public interest and research 
organizations, we are writing to suggest guiding principles for the 
ICANN board to follow in commissioning the study to take place after 
the Los Angeles board meeting about the future of the At Large 
directors.

As you know, many of us have been working over the last year to 
ensure that the internal governance processes of ICANN are fair, open 
and representative.

We believe that the nine At-Large Directors, and the goal of broad 
representation of the public's interest in ICANN, have been 
fundamental parts of the balance of interests in ICANN's governance 
structure. We remain concerned about the attempts of some to diminish 
this essential component of broad participation.

We have been supportive of many of the steps taken by the board to 
make the recent election of At-Large Directors more broadly 
representative of the Internet community. In particular, we applauded 
the decision made by the board at the Cairo meeting to make the 
election a direct rather than indirect vote of the membership. We 
were also pleased by some of the procedural decisions regarding the 
election made at the Yokohama meeting, in particular the decision to 
lower the petition threshold for a candidate to gain access to the 
ballot.

On the other hand, we were concerned by proposed by-law changes 
developed by the staff prior to the Yokohama meeting that appeared to 
phase out the At Large seats in anticipation of the study. Our 
understanding of the agreement reached in Cairo was that the board 
would hold a direct election for five of the nine At Large seats, 
pause to study the election process, make improvements to the process 
based on the experience in the first election, and then proceed to 
elect the remaining four At Large directors.

At Yokohama, this compromise was modified. The scope of the 
post-election study was significantly expanded by the Board to 
include explicitly the question of whether there should be any At 
Large directors at all. Although the board did not adopt the staff's 
proposed by-law change to begin an automatic phase out of the At 
Large directors, it did for the first time place that possibility on 
the study agenda.

Given this context, we believe it is crucial that the board conduct 
the post-election study in a way that commands the respect of the 
many diverse interests in ICANN. In particular, because the study 
will address the question of whether to have any At Large directors 
at all, it is important that the study process be - and be perceived 
to be - independent, fair, open, inclusive and representative.

With this background, we want to propose six principles that should 
govern the board in establishing the study process:

1.   *The study should be commissioned as an independent study.* This 
is a study that will address the basic structural composition of 
ICANN's internal governance. To be credible, the study should be 
conducted independently of ICANN's current board and staff, which 
has, at a minimum, the appearance of a vested interest in the outcome 
of the study. Further, to the extent the study may review actions and 
decisions made by the staff and board (such as in the conduct of the 
election), it is manifestly inappropriate for the study to be 
conducted by, or controlled by, those who themselves are under 
scrutiny.

It is not infrequent that a company or governmental entity commission 
an independent outside study of its structure or operations. This is 
done precisely in order to ensure objectivity and credibility for the 
conduct of the study. This kind of precedent is directly applicable 
here. The ICANN board should charge a working group outside of ICANN 
itself to undertake this study.

2.  *The group charged with conducting the study should be fairly 
balanced to reflect the interests of multiple stakeholders in ICANN.* 
Not only should the study, for the reasons set forth above, be 
conducted independently of the ICANN board and staff, but it should 
be conducted by a group that reflects the views and voices of the 
broad interests in ICANN - those of the non-commercial and public 
interest constituencies most affected by the issue of whether to have 
At Large seats, but also those in the commercial sector and from the 
supporting organizations. We also urge that there be included in the 
working group representatives of those who have raised concerns about 
ICANN's governance in the past. Only by opening the group to include 
the voices of critics will the study attain the legitimacy necessary 
to its effectiveness. Otherwise, it runs the risk of being dismissed 
from the start by the public. Finally, ICANN should make every effort 
to ensure that the group is substantially international, and is 
thereby reflective of the Internet's global reach.

3.  *The scope of the study should include the proper composition of 
the board as a whole, not just the At Large seats.* The original 
purpose of the study as proposed in Cairo was to assess how well the 
election for the first five At Large seats worked, and what 
modifications should be made before holding the election for the 
other four seats. This was changed in Yokohama to include the broader 
issue of whether there should be At Large seats at all, and if so, 
how many.

The study cannot address this larger question of whether to have At 
Large seats without examining it in the context of the overall 
composition of the board, its mission, its staffing, and its resource 
infrastructure. Thus, the study should review not only the purpose of 
the At Large seats, but also the role of the Supporting Organization 
seats as well. Only by developing a comprehensive proposal about 
which stakeholders should be represented on the board, how seats 
should be allotted to those stakeholders, and the proportions between 
interests that ought to be established, can the study fairly address 
the question of how many At Large seats there should be.

4.  *The study should be conducted by open procedures.* Meetings of 
the group should be held with prior notice and be open to the public. 
The group should engage in meaningful outreach to disparate views on 
an international basis, in order to make the study process inclusive. 
Memoranda, studies, data and other documents considered by the group 
should be available to the public. And members of the ICANN community 
should have the opportunity to present their views to the study group 
and to comment on any proposed recommendations made by the study 
group before they are adopted.

5.  *There should be open public access to all data and information 
about the recent election.* One key task of the study is to assess 
the election held last month for the first five At Large seats. The 
study should evaluate what went right and what went wrong with the 
election, what lessons can be learned, and what changes should be 
made for the future. In doing this, to the extent consistent with 
maintaining the privacy of voters, the study should review all data 
relevant to the election, including computer records relating to the 
registration and verification of memberships, and the process of 
voting itself. The study group also should have the ability to 
interview those who played key roles in the process, including staff 
at ICANN and at the outside vendor, election.com.

These records should also be made available to the public, so there 
can be independent scrutiny of the underlying facts necessary to 
evaluate the election. So too, records of interviews with staff 
should be maintained and made available for review by the public.

6.  *The board should devote sufficient resources to conducting the 
study.* Obviously, resources will be required in order to implement 
the principles outlined above. The board should ensure the necessary 
resources are made available so that the study group can do its job. 
There should be a budget for the study and staff available to 
facilitate its work.

***

The study to be commissioned at the Los Angeles meeting is important 
to the future of ICANN. The board must do this study right, so that 
its conclusions will command broad acceptance by the ICANN community. 
Any effort to pre-determine the conclusions of the study by stacking 
the deck of who does the study, how it is done, or what results it 
should reach, will simply undermine the credibility of those results, 
and ultimately, the credibility of the board itself.

Each of us would be pleased to assist you and the board on this 
matter in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Jerry Berman
Executive Director
Center for Democracy and Technology

Scott Harshbarger
President
Common Cause

Rick Weingarten
Director, Office for Information Technology Policy
American Library Association

Stefaan Verhulst
Director
Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy
University of Oxford

cc:	ICANN Directors and Directors-elect
	Mike Roberts
	Andrew McLaughlin
	Louis Touton, Esq.

- --

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
[email-masked]
http://www.cdt.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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:21:25 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Kent's sig. [was: Extension of the Interim Board Directors]

At 07:51 9/11/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>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,

Why don't you go back to your old sig: (from memory)

"Nothing to get excited about, the Thief spoke softly"  

Where was that quote from?

- --Joop--
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: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:48:46 -0800 (PST)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

As it seems patent consensus is required to satisfy
the most stalwart detractors on this list, let it be
said that I also support both of these resolutions.

Though only approximately 25 parties have voiced their
opinion on this matter, it should be made clear that
mailing-list silence does not denote
non-participation; On the contrary, it signifies an
active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
without reservation.

Jason Graff

- --- Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:22:04 -0500
From: Dale Farmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello,
Just because I am usually silent, do not mistake that for apathy.  I read nearly
every post on the list with interest.  I tend not to speak up unless I feel I
have some new point to raise.  But in this case I will chime in with my 'Me too.'

One more supporting voice for these resolutions.

    --Dale Farmer

Kendall Dawson wrote:

> 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

- --
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 19:20:37 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

Not to mention the painfully obvious conflict of interest.
I would gladly support any motion to have Mr. Stubbs removed from the NC.

Kendall

At 06:02 PM 11/09/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Kendall and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I think you hit the nail on the head here.  It is quite right that Ken 
> Stubbs
>
>is more often than not inconsistent with truth telling, evasive, and
>purposefully
>misleading in his positions and sometime disgusting in his behavior.  As such
>I think a new proposal should be drafted for his immediate removal from the
>NC.

- --
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 18:30:38 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

At 12:47 pm -0500 11/9/00, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
>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

Gee, Ken, isn't it strange how you weren't so vocal when WG A/B reached
their "consensus" decisions.

But then again, it isn't strange really. KrispyCrockett is paid to put a
spanner in the works of anything that doesn't conform to the IPC view.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:52:14 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Kent's sig. [was: Extension of the Interim Board Directors]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:21:25PM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 07:51 9/11/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >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,
> 
> Why don't you go back to your old sig: (from memory)
> 
> "Nothing to get excited about, the Thief spoke softly"  

No need to get excited, the thief he kindly spoke...

> Where was that quote from?

I realize that you are just being small, and normally I would just
ignore you.  But it's from one of my all time favorite songs, it sings
through my memory, and I can't resist quoting it...

All Along the Watchtower
  by Bob Dylan (from memory):

There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion, 
I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine
Ploughmen dig my earth
None of them along the line
Know what any of it is worth

No need to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not speak falsely now
The hour is getting late

All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While the women came and went
Barefoot servants, too
Outside in the cold distance
A wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching
The wind began to howl...

> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Joop--
> www.idno.org

- -- 
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 21:09:23 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion to remove Ken Stubbs from the NC

I second the motion to remove Ken Stubbs from the Names Council.

At 08:24 PM 11/09/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Kendall and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I had thought that I had made such a motion and you are seconding it?
>Is this your second?  If so, than it is time to vote on Ken Stubbs
>being removed from the NC and a election for his replacement commence.

- --
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 18:52:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

List members, ( silent and vocal)
 
I feel compelled to, quote the term, "Silent Majority" 
to join the approx. 25 parties that have voiced their
opinion on this matter.  I could also be construed to be a 
" Listener, Watcher, Lurker" on this list....  Just one of the members
who take the options that are discussed very seriously!  I tend to see 
the opinions, questions, and debates.... stated by others, mirroring,
my  opinions, questions, and debates!
  
Perhaps a solution would be to poll each thread with a 
" Agree / Disagree... Yes / No "  call to the list.

I agree with Jason's assessment... and also support
acceptance of the resolutions put forth.

Ken Stoen
PMIW

>As it seems patent consensus is required to satisfy
>the most stalwart detractors on this list, let it be
>said that I also support both of these resolutions.
>
>Though only approximately 25 parties have voiced their
>opinion on this matter, it should be made clear that
>mailing-list silence does not denote
>non-participation; On the contrary, it signifies an
>active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
>without reservation.
>
>Jason Graff
>
>--- Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
- --
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:14:04 +0100 (MET)
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:24:57 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0224_01C04ABD.6B2F24E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 9 Nov Alf Hansen wrote:,

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.

Agreed, While I would like to see new Directors seated as soon as =
reasonably practical, IMHO the key issue for the GA is to identify and =
clarify our key objectives - and, dare I say, develop a strategy to =
achieve those objectives!  Newly appointed Directors will need guidance =
on issues of substance, but  so far it is not clear whether the GA can =
provide credible guidance, or develop broad consensus based positions.
So ....if we are going to play a constructive role,  we could do a lot =
worse than focus on some basic organisational issues.

erica

- ------=_NextPart_000_0224_01C04ABD.6B2F24E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>On 9 Nov Alf Hansen wrote:</FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>,<BR><BR>Again, I think it would have been more productive to =
discuss how=20
the DNSO GA<BR>could be more self-organized, than to discuss the =
composition of=20
the ICANN<BR>Board.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Agreed, While I would like to see new =
Directors=20
seated as soon as reasonably practical, IMHO the key issue for the GA is =
to=20
identify and clarify our key objectives - and, dare I say, develop a =
strategy to=20
achieve&nbsp;those objectives!&nbsp; Newly appointed Directors will need =

guidance on issues of substance, but&nbsp; so far it is not clear =
whether the GA=20
can provide credible guidance, or develop broad consensus based=20
positions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So ....if we are going to play a =
constructive role,=20
 we could do a lot worse than focus on some basic organisational=20
issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>erica</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0224_01C04ABD.6B2F24E0--

- --
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 #186
************************