Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #187
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, November 11 2000         Volume 01 : Number 187

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

Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:35:30 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to remove Ken Stubbs from the NC

Hello Kendall,

Thursday, November 09, 2000, 6:09:23 PM, you wrote:

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

That motion would not be in order.  The DNSO GA does not elect the
Names council reps.

Let's stick to productive efforts, please, and not let our friend from
Texas's fantasies distract us.

- -- 
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, 9 Nov 2000 19:56:08 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to remove Ken Stubbs from the NC

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 07:35:30PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kendall,
> 
> Thursday, November 09, 2000, 6:09:23 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > I second the motion to remove Ken Stubbs from the Names Council.
> 
> That motion would not be in order.  The DNSO GA does not elect the
> Names council reps.

It doesn't elect board members, either.

> Let's stick to productive efforts,

You have great career potential as a comedian.

> please, and not let our friend from
> Texas's fantasies distract us.

Yes, our other fantasies are so much more satisfying. 

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:11:42 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

At 21:18 09/11/2000 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>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.

thanks for counting! This fits with my perception (and I did not see 2 of
those objections until after I sent my message).
I think it was WG-B that defined a rough consensus as 2/3 - not a practice
I want to emulate. But I definitely used the term "rough" consensus to 
indicate that there was at least one objector.

In hindsight, it seems to have been a better choice not to send the 
message, since the discussion about it has served to distract us from other 
matters like DNSO review.
But what's done is done.

>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.

Formally, declaring rough consensus of the mailing list gives no opinion 
about the opinion of the General Assembly (the voter registry).
I think we will hold a vote on the still-relevant motion after LA.

>Harsh? Well, if we want ICANN to follow the rule book,
>we have to do so, too.

like ICANN, we have to make up the rules as we go along.

I'd like to discuss spelling out the conditions under which the chair or 
alternate chair may speak on behalf of the GA; I'd be happy to abide by a 
rule saying that this can only happen after a formal vote, if that is the 
GA's opinion.

Looking forward to seeing some of you in LA....

           harald

- --
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 07:46:59 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence "signifies
an
active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:
	- Being consumed with regular duties and not having time to spend on
the list
	- Not having yet formed a clear opinion
	- Being of the opinion that the exercise is futile
	- Being concerned about the validity of the consensus process or
lack thereof
	- etc.

The fact of the matter is that the GA has not established any sort of
defined process for concluding that consensus has been reached.  There is no
objective data to support a GA consensus position.  On the other hand, it
would be reasonable to submit a statement that is supported by 25 (or
however many there are) GA members.  But to call it a GA consensus position
is not defendable.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: technizmo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 6:49 PM
To: [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
- --
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 05:52:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello Chuck,

Friday, November 10, 2000, 4:46:59 AM, you wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence "signifies
> an
> active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
> without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
> generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:

Participation is the responsibility of the participant.  Registering
or not registering your vote is not our responsibility.

This has a parallel with the election problems we are seeing right
now.  People want to claim they screwed up their vote in order to earn
the right to vote again (until they get the result they want).  The
issue is that your vote is your responsibility.  If you screw it up by
not voting (for whatever reason) or voting incorrectly, then you can't
come back later and try and invalidate the result.

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:55:11 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

I objtected some of the aspects of the resolutions
for efficiency reasons. But I certainly accept that my
position belongs to a "rough consensus" as well.
Jefsey

At 00:48 10/11/00, you wrote:
>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 09:23:33 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

William,

I don't disagree with you at all nor do I think that the point I was trying
to make is in conflict with what you are saying.  To claim consensus or even
rough consensus for the GA when a small minority of GA members expressed
their opinion is a big stretch.  To claim consensus by that subset of the GA
would be fine, or to claim that 25 active participants on the GA list
reached a consensus position would be okay. 

At least in the case of the elections, there were established voting
procedures in place.  It is not clear to me that their is a defined
consensus-building procedure in place in the GA.  If there is, it is
terribly subjective.

BTW, I have voiced similar criticisms to the Names Council regarding the
working group processes that have gone on in the past.  I believe that it is
critical for the ICANN board, the Names Council and the GA to establish
clear procedures for establishing consensus positions, procedures that
minimize subjectivity and maximize measurable criteria.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:53 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello Chuck,

Friday, November 10, 2000, 4:46:59 AM, you wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence
"signifies
> an
> active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
> without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
> generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:

Participation is the responsibility of the participant.  Registering
or not registering your vote is not our responsibility.

This has a parallel with the election problems we are seeing right
now.  People want to claim they screwed up their vote in order to earn
the right to vote again (until they get the result they want).  The
issue is that your vote is your responsibility.  If you screw it up by
not voting (for whatever reason) or voting incorrectly, then you can't
come back later and try and invalidate the result.

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:04:36 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> responsibility.

While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
clear and visible subject, like:

	CONSENSUS?  <topic>

and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
documented.

While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
rough result should be produced.

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:23:50 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Extension of the Interim Board Directors

joop...

i would then assume by your comments below then that your would pofess that
IDNO speaks for all the individual domain name holders of the world
and the ICIIU speaks for the balance of the users.  !!

NO SALE HERE !

ken

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

- --
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 09:42:30 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Something real to talk about...

http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/

- -- 
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:07:04 -0800
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP Forum Shopping

From Executive Summary, An Analysis of ICANN's Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy, Dr. Milton Mueller, at
http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm,

>ICANN allows the challenger to select the dispute resolution service
>provider. There is statistical evidence that selection of dispute
>resolution service providers by challengers leads to forum shopping
>that biases the results. There are major differences among arbitration
>providers in the ratio of successful to unsuccessful challenges. In
>terms of decision outcomes, WIPO and NAF are the most
>complainant-friendly providers and eResolutions is the most defendant
>friendly. Both NAF and WIPO tend to interpret the UDRP in ways that
>favor trademark holders over other Internet users, whereas eResolutions
>decisions tend to adhere more closely to the strict language of the
>policy.
- --
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 14:36:20 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: New TLD Applicant Expo Added to Pressing Issues II Conference

I forward this announcement with the hope and expectation that many members
of the GA will be able to attend the New TLD Applicant Expo described below.
I'm personally very excited about it, and hope to see many of you there.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:34 PM
To: Preregistrants in ICANN Pressing Issues II Conference
Subject: UPDATE: New TLD Applicant Expo Added to Pressing Issues II
Conference

Greetings!

Due to increasing buzz and interest on the part of TLD applicants and the
community, we have decided to add an additional event to the "Pressing
Issues II" conference this Sunday: a New TLD Applicant Expo.

Beginning directly after the new TLDs panel, at approximately 5:45pm Sunday
Nov. 12th at the Marina Beach Marriott Hotel, representatives from the TLD
applications will be present, each at a clearly marked spot, to discuss and
answer questions about their TLD applications.

We encourage you to attend in order to learn more about the proposals and to
meet the people behind the applications.  All discussions during this
session will be informally organized and open to the public.

For additional information on this and the other sessions that make up
"Pressing Issues II: Understanding and Critiquing ICANN's Policy Agenda,"
please visit the conference website at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>.

To look at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society's briefing materials on
new TLDs, including a student-prepared chart analyzing all of the
applications, please visit the conference briefing book at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook>.

We hope to see you on Sunday!

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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:06:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence "signifies
>an
>active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
>without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
>generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:
>	- Being consumed with regular duties and not having time to spend on
>the list
>	- Not having yet formed a clear opinion
>	- Being of the opinion that the exercise is futile
>	- Being concerned about the validity of the consensus process or
>lack thereof
>	- etc.

I don't see you being silent on the list Chuck, so I don't understand
what "your case" would be, or how it is relevant here.  As I see it,
there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:

	1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
	2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.

Either way, consensus can only be measured among the participants,
wether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally irrelevant.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

	/Paul

- --
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 15:53:58 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

In my opinion that's a very weak consensus.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence "signifies
>an
>active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
>without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
>generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:
>	- Being consumed with regular duties and not having time to spend on
>the list
>	- Not having yet formed a clear opinion
>	- Being of the opinion that the exercise is futile
>	- Being concerned about the validity of the consensus process or
>lack thereof
>	- etc.

I don't see you being silent on the list Chuck, so I don't understand
what "your case" would be, or how it is relevant here.  As I see it,
there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:

	1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
	2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.

Either way, consensus can only be measured among the participants,
wether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally irrelevant.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

	/Paul

- --
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 16:23:36 -0800
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New TLD Recommendations

>Of 14 applicants seeking to offer generic new domains much like the
>current dot-com, the staff suggested that seven were worthy of further
>consideration. Those seven included a plan for dot-web offered by
>Afilias, a consortium of the leading dot-com registrars, including
>Network Solutions and Register.com .

http://tm0.com/thestandard/sbct.cgi?s=64411746&i=276369&d=596669

and

http://www.icann.com/tlds/report/
- --
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:21:03 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:22:04 -0500, Dale Farmer wrote:

>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.'

I am very much the same.  I probably only post once or twice a month
to the GA list but I follow all the debates and articles with
interest.  I usually only post to express disagreement with something
or to elaborate on a point.

>One more supporting voice for these resolutions.

And also my support of the resolutions regarding the Board Members.

DPF

________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 22:20:22 -0500
From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Launches Multilingual .COM, .NET and .ORG today

"WorldNames Announces Low Price of $8.88 to Register New Chinese, Japanese,
or Korean .COM, .NET and .ORG Domain Names"

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001110/ny_worldna.html

Multilingual domain names are in your future. <smile>

Regards,

Bill Semich

- --
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:29:35 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the IDNO

At 12:23 10/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>joop...
>
>i would then assume by your comments below then that your would pofess that
>IDNO speaks for all the individual domain name holders of the world
>and the ICIIU speaks for the balance of the users.  !!
>
>NO SALE HERE !
>

Ken,

Very happy that the Chair of the Names Council at last deigns to address
the IDNO. 

Speaking only about the IDNO, the short answer is yes.
We are surely as representative as the other constituencies are for their
typical interests.
More representative, perhaps, than the "Biz constituency" is for "the
World's businesses".
Yes, we are set up as a geographically diverse structure. Yes, typical
individual DN holders from around the world are members and are
participating as officers.

Please tell me, who else are there  to speak for typical Individual DN
holder's interests?

This is not meant as a rhetorical question.  

Please list the individuals and organizations and propose to make them part
of the constituency that will speak for their interests on the NC.

The IDNO has been formed as an open democratic constituency, which all DN
holders of the world who are concerned enough, can join.
It has grown to 200 and it will continue to grow, if only due to the
continuing flow of cease-and-desist letters that DN owners find in their
letter-boxes.
There is a transparent structure that will bring out the
spokesmen/representatives and leadership that the majority of the members
want.
Show me another organized structure specifically asking for interested DN
owners to join in order to gain representation on the DNSO. 
Show me one that has petitioned the ICANN Board for a seat at the table
ever since it created its DNSO "constituencies".
Show me one with a more democratic, bottom-up charter. 

I'll humbly join it.

BTW, is this you official reply to the GA's request to initiate discussions
and form a WG to review the existing DNSO constituency structure?
I have been waiting since after the GA vote in Yokohama you promised  to
get in touch with us.
I am quite willing to have an open dialog here with you, reasonable and
without ad-hominems.  
I can understand your personal unwillingness to buy into the concept of an
IDNO, as paid representative of registrar/registry interests  that would
rather have the customers unorganized and without any input in DNSO
policymaking.
But as Chair of the Names Council you have to take a broader view.

Curing the festering democracy deficit in the DNSO will be in the best
interest of ICANN as a whole.

- --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 #187
************************