Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #190
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, November 12 2000          Volume 01 : Number 190

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

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:24:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, at 11:42 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:15:00PM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:11:03AM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The issue of legitimacy is quite real.
> > >
> > > Yes, but you overlook a very fundamental question.  Legitimacy with
> > > whom?
> > 
> > No.  I defined "legitimacy" in terms of the governed, and their power to
> > affect who shall represent them.  How would you define it?
> 
> ICANN isn't a government.
> 
> The entities over which ICANN has direct influence are registries,
> registrars, and standards bodies.  They would constitute the 
> "governed". 

Would you subscribe to the idea that only those who pay tax, should
have a vote?

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202]) 

- --
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 14:24:49 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Kent Crispin wrote:

> ICANN isn't a government.

By what definition?

> The entities over which ICANN has direct influence

What is that "influence?"

> are registries,
> registrars, and standards bodies.  They would constitute the
> "governed".

Even with that limitation (focusing on the "governed" but not the "affected"),
isn't the mechanics of "influencing" the "governed" generally called
"government?"

- --
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 12:36:34 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

> Would you subscribe to the idea that only those who pay tax, should
> have a vote?

SOmething similar was tried and argued in the early days of the USA.
Hamilton held the belief that only land-owners should be able to vote. The
theory is that only those with a vested interest should have control. Of
course, that was before the day of Income Taxes.
- --
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 12:53:16 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:24:49PM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > ICANN isn't a government.
> 
> By what definition?
> 
> > The entities over which ICANN has direct influence
> 
> What is that "influence?"

Contractual obligations with ICANN.

> > are registries,
> > registrars, and standards bodies.  They would constitute the
> > "governed".
> 
> Even with that limitation (focusing on the "governed" but not the "affected"),
> isn't the mechanics of "influencing" the "governed" generally called
> "government?"

Oh sure, when one is speaking in vague generalities.  We can say that my
choice of computers that I can buy is "governed" by the market, and thus
the market acts as a "government", and "regulates" my ability to buy
things.  Generally, playing stupid word games like that is not
productive.  We all know what is generally meant by the term "a
government" -- it is the entity in that controls a sovereign state, and
most of us believe that some kind of democracy is the best form of "a
government".

ICANN isn't a government; it isn't a democracy, either.  Instead it is 
an entity that occupies a niche between numerous other entities, some 
of them very powerful, and provides them a service.

- -- 
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:38:02 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:24:57 -0000

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04C27.ABA2AF18
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

I believe that the GA should focus on our own organizational effectiveness
and processes which draw in  broad participation. I believe that should be
the priority in order to make the GA a vital and useful entity.  in short,
being a useful entity to offer thoughtful, and well vetted guidance to the
process should be the GA first priority.
 
Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Erica Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:24:57 -0000

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_001_01C04C27.ABA2AF18
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=563113421-11112000>I 
believe that the GA should focus on our own organizational effectiveness and 
processes which draw in&nbsp; broad participation. I believe that should be the 
priority in order to make the GA a vital and useful entity.&nbsp; in short, 
being a useful entity to offer thoughtful, and well vetted guidance to the 
process should be the GA first priority.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=563113421-11112000></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=563113421-11112000>Marilyn</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Erica Roberts 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 09, 2000 
  10:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Date: Fri, 10 Nov 
  2000 02:24:57 -0000<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On 9 Nov Alf Hansen wrote:</FONT><FONT face=Arial 
  size=2>,<BR><BR>Again, I think it would have been more productive to discuss 
  how the DNSO GA<BR>could be more self-organized, than to discuss the 
  composition of the ICANN<BR>Board.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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&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 can provide credible guidance, or develop broad consensus based 
  positions.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So ....if we are going to play a constructive 
  role, we could do a lot worse than focus on some basic organisational 
  issues.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>erica</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04C27.ABA2AF18--
- --
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 16:40:03 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

I do not support any call that there is any kind of consensus within the GA
on these issues.  There hasn't been any real dialogue among the GA on these
issues, or other substantive issues which are before the GA as a body.

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
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
- --
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 14:05:39 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 1:40:03 PM, you wrote:

> I do not support any call that there is any kind of consensus within the GA
> on these issues.  There hasn't been any real dialogue among the GA on these
> issues, or other substantive issues which are before the GA as a body.

Have you not been following the GA list, Marilyn?  There has certainly
been a dialogue.  Many MANY people have posted their concerns on this
issue, and the level of support calling for a change both to the
seating rule and to the extension of the term of the initial "interim"
board members (yet again) is growing by the hour.

There is certainly a much stronger level of "real" consensus on these
points in the GA list than the things that have come out of the Names
Council that are claimed to be "consensus."

- -- 
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:23:46 -0800
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:53:12AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
> The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
> GA. That record is clear.
> 
> 2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
> me.
> 
> 3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
> sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.
> 
> Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
> the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
> this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

:-) Sorry, Roeland -- you are incorrect.

With the sole exception of the gTLD constituency (which only has one
member), NC reps are indeed *elected* by their respective
constituencies.  In fact, I just managed two such elections -- one for 
the NCC, and one for the ccTLD constituency.

Impeachment, if implemented, is left to the individual constituencies.

The NC is not an appointed body.  It is an elected body.

- -- 
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:32:32 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Yes I agree

+===========================+
|   Darryl Lynch (Dassa)    |
| DHS International Pty Ltd |
+===========================+
|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
|>To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
|>Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change
seating
|>rule
|>
|>
|>Hi
|> Let us cut to the chase here.
|>Consider this a call to the list.
|>
|>A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
|>
|>
|>
|>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.
|>
|>
|>Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
|>
|>
|>Ken

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:46:03 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Replacing unelected AL reps/2nd place finishers

At 12:33 11/11/00 -0600, Weisberg wrote:
>PROPOSITION:
>The mechanism for replacing the four unelected directors should those
>seats be vacated should be the appointment of the second place
>finishers in the four regions with the highest number of members--Asia,
>Europe, North America, and South America?
>
>(My opinion)  Agreed.
>
>
>DISCUSSION:
>The proportional representation electoral system used by ICANN (STV/IRV)
>indicates that the second place finishers were, indeed, the preferred
>choices for board membership if two slots were available in each of
>those regions.  Such mechanism has already been deemed most appropriate
>and adequate by the institution's own processes, can be implemented
>without the time and expense of a new election, and is, on the whole,
>the most fairly representative alternative available for immediate
>implementation.
>

Eric and all,

I agree.   This is a logical and practical proposal.
It is the next step after the consensus on the step-down has been established.
The voting system used has given us the maximum input of the voters' will.

The only alternative I could think of is that the "sqatting" directors
would stand for election now or after the meeting , together with the
second place finishers. In that way the voters can show their appreciation
for those who have done the good work that Kent spoke of and their
experience will not be lost to ICANN.

With the existing system in place, holding such a second election would be
relatively simple.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:12:10 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Polling the list continually

At 16:40 11/11/00 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>Perhaps a solution would be to poll each thread with a 
>" Agree / Disagree... Yes / No "  call to the list.
>

I think this is a good idea and if Marilyn would wish to make this polling
option available each time such a "consensus" thread occurs,  I would be
happy to entrust her an administrator account on the Polling Booth.
It takes 10 minutes to put such a poll up. The tally is automatic and the
results can be set to be visible in real time.

- --joop teernstra, IDNO bootstrap

- --Be counted. Make good use of any voting rights and opportunities--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:59:02 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the IDNO

At 13:44 11/11/00 -0800, Bob Davis wrote:

>  We represent some +60,000 individual domain name owners
>Sir.
>
"Bob"  :-)_,

Can we see what structure you have and what rules to make sure that JW can
really be taken serious as  spokesman of your 60.000?
Do you have a list of the members' names available in the public
domain?(such as the IDNO has)
The officers?
Have you petitioned the Board for participation in the DNSO? 

Could you reveal how you fund your organization?
Small detail: where is your website, your open mailing list?

Where and how does one join up?

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:48:23 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

Roeland,

As Kent already pointed out, NC members are elected by the constituencies.
They are definitely not appointed by the board.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 12:53 PM
To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
c hange seating rule)

1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
GA. That record is clear.

2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
me.

3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.

Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > 
> > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> 
> The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> balances on 
> *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
> you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
> NC in this regard.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
- --
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:46:23 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

As I recall, the 2/3 vote of the NC is required to validate a consensus
recommendation of a working group.  In other words, at least 2/3 of the NC
has to be convenced that a consensus position was reached involving the
applicable population.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 2:01 PM
To: YJ Park; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
change seating rule)

YJ Park <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Measurable consensus in NC can be very difficult to fathom.

Consensus for the NC is actually defined in the ICANN bylaws in way that can
be objectively measured. Specifically, a NC consensus recommendation to the
Board on matters of policy is anything that has a 2/3 vote of the NC
members. See, Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 2(d):
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B

When the NC released it "press release" in September counseling against
pre-registration in speculative new TLDs, that was *not* a consensus policy
under the bylaws. In fact, from the NC minutes, it doesn't appear that it
was even put forward for a vote.

Since the NC "press release" did not actually call for any Board action, it
arguably did not need to meet the standards for "consensus" set forth in the
Bylaws. Nevertheless, for those less schooled in the details of ICANN's
bylaws, it was certainly confusing, and made more so by the fact that ICANN
carried the "press release" over to the main ICANN web site.

In the future, it would be helpful to the community if the NC made a clear
distinction between when it is acting in a formal consensus manner as
contemplated by the bylaws and when it is doing something else.

        -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 15:57:21 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

Are you saying that the GA had any voice in any NC member?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 3:48 PM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> c hange seating rule)
> 
> 
> Roeland,
> 
> As Kent already pointed out, NC members are elected by the 
> constituencies.
> They are definitely not appointed by the board.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 12:53 PM
> To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> c hange seating rule)
> 
> 
> 1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried 
> and we failed.
> The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the 
> wishes of the
> GA. That record is clear.
> 
> 2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there 
> is, show it to
> me.
> 
> 3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN 
> BoD is the
> sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.
> 
> Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. 
> However, this is
> the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You 
> are usually not
> this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are 
> feeling too well.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> > Assembly call to
> > change seating rule)
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > > 
> > > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> > 
> > The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> > balances on 
> > *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your 
> representatives do, 
> > you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> > That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery 
> about the 
> > NC in this regard.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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
> > 
> --
> 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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:15:27 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Polling the list continually

Hello Joop,

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 3:12:10 PM, you wrote:

> At 16:40 11/11/00 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>>Perhaps a solution would be to poll each thread with a 
>>" Agree / Disagree... Yes / No "  call to the list.
>>

> I think this is a good idea and if Marilyn would wish to make this polling
> option available each time such a "consensus" thread occurs,  I would be
> happy to entrust her an administrator account on the Polling Booth.
> It takes 10 minutes to put such a poll up. The tally is automatic and the
> results can be set to be visible in real time.

And is incredibly insecure.

- -- 
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:20:57 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the IDNO

On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, at 11:59 [=GMT+1300], Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 13:44 11/11/00 -0800, Bob Davis wrote:
> 
> >  We represent some +60,000 individual domain name owners
> >Sir.
> >
> "Bob"  :-)_,
> 
> Can we see what structure you have and what rules to make sure that JW can
> really be taken serious as  spokesman of your 60.000?
> Do you have a list of the members' names available in the public
> domain?(such as the IDNO has)
> The officers?
> Have you petitioned the Board for participation in the DNSO? 
> 
> Could you reveal how you fund your organization?
> Small detail: where is your website

The website is at http://www.inegroup.org/ of course!

It has a very cool logo.

Marc Schneiders

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INEGroup 112k strong -- Now under new leadership
- -------------------------------------------------
Visit the website: http://www.INEGroup.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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:28:06 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

This message is being resent because there seems to be a disconnect going
on. The last I heard, the context was the GA and this is certainly the GA
mailing list. I was talking about the GA, or am I moving too fast for y'all?

The "we" in item 1 is the GA. However, I may have confused some of you with
my reference to the general NC body. It is opening yet another can of worms
when we discuss formation and instantiation of the various constituencies.
They were created by fiat, by the ICANN BoD. They were captured by the
power-clique and I don't consider their NC representitives fairly elected.
That is my opinion, one that cannot be changed without proof, that various
constituencies are not willing/able to provide. It certainly isn't available
to any GA member. 

In addition, it is certainly telling that the constituencies serve on an
at-will basis. Ergo, they are 100% at the behest of the ICANN BoD. If they
don't do what the BoD asks, or they cause too much upheaval, then the BoD
can dissolve that constituency. Hence my statement that the NC is an
appointed body.

Lacking a constituency for individual domain name owners and small
businesses, the GA is forced to assume that role. Yet, it is not allowed to
select its own NC rep. Jonathan may be a fine individual, but he really
should step down in favour of the real GA choice, Jamie Love, whom garnered
almost twice as many votes.

No, the NC is not an elected body, it is appointed, or near enough so as to
not make much/any difference.

- ---

1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
GA. That record is clear.

2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
me.

3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.

Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > 
> > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> 
> The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> balances on 
> *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
> you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
> NC in this regard.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
- --
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 #190
************************