Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #191
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, November 12 2000          Volume 01 : Number 191

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

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:56:48 -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?"
>
> Contractual obligations with ICANN.

I think we are discussing the smell of roses.  The obligations you mention are not
arrived at through negotiation  of the "contracting" parties.  There is a
legislative process which results in uniformly imposed terms.

> > > 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?"
>
> ...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".

Since I don't share that general understanding, I had to look the term up.  Here is
what I found on the Meriam Webster site:

     1 : the act or process of governing; specifically :
     authoritative direction or control

     2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : DISCRETION

     3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing
     b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds
     office

     4 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the
     performance of functions for a political unit : RULE

     5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which
     a political unit exercises authority and performs functions
     and which is usually classified according to the distribution
     of power within it b : the complex of political institutions,
     laws, and customs through which the function of governing
     is carried out

     6 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing
     authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the
     officials comprising the governing body of a political unit
     and constituting the organization as an active agency b
     capitalized : the executive branch of the U.S. federal
     government c capitalized : a small group of persons
     holding simultaneously the principal political executive
     offices of a nation or other political unit and being
     responsible for the direction and supervision of public
     affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system
     constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) :
     ADMINISTRATION 4b

> ICANN isn't a government;

In the limited sense you posit.

> it isn't a democracy, either.

Isn't that the subject of our discussion, rather than its conclusion?

> Instead it is
> an entity that occupies a niche between numerous other entities, some
> of them very powerful, and provides them a service.

How is that a sequitur (as opposed to a "non sequitur")?

Are you saying that private institutions can not be governed democratically?

- --
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 16:09:11 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

> |>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"

I agree.

Christopher

- --
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 14:39:14 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Polling the list continually

At 16:15 11/11/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> 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.
>

Without passwords it is insecure, true. But cheating can be detected.
In previous open polls no cheating was observed.
In case of an unlikely result, the list can always fall back on an mail-in
consensus gathering exercise.
If the GA members want security they can enroll and login with a personal
password.

- --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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:54:28 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Polling the list continually

Hello Joop,

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 5:39:14 PM, you wrote:

> At 16:15 11/11/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>>> 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.
>>

> Without passwords it is insecure, true. But cheating can be detected.
> In previous open polls no cheating was observed.
> In case of an unlikely result, the list can always fall back on an mail-in
> consensus gathering exercise.
> If the GA members want security they can enroll and login with a personal
> password.

With passwords, it is still insecure.

Cheating cannot be detected, Joop.  I can name a dozen ways for
someone to get multiple votes without your ever being able to detect
it.  If you think a cookie, IP logs, etc, make it secure, go talk to
the pay-per-click advertising programs and ask them how much fraud
they get from people who click their own ads 100 times or more a day.

They can't detect it in action, they have to depend on the percentages
to tell them.  If a certain percentages of clicks from a given site do
not result in sales, over a broad sampling, then it is a safe
assumption that something is amiss with that site and the traffic it
is supposedly sending.

Your system is no more secure.  And I can prove it, as you know.

- -- 
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 23:32:43 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
change 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
>

- --
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 21:18:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
> roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .

Pot. Kettle. Black.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell                          
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:10:22 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

At 11:32 PM 11/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:

The ORSC rules can be found here:

http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/

If you wish to make a complaint about a posting on this list, you should 
forward that complaint to the GA list moderator under the list rules that 
Harald posted/proposed earlier.

However, censorship and civil discourse rules are two separate things. Just 
because you don't like what someone else says, it doesn't make what they 
are saying "wrong".

>too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
>roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:28 PM
>Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
>change 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
> >
>
>--
>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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:08:49 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Polling the list continually

- --part1_f8.47efab8.273f9c01_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William,

One board I post at, has my IP shown, as well as time and date of my post.
Would this be sufficient? If not then,

IMO if we are to be viewed as "open and transparent" ( I ) do not object to 
anyone seeing how I vote on any issue....If we all have the same opinion( 
regarding Open and transparent)...then why not a simple tally sheet with all 
our names and a checkbox for yes and no (or I agree or I disagree) with a 
confirmation of our vote from an autoresponder to us, confirming how we 
voted, to thwart cheating. If that was not sufficient we could take it a step 
further and put a link back to the tally sheet (in the confirmation e-mail) 
to activate the vote.

Wouldn't that be sufficient?

Forrester D. Rupp

- --part1_f8.47efab8.273f9c01_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>William,
<BR>
<BR>One board I post at, has my IP shown, as well as time and date of my post.
<BR>Would this be sufficient? If not then,
<BR>
<BR>IMO if we are to be viewed as "open and transparent" ( I ) do not object to <BR>anyone seeing how I vote on any issue....If we all have the same opinion( <BR>regarding Open and transparent)...then why not a simple tally sheet with all <BR>our names and a checkbox for yes and no (or I agree or I disagree) with a <BR>confirmation of our vote from an autoresponder to us, confirming how we <BR>voted, to thwart cheating. If that was not sufficient we could take it a step <BR>further and put a link back to the tally sheet (in the confirmation e-mail) <BR>to activate the vote.
<BR>
<BR>Wouldn't that be sufficient?
<BR>
<BR>Forrester D. Rupp</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_f8.47efab8.273f9c01_boundary--
- --
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 06:18:12 -0600
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

At 09:18 PM 11/11/00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> > too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
> > roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .
>Pot. Kettle. Black.

Does not matter.  The suggestion is a good one.

In this expanded Internet, lists that are for the purpose of conducting 
real business, such as making decisions, need enforceable rules that reduce 
or eliminate the distractions of ad hominems and distortions, emotions, etc.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 08:05:22 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Replacing unelected AL reps/2nd place finishers

At 12:33 11/11/2000 -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: no, not as a permanent mechanism.

I think the four should be selected as was suggested in a previous plan 
version - through a single-slate election carried out over the whole world.

However, I would support seating the second-placers you mention until such 
elections can be held, if it seemed possible to reach agreement on such an 
alternative.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:08:57 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List abuse (Re: Consensus vs Voting)

At 23:32 11/11/2000 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>too bad the orsc civil discourse rules dont apply here.
>roland would be spending time in the "penalty box" .

the procedure for suspending members' rights to post to the list is listed 
in the procedurs page. Anyone who feels that the list monitor should take 
action can send mail to [email-masked].

My personal hat feels that Roeland is going too far when he accuses others 
of lying.
My role as list monitor awaits evidence that other people find this 
objectionable.

Do you complain?

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:10:30 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

What I was trying to say was that according to the bylaws, the NC itself
does not form consensus.  It is tasked with managing the consensus building
process.  Once a recommendation is made by one of the DNSO groups, it has to
evaluate whether or not it convinced that consensus was reached.  To do so
requires that 2/3 of the NC members are convinced.

Working groups are made up of GA members, including Constituency members.
So if the process is working as it is supposed to, GA members should have
input into the consensus process.  To the degree that a working group
establishes (documents) whether or not a consensus was reached, the GA would
have influence through its members.  But the GA is clearly not represented
on the NC when it makes its evaluation of whether or not consensus was
attained.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bob Davis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:51 PM
To: Roeland Meyer
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
c hange seating rule)

Mr. Meyer and everyone,

  No I don't believe he is.  Mr. Gomes, I believe this question is
directed at you.  Could you please publicly answer this question?

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> 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

Bob Davis

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:12:36 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

At first glance, I don't think that this would be a bad idea, but I think
the GA would have to be more clearly formulated before this would work.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bob Davis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Kent Crispin'
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
c hange seating rule)

Mr. Gomes and everyone,

  I believe that the point that Mr. Meyer was attempting to make
is that the GA should also have at least one representative on the
NC as well.  If so, we support this position.  I also believe
that Mr. Meyer may have been suggesting that ALL NC
representatives should fall under the GA's final approval
in some manner.  If so, we also support this view or position
as well.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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

_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:08:31 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Replacing unelected AL reps/2nd place finishers

Please note that I have used the edited version of the proposition.

PROPOSITION:

The mechanism for replacing the four unelected directors if those
seats be vacated, now,  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.

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> My opinion: no, not as a permanent mechanism.

Clarification.  The proposition is only intended to deal with the current case.

> I think the four should be selected as was suggested in a previous plan
> version - through a single-slate election carried out over the whole world.
>
> However, I would support seating the second-placers you mention until such
> elections can be held, if it seemed possible to reach agreement on such an
> alternative.

That qualification is consistent with the proposition as stated and acceptable
to me.

- --
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 08:58:27 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List abuse (Re: Consensus vs Voting)

> My personal hat feels that Roeland is going too far when he 
> accuses others 
> of lying.
> My role as list monitor awaits evidence that other people find this 
> objectionable.
> 
> Do you complain?

Whether or not someone complains before I get in my car to drive down there,
I apologize to Kent for calling him a liar. I should have used the word
"disingenuous", as that is the more civil form of the accusation and one
acceptable to this list.

In one form or another, we all call each other liars all the time. It is no
secret that, ever since before he "doctored" the DNSO.ORG/WIPO draft, for
which he was the scribe, I have had serious issues with Kent's integrity, or
my perception of his lacking in that area. I allowed this to surface. For
that, I apologize to the list. If this seems harsh, it is because I place an
exceptionally high value on trust and integrity.

For those of you going to MDR, I'll be there in 4-5 hours.

- --
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 #191
************************