Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #194
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 16 2000         Volume 01 : Number 194

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:01:21 -0800
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-LA Public Forum Now In Progress

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:57 AM
To: ICANN-LA Remote Participants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-LA Public Forum Now In Progress

Just a quick reminder that today's ICANN Public Forum has just begun.  (It
started at 8:30AM local time, 11:30AM US Eastern time, 4:30PM UTC.)

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:41:37 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William X. Walsh

At 21:22 15/11/2000 +1100, Dassa wrote:
>Without presuming to contradict the findings of the monitor, I must
>say that I am surprised by this action for a number of reasons.

some words from the monitor:

- - the list monitor has been very hesitant to act without a complaint being
   lodged by someone else, except in the case of postings that were clearly
' repetitions of previous acts that caused (unchallenged) monitor reaction.
   Before this complaint, no official complaint about Walsh' IDNO posting
   had been lodged. (In fact, the previous complaint to the list monitor
   was lodged in June. It has been quiet.)

- - the list monitor has been worried about the Walsh/Ternstra spat for some
   time, but both the lack of an official complaint and the fact that the
   postings seemed to be about a genuine problem of some relevance to the
   GA served to delay any action (except an occasional warning).

- - the paragraph quoted in the list monitor action is actually an accusation
' of record falsification, rather than anything that can be interpreted in
   a slightly more charitable manner (such as rule-skirting or sloppy
   housekeeping). The other paragraphs in the letter complained about could
   mostly have been interpreted in such a more charitable manner.

The list monitor hopes that these notes make the thinking behind the 
decision slightly clearer.

- --
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:42:10 -0800
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] At Large study proposal released

The staff delivered on its promise to release its proposal for the At Large 
study before the Board meeting in LA :-(

http://www.icann.org/at-large/staff-recommendation-study-15nov00.htm was 
posted today. 30 days to comment.

          Harald, from the back of the room.
- --
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 01:40:43 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William X. Walsh

At 21:22 15/11/00 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>I am also very surprised the complaint was lodged over such a
>paragraph.  I have seen both Joop and WXW indulge in more heated
>discussions, together and with others.  I have also seen worse on this
>list from others.

This surprised me too. The paragraph was chosen by the monitor out of two
sentences that demonstrated a pattern of personal attacks.
You see how difficult it is to be a judge and jury at the same time.

An offlist vote offloads this burden from the moderator's shoulders.

- --
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, 16 Nov 2000 07:23:18 -0800
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-LA Board Meeting Begins at 8AM PST

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:21 AM
To: ICANN-LA Remote Participants
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-LA Board Meeting Begins at 8AM PST

Just a quick reminder that today's ICANN Board Meeting will begin shortly,
at 8:00AM local time, 11:00AM US Eastern time, 4PM UTC.  (Note that these
times are one hour than previously anticipated.)

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 8:02 PM
To: ICANN-LA Remote Participants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-LA Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you registered to attend ICANN's
public meetings in Los Angeles, California (November 13-16) via webcast.

Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session and
yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, scribe's notes, documents and presentations used, real-time
questions received, and online discussion logs.  RealVideo archives will be
posted within the next 24 hours.

Meetings resume tomorrow at 9:00AM local time with the ICANN Board Meeting.
To join the webcast, go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000>.
During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences; note that
tomorrow's Board Meeting begins at 9AM local time, which is noon US Eastern
and 5PM UTC.

In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
as posted at <http://www.icann.org/mdr2000/#agenda>.  From that page, you'll
also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.

If you miss some or all of the Board Meeting or if you wish to review
content generated by the Public Forum, be advised that complete archives of
the session will be posted at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive> upon its conclusion.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
later strongly recommended), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Finally, access to the live chat and
dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE
or Netscape version 3 or later) or a dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See
<http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcements.htm> for instructions.

We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 16 Nov 2000 16:51:18 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Kent,

In my opinion there's a huge difference between the postings in the 
early days of the GA (the ones you define as being done by "lunatics") 
and a debate on the legitimacy of extending the seating period of the 
initial Directors.

I may agree on the fact that it will have no influence - I am not 
expecting them to resign following this exchange of messages - but the 
opinion of one of the ICANN bodies about what is internal life of ICANN 
cannot be categorized at the same level of the traffic that was flooding
 the list one year ago.

Regards
Roberto

>On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:06:59PM -0500, Paul Svensson wrote:
>> 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,
>> whether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally 
>> irrelevant 
>
>As Chuck pointed out, there are many reasons.  The one I am most
>concerned about is a variation of your 1) above:
>
>    3) The outcome is not important for them because the opinion of the

>    GA is irrelevant.
>
>To put it in other words, the major issue before the GA is not the
>credibility (legitimacy) of the Board.  The issue is the credibility
>(legitimacy) of the GA.  
>
>There is a very good reason that the GA has so little influence/power 
in
>the bylaws.  That reason is that *many* people feared that the GA would

>simply be a magnet for lunatics, idealogues, etc, and would do more 
harm
>than good to any constructive activity.  The early days of the GA,
>before the list rules were in place, amply confirmed those fears.  It
>wasn't too many months ago where the major traffic on this list was
>dirty limricks from Joe Baptista.  Many people left the list; the 
people
>who worried about whether the GA could work saw their concerns born out

>in full, and have written off the GA entirely. 
>
>The GA, in other words, has a large burden of proof in making the case
>that it is a serious body that merits attention in ICANN processes.  
>There has been perhaps some small progress in credibility since the 
>list rules went into effect.  But pointless resolutions demanding that 

>Directors resign etc have undone all that.
>
>-- 
>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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:02:51 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

Roeland,

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

The NC representatives are elected by their respective constituencies.

Roberto

>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: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:52:12 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS=?iso-8859-1?Q?=3F [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule?=

Hi.
Somebody has kept the count of these answers?
I know Elisabeth is busy here at ICANN's - maybe we have to wait until 
next week - unless somebody else has the updatec count.
Regards
Roberto

>
>
>-----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
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
>>Roessler
>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
>>To: William X. Walsh
>>Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [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
>>
>>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:59:35 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I may agree on the fact that it will have no influence - I am not
> expecting them to resign following this exchange of messages -

Shouldn't we distinguish between "no influence" and "not the only influence?"

I have heard people complain that their vote did not count simply because the
election was decided by more than one vote or because their candidate did not
win.  The only way to guarantee that your vote won't count is not to vote.

The ICANN Board has consistently sought input from the community and
determined consensus on all issues before it in light of community response.
Our comments are offered and will be received in that context.

> Paul Svensson wrote:
> >> ...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.

That is a truncated list.  You might consider adding:

            3)  Their opinions vary from their employer.
            4)  Their opinions vary from their "party."
            5)   Their opinions vary from their customers.
            6)   Their opinions are not wanted/will not be considered.
            7)   They fear reprisal.
And, Kent's suggestion that
            8)    the

> >    GA is irrelevant.

Which, btw, is an interesting suggestion from a participant.

> >To put it in other words, the major issue before the GA is not the
> >credibility (legitimacy) of the Board.  The issue is the credibility
> >(legitimacy) of the GA.

First, these issues are independent and not mutually exclusive.
Second, the discussion in which the comments in question are offered relates
to the legitimacy of the Board (as regards the manner of filling four of its
seats).  The best way to guarantee the irrelevance of the GA in that
discussion is for the GA not to participate.   Some might call that course a
self fulfilling prophesy.

> >There is a very good reason that the GA has so little influence/power
> in
> >the bylaws.  That reason is that *many* people feared that the GA would
>
> >simply be a magnet for lunatics, idealogues, etc,

The speaker, by making this comment, is suggesting, by implication, that such
comment is relevant.  But, which of  the "voters" in the current poll were his
intended targets?  If none, why make such a comment when the
insinuation/likely inference matches (or, exceeds) other recent examples in
personal offense, IMHO.

Our expressions of opinion were open (each poster identified).  They are
available to be viewed individually or as a group by the board.  Under our
list's rules of discourse, no public characterization of the participants is
appropriate.  How does the reference to "lunatics" comport with the spirit, if
not the letter of that principle?

- --
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 #194
************************