Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #201
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 30 2000         Volume 01 : Number 201

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

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:12:54 -0500
From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.

Why have the Names Council and the DNSO failed to respond for so long?

The MoU envisioned a bottom-up democratic process -- and here you have a
direct
request from the very organ that you claim tipifies democracy -- the GA.
Yet you
do nothing.

Please act on this request at the very next meeting, or at least explain to
a puzzled
GA why it should continue to participate in a body that appears to have no
meaning,
no value, and no standing.

>Dennis Schaefer

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:00 PM
Subject: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

>
> [ To: as listed below ]
>
> 24 November 2000
>
> The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for:
>
>              Tuesday   19 December 2000
>              Wednesday 24 January  2001
>
> The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date
> of each meeting.  The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in
> advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance.
>
> Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input
> before 28 November 2000 to [email-masked]
>
> Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input
> before 3 January 2001 to [email-masked]
>
> DNSO Secretariat
> --
>
> Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
> --------------------------------------
>
> At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the
> Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas
> for NC meetings.
>
> The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:
>
>    * members of the Names Council
>    * the Names Council Secretariat
>    * the ICANN Board
>    * members of the ICANN Board
>    * the ICANN Officers and Staff
>    * the GA Chair
>    * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to
>      the [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register
>    * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
>
> Agenda suggestions may be submitted to [email-masked], see archives
> in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html
>
> In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> before the date of the meeting.
>
> Names Council Intake Committee
>
> Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,
> Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

- --
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, 29 Nov 2000 14:26:56 +0800
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

Philip,chair of NC Intake Committee,

Can you make sure this will be on the next NC teleconference agenda
as requested here?

Thank you,
YJ, Member of NC Intake-Committee.

> Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
> for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
>
> Why have the Names Council and the DNSO failed to respond for so long?
>
> The MoU envisioned a bottom-up democratic process -- and here you have a
> direct
> request from the very organ that you claim tipifies democracy -- the GA.
> Yet you
> do nothing.
>
> Please act on this request at the very next meeting, or at least explain
to
> a puzzled
> GA why it should continue to participate in a body that appears to have no
> meaning,
> no value, and no standing.
>
> >Dennis Schaefer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:00 PM
> Subject: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
>
>
> >
> > [ To: as listed below ]
> >
> > 24 November 2000
> >
> > The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for:
> >
> >              Tuesday   19 December 2000
> >              Wednesday 24 January  2001
> >
> > The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date
> > of each meeting.  The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in
> > advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance.
> >
> > Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > before 28 November 2000 to [email-masked]
> >
> > Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > before 3 January 2001 to [email-masked]
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat
> > --
> >
> > Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the
> > Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas
> > for NC meetings.
> >
> > The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:
> >
> >    * members of the Names Council
> >    * the Names Council Secretariat
> >    * the ICANN Board
> >    * members of the ICANN Board
> >    * the ICANN Officers and Staff
> >    * the GA Chair
> >    * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to
> >      the [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register
> >    * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
> >
> > Agenda suggestions may be submitted to [email-masked], see archives
> > in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html
> >
> > In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> > for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> > before the date of the meeting.
> >
> > Names Council Intake Committee
> >
> > Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,
> > Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:43:44 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

 hello dennis...

 below is the exerpt of the section of the by-laws regarding constituancy
 formation:
 "d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
 recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
    be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The
 Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a
    petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would
 serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event the Board is
    considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed
explanation
 of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable
    time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to
 create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments
    received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a
new
 Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names
    council and will consider any response to that notification prior to
 taking action. "

 I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
 names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
 but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
 prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
 handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated
by
 interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.

 i do not understand why you or any prospective member of an individual
 constituancy would want the names council involved in facilitating this
 formation process. further, it would seem to me that the names council
would
 be out-of-bounds here to involve itself as a formal body in this process
 unless directed to by the board and specifically requested to by the
 self-organized body.

 it would seem more appropriate to me that this self-formation process be
 managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking constituancy status
 rather than members of other constituancies which are currently represented
 on the names
 council. this would avoid any future criticism of "micro-managing" or
 "manipulation" of this constituancy formation process.

 respectfully submitted

 ken stubbs

>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
> To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:12 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
> teleconferences
>
>
> > Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
> > for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
> >
> > Why have the Names Council and the DNSO failed to respond for so long?
> >
> > The MoU envisioned a bottom-up democratic process -- and here you have a
> > direct
> > request from the very organ that you claim tipifies democracy -- the GA.
> > Yet you
> > do nothing.
> >
> > Please act on this request at the very next meeting, or at least explain
> to
> > a puzzled
> > GA why it should continue to participate in a body that appears to have
no
> > meaning,
> > no value, and no standing.
> >
> > >Dennis Schaefer
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:00 PM
> > Subject: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
> >
> >
> > >
> > > [ To: as listed below ]
> > >
> > > 24 November 2000
> > >
> > > The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for:
> > >
> > >              Tuesday   19 December 2000
> > >              Wednesday 24 January  2001
> > >
> > > The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date
> > > of each meeting.  The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in
> > > advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance.
> > >
> > > Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > > before 28 November 2000 to [email-masked]
> > >
> > > Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > > before 3 January 2001 to [email-masked]
> > >
> > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > --
> > >
> > > Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
> > > --------------------------------------
> > >
> > > At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the
> > > Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas
> > > for NC meetings.
> > >
> > > The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:
> > >
> > >    * members of the Names Council
> > >    * the Names Council Secretariat
> > >    * the ICANN Board
> > >    * members of the ICANN Board
> > >    * the ICANN Officers and Staff
> > >    * the GA Chair
> > >    * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to
> > >      the [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register
> > >    * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
> > >
> > > Agenda suggestions may be submitted to [email-masked], see archives
> > > in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html
> > >
> > > In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> > > for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> > > before the date of the meeting.
> > >
> > > Names Council Intake Committee
> > >
> > > Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,
> > > Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:56:20 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

At 07:12 PM 11/28/00, Dennis Schaefer wrote:
>Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
>for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.

Consider this a formal request to establish a GA working group to propose a 
constituency for individual domain name holders. At Marina Del Rey, many of 
us discussed this and we concluded that a working group list under the 
umbrella of the GA would be the way to go.

Let's do it!

Regards,
Greg

- --
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, 29 Nov 2000 07:42:17 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

hello dennis...

below is the exerpt of the section of the by-laws regarding constituancy
formation:
"d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will
   be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The
Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a
   petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would
serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event the Board is
   considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation
of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable
   time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to
create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments
   received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new
Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names
   council and will consider any response to that notification prior to
taking action. "

I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated by
interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.

i do not understand why you or any prospective member of an individual
constituancy would want the names council involved in facilitating this
formation process. further, it would seem to me that the names council would
be out-of-bounds here to involve itself as a formal body in this process
unless directed to by the board and specifically requested to by the
self-organized body.

it would seem more appropriate to me that this self-formation process be
managed and facilitated by the parties who are seeking constituancy status
rather than members of other constituancies which are currently represented
on the names
council. this would avoid any future criticism of "micro-managing" or
"manipulation" of this constituancy formation process.

respectfully submitted

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:12 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC
teleconferences

> Months ago, at the Yokohama meeting, the GA approved a resolution asking
> for the DNSO to explore an individuals constituency.
>
> Why have the Names Council and the DNSO failed to respond for so long?
>
> The MoU envisioned a bottom-up democratic process -- and here you have a
> direct
> request from the very organ that you claim tipifies democracy -- the GA.
> Yet you
> do nothing.
>
> Please act on this request at the very next meeting, or at least explain
to
> a puzzled
> GA why it should continue to participate in a body that appears to have no
> meaning,
> no value, and no standing.
>
> >Dennis Schaefer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 5:00 PM
> Subject: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences
>
>
> >
> > [ To: as listed below ]
> >
> > 24 November 2000
> >
> > The next Names Council teleconferences are scheduled for:
> >
> >              Tuesday   19 December 2000
> >              Wednesday 24 January  2001
> >
> > The Intake Committee welcomes your input up to 21 days before the date
> > of each meeting.  The agenda is expected to be published 14 days in
> > advance of the meeting, and the related documents 7 days in advance.
> >
> > Agenda for 19 December 2000 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > before 28 November 2000 to [email-masked]
> >
> > Agenda for 24 January 2001 NC meeting: please submit your input
> > before 3 January 2001 to [email-masked]
> >
> > DNSO Secretariat
> > --
> >
> > Preparation of agendas for NC meetings
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > At its 21 September meeting the DNSO Names Council (NC) requested the
> > Intake Committee (IC) to assist it with the preparation of agendas
> > for NC meetings.
> >
> > The IC invites suggestions for agenda items from the following groups:
> >
> >    * members of the Names Council
> >    * the Names Council Secretariat
> >    * the ICANN Board
> >    * members of the ICANN Board
> >    * the ICANN Officers and Staff
> >    * the GA Chair
> >    * members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to
> >      the [email-masked], [email-masked] or the GA voting register
> >    * subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
> >
> > Agenda suggestions may be submitted to [email-masked], see archives
> > in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/agenda/Arc00/maillist.html
> >
> > In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> > for consultation within Constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> > before the date of the meeting.
> >
> > Names Council Intake Committee
> >
> > Philip Sheppard, Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,
> > Youn Jung Park, Michael Schneider
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:31:30 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CONSENSUS? -- WG to propose a constituency for individual domain name holders

Yes, I support it.

Individual domain name holders are the largest group with the least amount 
of representation.

- -Kendall

At 09:56 AM 11/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Consider this a formal request to establish a GA working group to propose 
>a constituency for individual domain name holders. At Marina Del Rey, many 
>of us discussed this and we concluded that a working group list under the 
>umbrella of the GA would be the way to go.
>
>Let's do it!
>
>Regards,
>Greg

- --
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, 30 Nov 2000 13:48:56 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC teleconferences

At 07:43 29/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> I do not find in the current by-laws any authority or direction for the
> names council to be involved in the formation process of any constituancy
> but rather a directive that the process be one of self-organization by any
> prospective group. it would appear by my reading that this process if
> handled directly thru the ICANN board and that recognition is facilitated
>by
> interaction between the board & the proposing constituancy group.
>

Formally, I can only agree with Ken here. 
Unfortunately the Board has seen fit to dodge the issue time and again.

The GA of the DNSO has requested the NC to create a working group for DNSO
review.
I understand that this is now in the process of implementation.

The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
for over a year.

Ken is right that it is inappropriate for the other constituencies to get
involved in the facilitation (or rather the opposite) of the entry of a new
one.
What the constituencies *can* do is air the consensus of their members
about it. 
The NCDNHC has done so with several resolutions.

What gets me is that we hear this pronouncement from the NC Chair only now
many months after this issue has been raised and discussed here in public,
with the GA chair himself opposing arguments just like Ken's above.

- --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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:47:52 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Fw: [ga] Re: [voters] Agenda suggestions for the next NC  teleconferences

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 4:48:56 PM, you wrote:

> The danger here is, that the (probably endless) discussions in such a WG
> would just provide the excuse to the Board to further postpone any decision
> on the petition of the IDNO constituency that has been in sitting there
> for over a year.

My understanding is that the call is for a WG on the formation of an
individual's constituency, not on the IDNO petition to have itself
declared a constituency.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #201
************************