Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #224
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, February 7 2001         Volume 01 : Number 224

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:15:03 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal

It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...

NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> |      Multiorganizations
> |
> |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is large,
> |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of the
> |         categories and is international in scope.
>
> My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
category.
> If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
guess
> would be there are), give them all TLDs now.

I believe that became "subdomains of .int".

- --
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:54:16 +0100
From: François Collignon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

Is ICANN an UN/international governmental body?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal

> It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...
>
> NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> > |      Multiorganizations
> > |
> > |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is large,
> > |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> > |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of the
> > |         categories and is international in scope.
> >
> > My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
> category.
> > If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
> guess
> > would be there are), give them all TLDs now.
>
> I believe that became "subdomains of .int".
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:59:35 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [announce] auth 0eeeecf9 subscribe announce "P. Duquesne (APPROACH Belgium)" <[email-masked]>

Well this is just great, it appears that the DNSO Announce list may be
open to sending messages out to the entire list by anyone.

Can someone investigate this, and if I am wrong, explain how the
message below was distributed to the announce list?

I've CC'd this message to the announce list to test this theory.

Sunday, February 04, 2001, 6:13:00 AM, P. Duquesne (APPROACH Belgium) wrote:

> auth 0eeeecf9 subscribe announce "P. Duquesne (APPROACH Belgium)" <[email-masked]>

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:16:55 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal

Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.  I'm not sure why
this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would also
seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as industry, a
useful thing.

:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:15 AM
To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal

It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...

NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> |      Multiorganizations
> |
> |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is large,
> |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of the
> |         categories and is international in scope.
>
> My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
category.
> If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
guess
> would be there are), give them all TLDs now.

I believe that became "subdomains of .int".

- --
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:41:15 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Old proposal

Hello Marilyn,

Tuesday, February 06, 2001, 8:16:55 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.

Neither is tpc.int.

> I'm not sure why
> this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would also
> seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as industry, a
> useful thing.

I don't see any correlation between presence in .int and a
governmental relationship (see previous example).

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:25:18 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:41:15AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Marilyn,
> 
> Tuesday, February 06, 2001, 8:16:55 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> > Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.
> 
> Neither is tpc.int.

There have been some errors in the administration of the .int domain.  
The current charter, though, is that an organization is supposed to be 
an international treaty organization.

The charter could be changed -- I actually find the idea somewhat intriguing 
- -- but changing the charter is a barrel of worms at this point in time.

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:17:49 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Old proposal

William, hmmm, maybe I'm missing something... perhaps if .int were to be
treated as a "global non profit" place to register, then that would be one
thing. History is hard to unwrite...many folks think of .int as where they
find WIPO, ITU, etc.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Old proposal

Hello Marilyn,

Tuesday, February 06, 2001, 8:16:55 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.

Neither is tpc.int.

> I'm not sure why
> this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would
also
> seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as industry,
a
> useful thing.

I don't see any correlation between presence in .int and a
governmental relationship (see previous example).

- -- 
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
- --
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:12:20 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Hello.

I am writing as a member of this GA, and as a member of an
organization whose leader is now claiming that one thing that
organization has accomplished is a "turning of the GA of the DNSO
around."

I find it odd that anyone who is a member of this assembly can think
that this assembly has been turned around in a positive fashion, when
in fact this GA assembly has not been able to accomplish anything as a
cohesive body.  It can't even initiate elections to replace a GA Chair
whose office long ago expired.  It has been unable to even agree on a
set of principles to put forward for giving itself a real role in the
organization.

So I'd like to know what the other GA members think.

Has there been a "turning of the GA" around?

I have to say that the credibility of the person who made this claim
took a nose dive when he claimed that the IDNO was responsible for
this so called "turning" around that doesn't appear to have ever
occurred.

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:51:46 -0500
From: "Dennis Schaefer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

Hi Marilyn --

Sorry about the misdirect.  I was sure I had hit to Reply to
All. <G>

I can't disagree with you about the infrastructure consisting of privately
owned facilities.  But the ether that holds that structure together is
the public forum called the Internet -- which was built with taxpayer money.

So selling that public forum to private interests not beholden to
constitutional matters of
due process and free speech is roughly like letting the Ku Klux Klan rent
out the
US Capitol.

I am not anti-business -- just pro civil liberties.

>Dennis

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Dennis Schaefer'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal

> Dennis, did you notice that this only went to  me? I don't mind, but I
think
> you intended to reply to Peter as well? Perhaps the group?
>
> The Internet is an infrastructure, isn't it, Dennis? Built of leased lines
> and other facilities, with an operating protocol, and connecting to
millions
> of content sources.  But it isn't a goverment resource.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Schaefer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:58 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
>
>
> Peter --
>
> I find your suggestion completely appropriate.  While I understand
Marilyn's
> need as an industry representative to pin the label 'private sector' on
the
> Internet,
> the fact is that it is still a governmental resource whose privatization
was
> botched up by the US.
>
> A single worldwide Internet is a world resource for which ICANN should be
> the agent negotiating and defending the need for a worldwide transfer of
> sovereignty.
> A wholesale surrender to private business will not enhance the Net -- and
> might just
> ruin it.
>
>
> >Dennis Schaefer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Peter de Blanc'" <[email-masked]>; "'Kent Crispin'"
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
>
>
> > Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.  I'm not sure
> why
> > this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would
> also
> > seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as
industry,
> a
> > useful thing.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:15 AM
> > To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...
> >
> > NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT
> >
> > peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> > Crispin
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> > > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> > > |      Multiorganizations
> > > |
> > > |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is
large,
> > > |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> > > |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of
the
> > > |         categories and is international in scope.
> > >
> > > My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
> > category.
> > > If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
> > guess
> > > would be there are), give them all TLDs now.
> >
> > I believe that became "subdomains of .int".
> >
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:04:32 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Old proposal

Hello Dennis,

Tuesday, February 06, 2001, 5:51:46 PM, Dennis Schaefer wrote:

> Hi Marilyn --

> Sorry about the misdirect.  I was sure I had hit to Reply to
> All. <G>

> I can't disagree with you about the infrastructure consisting of privately
> owned facilities.  But the ether that holds that structure together is
> the public forum called the Internet -- which was built with taxpayer money.

Only a very small part of it, Dennis.

> So selling that public forum to private interests not beholden to
> constitutional matters of
> due process and free speech is roughly like letting the Ku Klux Klan rent
> out the
> US Capitol.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

> I am not anti-business -- just pro civil liberties.

In this case, you are being both, which can be ok, however you have
taken both positions to excess here.

There is nothing to indicate that civil liberties suffer simply
because the internet's infrastructure is privately owned.

- -- 
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:51:59 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal

Please look at the wg-review and weigh in on this important issue.

Dennis Schaefer wrote:

> Hi Marilyn --
>
> Sorry about the misdirect.  I was sure I had hit to Reply to
> All. <G>
>
> I can't disagree with you about the infrastructure consisting of privately
> owned facilities.  But the ether that holds that structure together is
> the public forum called the Internet -- which was built with taxpayer money.
>
> So selling that public forum to private interests not beholden to
> constitutional matters of
> due process and free speech is roughly like letting the Ku Klux Klan rent
> out the
> US Capitol.
>
> I am not anti-business -- just pro civil liberties.
>
> >Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Dennis Schaefer'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
>
> > Dennis, did you notice that this only went to  me? I don't mind, but I
> think
> > you intended to reply to Peter as well? Perhaps the group?
> >
> > The Internet is an infrastructure, isn't it, Dennis? Built of leased lines
> > and other facilities, with an operating protocol, and connecting to
> millions
> > of content sources.  But it isn't a goverment resource.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Schaefer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:58 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > Peter --
> >
> > I find your suggestion completely appropriate.  While I understand
> Marilyn's
> > need as an industry representative to pin the label 'private sector' on
> the
> > Internet,
> > the fact is that it is still a governmental resource whose privatization
> was
> > botched up by the US.
> >
> > A single worldwide Internet is a world resource for which ICANN should be
> > the agent negotiating and defending the need for a worldwide transfer of
> > sovereignty.
> > A wholesale surrender to private business will not enhance the Net -- and
> > might just
> > ruin it.
> >
> >
> > >Dennis Schaefer
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "'Peter de Blanc'" <[email-masked]>; "'Kent Crispin'"
> > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:16 AM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > > Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.  I'm not sure
> > why
> > > this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would
> > also
> > > seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as
> industry,
> > a
> > > useful thing.
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:15 AM
> > > To: 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...
> > >
> > > NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT
> > >
> > > peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
> > > Crispin
> > > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > > I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> > > > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> > > > |      Multiorganizations
> > > > |
> > > > |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is
> large,
> > > > |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> > > > |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of
> the
> > > > |         categories and is international in scope.
> > > >
> > > > My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
> > > category.
> > > > If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
> > > guess
> > > > would be there are), give them all TLDs now.
> > >
> > > I believe that became "subdomains of .int".
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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

- --
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: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:52:29 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

There is great work underfoot to use the GA to some larger purpose.
However I believe it may be misplaced. The At Large is a non-entity at the
moment yet it is being extensively reviewed by some grand inquisitor very
much associated with the U.N.  But nothing is being done to investigate
the very clear mandate to elect/appoint a chair for the GA, and the DNSO
refusal. I used the term rudderless ship before, it should have been an
SOS.

I assume most people, and there are a lot, get the posts from this list as
I do.  So let me just do something real easy.

IF YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THIS POST PLEASE EMAIL BACK A SINGLE POST
INDICATING;  YES

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I am writing as a member of this GA, and as a member of an
> organization whose leader is now claiming that one thing that
> organization has accomplished is a "turning of the GA of the DNSO
> around."
>
> I find it odd that anyone who is a member of this assembly can think
> that this assembly has been turned around in a positive fashion, when
> in fact this GA assembly has not been able to accomplish anything as a
> cohesive body.  It can't even initiate elections to replace a GA Chair
> whose office long ago expired.  It has been unable to even agree on a
> set of principles to put forward for giving itself a real role in the
> organization.
>
> So I'd like to know what the other GA members think.
>
> Has there been a "turning of the GA" around?
>
> I have to say that the credibility of the person who made this claim
> took a nose dive when he claimed that the IDNO was responsible for
> this so called "turning" around that doesn't appear to have ever
> occurred.
>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:50:48 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reform in the GA?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:52 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

There is great work underfoot to use the GA to some larger purpose.
However I believe it may be misplaced. The At Large is a non-entity at the
moment yet it is being extensively reviewed by some grand inquisitor very
much associated with the U.N.  But nothing is being done to investigate
the very clear mandate to elect/appoint a chair for the GA, and the DNSO
refusal. I used the term rudderless ship before, it should have been an
SOS.

I assume most people, and there are a lot, get the posts from this list as
I do.  So let me just do something real easy.

IF YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THIS POST PLEASE EMAIL BACK A SINGLE POST
INDICATING;  YES

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I am writing as a member of this GA, and as a member of an
> organization whose leader is now claiming that one thing that
> organization has accomplished is a "turning of the GA of the DNSO
> around."
>
> I find it odd that anyone who is a member of this assembly can think
> that this assembly has been turned around in a positive fashion, when
> in fact this GA assembly has not been able to accomplish anything as a
> cohesive body.  It can't even initiate elections to replace a GA Chair
> whose office long ago expired.  It has been unable to even agree on a
> set of principles to put forward for giving itself a real role in the
> organization.
>
> So I'd like to know what the other GA members think.
>
> Has there been a "turning of the GA" around?
>
> I have to say that the credibility of the person who made this claim
> took a nose dive when he claimed that the IDNO was responsible for
> this so called "turning" around that doesn't appear to have ever
> occurred.
>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 7 Feb 2001 00:53:36 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

- --part1_35.1068d649.27b23ce0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:39:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> IF YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THIS POST PLEASE EMAIL BACK A SINGLE POST
> INDICATING;  YES
> 
> 

Yes
Forrester Rupp

- --part1_35.1068d649.27b23ce0_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 2/6/01 9:39:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email-masked] 
<BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">IF YOU RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THIS POST PLEASE EMAIL BACK A SINGLE POST
<BR>INDICATING; &nbsp;YES
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Yes
<BR>Forrester Rupp</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_35.1068d649.27b23ce0_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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:09:15 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:12:20PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I am writing as a member of this GA, and as a member of an
> organization whose leader is now claiming that one thing that
> organization has accomplished is a "turning of the GA of the DNSO
> around."

I remember a day not long past when Joe Baptista was making up obscene 
limricks and posting them to the list.  Relative to that, the GA has 
indeed been "turned around".

> I find it odd that anyone who is a member of this assembly can think
> that this assembly has been turned around in a positive fashion, when
> in fact this GA assembly has not been able to accomplish anything as a
> cohesive body.

That is not its function.  It was explicitly never intended to be a 
decision making body.  There are some who think that is what it should 
be, but that is not what it is.

> It can't even initiate elections to replace a GA Chair
> whose office long ago expired.  It has been unable to even agree on a
> set of principles to put forward for giving itself a real role in the
> organization.

It has a role; it's just not the role you want it to have.

> So I'd like to know what the other GA members think.
> 
> Has there been a "turning of the GA" around?
> 
> I have to say that the credibility of the person who made this claim
> took a nose dive when he claimed that the IDNO was responsible for
> this so called "turning" around that doesn't appear to have ever
> occurred.

How quickly we forget...

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #224
************************