Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #226
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, February 9 2001           Volume 01 : Number 226

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:44:09 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reform in the GA?

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] 
|>On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
|>Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:50 AM
|>To: [email-masked]
|>Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?
|>
|>
|>On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 07:42:10PM +1100, Dassa wrote:
|>> It appears to me that a lot of the structures associated with the DNS,
|>> ICANN debates and structure are being purposely directed towards
|>> ineffectiveness and self destruction.
|>
|>A standard conspiracy theory.  

Nope, just an observation.  I can't see how any of the structures were instigated without the people doing it being aware of the limiting factors they were building in.

|>>  IMHO, it is starting to look like
|>> the only effective means to become involved is to work outside of the
|>> ICANN structures in lobby groups that may develop some serious political
|>> clout. 
|>
|>If you are seeking political clout, that is indeed an appropriate
|>mechanism.  If your goal is political clout, please leave immediately.

Being purposely obtuse is not helpful.  The collective goal is to actually have respresentative organizations that are effective in assisting with the future direction of DNS policy.  It is a fact of life that political clout is an effective tool in gaining recognition and achieving objectives.  The current system seems designed to keep the participating recognised organizations small and unrepresentative, without real input.  

I also fail to see why it would be necessary to leave.  There are a lot of political animals included in this forum already.  The whole structure is basically political in nature.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 08:55:15 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 17:09 07/02/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
>Are you trying to say there is no politics within the ICANN process?
>
>Tee hee. The one thing ICANN has proved to be best at is advancing
>political careers - Dyson, Roberts, Crispy-Crockett, Simms, Abril, Stubbs,
>Cerf...

I think some of those will be puzzled over your definition of the term 
"advancement".

seriously, anyone who thinks the ICANN process is going to make people feel 
that he is a good candidate for other political office is out of his mind. 
It is more a question of how much of your reputation you are willing to 
sacrifice by trying to make the Right Things happen.

to my mind, the reform that has happened to the GA consists of:

- - having a rule to deal with abusive posters that has general agreement
- - having a rule to vote on proposals that has general agreement

In fact we have had very little concerted activity towards using those 
procedures to vote on anything; I thought after Marina Del Rey that we 
would see a general call for confirmation of the resolutions passed there 
(those of them that are still relevant), but I have not seen that.
- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 04:07:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 17:09 07/02/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >Are you trying to say there is no politics within the ICANN process?
> >
> >Tee hee. The one thing ICANN has proved to be best at is advancing
> >political careers - Dyson, Roberts, Crispy-Crockett, Simms, Abril, Stubbs,
> >Cerf...
>
> I think some of those will be puzzled over your definition of the term
> "advancement".

  Possibly they would publicly, but not privately.

>
>
> seriously, anyone who thinks the ICANN process is going to make people feel
> that he is a good candidate for other political office is out of his mind.
> It is more a question of how much of your reputation you are willing to
> sacrifice by trying to make the Right Things happen.

  Good point in your last sentence here Harald.  However it really depends
on what and whom defines what the "Right Things" are doesn't it?

>
>
> to my mind, the reform that has happened to the GA consists of:
>
> - having a rule to deal with abusive posters that has general agreement

  The term "Abusive" in this context is not defined yet.  So any such rule
is really not possible until a definition has been agreed upon.  Thus far
a majority of the assembly members have yet to agree on any such definition.

>
> - having a rule to vote on proposals that has general agreement

  Indeed yes.  And again as is historically recorded in the archives
of this ML, this has been at the very least problematic, hasn't it?

>
>
> In fact we have had very little concerted activity towards using those
> procedures to vote on anything; I thought after Marina Del Rey that we
> would see a general call for confirmation of the resolutions passed there
> (those of them that are still relevant), but I have not seen that.

  I haven't seen it either.  This I believe is mainly due to the Ill repute
that
you and Roberto have brought upon the DNSO.

>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 8 Feb 2001 08:47:42 -0200
From: "Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

> 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
> 
> 
Yes, but I do have over 400 unread messages in my incann mailbox.

Peter

- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 11:41:56 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Thank you Harald for this.
May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?
I suppose that most of us lost track with the time and WG-Review.
Jefsey

On 07:55 08/02/01, Harald Alvestrand said:
>At 17:09 07/02/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
>>Are you trying to say there is no politics within the ICANN process?
>>
>>Tee hee. The one thing ICANN has proved to be best at is advancing
>>political careers - Dyson, Roberts, Crispy-Crockett, Simms, Abril, Stubbs,
>>Cerf...
>
>I think some of those will be puzzled over your definition of the term 
>"advancement".
>
>seriously, anyone who thinks the ICANN process is going to make people 
>feel that he is a good candidate for other political office is out of his 
>mind. It is more a question of how much of your reputation you are willing 
>to sacrifice by trying to make the Right Things happen.
>
>to my mind, the reform that has happened to the GA consists of:
>
>- having a rule to deal with abusive posters that has general agreement
>- having a rule to vote on proposals that has general agreement
>
>In fact we have had very little concerted activity towards using those 
>procedures to vote on anything; I thought after Marina Del Rey that we 
>would see a general call for confirmation of the resolutions passed there 
>(those of them that are still relevant), but I have not seen that.
>--
>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

- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 09:40:53 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Two URLs

Wired article on Congressional hearings on ICANN:

http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C41683%2C00.html

Froomkin's testimony which, it seems to me, is correct:

http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/commerce8Jan2001.htm
- --
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, 8 Feb 2001 10:35:54 -0600
From: "Imagine Medical" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

> > 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

Yes, but as a fan of productivity I grow tired of the constant bickering!

Darren McMaster
MacroBrand.com
[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, 08 Feb 2001 10:44:18 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Committee on Energy and Commerce  Hearing-LIVE

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C091BC.16E41760
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/telecom02082001.htm

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C091BC.16E41760
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/telecom02082001.htm">http:=
//www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/telecom02082001.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C091BC.16E41760--

- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 18:05:26 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Andy Gardner wrote:

>At 2:50 pm -0800 2/7/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> >A standard conspiracy theory.
>
>A standard response from one of the architects of a fraudulent process,
>when people start becoming aware of the truth.
>

A standard dialogue so fascinating for all GA subscribers?

>......

>Tee hee. The one thing ICANN has proved to be best at is advancing
>political careers - Dyson, Roberts, Crispy-Crockett, Simms, Abril, Stubbs,
>Cerf...
>
>The list is long and indistinguished.

Mmmh!
And what kind of "advancing" you see in Abril's political career in being 
ICANN Director? I see only trouble for him and time taken away from his 
professional life.
I am quoting him, because I know him well, but I am sure that for Kent 
Crispin/Dave Crocker, or Mike Roberts, it would be the same.

Personally, I don't like generic statements, and judgements that put 
everybody in the same pot. Of course there are people that have huge 
interests in their participation in ICANN, and in the direction that the 
process will take. But are they really the people you indicate?
I would not be so sure.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:10:45 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Dear William and Joop,
I was just wandering how long it would have taken to see this personal fight 
again on this public list.
Are you really so sure that everybody has such a deep interest in this to 
hold their breath waiting to see the next chapter of this soap opera?

Regards
Roberto

>From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?
>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:07:46 -0800
>
>Hello Joop,
>
>Wednesday, February 07, 2001, 3:46:11 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 23:53 6/02/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >>
> >>I doubt Joop Teernstra (who opposed the rules that eliminated the
> >>Baptista problem) was taking credit for that.
> >>
>
> > Mr Walsh in his zeal for carrying his vendetta anew to this list, has 
>some
> > problem with the truth here.
> > I never opposed the list rules. I suggested an improvement.
>
>Yes, and when those improvements were not supported, you opposed the
>adoption of the rules in favor the extremist rules that you pushed
>into the IDNO, and supported the actions of those who left the GA in
>protest over what was simply rules of simply civil discourse (which
>have been effective in solving the problems that were facing the GA at
>that time).
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:12:30 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Yes.
Roberto

>From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
>To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?
>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:52:29 -0800
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:26:08 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] auth 0eeeecf9 subscribe announce "P. Duquesne (APPROACH Belgium)" <[email-masked]>

William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>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.

I've asked this question to Elisabeth on Tuesday, and she answered that it 
was a mistake (pressing the wrong key) in handling manually the reply to a 
request for subscription.
If it would have been possible to write to the announce list, we would have 
been already flooded by the usual characters ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:56:23 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Jefsey,
>
>Thank you Harald for this.
>May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?

The question Harald was referring to is the following.
The GA has voted (majority vote) in Marina del Rey for a direct election of 
the GA Chairman. This implies a change in the ICANN bylaws.
My idea, as written a couple of times to the GA, is that a formal motion on 
the list with a formal vote (on the list) will have more strength, and the 
motion transmitted to the Board will have more weight.

So Harald was hoping to see a debate on this, and then a motion to vote.

By the way, it is still not too late ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 14:27:44 -0500
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

"Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]> 02/08/01 12:56PM wrote:

>Jefsey,
>>
>>Thank you Harald for this.
>>May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?
>
>
>The question Harald was referring to is the following.
>The GA has voted (majority vote) in Marina del Rey for a direct election of 
>the GA Chairman. This implies a change in the ICANN bylaws.
>My idea, as written a couple of times to the GA, is that a formal motion on 
>the list with a formal vote (on the list) will have more strength, and the>
 motion transmitted to the Board will have more weight.
>
>So Harald was hoping to see a debate on this, and then a motion to vote.
>
>By the way, it is still not too late ;>)
>
>Regards
>Roberto

One of the recurring problems in trying to get substantive work done online is the disconnect between free form discussions and the formal consideration of motions. Listserv is fine for the former and it needs lots of work on infratructural matters for the latter. This was a major headache, for example, in Working Group C, wherein the group never adopted rules that made it clear when a motion was under consideration; what the wording of the motion was; and when and how to move the consideration to a vote.

I suggest that this topic needs to be considered, and in a fairly structured manner.

My suggestion is that we form a working group to prepare a set of rules that make it clear how the GA can formally consider and ultimately adopt substantive resolutions. Once the Working Group has shredded itself, we will have a multiplicity of proposals, from which the GA may ultimately bootstrap and adopt a proposal as the governing set of rules. My own suggestion on the substance of the rules is that we make it fairly easy for a "majority" to amend the rules, because otherwise we will spend the rest of our lives trying to create the perfect procedural rules.

THEN we can introduce, debate, and vote on the adoption of a resolution inviting ICANN to allow the GA to govern itself. AFTER which we can take up the problem of how to get ICANN to agree with the resolution, as well as a few other critical issues dealing with the constituencies and the Board.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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, 8 Feb 2001 15:33:02 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mirror Archives of Today's Commerce Committee Hearings

I've gotten a few reports of the Commerce Committee's RealServer being at
peak capacity, so I have arranged a mirror of their hearing recording onto a
Berkman Center server.

Their original is at
<http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/telecom02082001.htm>, and the mirror
is <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events/>.

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: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:38:25 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] procedure

The procedure set forth at http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml are good
procedures which can be adopted.  Then they can be modified as problems
arise.

Based upon my broad based survey of all working group, committee, SO, GA
list archives I found the most amount of argument time spent on two
subjects.

1. History: Basically how did something come about, what was intended
and who was responsible.

2. Definition: Entire threads get misdirected because the two sides
cannot come up with an agreed upon meaning of what is being said.

Neither of these two areas have produced positive results EVER!! Yet it
is what the majority of time, like about 85% is spent on. A review of
the last House Hearings and the ones underway lead to the same numbers
and the same result.

The other results are aggravation from the process leading to lack of
participation.  An interesting phenomenon is that the bitterness which
pervades so many discussions does not diminish the activity, but it does
narrow the participation.

My conclusion at this point is that before moving on and establishing
set rules and procedures, as in agreed to histories and definitions,
each group simply appoint marshals for both of these areas.  Elect your
internal chair and they appoint their marshals.  Just like the old west,
before the laws could be written down that would cover the situations,
the elected mayors would simply hire marshals to keep the peace.
Of course the marshal would just say ok gentlemen lets take this off
list and we will agree on moving forward before getting back on list. No
problem the dissenter gets to post one objection to the marshals
position but then we move on.

Sincerely,
Wyatt Earp

- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 14:00:45 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Archives of Today's Names Council Meeting

It's far less exciting than the ear candy you'll get from the House
Committee's real stream, but here are some meat and potatoes:

  http://www.lextext.com/nc020801.html

As I mention on the web page, this is the lowest mix I've used in doing
these. I was able to get 2 hours of a meeting down to about 13.5 megabytes.
I'd like to make a recommendation to the new DNSO Secretariat about how to
do these, so any feedback on whether I've lost too much of the quality by
reducing the file size would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

      -- Bret

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:20:17 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 18:56 8/02/01 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Jefsey,
>>
>>Thank you Harald for this.
>>May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?
>
>
>The question Harald was referring to is the following.
>The GA has voted (majority vote) in Marina del Rey for a direct election of 
>the GA Chairman. This implies a change in the ICANN bylaws.
>My idea, as written a couple of times to the GA, is that a formal motion on 
>the list with a formal vote (on the list) will have more strength, and the 
>motion transmitted to the Board will have more weight.
>
>So Harald was hoping to see a debate on this, and then a motion to vote.
>
>By the way, it is still not too late ;>)
>
A motion has been made by Joanna Lane (seconded) about the method to be
followed for nominations. (same as for the WG-review Chair election).

All the Chair needs to do it to acknowledge the motion and ask that the
process be started accordingly.

- --Joop--
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:51:21 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Imagine Medical wrote:

> Yes, but as a fan of productivity I grow tired of the constant bickering!

Me too. Yawn. Not relevant to this list. 

Robin
- --
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, 08 Feb 2001 17:22:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  Good point here Roberto.  I would like to officially complain that
WXW is again being abusive in his post to which your refer.
Please take the appropriate action...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Dear William and Joop,
> I was just wandering how long it would have taken to see this personal fight
> again on this public list.
> Are you really so sure that everybody has such a deep interest in this to
> hold their breath waiting to see the next chapter of this soap opera?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> >From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> >Reply-To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> >To: [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?
> >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:07:46 -0800
> >
> >Hello Joop,
> >
> >Wednesday, February 07, 2001, 3:46:11 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > At 23:53 6/02/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>I doubt Joop Teernstra (who opposed the rules that eliminated the
> > >>Baptista problem) was taking credit for that.
> > >>
> >
> > > Mr Walsh in his zeal for carrying his vendetta anew to this list, has
> >some
> > > problem with the truth here.
> > > I never opposed the list rules. I suggested an improvement.
> >
> >Yes, and when those improvements were not supported, you opposed the
> >adoption of the rules in favor the extremist rules that you pushed
> >into the IDNO, and supported the actions of those who left the GA in
> >protest over what was simply rules of simply civil discourse (which
> >have been effective in solving the problems that were facing the GA at
> >that time).
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:30:38 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

I prompt the following motion to the Chair:

"
The DNSO/GA wants to directly elect its Chairman. This requires a change in 
the iCANN bylaws. It therefore request the NC:
- - to address that issue with the Board at the earliest convenience.
- - in the meanwhile to commit to the DNSO/GA that they will elect as a Chair 
the person selected by the DNSO/GA.
"

Jefsey

On 17:56 08/02/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Jefsey,
>>
>>Thank you Harald for this.
>>May be could you update us on what is pending and we should vote on?
>
>
>The question Harald was referring to is the following.
>The GA has voted (majority vote) in Marina del Rey for a direct election 
>of the GA Chairman. This implies a change in the ICANN bylaws.
>My idea, as written a couple of times to the GA, is that a formal motion 
>on the list with a formal vote (on the list) will have more strength, and 
>the motion transmitted to the Board will have more weight.
>
>So Harald was hoping to see a debate on this, and then a motion to vote.
>
>By the way, it is still not too late ;>)
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #226
************************