Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #228
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, February 9 2001           Volume 01 : Number 228

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 21:42:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

WXW, Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  I am afraid WXW, that like Roberto the long standing feud that you have
been engaging in with Joop has transcended any comments you might make
with regard to Joop or the IDNO.  As such, and from the text of your
comments which Roberto responded to I must agree that your behavior
and gist of your comments are definitely viewed in this manner.  As
such, you have yet again spread your venom towards Joop and the
IDNO to the GA ML in an attempt to discredit Joop.  This is in accordance
with the DNSO GA ML, abusive.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Roberto,
>
> Thursday, February 08, 2001, 9:10:45 AM, 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?
>
> This isn't a personal fight, Roberto.  This is an issue regarding what
> people are saying about the GA, and what is has accomplished, and
> taking credit for those things.
>
> I was very careful to make sure there was nothing in that message that
> was a personal attack in any fashion, merely posing a question to the
> assembly that has result in a very lively discussion, more lively than
> the GA has been in weeks.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> --
> 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

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, 08 Feb 2001 21:25:43 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WTO?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C09215.B14C25A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

WHAT'S THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION GOT TO DO WITH ICANN? 

The World Trade Organization is actively following a variety of 
developments, including the WIPO/ICANN UDRP (which the 
WTO says is now a de facto international standard for protection); 
proposed extensions of the UDRP into new areas; and work by 
APEC and others on famous marks.
http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5066

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C09215.B14C25A0
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 color=3D#000000 =
size=3D3>WHAT'S THE WORLD=20
TRADE ORGANIZATION GOT TO DO WITH ICANN? <BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D3>The =
World Trade=20
Organization is actively following a variety of <BR>developments, =
including the=20
WIPO/ICANN UDRP (which the <BR>WTO says is now a de facto international =
standard=20
for protection); <BR>proposed extensions of the UDRP into new areas; and =
work by=20
<BR>APEC and others on famous marks.<BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=3D5066"><FONT=20
size=3D3>http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=3D5066</FONT></=
A></FONT></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><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG =

anti-virus system (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: =
6.0.230 /=20
Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C09215.B14C25A0--

- --
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 18:55:19 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 11:41 08/02/2001 +0000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>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.

most of us lost track because we thought other things more important.
Can't blame them (much).
Here is a copy of my post describing the LA resolutions.

>The following resolutions were voted on in the GA meeting in LA:
>
>Chair election:
>
>•       The Chair of the GA should be the person who wins the vote of the 
>GA Voting Registry
>
>Carried, with 42 for, 2 against, 52 abstain.
>
>Under new gTLDs, four motions were proposed.
>
>•       Resolution: The Board should not decide upon new gTLDs until after 
>the new Board members are seated. (60:83, 8 abstain) - FAILED
>•       Resolution: The Board should not decide upon new gTLDs until the 
>appicants have had time to respond to the Staff reports (78:52, 23 abstain)
>•       Resolution: If the Board adopts any new gTLD, it should also adopt 
>all competent applications (subject to name conflict resolution). (39:90, 
>16 abstain) - FAILED
>•       Resolution: The Board should adopt new gTLDs at this meeting. 
>(77:59, 44 abstain)
>
>There were 2 proposed resolutions on the remaining Board members, one of 
>which was accepted.
>
>•       Resolution 1: The four initial board members should step down now, 
>and be replaced with people selected by the at-large elected members. 
>(25:41, 23 abstain) - FAILED
>•       Resolution 2: The Board should expedite the process of replacing 
>the four remaining members ASAP, and at the latest by November 2001. 
>(63:2, 13 abstain)

- --
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:32:23 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA rules of debate - an idea

At 14:27 08/02/2001 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>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.

sounds like a good idea.

>  Once the Working Group has shredded itself,

sounds uncomfortable, to say the least...

>  we will have a multiplicity of proposals, from which the GA may 
> ultimately bootstrap and adopt a proposal as the governing set of rules.

taking off from your note, how about this:

- - the GA takes some more time to get some real discussion on the issue
   (if it can do that between the mudslinging exchanges)
- - the GA chairs appoint a drafting committee of 3-5 members, and
   an expected target date
- - the DNSO secretariat creates 2 mailing lists, one open (under the same
   rules as the GA list), and one with closed membership (but possibly open
   submission), for the drafting comittee
- - the procedures issue is ruled out of scope on the main GA list until the
   target date :-)

If there is interest in trying this, I think there are multiple proposals 
that can be adopted/adapted (I rememeber some from about a year ago).
But having a drafting committee (equivalent to an IETF "design team") to 
formalize a proposal is essential, I think.

Comments?

- --
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:58:44 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Complaint against William Walsh - comments desired

Jeff Williams has made formal complaint against William Walsh for abusive 
posting against Joop Ternstra.

The posting complained about was this one:

 > >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).
 > >

The list monitor wishes to hear comments on whether this posting should be 
considered abusive or not before making a decision.

In the interest of getting input on this subject without taking up the
GA list's time on this issue, I ask respondents:
PLEASE SEND YOUR INPUT TO [email-masked], AND NOT TO THE MAIN LIST!

(Of course, there is no block against discussing this issue on the main 
list also. But there are a number of people who are tired of the issue 
already. I will summarize the input to the main list when announcing a 
decision.)

- --
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:51:50 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Robert's Rules of Order

At 21:06 08/02/2001 -0600, Bruce James wrote:
>Posted to: [email-masked]
>Posted on: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:49:52 -0700
>
>
>Robert's Rules of Order,
>As Adapted and Revised to Accommodate Electronic Bodies

some points, which may show why I think a drafting comittee is needed....

- - this body does not adjourn. It can only be closed by a change of the 
ICANN bylaws.

- - this body, unlike physical parliamentary bodies, consists of members who 
are continuously present, but not listening synchronously. This makes the 
issue of timing, especially of votes on motions, critical. And different; 
any idea of a vote in less than 24 hours is ridiculous on this spinning 
globe, and one can argue that a vote with a deadline of less than a week is 
abusive.

- - the above point makes for real problems with raising points of order in 
the form of motions to be voted on, of course.

- - this body has the ability to conduct multiple discussions at the same 
time. This is a natural consequence of the choice of email as its medium. 
However, as we have all seen, threads interfere with each other.

- - any electronic process conducted by people on part time is very open to 
abuses if the process says that certain nontrivial things "must" be done 
when called for.
The technical term for this is called "denial of service attack".

I think the input is valuable, but I do think we need that drafting committee.
Are you volunteering?

- --
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:23:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA rules of debate - an idea

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 14:27 08/02/2001 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >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.
>
> sounds like a good idea.
>
> >  Once the Working Group has shredded itself,
>
> sounds uncomfortable, to say the least...
>
> >  we will have a multiplicity of proposals, from which the GA may
> > ultimately bootstrap and adopt a proposal as the governing set of rules.
>
> taking off from your note, how about this:
>
> - the GA takes some more time to get some real discussion on the issue
>    (if it can do that between the mudslinging exchanges)

  Good idea here Harald...

>
> - the GA chairs appoint a drafting committee of 3-5 members, and
>    an expected target date

  Bad idea here.  Instead the GA should have a 3-7 member committee
that is to be elected by the GA assembly members.

>
> - the DNSO secretariat creates 2 mailing lists, one open (under the same
>    rules as the GA list), and one with closed membership (but possibly open
>    submission), for the drafting comittee

  Bad idea here to as it lead to distrust.  All ML's should be open to
open discussion by all GA members or interested parties.

>
> - the procedures issue is ruled out of scope on the main GA list until the
>    target date :-)

  Also a bad idea here for as this too leads to distrust, and rightfully so...

>
>
> If there is interest in trying this, I think there are multiple proposals
> that can be adopted/adapted (I rememeber some from about a year ago).
> But having a drafting committee (equivalent to an IETF "design team") to
> formalize a proposal is essential, I think.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:30:16 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

On 2001-02-08 14:27:44 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> 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.

May I suggest, as a shortcut, that the GA tries to keep things
simple?  Also, while it may be a good idea not to strive for the
perfect rules in any working group, it's most likely a bad idea to
strive for them in plenary - which would be the effect of being able
to change the rules easily.  The result would be a set of procedural
rules which get more and more complex, and become unmanageable at
some point.

Returning to KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles, a very simple
way of working on substantial output - which has proved to function
nicely elsewhere - looks like this:

1. Find a description of the topic to be worked on, and a volunteer
   who will edit the document to be emitted.  Assume that the
   volunteer and the topic are ok when there is no strong
   opposition.

2. It's now the editor's job to produce structured output from the
   free-form discussions on the list.  He should as soon as possible
   produce a first draft which summarizes what has been said about a
   topic so far.
  
   (Here: What has been voted upon in MdR? What is the GA asking the
   board for?  Why?)

3. The editor publishes the current draft at some well-defined
   point.

4. The list public discusses this draft and possible changes.

5. If 4 produced any substantial output, return to 3.

6. "Vote" on the resulting document, either using some voting
   machine, or asking people to individually express consent/dissent
   with the document 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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:38:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Robert's Rules of Order

On 2001-02-08 21:06:53 -0600, Bruce James wrote:

>       Robert's Rules of Order,
>       As Adapted and Revised to Accommodate Electronic Bodies

I'd say this document may be nice, but it's certainly too long.  If
you really want to have rules which work on a mailing list, they
have to be short and simple.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:36:16 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WTO?

Bruce James wrote:

>
>WHAT'S THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION GOT TO DO WITH ICANN?
>...........
>http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5066
>

==> Access denied

RG

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:44:09 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Jefsey,

I have a comment on your motion:

>"
>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.
>"

There has been some discussion about this "two step" approach.
To ask the NC to forward the request is questionable, as the NC has already 
stated in MdR that they are not in charge for this matter.
I would suggest to address the motion directly to the Board, while 
addressing to the NC a different motion, to support the request of the GA 
(and to committ to the result of the nomination process if the Board keeps 
the Bylaws in the current form).

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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:01:33 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

I agree with the basic principle of a WG that can look into the question, 
but I would also like to point out that we should not think that we have to 
wait the output of the WG before acting: we already have a basic set of 
rules, and a voting procedure.
While waiting for a set of more detailed rules, like "modified Roberts", we 
still can put a motion to votes.

Regards
Roberto

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

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:07:47 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Robert's Rules of Order

What Part(s) would you like to take out?   This is a short
version...lol...:)

Bruce James

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Robert's Rules of Order

On 2001-02-08 21:06:53 -0600, Bruce James wrote:

>       Robert's Rules of Order,
>       As Adapted and Revised to Accommodate Electronic Bodies

I'd say this document may be nice, but it's certainly too long.  If
you really want to have rules which work on a mailing list, they
have to be short and simple.

- --
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

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01

- --
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 14:14:52 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

Greg Burton wrote:
>
>Ok - it looks to me like we'd need to start on the 6th, if we allowed 10
>days for nomination and acceptance, and 7 days for the poll. This would
>close on the 23rd, then, and give the NC at least a couple of days to look
>over what we've done.

To me, a reasonable target would be to have ICANN dealing with the bylaws 
change in relation to the GA Chairperson election in the Melbourne meeting.
I assume that in order to achieve this result we have to:
- - bring a motion forward to ICANN to have the matter discussed
- - come to an agreement with the NC (will the NC support the motion? will the 
NC formally elect the most voted nominee?)

This will mean that we will not have a new chairperson before the end of 
March, early April (which, by the way, is close to the 3-months timeframe 
the NC was talking about in MdR, in relation to the extension of the current 
term of the GA Chair).
If this is unacceptable, of course we will have to move earlier but we will 
have to play according to the current Bylaws.

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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:56:17 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Further to the received comments, I now present my initial motion as
two folded:

Motion 1.
"
The DNSO/GA wants to directly elect its Chairperson. The DNSO/GA
therefore ask the Board of Directors to modify the iCANN bylaws before
the renewal of its current Chair to permit the direct election of its next
Chairperson. To respect this agenda, the requested change should be
decided during the Melbourne BoD meeting.
"

Motion 2.
"
The DNSO/GA asks the Board of Directors to modify the iCANN
bylaws to have its Chairperson directly elected by the DNSO/GA
Members.

It calls on the commitment of the NC to support that request and to
the result of the DNSO/GA nomination process until the Board of
Directors has modified the Bylaws as requested by the DNSO/GA.
"

Jefsey

- --
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 12:52:41 -0500
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

I do not believe that we need to adopt two resolutions. One will suffice; and while the resolution will need to be addressed to the ICANN board, we should also seek the endorsement of the NC and send that endorsement to the Board with the resolution.

I will also apologize for having taken a lawyer's chisel to the resolution, but I think we need to present the Board with something in a form which they can, if they agree, adopt without too much editorial work.

Here is my proposal:

Whereas, the General Assembly exists as an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO by any and all interested participants; and
Whereas, the utility of the General Assembly has been impaired by apathy on the part of its participants and expressions from within and without that the General Assembly serves no useful purpose other than to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the decisions and actions of the DNSO and the corporation; and
Whereas, a recurrent complaint with respect to the General Assembly is its inability to select its own chair, which has contributed to the General Assembly having been devalued by its membership and disregarded by the Internet Community,

Now, therefore, Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting Organization:

The Board of the corporation is respectfully requested to adopt the following resolution or its substantial equivalent:

Resolved, That Sub-Section 2(i) of the Bylaws of the corporation be amended by striking out the whole thereof, and providing in lieu thereof:

(i)(A) The General Assembly, in such manner as it may select by resolution and approved by the Names Council, provided that such manner provides a full and equal opportunity for online participation by members whose unique identities have been verified, shall select its chair annually, and at such other times as the chair shall become vacant.

(i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members, whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good cause shown.
===end of resolution===

We should at the same time adopt and transmit a statement of our reasons for this change, in rather more detail than is set out in the preamble (whereases). While the request and supporting statement should be presented to the Board, we should seek the endorsement of the NC for this proposal.

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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:46:34 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 06:14 AM 2/9/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Greg Burton wrote:
>>
>>Ok - it looks to me like we'd need to start on the 6th, if we allowed 10
>>days for nomination and acceptance, and 7 days for the poll. This would
>>close on the 23rd, then, and give the NC at least a couple of days to look
>>over what we've done.
>
>To me, a reasonable target would be to have ICANN dealing with the bylaws 
>change in relation to the GA Chairperson election in the Melbourne meeting.

Yes - but that doesn't mean the board will deal with them at that time. In 
the interim, I have the impression that the NC WILL approve whoever we 
elect - so let's do it. Better to have a chair in place, in case the BoD 
doesn't act immediately.

Aside from giving direction to the GA, the Chair will continue to serve on 
the review task force when it's re-constituted to recommend implementation 
strategies to the NC, so getting a new chair is crucial to representing GA 
interests in the NC process.

>I assume that in order to achieve this result we have to:
>- bring a motion forward to ICANN to have the matter discussed

We need to make the recommendation to the NC - I would suggest that posting 
comments to the task force review document making that recommendation would 
be productive, as well as passing the formal motion already made here.

>- come to an agreement with the NC (will the NC support the motion? will 
>the NC formally elect the most voted nominee?)

This is two parts. On part one, we don't know at this time, which is why 
proceeding with the nomination process we're already in is crucial to OUR 
credibility. On part two,  it was mentioned in the NC teleconference 
yesterday that they "think we're in the process of selecting someone". I 
suggest that we'd better stop fooling around and do it.

I'm a bit irritated that this has stalled by inaction to the point that by 
Harald's calculations, we already can't do it in time. I posted what we'd 
need to do on the 4th - it's already the 9th, before there was any reply. 
Since the NC seems willing to select whoever the GA wants, for us to fail 
in this means that responsibility for the lack of a GA chair falls squarely 
on the GA , not the NC.

<sarcasm>
This should do wonders for our credibility.
</sarcasm>

Regards,
Greg

[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 #228
************************