Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #230
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 10 2001         Volume 01 : Number 230

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:49:09 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time as the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] 
|>[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|>Roberto Gaetano
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:15 AM
|>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|>Cc: [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-full" 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: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:40:46 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Joanna Lane wrote:

> ...
> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> participants equal rights to participate and vote.

I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re what specific
steps to take to give additional influence to online participants.  To date,
I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA, Chair of the
Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote participants."

Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a rhythm, we are
most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives reflect this) at
recognizing remote participants.

However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed some tension in
the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the meeting would prefer
to continue discussion with the current topic, and are disappointed to be
interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe this factor can
be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm confident that
the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to reduce subsequent
recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
in-person attendees.

I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation system in order
to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote participation
system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.

The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote Participation
Comment Submission Form" is as follows:

"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical meeting room in
Melbourne.

Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud, while others will
displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message can be read or
displayed.

Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear and concise, and
relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is that messages
sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the microphones in
the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea to send lengthy
prepared comments using the real-time comment system; instead, use ICANN's
Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the start of the
meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
characters, and no more than one comment will be considered from each remote
participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in the meeting
room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
commenters who have not already participated."

Ben Edelman

- --
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 17:39:29 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Call for focus.....

Hello Dassa,

Friday, February 09, 2001, 3:49:09 PM, Dassa wrote:

> How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time as the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is high time the GA stood up and let itself be
> counted.

This idea has merit.

There is no reason why the GA should not elect a chair, in the total
absence of any action by the NC along those route, and the NC can
respond by either approving it, or appointing their own chair.

But at least the GA would not be sitting idly by waiting any longer.

- -- 
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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:08:25 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but has any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow all those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?  Then they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised by someone inhouse if relevent.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
|>Edelman
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
|>To: [email-masked]
|>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning 
|>the General
|>Assembly
|>
|>
|>Joanna Lane wrote:
|>
|>> ...
|>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
|>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
|>
|>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re 
|>what specific
|>steps to take to give additional influence to online 
|>participants.  To date,
|>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA, 
|>Chair of the
|>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
|>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
|>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote 
|>participants."
|>
|>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a 
|>rhythm, we are
|>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives 
|>reflect this) at
|>recognizing remote participants.
|>
|>
|>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
|>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
|>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed 
|>some tension in
|>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the 
|>meeting would prefer
|>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are 
|>disappointed to be
|>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe 
|>this factor can
|>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
|>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm 
|>confident that
|>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to 
|>reduce subsequent
|>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
|>in-person attendees.
|>
|>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation 
|>system in order
|>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
|>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
|>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote 
|>participation
|>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
|>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
|>
|>
|>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote 
|>Participation
|>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
|>
|>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical 
|>meeting room in
|>Melbourne.
|>
|>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
|>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
|>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud, 
|>while others will
|>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message 
|>can be read or
|>displayed.
|>
|>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear 
|>and concise, and
|>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is 
|>that messages
|>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the 
|>microphones in
|>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea 
|>to send lengthy
|>prepared comments using the real-time comment system; 
|>instead, use ICANN's
|>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the 
|>start of the
|>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
|>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered 
|>from each remote
|>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in 
|>the meeting
|>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
|>commenters who have not already participated."
|>
|>
|>
|>Ben Edelman
|>
|>--
|>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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:45:43 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Darryl, Aka Dassa and all remaining assembly members,

  Yes this has been suggested many times before.

Dassa wrote:

> This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but has any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow all those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?  Then they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised by someone inhouse if relevent.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> |>Edelman
> |>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
> |>To: [email-masked]
> |>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
> |>the General
> |>Assembly
> |>
> |>
> |>Joanna Lane wrote:
> |>
> |>> ...
> |>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> |>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
> |>
> |>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re
> |>what specific
> |>steps to take to give additional influence to online
> |>participants.  To date,
> |>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA,
> |>Chair of the
> |>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
> |>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
> |>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote
> |>participants."
> |>
> |>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a
> |>rhythm, we are
> |>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives
> |>reflect this) at
> |>recognizing remote participants.
> |>
> |>
> |>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
> |>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
> |>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed
> |>some tension in
> |>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the
> |>meeting would prefer
> |>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are
> |>disappointed to be
> |>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe
> |>this factor can
> |>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
> |>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm
> |>confident that
> |>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to
> |>reduce subsequent
> |>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
> |>in-person attendees.
> |>
> |>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation
> |>system in order
> |>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
> |>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
> |>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote
> |>participation
> |>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
> |>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
> |>
> |>
> |>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote
> |>Participation
> |>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
> |>
> |>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical
> |>meeting room in
> |>Melbourne.
> |>
> |>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
> |>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
> |>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud,
> |>while others will
> |>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message
> |>can be read or
> |>displayed.
> |>
> |>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear
> |>and concise, and
> |>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is
> |>that messages
> |>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the
> |>microphones in
> |>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea
> |>to send lengthy
> |>prepared comments using the real-time comment system;
> |>instead, use ICANN's
> |>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the
> |>start of the
> |>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
> |>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered
> |>from each remote
> |>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in
> |>the meeting
> |>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
> |>commenters who have not already participated."
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>Ben Edelman
> |>
> |>--
> |>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

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:00:39 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
>

Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.

One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey

quote
>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive to be heard is
>so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might have for the
>common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
unquote

It is vital for the GA, especially if a bigger role is contemplated, not to
fall into this trap.
It means list- moderation that is both effective and just.
Not a trivial task.

- --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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:09:47 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 10:49 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
>How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time as
the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is
high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.
>

Agreed.
There is no better way to convince the Board to amend the bylaws than by
responsibly holding a successful election under our own steam.
The WG-review proved that it can be done in 15 days, when the nominating
process is web based.

In this case the Melbourne Meeting  on April 10 should function as the
logical  deadline.

- --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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:13:30 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

At 04:49 PM 2/9/01, Dassa wrote:
>How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time as 
>the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is 
>high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.

That's the idea.

I believe that the following people have been nominated and either declined 
or not yet accpted - we have no acceptances yet that I am aware of.

Roberto Gaetano
Alexander Svensson -
Barbara Simons
Emerson Tiller
Thomas Roessler
Eric Weisberg
Bret Fausett
Rod Dixon
Greg Burton
Jeanette Hoffmann

Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
Michael Froomkin  - Declined
Harald Alverstrand - Declined

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:28:50 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Slow down please.
Please review other "SO" restrictions and liberties. This may look like a leap
forward but I along with members of the US committees and DoC are concerned with
procedural and actual proper representation and  due process.
Argued from the point of getting it through, this proposal has ceded it's power
back to the NC.

" members whose unique identities have been verified,(no way, the NC is left to
determine the criteria) shall select its chair annually, and at such other times
as the chair shall become vacant." What? no no no, reversion perhaps, interim
perhaps, pro tem perhaps but not lame duck. especially if it is due to (i)(B).

(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. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.

I love the work that went into this but in that they were redrafted by a word
expert these gaping holes should be reviewed, and not lightly.

Look at the IP's by laws they get to decide who is in or out as members much
less their own reps.  They even get to have a bylaw that says that any
recommendation made to the BoD of  ICANN reflect their views. This proposal
requires we are lap dogs of the NC.

Sincerely,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Mr Connolly,
> I congratulate you on a fine piece of work. I have queries as follows:-
> 1) May I ask you please why you feel (i)B is necessary?
> 2) What is "good cause" ?
> 2) Should we not add co-chair/ alternate chair ?
> Thanks,
> Joanna Lane
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:30:49 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Ben,
Thank you for your enlightening post. Time is short now, so I'll be brief.
If you can get rid of  - "Of course, not every message can be read or
displayed.", you'll be half way to solving the problem IMO.

I agree with Dassa that we should consider forwarding all comments as they
are made online. Ideally, Liason needs about a 20 second delay between
receiving the real time posts and screening to the public arena. That would
allow sufficient time to pick up on any real abuse and temporarily
disconnect, hopefully not crashing in the process, but freezing the screen
in the public arena, cutting the offensive post, then unfreezing. I would be
most interested to know if the technology exists to do this.

Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by offering
at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.

Sincerely,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dassa
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General
Assembly

This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but has
any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and
questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow all
those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?  Then
they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised by
someone inhouse if relevent.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
|>Edelman
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
|>To: [email-masked]
|>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
|>the General
|>Assembly
|>
|>
|>Joanna Lane wrote:
|>
|>> ...
|>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
|>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
|>
|>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re
|>what specific
|>steps to take to give additional influence to online
|>participants.  To date,
|>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA,
|>Chair of the
|>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
|>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
|>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote
|>participants."
|>
|>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a
|>rhythm, we are
|>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives
|>reflect this) at
|>recognizing remote participants.
|>
|>
|>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
|>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
|>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed
|>some tension in
|>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the
|>meeting would prefer
|>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are
|>disappointed to be
|>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe
|>this factor can
|>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
|>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm
|>confident that
|>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to
|>reduce subsequent
|>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
|>in-person attendees.
|>
|>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation
|>system in order
|>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
|>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
|>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote
|>participation
|>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
|>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
|>
|>
|>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote
|>Participation
|>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
|>
|>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical
|>meeting room in
|>Melbourne.
|>
|>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
|>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
|>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud,
|>while others will
|>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message
|>can be read or
|>displayed.
|>
|>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear
|>and concise, and
|>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is
|>that messages
|>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the
|>microphones in
|>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea
|>to send lengthy
|>prepared comments using the real-time comment system;
|>instead, use ICANN's
|>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the
|>start of the
|>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
|>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered
|>from each remote
|>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in
|>the meeting
|>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
|>commenters who have not already participated."
|>
|>
|>
|>Ben Edelman
|>
|>--
|>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: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:47:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] International Study Team Issues Letter to ICANN Study

This is a wonderful letter.  My hat is off to the well worded
political political correctness that went into it.  I emphasize their
request for public knowledge.

However, I, along with many others question the sincerity of this
perceived evaluation.

It would be very helpful if you were to publish before hand your
intentions and fully outline your area of inquiry with direct
guidelines, so that we have a basis to evaluate the product of your
work.  Of course if the intention is to keep your intentions secret I
understand, please preserve them internally.

Your immediate demand for a response to allegations of the
inappropriateness of appointing a man who is in a 
geopolitical position being in this post would give great credence to
your intentions. I specifically refer to persons holding  government
positions being precluded from this role.

The Assembly at Large membership is not functioning at this time and it
is understood by many that you are not aware of this fact. Addressing
this
limbo status would help assuage many antagonisms.

Keeping in mind this release was not accidentally released, it's timing
was coordinated by professionals.

Most Sincerely and with respect,

Rob Courtney wrote:

> Members of the General Assembly:
>
> Earlier today, known as the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS)
> issued a letter to ICANN's new Study Committee requesting access to
> important data from last year's  election of At-Large Directors to
> the ICANN Board. The NAIS team includes representatives from
> non-profit and academic organizations worldwide, and is currently
> preparing an in-depth study of public representation in ICANN.
>
> CDT and its partner Common Cause serve as North American members of
> NAIS; the entire NAIS team consists of:
>
>   - Izumi Aizu, Principle, Asia Network Research
>   - Jerry Berman, Executive Director; Alan Davidson, Associate
> Director; and Rob Courtney, Policy Analyst; Center for Democracy and
> Technology, USA
>   - Adam Peake, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Global
> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan.
>   - Christian Ahlert, Center for Interactive Media, University of
> Giessen, Germany
>   - Scott Harshbarger, President; Don Simon, General Counsel; and Andy
> Draheim, Senior Policy Analyst; Common Cause, USA
>   - Raúl Echeberría, Instituto Nacional de Investigatión Agropecuaria, Uruguay
>   - Clement Dzidonu, President and CEO, International Institute for
> Information Technology (INIIT), Ghana
>   - Stefaan Verhulst, Director, Programme in Comparative Media Law and
> Policy, Oxford University, UK
>   - Myungkoo Kang, Department of Communication, Seoul National
> University, Seoul, South Korea
>   - Jeanette Hofmann, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin/NEXUS, Germany
>
> I am attaching a copy of our letter to ICANN Study Committee Chair
> Carl Bildt, transmitted to him on February 7, 2001. A copy of the
> letter is also available at:
> http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/nais/010207bildt.shtml
>
> An overview of the NAIS team and its study project is available at:
> http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/nais/010207overview.shtml
>
> Please feel free to contact me if you have any inquiries or thoughts
> regarding either of these documents, or the NAIS effort itself.
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
>
> * * *
>
> February 7, 2001
>
> Mr. Carl Bildt
> Chair
> At-Large Membership Study Committee
> Internet Corporation for Assigned
>    Names and Numbers
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>
> Dear Mr. Bildt:
>
> Congratulations on being selected to lead the At-Large Membership
> Study Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN):  a challenging task as ICANN's activities can have a
> substantial impact on the development and growth of the Internet
> community. The At-Large Membership Study Committee's vital function
> will be to review that impact in light of the public representation
> currently offered in ICANN and to propose new directions for 2001.
>
> In furtherance of the Study Committee's work, we offer several
> suggestions for your consideration as the Committee begins its task.
>
> When the ICANN Board created the At-Large Membership Study Committee,
> it anticipated that the findings and recommendations of independent
> study groups working outside of ICANN's formal process would
> substantially inform the Committee's work.  The undersigned
> individuals and organizations constitute one such study team.
>
> The "NGO and Academic ICANN Study," or NAIS, is an international
> group of scholars and representatives of the public interest
> community, all of whom have been involved in ICANN and Internet
> issues on an ongoing basis. A description of the group and a list of
> its participants are attached to this letter.
>
> NAIS will undertake a comprehensive study of the recent ICANN
> election, the concept of the At-Large membership, and the nature of
> public representation for the ICANN Board of Directors as a whole.
>
> We look forward to working with the ICANN Study Committee, and hope
> that the Committee will find our work useful as it considers its own
> recommendations.
>
> Among other initiatives, NAIS is planning to sponsor a public forum
> on issues related to the study in conjunction with the upcoming
> Melbourne meeting. We hope to organize a number of presentations as a
> means of beginning an open dialogue with the ICANN community on the
> successes and failures of the recent election, and the options for
> the future. We would very much like to work with the Study Committee
> in planning this session to ensure that it is successful and
> productive.
>
> As you know, one hallmark of any good research project is access to
> the best possible data. In the case of the At-Large study, much of
> the information about what happened, and why, resides in the
> expertise of the individuals who planned and implemented last year's
> election. But a great deal of equally important data resides in the
> internal records of ICANN and of its election administrator,
> election.com.
>
> We hope that ICANN and its Study Committee will make all of this
> election data available not only to the undersigned researchers, but
> to other research efforts as well. The ICANN Board decided that this
> study process should be conducted by self-organizing groups of the
> ICANN community. Such studies can be valid only if there is
> relatively unfettered access to all relevant data. Without such
> access, serious research will not be possible, and the validity and
> legitimacy of the outside studies will be compromised. These studies
> will then be of less use to the Study Committee, and the whole point
> of the Board's decision to rely on such outside efforts will be
> defeated.
>
> In other words, we suggest that a primary purpose of the Study
> Committee may be to facilitate the efforts by outside,
> self-organizing study groups such as ourselves to gain access to all
> relevant data. As such, the Study Committee might work to ensure the
> cooperation of ICANN in providing access to data, documents and key
> personnel to outside study groups. In addition, there is substantial
> work to be done to ensure that personally-identifiable information is
> removed from the released data, so as to preserve ICANN's commitment
> to protecting the privacy of voters.
>
> We attach to this letter a list of the categories of data and
> documents to which we request access as an initial matter. We would
> be pleased to cooperate with you, and with ICANN's staff, to ensure
> that access granted us would cause a minimal disruption to the Study
> Committee's important work. To the extent possible, we additionally
> suggest that you consider making this data available by posting it on
> the Internet, or providing controlled access via the Internet to all
> self-organized study groups.
>
> By providing this access, the Study Committee and ICANN can
> demonstrate their commitment to complete and valid outside study
> efforts, and encourage a better understanding of the successes,
> shortcomings, and unanswered questions in last year's election.
>
> The time allotted for reviewing the election is short, and the speedy
> release of this data would enable the work of our study team, as well
> as others, to get underway. We are anxious to do so. We look forward
> to cooperating with you and your Committee on this important project,
> and wish you good luck in this important effort you have undertaken.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The NGO and Academic ICANN Study  (NAIS)
> (Organizational affiliations are provided below for identification
> purposes only)
>
> Izumi Aizu, Principle, Asia Network Research
>
> Jerry Berman, Executive Director; Alan Davidson, Associate Director;
> and Rob Courtney, Policy Analyst; Center for Democracy and
> Technology, USA
>
> Adam Peake, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Global Communications
> (GLOCOM), International University of Japan.
>
> Christian Ahlert, Center for Interactive Media, University of Giessen, Germany
>
> Scott Harshbarger, President; Don Simon, General Counsel; and Andy
> Draheim, Senior Policy Analyst; Common Cause, USA
>
> Raúl Echeberría, Instituto Nacional de Investigatión Agropecuaria, Uruguay
>
> Clement Dzidonu, President and CEO, International Institute for
> Information Technology (INIIT), Ghana
>
> Stefaan Verhulst, Director, Programme in Comparative Media Law and
> Policy, Oxford University, UK
>
> Myungkoo Kang, Department of Communication, Seoul National
> University, Seoul, South Korea
>
> Jeanette Hofmann, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin/NEXUS, Germany
>
> cc: Charles Costello
>      Pindar Wong
>      Denise Michel
>      Vinton Cerf
>      Michael Roberts
>      Andrew McLaughlin
>      Louis Touton, Esq.
>
> Enclosures:
>    Initial List of Data & Documents
>
> Initial List of Data & Documents
> --------------------------------
> * Server logs. The logs of the systems that ICANN and election.com
> used for voter education, registration, activation, and voting
> programs contain important information about user access patterns at
> various stages of the elections. They will provide clues about system
> load and about voter facility with the systems. They may also provide
> some limited data on the potential for capture, by indicating whether
> substantial numbers of registrations came from one entity or
> organization. Personally-identifiable information should be stripped
> from this data before its distribution to the public, in order to
> preserve ICANN's guarantee of privacy for voters.
>
> * Registration records. Public release of at least some information
> collected from users by ICANN's registration and activation servers
> would greatly facilitate any election study. Since user participation
> in each stage of the membership process- registration, activation,
> and voting-dropped off substantially in all regions, these records
> should be reviewed. In the interests of privacy,
> personally-identifiable information such as e-mail addresses or
> mailing addresses should be masked where they appear, but other
> identifiers that cannot be reliably tied to real-world identities
> should be left intact.
>
> * Mailing records. Failure to receive PIN numbers has been a major
> grievance by voters and would-be voters in the election. Review of
> ICANN's system for mailing these numbers, as well as other
> election-related correspondence (paper and electronic) will help to
> understand how such problems could be avoided in the future.
>
> * Voting records. Indications of voter participation, as well as
> independent scrutiny of the vote count, are important parts of any
> election review. Once again, personally-identifiable information
> should be masked to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
>
> * Technical specifications. Both ICANN and election.com experienced
> technical difficulties at key moments in the registration and
> election processes. Their systems should be reviewed, and the reasons
> behind those difficulties understood.
>
> * Financial records. Orchestration of a worldwide election is no
> small undertaking, and the cost of an election is of major importance
> when considering future efforts to select Directors. ICANN should
> publish detailed records of costs and funding sources for the
> election.
>
> * Communications. The internal and external communication of ICANN
> officers and staff regarding the election will offer important
> insights into the way that major decisions were made. The public
> record should include the communications of the Election and
> Nominating Committees.
>
> --
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202 637 9800
> fax 202 637 0968
> [email-masked]
> http://www.cdt.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
- --
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 #230
************************