Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #233
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 233

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:10:12 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Please stop NOW

Hello Sotiropoulos,

Saturday, February 10, 2001, 2:22:54 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> > What strikes me
>> > as odd here, is that the question of involvement in DNSO matters is so preeminent,
>> > at a time when the need for work in the @Large is so crucial.
>>
>> Please share, what is so crucial in the @Large, that couldn't be
>> accomplished at the same time as things in the DNSO?  Why this
>> fascination with doing one task at a time?

> Usually, it's because things get done properly that way.

Do you have a day job?  Do you get your work done, as well as
participate here?

Or is your entire life focused on only one thing at time?

Dealing with issues here does not in any way preempt you dealing with
issues elsewhere, and with getting work done elsewhere.

- -- 
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 16:14:43 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Please stop NOW

At 02:28 PM 2/10/01, William X. Walsh wrote:
>You will note that it was a post about the claims of reform in the GA
>as a result of the IDNO that started the discussion in here again,
>that had stagnated.

No, I will note that there had been seven posts to this list made prior to 
your post on the same day you made it. Let's avoid the history rewriting, 
and get this off of here.

> >> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> >> relevent to listen to.
>
>No one has made such a complaint, Greg.

I was referring to the Names Council in particular - and I know for a fact 
that things like this DO influence them to disregard what people are trying 
to do.

>Please, these conspiracy theories are getting to be a bit much, and,
>more so than the IDNO threads, contribute to the arguments about lack
>of legitimacy.

About the same - no more, no less.

>...are trying to get an organization that is flawed at its even most basic 
>levels (much more
>so than the DNSO itself really) recognized as that constituency.

It's not going to happen. We will be VERY fortunate to get a working group 
to create that constituency, but there is really no chance that it will be 
an existing organization. I've been saying that for months, Roeland has 
been saying that for months, Roberto has been saying that for months.....we 
didn't just make it up.

>If you don't like a thread, your mail client provides you the means
>not to read it.  If you don't like a poster, the same applies.

If you are a responsible person, you try and read what's posted in order to 
avoid missing a good point someone makes in the middle of the mess. It's 
too much work for some people. More to the point, this kind of off-topic 
display has been crucial in convincing the NC that working groups are not 
useful. Net result - LESS input into the process. Let's try it again:

Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the 
process. It's documented.

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:43:19 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reform in the GA?

yes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 5:38 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

YES.

SS
HN, Inc.

> Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >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

- --
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 19:20:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

Greg and all remaining assembly members,

  I believe that you and I have sufficiently tried to get some GA
members to understand that bickering about the IDNO or anyone
that is an IDNO member is not a useful endeavor here on the DNSO
ML forum.  We can only now wait and see if those GA ML participants
can indeed "Get the Message"....

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 02:28 PM 2/10/01, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >You will note that it was a post about the claims of reform in the GA
> >as a result of the IDNO that started the discussion in here again,
> >that had stagnated.
>
> No, I will note that there had been seven posts to this list made prior to
> your post on the same day you made it. Let's avoid the history rewriting,
> and get this off of here.
>
> > >> listen because you've conditioned them to believe that there is nothing
> > >> relevent to listen to.
> >
> >No one has made such a complaint, Greg.
>
> I was referring to the Names Council in particular - and I know for a fact
> that things like this DO influence them to disregard what people are trying
> to do.
>
> >Please, these conspiracy theories are getting to be a bit much, and,
> >more so than the IDNO threads, contribute to the arguments about lack
> >of legitimacy.
>
> About the same - no more, no less.
>
> >...are trying to get an organization that is flawed at its even most basic
> >levels (much more
> >so than the DNSO itself really) recognized as that constituency.
>
> It's not going to happen. We will be VERY fortunate to get a working group
> to create that constituency, but there is really no chance that it will be
> an existing organization. I've been saying that for months, Roeland has
> been saying that for months, Roberto has been saying that for months.....we
> didn't just make it up.
>
> >If you don't like a thread, your mail client provides you the means
> >not to read it.  If you don't like a poster, the same applies.
>
> If you are a responsible person, you try and read what's posted in order to
> avoid missing a good point someone makes in the middle of the mess. It's
> too much work for some people. More to the point, this kind of off-topic
> display has been crucial in convincing the NC that working groups are not
> useful. Net result - LESS input into the process. Let's try it again:
>
> Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
> process. It's documented.
>
> 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

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 19:39:51 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

At 12:04 PM 2/10/01, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>Before we get too far along in this process, perhaps we could spend a few
>days thinking about what the responsibilities of the GA Chair should be.
>
>(1) attend all four ICANN quarterly meetings to lead the half-day 
>in-person General Assembly meeting that precedes the ICANN public forum; and,
>(2) participate as a non-voting, ex officio member of the NC in the 
>monthly NC meetings; and
>(3) Coordinating the discussions on the GA. list; and
>(4) coordinating consensus development and overseeing the preparation of 
>periodic reports from the GA; and
>(5) Participating in NC task forces when invited to do so

Sure, I think these are all part of it...and hopefully Roberto WILL add to 
it, if we're missing anything.

>For my own part, I am not able to accept the nomination at this time, but
>thank you for putting my name forward.

Sorry to hear that, Bret, but it's understandable. I've been looking at the 
report from WG-D, and thinking about ways some of that work could be 
applied here, as well as the work that Danny Younger put into his proposal 
on the APA - derived consensus process. There is a lot that the GA can do, 
if it just focuses on doing what it can.

Hopefully, others will accept - yes, it's a lot of work, and I'm sure 
Roberto and Harald would both say that a lot of it is thankless at best, 
but it needs doing by somebody.

Current Status:

>No response yet:
>Roberto Gaetano
>Barbara Simons
>Emerson Tiller
>Thomas Roessler
>Eric Weisberg
>Rod Dixon
>Jeanette Hoffmann

>Greg Burton - Accepted

>Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
>Michael Froomkin  - Declined
>Harald Alverstrand - Declined
>Bret Fausett - Declined
>Alexander Svensson - 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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:07:50 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What causes the problem?

Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
process. It's documented.

Regards,
Greg

[email-masked]

 I am not sure of the accuracy here but the people themselves are not
the cause.   It is aggravation in the process and the stranglehold the
existing constiutencies have on every move that causes the problem.
Personally I believe it is equally well documented that it is the IP
that actually casuses these problems.

I would propose a budget to actually get to the bottom of the lack of
participation.

Sincerely,

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:51:18 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

At 11:04 10/02/01 -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>> This appears to be the current status of GA chair nominations.
>
>Before we get too far along in this process, perhaps we could spend a few
>days thinking about what the responsibilities of the GA Chair should be.
>That, in some part, will determine whether nominated individuals accept or
>not. 

A good suggestion. The Chair needs to be (chief) moderator and recognizer
of motions and oppositions, and (s)he will not be at liberty to apply filters.

The other part of what makes a potential Chair consider accepting can be
the weight of nominations.

The best way to achieve visibility for that is the way  that Joanna
suggested:  Give the whole GA the chance  the pick a preferred nominee out
of all participants, (pick list on the web)  and then look at the list of
all who received 5 nominations or more.
This worked well and fast for the WG. 

The way we are now proceeding with nominations appearing piecemeal does not
encourage acceptance by the nominee in the same way. 

- --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 20:55:09 -0700
From: Greg Burton <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: What causes the problem?

At 08:07 PM 2/10/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
>process. It's documented.
>I am not sure of the accuracy here but the people themselves are not
>the cause.

In some cases yes, in others, no. I was speaking about mailing lists in 
general - no matter the subject of the list, a preponderance of those 
things leads to the loss of membership, involvement, and input.

>It is aggravation in the process and the stranglehold the
>existing constiutencies have on every move that causes the problem.

That perception is certainly a contributing factor, though the existing 
constituencies have their own problems. I don't mean to minimize your 
notion, either - it's definitely true that good people have opted out 
because they don't see any way of affecting the process. So someone can 
very understandably be frustrated and angry.

The point is - acting out is NOT a productive strategy. Calling people 
names does NOT want to make them sit down and work it out. Bringing outside 
conflicts into it does NOT convince anyone that the participants are 
mature, reasonable people who can be entrusted with positions of 
responsibility. If we are outside the process, acting like crazies will NOT 
bring us into it. See?

The problem is that it's not black or white. You can't just say "x is a 
good guy, y is a bad guy", because then you'll miss that everyone thinks 
that they're the good guy. You'll also miss the reasonable things the 
"other side" is saying.

Ah well, it's only life.

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:22:40 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] What causes the problem?

I don't understand the comment that IP causes the problem. I haven't seen
anyone from the IP constuency posting in this group.  I do agree with Eric's
short statement that "off topic, too many, and nastiness drive people away.
I certainly have been very reluctant to post because of some of the
treatment I've received on other WGs.  And some from industry are just not
willing to post, since they feel that they are immediately challenged,
regardless of what they say, because they are commercial.

If we expect to get to agreement, then we need to respect each sector's
views and work to consensus of some kind.  Without nastiness. 

I acknowledge the view expressed that the existing constituencies have a
stranglehold, (I may not agree with it, however), but the irony here is that
they are pretty frustrated themselves with seeking how to improve the
process and I believe, want to see improvement in understanding. 
 
Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 10:08 PM
To: Greg Burton; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] What causes the problem?

Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
process. It's documented.

Regards,
Greg

[email-masked]

 I am not sure of the accuracy here but the people themselves are not
the cause.   It is aggravation in the process and the stranglehold the
existing constiutencies have on every move that causes the problem.
Personally I believe it is equally well documented that it is the IP
that actually casuses these problems.

I would propose a budget to actually get to the bottom of the lack of
participation.

Sincerely,

- --
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 22:40:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair Nomination Status

Joop and all remaining assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 11:04 10/02/01 -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> >> This appears to be the current status of GA chair nominations.
> >
> >Before we get too far along in this process, perhaps we could spend a few
> >days thinking about what the responsibilities of the GA Chair should be.
> >That, in some part, will determine whether nominated individuals accept or
> >not.
>
> A good suggestion. The Chair needs to be (chief) moderator and recognizer
> of motions and oppositions, and (s)he will not be at liberty to apply filters.

  Agreed.  However their must be guidelines/rules that the Chair must
be required to follow strictly...  Currently the existing "Rules" are not
legitimate....

>
>
> The other part of what makes a potential Chair consider accepting can be
> the weight of nominations.

  Weight?  Please elaborate as to what you mean by this Joop...

>
>
> The best way to achieve visibility for that is the way  that Joanna
> suggested:  Give the whole GA the chance  the pick a preferred nominee out
> of all participants, (pick list on the web)  and then look at the list of
> all who received 5 nominations or more.
> This worked well and fast for the WG.
>
> The way we are now proceeding with nominations appearing piecemeal does not
> encourage acceptance by the nominee in the same way.
>
> --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

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 21:17:22 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] What causes the problem?

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, February 10, 2001, 8:22:40 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I don't understand the comment that IP causes the problem. I haven't seen
> anyone from the IP constuency posting in this group.  I do agree with Eric's
> short statement that "off topic, too many, and nastiness drive people away.
> I certainly have been very reluctant to post because of some of the
> treatment I've received on other WGs.  And some from industry are just not
> willing to post, since they feel that they are immediately challenged,
> regardless of what they say, because they are commercial.

> If we expect to get to agreement, then we need to respect each sector's
> views and work to consensus of some kind.  Without nastiness. 

> I acknowledge the view expressed that the existing constituencies have a
> stranglehold, (I may not agree with it, however), but the irony here is that
> they are pretty frustrated themselves with seeking how to improve the
> process and I believe, want to see improvement in understanding. 

I don't know Marilyn.  Didn't you oppose any TLD expansion on behalf
of your company?

It seems to me that the only frustration I've seen from the IP
constituency members is when they found something they couldn't
control the outcome of.

Do they really want to improve understanding, or do they just seek
"understanding" as a means to "influence" the other constituency reps
into siding with them on substantive issues?

Pardon the suspicion, but the IP industry participating in ICANN
hasn't exactly engendered a real sense of trust, openness,
understanding, or willingness to seek compromise, since they started
participating.

- -- 
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:28:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: What causes the problem?

Greg and all remaining assembly members,

  Of course you are right here.  However some participants or would be
participants never learn.

Greg Burton wrote:

> At 08:07 PM 2/10/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
> >process. It's documented.
> >I am not sure of the accuracy here but the people themselves are not
> >the cause.
>
> In some cases yes, in others, no. I was speaking about mailing lists in
> general - no matter the subject of the list, a preponderance of those
> things leads to the loss of membership, involvement, and input.
>
> >It is aggravation in the process and the stranglehold the
> >existing constiutencies have on every move that causes the problem.
>
> That perception is certainly a contributing factor, though the existing
> constituencies have their own problems. I don't mean to minimize your
> notion, either - it's definitely true that good people have opted out
> because they don't see any way of affecting the process. So someone can
> very understandably be frustrated and angry.
>
> The point is - acting out is NOT a productive strategy. Calling people
> names does NOT want to make them sit down and work it out. Bringing outside
> conflicts into it does NOT convince anyone that the participants are
> mature, reasonable people who can be entrusted with positions of
> responsibility. If we are outside the process, acting like crazies will NOT
> bring us into it. See?
>
> The problem is that it's not black or white. You can't just say "x is a
> good guy, y is a bad guy", because then you'll miss that everyone thinks
> that they're the good guy. You'll also miss the reasonable things the
> "other side" is saying.
>
> Ah well, it's only life.
>
> 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

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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:30:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

Marilyn and all remaining assembly members,

  Maybe you have forgotten Ken Stubbs?  But otherwise I must agree with
you remaining comments here....

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I don't understand the comment that IP causes the problem. I haven't seen
> anyone from the IP constuency posting in this group.  I do agree with Eric's
> short statement that "off topic, too many, and nastiness drive people away.
> I certainly have been very reluctant to post because of some of the
> treatment I've received on other WGs.  And some from industry are just not
> willing to post, since they feel that they are immediately challenged,
> regardless of what they say, because they are commercial.
>
> If we expect to get to agreement, then we need to respect each sector's
> views and work to consensus of some kind.  Without nastiness.
>
> I acknowledge the view expressed that the existing constituencies have a
> stranglehold, (I may not agree with it, however), but the irony here is that
> they are pretty frustrated themselves with seeking how to improve the
> process and I believe, want to see improvement in understanding.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 10:08 PM
> To: Greg Burton; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] What causes the problem?
>
> Off topic posts, too many posts, and nastiness drive people out of the
> process. It's documented.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> [email-masked]
>
>  I am not sure of the accuracy here but the people themselves are not
> the cause.   It is aggravation in the process and the stranglehold the
> existing constiutencies have on every move that causes the problem.
> Personally I believe it is equally well documented that it is the IP
> that actually casuses these problems.
>
> I would propose a budget to actually get to the bottom of the lack of
> participation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:08:36 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: DNSO and ICANN BoD (Re: [ga] Please stop NOW)

At 17:22 10/02/2001 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Now, unlike the DNSO, the
>@Large puts Directors on the Board.

The DNSO puts three directors on the Board.

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:07:05 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DNSO and ICANN BoD (Re: [ga] Please stop NOW)

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 17:22 10/02/2001 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >Now, unlike the DNSO, the
> >@Large puts Directors on the Board.
>
> The DNSO puts three directors on the Board.

Yes, correct.  Forgive my error, I just realized
it myself.  In any case, the number of @large
Directors is greater.

SS
HN, Inc.

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:09:18 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> I don't understand the comment that IP causes the problem. I haven't seen
> anyone from the IP constuency posting in this group.

That's because they are the *hired* advocates.  It would be rather presumptuous
for them to speak up outside their court offices and back-office meeting rooms.
Even if their personal opinions differed with those of their clients, they could
not be outwardly in favour of any behaviour which could cause any of their
clientele discomfort.  So, why should they bother?  In any case, it's not any
kind of secret to us little folk, that IP interests are largely responsible for
the pall over ICANN in the international public eye.  Frankly. I don't see how
anyone could miss it.

> I do agree with Eric's
> short statement that "off topic, too many, and nastiness drive people away.
> I certainly have been very reluctant to post because of some of the
> treatment I've received on other WGs.  And some from industry are just not
> willing to post, since they feel that they are immediately challenged,
> regardless of what they say, because they are commercial.

That would be extemely foolish.  I think we all agree that commerce is a good
thing.  I think we should also agree that there should be a respectability and
integrity in commercial practices.  Commerce is not, nor should it ever consider
itself to be an arbiter of Law and Justice, for that is surely a social
perversion.  Now, many people are *hurting* over the issues we are so casually
dining upon, carving them up with our imagination's knife, so to speak...  There
is definitely a problem, and it's directly related to an imbalance.  (BTW
Imbalance is also what has led to the current stand-still in the WG-Review
Discussion.  I would just like to ask the Chair of the WG-Review why it is that
he feels it more pressing upon his time to move forward matters in the GA List,
to which he has no [to my knowledge] official relation, other than having been
nominated as candidate for some nebulous election, and not instead push on to
complete the WGr? )

*Of course, this is just one of the reasons why I believe polypragmatism does
not work very well when there's work to be done.

> If we expect to get to agreement, then we need to respect each sector's
> views and work to consensus of some kind.  Without nastiness.

Yes!  No more nastiness!   Let us leave the rancour aside, please.  It is most
disconcerting, and in frightfully bad taste in Good Society.

> I acknowledge the view expressed that the existing constituencies have a
> stranglehold, (I may not agree with it, however), but the irony here is that
> they are pretty frustrated themselves with seeking how to improve the
> process and I believe, want to see improvement in understanding.

One thing that could be done is to immediately call for a moratorium on all
pending UDRP actions which do not involve infringement of a demonstrably coined
word or clearly associative commercial interest/intent.  I think such a move
would go a long way to bringing a little bit of respectability back to some
areas of Justice.  Further, they could publicly lay aside their plans for
*somehow* adding geographical indications and other excuses to a growing list of
*reasons* for domain USURPATION.  Who gets a geographic name after all?  Do we
live in the same reality?  Do they really want to start stirring up such
problems?  Do you want to allow them to do so?  Do we?  There must be a
reconsideration of priorities, and there should be evidence of goodwill on both
sides.  Certain substantial moves have to be made, not merely gestures.  To
date, the record shows that there are 5 AtLarge Directors on the Board.  Correct
me if I'm wrong, but are there not supposed to be 9?  If there are supposed to
be nine, why are there only five?  Whose interests were being served when the
decision to go with 5 was taken?  How much more plain can it be?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:21:49 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DNSO and ICANN BoD (Re: [ga] Please stop NOW)

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 17:22 10/02/2001 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >Now, unlike the DNSO, the
> >@Large puts Directors on the Board.
>
> The DNSO puts three directors on the Board.

BTW,  in case anybody is interested, I believe it also shows
9 @Large Directors on the organizationa chart::
http://www.icann.org/general/icann-org-chart_frame.htm

SS
HN, Inc.

- --
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 23:51:54 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: DNSO and ICANN BoD (Re: [ga] Please stop NOW)

Hello Sotiropoulos,

Saturday, February 10, 2001, 11:07:05 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>> At 17:22 10/02/2001 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>> >Now, unlike the DNSO, the
>> >@Large puts Directors on the Board.
>>
>> The DNSO puts three directors on the Board.

> Yes, correct.  Forgive my error, I just realized
> it myself.  In any case, the number of @large
> Directors is greater.

In that case, the DNSO should just be ignored?

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #233
************************