Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #256
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 1 2001           Volume 01 : Number 256

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:36:04 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Hello Michael,

Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:29:29 PM, Michael F. McNulty wrote:

> The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
> millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
> by this mechanism alone.

Yes, it saved them much in legal fees to win cases that they would
never have won had they gone to court.

They've enabled businesses to reverse hijack and seize domain names
that they would have absolutely NO right to under the law.

ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
any single other act.

- -- 
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:40:22 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

> The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
> millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
> by this mechanism alone.

Choke, cough... It's theft by fiat with no appeal.  Too many thefts 
like Barcelona.com, superseding national law...  Even after a court 
decision for the respondent, UDRP accepts filing from complainant, 
completely ignoring the court's decision.  It's crazy.  So what's 
next? Back to court, then back to UDRP, then back to court in an 
endless circle?  If you decide to trademark my business name and 
then file a UDRP on a name I've had for years, you could take it 
from me if you got the right arbitrator through WIPO.  Again, crazy, 
wrong, lopsided, loaded for special interests and ignores individuals 
and small business.  It has shifted the intent of the Lanham Act to 
protect TM holders rather than consumers and is setting a path for 
the mega multinationals to rule the Internet to the detriment of the 
rest of the users.

Justified?  Not in a million years.

> Michael McNulty

> 
> 
> 
> 
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> > Hello JandL,
> >
> > Tuesday, February 27, 2001, 1:59:03 PM, JandL wrote:
> >
> > > Note Appendix V.  Registries must comply with UDRP.  Choice just
> > > went completely out the window and WIPO wins.
> >
> > Yes, but this was expected, wasn't it?
> >
> > The UDRP is the single most glaring flaw with ICANN at the moment. 
> > It should be completely suspended until it is reformed.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:52:29 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

>The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
>millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
>by this mechanism alone.

Justification for bending and breaking the law?

If this is what "American Justice" is all about, I'll pass.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:42:32 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Dear Brett,
On 21:57 28/02/01, Bret Fausett said:
> > Technically, the Chair of an assembly which should elect 47% of the BoD is
> > a key person.
>
>Let's be clear about what the General Assembly is and is not. It is not the
>At Large. It also was not intended to be the At Large equivalent within the
>Domain Name Supporting Organization, nor is it necessarily the right vehicle
>for the At Large members to influence DNS policy.

You confuse a lot of things here which are obviously wrong. So I
can only agree with you. But you do that to negatively support a
opinon I disagree with.

>The General Assembly is the gathering of all DNSO constituency members and
>unaffiliated persons interested in participating in the work of the Domain
>Name Supporting Organization. It does not elect any Board member, though it
>could certainly serve as a place to discuss the issues with candidates for
>the single DNSO seat that becomes vacant each year.

This is your opinon, not my target. Eventually my conception
will prevail because of the KISS principle. I am not in hurry.
But a lot of wasted time IMHO.

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: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:19:17 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Dear Eric,
I will be candid with you. You appear to have the impetus. But I reniew my
question in a different way.

On 01:31 01/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
>In case I have not made it clear, the GA chair must be an advocate for the GA
>above all else.

- - do we need an impetuous leader?
- - or a powerfull pusher?

Or in another way:

- - do we want the GA represented by one person to explain the role it could 
play?
- - or do we want the GA to take over its role and make its job?

Or in another way:

- - do we want someone to obtain that the bylaws are changed?
- - do we want someone helping us to make the bylaws to adapt to what will do?

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: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 16:50:37 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Dear GA members,

Electing a Chair only from only a one-dimensional on-line acquaintance is
experimental at best and a gamble at worst.

Qualities of self-discipline are needed, but the heart must also be in the
right place. We should have candidates who do not really want it, but who
are finally persuaded to do the duty by the clamor of their nominations. 
The way we are proceeding now, with candidates nominated and then
immediately attacked and defended, results in instant election politics
even before nominations are accepted. 
We will get nowhere like this.

The only way to get enough candidates to make an election meaningful is to
have a large number of seconded nominations.
This is why I proposed to support Joanna's motion to the WG-review, and use
a big list on the Polling Booth as a starting point to narrow down a slate
of nominees.  We can see later who will accept.

Deliberate discrediting efforts towards the Booth have only served to slow
the nomination process down and make the election of a Chair who could take
his/her seat in Melbourne  impossible.

Roberto, are you keeping track of all the nominations?

We need an enthousiastic and committed Chair, who has a great deal of time
for the GA, who can be firm and impartial and who has ideally kept aloof
from partisan positions so far.

I think Charles Sha'ban, of Egypt, who has shown great comittment to a big
task of outreach (TAGI volunteered to translate the ICANN website into
Arabic)  may serve us very well as Chair and it is my privilege to nominate
him and ask for seconds from others who know him personally.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:27:01 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

William wrote:-
</snip>
Even if online participation ever reaches any kind of parity with
physical attendance, the GA Chair should be physically present at the
ICANN meetings.
I agree that there should be funding for the GA Chair's attendance,
but I wouldn't count on it coming from the NC or ICANN.
The GA should take this up itself, rather than seeking
something from the NC on it, if anything just to show that it can act
as an independent body within the DNSO structure.
<snip/>

[Joanna]- I would wait until we are close to achieving online parity before
passing judgement on the benefits of physical attendance. The value that
both the NC and ICANN places on the GA can be measured by their willingness
to support it's existence, including financially. What support is necessary
needs to be quantified, but the bottom line can be determined by how much
people have been willing to give to the cause on an ongoing basis, in terms
of their time, expertise and money.

By the way, while we're on the subject of difficulties with taking up
prestigious honors for lack of funding opportunities, I would mention my
Nomination to serve as a Representative from New York on the Republican
Presidential Round Table. Their April meeting includes a Senior Advisor to
the President, a Counselor to the Vice President, a White House Political
Director, White House Congressional Liaison and 17 Senators, offering a
glimpse into the Bush Cabinet and clarifying the new Administration's
position with regard to Business and Technology in the 21st Century. It
could be said that the rewards of friendship with these people (who are not
available online and probably never will be), is of greater value to us than
physical attendance at ICANN meetings. One of the things we need to do is
raise the profile of the GA within DNSO and this would be one way to
generate a positive profile, while obtaining feedback at the highest level.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:57:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> > A question: Does the DNSO pay for the GA's Chair to go to the ICANN
> meetings?
> > Or does the Chair have to come up with it out of their own funds?
>
> >On their own.
>
> This is an important point. Would the personal financial means available to
> a candidate impact the quality  of their service to the organization.
> Obviously the answer is yes until we reach the point where online
> participation at meetings is on a level playing field with attendees.

  I agree personally.  It seems fairly obvious to me that the GA Chair
should be funded, al be it very conservatively, to attend ICANN
meetings.  But not until the remote participation is on a level playing
field with personal attendees...

>
> therefore would say that independent financial support for the GA Chair
> could be one of the recommendations from this WG under that topic. Could the
> NC advise us whether the business plan to be presented at Melbourne
> addresses this aspect?
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:09:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair nomination/acceptance status

Alex and all remaining assembly members,

  If there are candidates that are not GA members, are they still
qualified
to be DNSO Chair?  Seems a bit odd is why I ask.  I realize that
there are no guidelines documenting this, however....

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I think this is the current status of the
> DNSO General Assembly quest for a new Chair:
>
>  A.
>         Nominated, but no response yet:
>         >Rod Dixon
>         >Roberto Gaetano
>         >Barbara Simons
>         >Emerson Tiller
>
> As far as I can tell Emerson Tiller, Barbara
> Simons and Rod Dixon haven't written anything for a long
> time on the DNSO-GA list (and neither Barbara Simons nor
> Emerson Tiller are in the voting registry), so I cc this
> mail to them.
>
>    B.
>         >Greg Burton - Accepted
>         >Eric Dierker - Accepted
>
>    C.
>         >Harald Alvestrand - Declined
>         >Bret Fausett - Declined
>         >Michael Froomkin  - Declined
>         >Jeanette Hofmann - Declined
>         >Thomas Roessler - Declined
>         >Alexander Svensson - Declined
>         >Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
>         >Eric Weisberg - Declined
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> PS: Just for the record -- I'm fed up with the latest
> chat-style personal exchanges on the list, too.
>
> _______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:13:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,

  I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination

of gargantuan purporting.  It is extra-legal, it thwarts due process, it
has less and less support on a global basis by stakeholders.  The
evidence
is simply overwhelming.  The UDRP should be suspended until reforms
are incorporated or done away with all together.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Michael,
>
> Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:29:29 PM, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
>
> > The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
> > millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
> > by this mechanism alone.
>
> Yes, it saved them much in legal fees to win cases that they would
> never have won had they gone to court.
>
> They've enabled businesses to reverse hijack and seize domain names
> that they would have absolutely NO right to under the law.
>
> ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
> any single other act.
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:25:49 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Jefsey and all remaining assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Eric,
> I will be candid with you. You appear to have the impetus. But I reniew my
> question in a different way.
>
> On 01:31 01/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
> >In case I have not made it clear, the GA chair must be an advocate for the GA
> >above all else.
>
> - do we need an impetuous leader?
> - or a powerfull pusher?
>
> Or in another way:
>
> - do we want the GA represented by one person to explain the role it could
> play?
> - or do we want the GA to take over its role and make its job?
>
> Or in another way:
>
> - do we want someone to obtain that the bylaws are changed?
> - do we want someone helping us to make the bylaws to adapt to what will do?

  All good questions stated differently.  Nice play on wording!  >;)
But really the issue is that the DNSO as a whole, should advocate
all of the potential answers to your well worded questions here.  It
is not and "either-or" sort of thing....

>
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:33:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Joop and all remaining assembly members,

  I disagree with you on this one, Joop.  Nominations should be completely
open.  The many reasons are for the most part obvious.
BTW, I have never seen any participation by Charles Sha'ban, so
I couldn't in good faith vote for him, his Aribic translation skills
not withstanding, of course.  I do however believe that he
can be nominated.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear GA members,
>
> Electing a Chair only from only a one-dimensional on-line acquaintance is
> experimental at best and a gamble at worst.
>
> Qualities of self-discipline are needed, but the heart must also be in the
> right place. We should have candidates who do not really want it, but who
> are finally persuaded to do the duty by the clamor of their nominations.
> The way we are proceeding now, with candidates nominated and then
> immediately attacked and defended, results in instant election politics
> even before nominations are accepted.
> We will get nowhere like this.
>
> The only way to get enough candidates to make an election meaningful is to
> have a large number of seconded nominations.
> This is why I proposed to support Joanna's motion to the WG-review, and use
> a big list on the Polling Booth as a starting point to narrow down a slate
> of nominees.  We can see later who will accept.
>
> Deliberate discrediting efforts towards the Booth have only served to slow
> the nomination process down and make the election of a Chair who could take
> his/her seat in Melbourne  impossible.
>
> Roberto, are you keeping track of all the nominations?
>
> We need an enthousiastic and committed Chair, who has a great deal of time
> for the GA, who can be firm and impartial and who has ideally kept aloof
> from partisan positions so far.
>
> I think Charles Sha'ban, of Egypt, who has shown great comittment to a big
> task of outreach (TAGI volunteered to translate the ICANN website into
> Arabic)  may serve us very well as Chair and it is my privilege to nominate
> him and ask for seconds from others who know him personally.
>
> --Joop--
> Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
>        The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:25:39 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Mr. Morfin,

Your point as related through your questions are well taken.
Perhaps my Juris Doctorate 1983 from California Western School of Law would come
in handy to handle both situations.  The most recent by-laws which I have drafted
belong to Dudesmart which was recently bought by WTSW nasdaq pink sheets, going
public within the month.
I recently attended a meeting in a southeast asian country and I believe I
convinced them to become active in ICANN, no small feat after they had monitored
the situation for the last five months.
I am attending in Melbourne and I cann finance all necessary meetings.
In that I am acting policy advisor for firms working in active ccTLD countries I
think I cann coalesce differing and opposing viewpoints and support organizations.

Please do not misconstrue my many and various sundry posts as always for the
benefit of the listener.  As I am sure our silent majority of watchers can attest
to, they are just as often made for the purpose of learning from the response. Yes
I am a listener as well as talker.

This should provide much fodder for the cannons.  I am very serious about being
this assembly's chair.  Unlike most who would accept the responsibility if foisted
upon them I want it and will fulfill it's requirements.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Eric,
> I will be candid with you. You appear to have the impetus. But I reniew my
> question in a different way.
>
> On 01:31 01/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
> >In case I have not made it clear, the GA chair must be an advocate for the GA
> >above all else.
>
> - do we need an impetuous leader?
> - or a powerfull pusher?
>
> Or in another way:
>
> - do we want the GA represented by one person to explain the role it could
> play?
> - or do we want the GA to take over its role and make its job?
>
> Or in another way:
>
> - do we want someone to obtain that the bylaws are changed?
> - do we want someone helping us to make the bylaws to adapt to what will do?
>

So to answer your questions yes we want and demand it all.

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:57:39 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:36:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> 
> Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:29:29 PM, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
> 
> > The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
> > millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
> > by this mechanism alone.
> 
> Yes, it saved them much in legal fees to win cases that they would
> never have won had they gone to court.

It has saved the *defendants* millions of dollars in legal fees.

> They've enabled businesses to reverse hijack and seize domain names
> that they would have absolutely NO right to under the law.
> 
> ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
> any single other act.

Nope.  Quite the reverse.  You are deceived.  People who busy themselves
on these email lists are not a representative sample. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:13:18 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair

Dear Joanna,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> William wrote:-
> </snip>
> Even if online participation ever reaches any kind of parity with
> physical attendance, the GA Chair should be physically present at the
> ICANN meetings.

Your goals and aspirations are exemplary.  Why do I feel like we are bringing in
the new vangaurd?  Perhaps because we are. (I know dangling participle)  I have
already written off list to impress upon people how dedicated and responsible
members of the wg-review remain.  I implore everyone to stand behind Joanna and
help make her voice heard.  Please fill her cornicopia with your input so that
she may be the ambassodor we need her to be.

Most 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: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:23:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> William wrote:-
> </snip>
> Even if online participation ever reaches any kind of parity with
> physical attendance, the GA Chair should be physically present at the
> ICANN meetings.
> I agree that there should be funding for the GA Chair's attendance,
> but I wouldn't count on it coming from the NC or ICANN.
> The GA should take this up itself, rather than seeking
> something from the NC on it, if anything just to show that it can act
> as an independent body within the DNSO structure.
> <snip/>
>
> [Joanna]- I would wait until we are close to achieving online parity before
> passing judgement on the benefits of physical attendance.

  Well stated and agreed.  However you are going to have a great deal of
trouble in convincing the current crop or ICANN BoD members of this.

> The value that
> both the NC and ICANN places on the GA can be measured by their willingness
> to support it's existence, including financially. What support is necessary
> needs to be quantified, but the bottom line can be determined by how much
> people have been willing to give to the cause on an ongoing basis, in terms
> of their time, expertise and money.

  I would tend to lessen the the emphasis on how much $$ anyone is willing to
provide with respect to GA Chair nominations.  However time and expertise
and time should play a most important role, IMHO.

>
>
> By the way, while we're on the subject of difficulties with taking up
> prestigious honors for lack of funding opportunities, I would mention my
> Nomination to serve as a Representative from New York on the Republican
> Presidential Round Table. Their April meeting includes a Senior Advisor to
> the President, a Counselor to the Vice President, a White House Political
> Director, White House Congressional Liaison and 17 Senators, offering a
> glimpse into the Bush Cabinet and clarifying the new Administration's
> position with regard to Business and Technology in the 21st Century. It
> could be said that the rewards of friendship with these people (who are not
> available online and probably never will be), is of greater value to us than
> physical attendance at ICANN meetings.

  Agreed here.  The importance that some seem to place on physical
attendance in the Internet world is not well founded, and should not be
required.
This has been one of our mantras from the beginning of the ICANN "Process".
It remains so, if not even more so now.

> One of the things we need to do is
> raise the profile of the GA within DNSO and this would be one way to
> generate a positive profile, while obtaining feedback at the highest level.

  If you read the ICANN Bylaws closely, you will see that the DNSO
already has a very high profile within the ICANN structure.  As to
how positive this profile is presently is of course a matter of great
constragation presently, and has been for several months sense the
"Great Exodus" of GA assembly members some months ago now.

  Seeking feedback from the "Highest Levels" is a bit obtuse to me as to
what you mean, Joanna.  Can you enumerate further?  Presently
the current DNSO WG ML's are closed to most participants, the ICANN
BoD does not seem to wish to communicate with the DNSO GA directly,
and the anti Cross posting "Rule" limits to a great extent sharing of
information.
Given these questionable restrictions, "Seeking Feedback" is to these
extents limited, and also overly time consuming as to be less than potentially
optimal.

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:24:57 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Jeff Williams wrote:

> WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> of gargantuan purporting.

Here is a great case in point.  Unless I hear strongly and persuasively
otherwise how could I argue against this point.  One post which has not
responded to attacks against it and seemed more calculated toward reaction
than input?  When I go to Melbourne I will argue with this point, unless
convinced otherwise by popularity and/or persuasion.

If this helps you judge my "Qualifications" and position then we are open and
transparent.

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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:27:23 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 10:24:57 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:

>> WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
>>
>>   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
>> of gargantuan purporting.

> Here is a great case in point.  Unless I hear strongly and persuasively
> otherwise how could I argue against this point.  One post which has not
> responded to attacks against it and seemed more calculated toward reaction
> than input?  When I go to Melbourne I will argue with this point, unless
> convinced otherwise by popularity and/or persuasion.

The Chair is not a cheerleader for the views he supports, he is a
catalyst for consensus, and needs to have ability to move the body
towards a non-divisive level of consensus, and then works in a way to
present that Consensus to the Names Council.

Campaigning for the position is probably one more sign that points out
why someone shouldn't be GA Chair.  That's not the kind of Chair the
GA needs.

- -- 
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 #256
************************