Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #260
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 260

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:36:18 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal for chair election rules for the GA

Hello Harald,
Thank you for your time on this matter. I support the Single Transferable
Vote procedure you propose. However, I have difficulty with being subject to
the Secretariat for an announcement to start the process off. We are
perfectly capable of instigating the procedure ourselves and given the
impending meeting in Oz, I'd like to see names in the Booth yesterday. Is
there anything we can do about this?
Thanks,
Joanna

Comments, please.
- -----------------------------------------------

ELECTION RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.1 - PROPOSED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON MARCH 1, 2001

These are the rules for electing the chair and alternate chair of the
General assembly.

OVERVIEW
- --------
The process is an instance of Single Transferable Vote, the same procedure
as was used for the At-Large Election of ICANN.

The electors are the voting roster of the General Assembly:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html

NOTE: Until the ICANN bylaws are changed, this procedure is an advisory
vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences.
This note shall be considered removed when the bylaws empower the GA
to elect its own chairs.

START OF ELECTION
- -----------------
The election process starts when the Secretariat announces that nominations
are open.
At the same time, the voting roster is closed, and remains the same for the
remainder of the election process. (New members can always be added, but do
not get a vote for the election).

NOMINATION
- ----------
All nominations and endorsements are made public.

Nominees for the Chair and Alternate Chair are sent to an email address
provided by the Secretariat.
The nomination period shall be at least one week.

After the close of the nomination period, endorsements for the candidates
are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
The endorsement period shall be at least one week.

Before the end of the endorsement period, candidates that wish to be
considered for the post must have sent in an acceptance of the nomination.

SELECTION OF THE SLATE
- ----------------------
All candidates who have accepted the nomination, and had at least two
endorsements from members of the voting roster of the General Assembly, are
considered candidates.
Note: Candidates are allowed to endorse themselves. Members can endorse
multiple candidates.

ELECTION
- --------
Before the start of the election, the (outgoing) Chair selects at least 2
people who are not candidates to act as an election watchdog comittee.
These receive copies of all ballots. The names of the watchdogs are public.

Voting is secret; only the secretariat and the watchdogs get to see the
votes.

Each member of the General Assembly roster receives one ballot listing all
candidate names.
He/she then marks a preference, using "1" for the most favored candidate,
"2" for the second, and so on. There is no requirement to mark all names.

Ballots are sent to an address provided by the Secretariat.

The election period shall be at least one week.

SELECTION OF THE CHAIR
- ----------------------
The number of ballots for each candidate where he is ranked first is
counted.
If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he/she is the winner.

If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots
for that person are counted for the candidate who is ranked next on that
ballot. If there is no ranked candidate left, the ballot is discarded.
If two or more candidates tie for fewest votes, the one listed first on the
ballot is discarded. (NOTE: this choice is essentially random. But flipping
a coin is a process that cannot be repeated by the watchdogs.)

The process is repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
- --------------------------------
The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for chair
is eliminated before the counting starts.

(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in the
selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the electorate rank
one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote for a
third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select a team
that can work well together.)

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:47:30 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> May I suggest a practical way?

I believe I have read all the posts and, other than the referenced contracts, all
of the source material on these matters.  The lack of public input and disclosure
on these matters is exactly the legal problem facing ICANN regarding its'
pseudo-governmental role and control of public assets challenge regarding the
release of the gTLDs. (sorry for the quasi-legal english speak)  I am perhaps
suggesting that the advice our leaders are getting is not all that sound.

I also note a complete lack of Public Relations budgeting in the structure.  If
this is a reflection of arrogance, and I hope not, it is a bad reflection indeed.
ICANN needs to be run like a business which is contracting with the government,
which it is.

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, 1 Mar 2001 23:14:52 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:

> > (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received 
from 
> > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with 
primary 
> > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial 
> > consideration and recommendation to the Board."
> 
> You left out section (g):
> 
>     (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE
>     BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope of
>     primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO TAKE
>     ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO FURTHER
>     THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
>         [Emphasis added]
> 
> If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
> fully empowered to act. 

Oh I agree that from a strictly legal point of view there is no way to stop the 
Board.  But my appeal is to look at the importance of the issues and for them 
not to use what is almost an emergency power to bypass the proper policy 
making/consensus channel of the DNSO.  If the DNSO is ignored on this issue 
then to be honest it might as well pack its bags and go home - its only role 
will be to elect a Board member every year.

The effects of these decisions will be with us for 7 - 10 years.  That is worth 
consulting properly on, especially as the proposed changes have come out of 
thin air - i doubt anyone not on the Board or with NSI even knew there wre 
negiotations happening.  I do not have a problem that the staff have negiotated 
a draft (even though it would have been nice to seek guidance from Names 
Council or initial points of principle rathwer than present a fait accomplit)
but I would have a problem if the DNSO is not given adequate time to consider 
the issues and for them to be the body which recommends the adoption ro 
otherwise.
 
> > There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign agreements 
> > represent major policy changes.  They propose to change the policy that 
> > eventually the registry and registrars for *.com must not have the
> > same owners, they also look at changing the nature of *.org.  It does
> > not get much bigger or wide ranging than this. 
> > 
> > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy change and 
> > there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all about this within the 
> > DNSO.
> 
> No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.

Unfortunately not.  However if perhaps the staff had mentioned that it is 
considered desirable to renegiotate the DNSO could have given some guidance as 
to what is seen as priority areas to concentrate on.
 
> > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the Board *must* 
> > refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall initially consider them and 
> > recommend for or against them to the Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make
> > it clear that the Board should not adopt any policy change unless the SO
> > has recommended it (unless it has been referred back to SO at least
> > once)
> 
> Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of clauses 
> (e) and (f).

Again yes they *can* act but I contend they *should* not act until it has been 
referred to the DNSO and the Names Council is satisfied it have consulted 
enough to be able to recommend a consenus opinion to the Board.

DPF

- --
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 23:22:31 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

I want to correct this post.  Upon reviewing it with the aid of a far more superior
netizen than myself I see that I have committed the same mistake I was critical of
ICANN committing. And pursuant to helpful criticism I received this morning I will
try to say it in clear translatable english.

I am in support of Mr. Morfins' post.  Mr. Roberts was technically correct in his
position.  The problem was a failure of ICANN to explain itself in a positive way.
Public relations would solve this problem.  Because ICANN is made up of intelligent
people that know about Public Relations I understand it as arrogant that they do not
care enough to at least pretend to care what we think.

I hope this is helpful to discussions.  I would like criticism on my lingua franca,
so that I may improve.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > May I suggest a practical way?
>
> I believe I have read all the posts and, other than the referenced contracts, all
> of the source material on these matters.  The lack of public input and disclosure
> on these matters is exactly the legal problem facing ICANN regarding its'
> pseudo-governmental role and control of public assets challenge regarding the
> release of the gTLDs. (sorry for the quasi-legal english speak)  I am perhaps
> suggesting that the advice our leaders are getting is not all that sound.
>
> I also note a complete lack of Public Relations budgeting in the structure.  If
> this is a reflection of arrogance, and I hope not, it is a bad reflection indeed.
> ICANN needs to be run like a business which is contracting with the government,
> which it is.
>
> 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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:05:09 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal for chair election rules for the GA

At 20:36 01/03/2001 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Hello Harald,
>Thank you for your time on this matter. I support the Single Transferable
>Vote procedure you propose. However, I have difficulty with being subject to
>the Secretariat for an announcement to start the process off. We are
>perfectly capable of instigating the procedure ourselves and given the
>impending meeting in Oz, I'd like to see names in the Booth yesterday. Is
>there anything we can do about this?

suggested addition to the election rules:

 >WHEN TO HAVE AN ELECTION
 >------------------------
 >An election is usually held near the end of the term of office for the
 >chair of the General Assembly. The exact time is decided by the outgoing
 >Chairs, or the Names Council if both outgoing Chairs are unavailable.

In the proposal, the Secretariat runs the whole election machinery, so we 
are dependent on the Secretariat having the necessary resources available.
There is no sense in starting an election if the mailservers handling the 
elecction are known to be down for 3 days at the same time, for instance...

I consider the "pre-gathering" of names that we are doing now a Good Thing; 
it will make the process of gathering nominees much quicker once the formal 
process starts.

Note: The NC has decided that it wants to have exactly the same process as 
last year for the "formal" selection - this procedure will run in parallel 
with the "official" procedure.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:36:38 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] perspective

We are all well aware of the of the problems revealed by the recent
thread started by Bretts' post and request to the BoD.  We must
recognize and appreciate the prompt response by Mr. Roberts and Mr.
Peter de Blanc.
In terms of the GA roll I ask for explanations as to why the problem
occurred.

Possibilities:

1. A mistake?

2. Improper intentions?

3. Ignorance?

4. Inability?

I ask that we do not approach the matter and stop but that we as
responsible netizens provide a solution along with any criticism. We
should address not only what caused the problem but how we can fix it.

If the DNSO structure is to work properly here is the place to mix it up
and provide guidance.

A friend just described the GA as "all the dnso dudes and dudettes work
all day in their different factories and then they meet in the union
hall and gripe and complain and expect their voices to be conveyed by
their well spoken buddies to the man."
I feel like we were all sitting around talking about who would be
elected when Brett ran in the door waiving the paper saying read all
about it.  General Assembly is a good term.
So chair or no chair speak your piece so that when I go to Melbourne I
can say what the folks back at the hall have to say.

I am not trying to advocate here. I only want to bring a perspective
that puts all the holders of  underlying sentiments at ease so their
thoughts can be spoken.

It is very clear that there are a lot of members who simply grab their
refreshment and sit back and listen to what us talkers have to say and I
submit they are the true assembly.  The more things change the more they
remain the same.

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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:29:16 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Proposal for chair election rules for the GA

Hello Joanna,

Thursday, March 01, 2001, 5:36:18 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> I'd like to see names in the Booth yesterday. Is
> there anything we can do about this?

There is no booth.  It's all done publicly on the list and to the
email addresses specified.

- -- 
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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 01:30:47 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Hello Joop,

Thursday, March 01, 2001, 3:13:16 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>>Would be helpful. ;-) Does he have a website so the rest of us that don't
> know
>>him, can learn more about him?

> I don't think Roberto had a website, or even a personal domain...

No, but he was known and widely trusted by a significant number of
people on both sides of issues.  That is the kind of chair we need.

- -- 
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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 05:18:10 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

What is really sick - the Board should not be able to push through 
items of this import without consultation of the DNSO.  The fact 
that they have changed by-laws to make the corporation 
omnipotant is where much of the problem lies.  There should be no 
secret negotiations and all board members should be party to any 
such negotiations.  The SO's should always be informed and 
consulted.  If decisions have to be delayed as a result, so be it.  
There is absolutely no reason for this to be approved in two weeks.

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > > (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not
> > > received 
> from 
> > > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any,
> > > with 
> primary 
> > > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for
> > > initial consideration and recommendation to the Board."
> > 
> > You left out section (g):
> > 
> >     (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF
> >     THE BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope
> >     of primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO
> >     TAKE ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
> >     TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
> >         [Emphasis added]
> > 
> > If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
> > fully empowered to act. 
> 
> Oh I agree that from a strictly legal point of view there is no way to
> stop the Board.  But my appeal is to look at the importance of the
> issues and for them not to use what is almost an emergency power to
> bypass the proper policy making/consensus channel of the DNSO.  If the
> DNSO is ignored on this issue then to be honest it might as well pack
> its bags and go home - its only role will be to elect a Board member
> every year.
> 
> The effects of these decisions will be with us for 7 - 10 years.  That
> is worth consulting properly on, especially as the proposed changes
> have come out of thin air - i doubt anyone not on the Board or with
> NSI even knew there wre negiotations happening.  I do not have a
> problem that the staff have negiotated a draft (even though it would
> have been nice to seek guidance from Names Council or initial points
> of principle rathwer than present a fait accomplit) but I would have a
> problem if the DNSO is not given adequate time to consider the issues
> and for them to be the body which recommends the adoption ro
> otherwise.
> 
> > > There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign
> > > agreements represent major policy changes.  They propose to change
> > > the policy that eventually the registry and registrars for *.com
> > > must not have the same owners, they also look at changing the
> > > nature of *.org.  It does not get much bigger or wide ranging than
> > > this. 
> > > 
> > > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy
> > > change and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all
> > > about this within the DNSO.
> > 
> > No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.
> 
> Unfortunately not.  However if perhaps the staff had mentioned that it
> is considered desirable to renegiotate the DNSO could have given some
> guidance as to what is seen as priority areas to concentrate on.
> 
> > > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the
> > > Board *must* refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall
> > > initially consider them and recommend for or against them to the
> > > Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make it clear that the Board should
> > > not adopt any policy change unless the SO has recommended it
> > > (unless it has been referred back to SO at least once)
> > 
> > Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of
> > clauses (e) and (f).
> 
> Again yes they *can* act but I contend they *should* not act until it
> has been referred to the DNSO and the Names Council is satisfied it
> have consulted enough to be able to recommend a consenus opinion to
> the Board.
> 
> DPF
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:17:57 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Helping the nomination process along [was: Proposal for chair election rules for the GA]

At 20:36 1/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>I'd like to see names in the Booth yesterday. Is
>there anything we can do about this?

At your service. :-)

In order to help the nomination process along, I have entered all the names
of the GA voters  in the Polling Booth. (current as of 26 February,
according to the dnso.org  website)
(to my great surprise I did not see Charles Cha'ban's name on the
roster--how many more active DNSO participants are not on the GA list? Karl
Auerbach isn't here either)
284 in all. A few names were double entries.

I understand that this way of nominating has no official standing and that
the names of the candidates who collect the most "nominations" will still
have to be sent by email to  the address yet to be provided by the DNSO
secretariat, but at least it helps to make the preferences of this Assembly
visible.

There are two nominating options and I recommend that you all use them both.
One nominating option limits your choice to a single nomination, the other
allows you to tick multiple nominations.

Let us see what the next four or five days will bring us. The results are
visible as they come in and this time no password is needed to access the
Booth.
(A "free topic" , but you can't nominate from the same machine more than once)

Password security is more important for the election itself.

Happy nominating at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --Joop

- --
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, 02 Mar 2001 13:17:27 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Melbourne - Preliminary Agenda

Good morning.

Sorry for not having been online lately, but I have been sick.
It's getting better now, and I will try to catch up.

In the meantime, I have got outhorization to take time off to participate to 
the ICANN meeting, so there will be a chair for the session.

The draft agenda I propose is the following:
- - administrivia (from Chair, Secretariat, ...)
- - feedback from Constituency meetings (and WGs?)
- - Chair election
- - DNSO review
- - Individuals
- - AOB

As some discussion has been going on about remote participation it may be 
interesting to add:
- - remote participation
- - funding for webcast (without this one the former is moot)

Regards
Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:46:49 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Helping the nomination process along [was: Proposal for chair  election rules for the GA]

This type of "mass nomination" is counter productive, and is exactly
what this process does not need.

Also, listing people without their prior consent is more than a little
impolite.

Friday, March 02, 2001, 3:17:57 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 20:36 1/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>>I'd like to see names in the Booth yesterday. Is
>>there anything we can do about this?

> At your service. :-)

> In order to help the nomination process along, I have entered all the names
> of the GA voters  in the Polling Booth. (current as of 26 February,
> according to the dnso.org  website)
> (to my great surprise I did not see Charles Cha'ban's name on the
> roster--how many more active DNSO participants are not on the GA list? Karl
> Auerbach isn't here either)
> 284 in all. A few names were double entries.

> I understand that this way of nominating has no official standing and that
> the names of the candidates who collect the most "nominations" will still
> have to be sent by email to  the address yet to be provided by the DNSO
> secretariat, but at least it helps to make the preferences of this Assembly
> visible.

> There are two nominating options and I recommend that you all use them both.
> One nominating option limits your choice to a single nomination, the other
> allows you to tick multiple nominations.

> Let us see what the next four or five days will bring us. The results are
> visible as they come in and this time no password is needed to access the
> Booth.
> (A "free topic" , but you can't nominate from the same machine more than once)

> Password security is more important for the election itself.

> Happy nominating at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

> --Joop

> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:12:12 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> I don't think Roberto had a website, or even a personal domain...
> Charles has been active in the Review WG.
> "Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>

But Roberto writes on the lists, so I have an idea of 'What Roberto Thinks and
What Roberto Does' :-)

> I agree. Especially the moderator role requires good background knowledge
> about participants and sound judgement.

Glad we agree. I'm not critising, I just want some more information in which to
make an informed decision.

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items, the
TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
taken.  The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  

Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect to
be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  

I am sure that when I read all the materials, I will have questions. I am
likely to not like some portions, but I think it more important to focus on
reviewing ourselves, and discussing, and asking questions during the periods
such as the GA, the public forum, so that more informed and constructive
feedback can be provided.

I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

Or, again, I could be missing something.

- -----Original Message-----
From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:18 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

What is really sick - the Board should not be able to push through 
items of this import without consultation of the DNSO.  The fact 
that they have changed by-laws to make the corporation 
omnipotant is where much of the problem lies.  There should be no 
secret negotiations and all board members should be party to any 
such negotiations.  The SO's should always be informed and 
consulted.  If decisions have to be delayed as a result, so be it.  
There is absolutely no reason for this to be approved in two weeks.

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > > (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not
> > > received 
> from 
> > > a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any,
> > > with 
> primary 
> > > responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for
> > > initial consideration and recommendation to the Board."
> > 
> > You left out section (g):
> > 
> >     (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF
> >     THE BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope
> >     of primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO
> >     TAKE ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
> >     TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
> >         [Emphasis added]
> > 
> > If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
> > fully empowered to act. 
> 
> Oh I agree that from a strictly legal point of view there is no way to
> stop the Board.  But my appeal is to look at the importance of the
> issues and for them not to use what is almost an emergency power to
> bypass the proper policy making/consensus channel of the DNSO.  If the
> DNSO is ignored on this issue then to be honest it might as well pack
> its bags and go home - its only role will be to elect a Board member
> every year.
> 
> The effects of these decisions will be with us for 7 - 10 years.  That
> is worth consulting properly on, especially as the proposed changes
> have come out of thin air - i doubt anyone not on the Board or with
> NSI even knew there wre negiotations happening.  I do not have a
> problem that the staff have negiotated a draft (even though it would
> have been nice to seek guidance from Names Council or initial points
> of principle rathwer than present a fait accomplit) but I would have a
> problem if the DNSO is not given adequate time to consider the issues
> and for them to be the body which recommends the adoption ro
> otherwise.
> 
> > > There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign
> > > agreements represent major policy changes.  They propose to change
> > > the policy that eventually the registry and registrars for *.com
> > > must not have the same owners, they also look at changing the
> > > nature of *.org.  It does not get much bigger or wide ranging than
> > > this. 
> > > 
> > > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy
> > > change and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all
> > > about this within the DNSO.
> > 
> > No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.
> 
> Unfortunately not.  However if perhaps the staff had mentioned that it
> is considered desirable to renegiotate the DNSO could have given some
> guidance as to what is seen as priority areas to concentrate on.
> 
> > > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the
> > > Board *must* refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall
> > > initially consider them and recommend for or against them to the
> > > Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make it clear that the Board should
> > > not adopt any policy change unless the SO has recommended it
> > > (unless it has been referred back to SO at least once)
> > 
> > Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of
> > clauses (e) and (f).
> 
> Again yes they *can* act but I contend they *should* not act until it
> has been referred to the DNSO and the Names Council is satisfied it
> have consulted enough to be able to recommend a consenus opinion to
> the Board.
> 
> DPF
> 
> 
> --
> 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
- --
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, 2 Mar 2001 08:54:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> Or, again, I could be missing something.

It's your day job; some of us have to try to do all the reading in the
next 9 days, while also doing our day job.  We desperately need to
prioritize.  

Also, it's all in English, which is not the first language of many
participants.

Also, much of it is in lawyerese, which is not even the second language of
many participants.  They need time to check with counsel, or find lawyer
friends to help them explain it.  A lot of the more informal sector relies
on secondary sources to help them through the maze.  Authors of such tomes
need time to write them, and then readers need time to digest them.  That
time is not there.

In short, what you are missing, I think, is that you are too modest to
realize that you do this much faster than most people who try to do this.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 02 Mar 2001 09:56:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, wecan as k substantive questions

I think the following partial post illustrates the importance of the work
being done here. It definitely highlights the language problem, even as it
leaves out the technical third language of many. Mr. Morfin made a post
yesterday which I think is a good place to start curing the systemic problem
of lack of transparency.  Unless they are confidential, as in attorney client
privilege, they should be posted. By "they" I mean documents and notices of
communications.  In California we use a group of laws called the Brown act
which is very helpful in understanding the concept of openness.

I also believe that it is not too onerous to immediately post the notices in
at least 3 languages du jour. (or is that de jour, my spell check says either)

Sincerely,

p.s. I will not cross post this to the wg-review but I will re-post because it
is on point with the work in education and outreach.

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> Also, it's all in English, which is not the first language of many
> participants.
>
> Also, much of it is in lawyerese, which is not even the second language of
> many participants.  They need time to check with counsel, or find lawyer
> friends to help them explain it.  A lot of the more informal sector relies
> on secondary sources to help them through the maze.  Authors of such tomes
> need time to write them, and then readers need time to digest them.  That
> time is not there.
>

- --
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 #260
************************