Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #309
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 26 2001            Volume 01 : Number 309

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:02:48 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
vote, means agreement.

I find that in many groups, it means too many messages, not caught up yet,
not sure, etc.

If that is the case (not saying it is), for the GA numbers, is there a
problem with asserting that there is consensus? Perhaps it is that the
consensus is among those who voted?

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:36 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 3:30:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Ah, you're right, I should have been clearer about the forum language.
> Well, maybe then, there is that flexibility  if enough concur.  But, can
you
> live with his original language, though? 

I don't see it as representative of the consensus of the GA.

It implies that the GA thinks a change in the policy for .org IS
something that should be considered provided that existing registrants
aren't required to give up their names.

I haven't seen any such consensus here on that, nor do I think that
statement is appropriate or reflective of the sense of the GA.

- -- 
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, 25 Mar 2001 16:13:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 4:02:48 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
> know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
> GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
> vote, means agreement.

No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
taken into account, and it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever that
should be taken into account.

It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
it being the consensus.

The actual number participating is really not that important, except
to those who oppose the consensus and want to make it appear
illegitimate.

I saw Chuck make that argument in a half-way fashion as well.  I found
it kind of amusing, since I could tell it goes against his personal
grain to make such an argument, but in his role as a representative of
Verisign, he had to make it (not to mention that this agreement will
almost certainly make his stock options worth a lot more).

One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
invalid.

If they were silent, they were silent by their own choice. Either they
didn't want their opinion taken into account, they had no opinion, or
they saw that there was already sufficient support for their position
and saw no reason to enter the fray.

Those are the only reasonable and legitimate conclusions that can be
drawn from the level of non-participation.

- -- 
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, 25 Mar 2001 19:13:03 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

or, a gentle reminder, they were offline, engaged in other things, or not
paying attention, or unable to decide in time.

Do you allow for those as well?

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 7:13 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 4:02:48 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
> know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
> GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure
to
> vote, means agreement.

No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
taken into account, and it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever that
should be taken into account.

It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
it being the consensus.

The actual number participating is really not that important, except
to those who oppose the consensus and want to make it appear
illegitimate.

I saw Chuck make that argument in a half-way fashion as well.  I found
it kind of amusing, since I could tell it goes against his personal
grain to make such an argument, but in his role as a representative of
Verisign, he had to make it (not to mention that this agreement will
almost certainly make his stock options worth a lot more).

One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
invalid.

If they were silent, they were silent by their own choice. Either they
didn't want their opinion taken into account, they had no opinion, or
they saw that there was already sufficient support for their position
and saw no reason to enter the fray.

Those are the only reasonable and legitimate conclusions that can be
drawn from the level of non-participation.

- -- 
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, 25 Mar 2001 16:18:46 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 4:13:03 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> or, a gentle reminder, they were offline, engaged in other things, or not
> paying attention, or unable to decide in time.

> Do you allow for those as well?

Again, those are by personal choice.

By not participating, they voluntarily gave up their rights to be
included, REGARDLESS of what the reasons were.

If a Senator is ill, and doesn't show up for a vote, and it passes
50-49, with his absence, he can't later demand that it be invalidated
because he was otherwise occupied.  Same with a voter in an election.
If the vote was decided by 1 vote, and he was unable to vote because
he was in an out of town conference unexpectedly, he doesn't have the
right to declare the election invalid because of his
non-participation, regardless of the reason for it.

- -- 
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, 25 Mar 2001 19:20:01 -0500
From: "Mark Carter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Please unsubscribe

Unsubscribe ga

- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 19:29:43 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OLYMPIC.com

Kendall et al.,

This issue around the word "Olympic" is one which
is particulalry close to my heart as an
individual.  So, please understand that what I
have to say on the issue is charged with a very
personal, emotional passion.

The interesting thing about the term "Olympic" on
the Web is the following: http://www.olympic.com/ 
PPG Industries doesn't have a problem getting
permission to use the domain!  This sort of thing
is really a good example of where the US Internet
Policy interests lie...  

There must be a million business in the
Continental US which employ the word Olympic as
part of their business name... but you don't see
the USOC chasing them down to ask permission! 
Only when it comes to the Web.  They should be
ashamed.  Any decent American with any common
sense about them should be ashamed of the manner
in which such people give all Americans a
bad/silly name.  Such grasping, avaricious
behaviour really is a disservice and a discredit
to what was once the most noble country on earth. 
People used to look to America for the example of
all things good in a society... I strongly suspect
that this is not the case any more.

As a person of Greek heritage, I am particularly
offended by this specific, ludicrous state of
affairs: the word "Olympic" does not belong to
Corporate America, any more than the English
language (or any other) does.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual

Kendall Dawson wrote:
> 
> At 12:55 PM 3/25/01 -0500, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >  Same goes for your selling of domains which were
> >  subsequently claimed/recognized as trademark
> >"property" by large corporate entities, at the
> >expense of the individuals and small businesses
> >that had *legally* registered them.  After all, is
> >it not the case that certain domains were *not*
> >allowed for registration, i.e. "Oylympic"
> >domains?
> 
> Good point Sotiris! There is a small pizza place around the corner from my
> house named "Olympic Pizza". I highly doubt that they would be allowed to
> register "olympicpizza.com" from NSI. (Not to mention the fight from the
> Olympics committee).... Meanwhile, you have people registering names like
> "americanexpress.net" and "attwireless.com" being bought from NSI without
> any problem. Generic words are not "property" and nobody has any god-given
> "right" to use these terms. This is why so many individuals and
> small-businesses are becoming disillusioned with ICANN. And the "Sunrise
> Proposal" is not going to help.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kendall
> 
> --
> 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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:55:43 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Marilyn,

Your reasoning can also be applied to the ICW in
general: 

"Surely ICANN's limited numbers do not represent a
CONSENSUS by the ICW on *any* issues that pertain
to the worldwide Internet?"  

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
> know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
> GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
> vote, means agreement.
> 
> I find that in many groups, it means too many messages, not caught up yet,
> not sure, etc.
> 
> If that is the case (not saying it is), for the GA numbers, is there a
> problem with asserting that there is consensus? Perhaps it is that the
> consensus is among those who voted?
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:36 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract
> 
> Hello Marilyn,
> 
> Sunday, March 25, 2001, 3:30:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> > Ah, you're right, I should have been clearer about the forum language.
> > Well, maybe then, there is that flexibility  if enough concur.  But, can
> you
> > live with his original language, though?
> 
> I don't see it as representative of the consensus of the GA.
> 
> It implies that the GA thinks a change in the policy for .org IS
> something that should be considered provided that existing registrants
> aren't required to give up their names.
> 
> I haven't seen any such consensus here on that, nor do I think that
> statement is appropriate or reflective of the sense of the GA.
> 
> --
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 20:04:11 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

- --------------ms98F5FF2D39FCC010E3244EA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> If a Senator is ill, and doesn't show up for a vote, and it passes
> 50-49, with his absence, he can't later demand that it be invalidated
> because he was otherwise occupied.  Same with a voter in an election.
> If the vote was decided by 1 vote, and he was unable to vote because
> he was in an out of town conference unexpectedly, he doesn't have the
> right to declare the election invalid because of his
> non-participation, regardless of the reason for it.

In fact, the adoption of the US Federal Reserve as
the monetary arbiter of the US Currency was
resolved by a mere three voters... unanimously,
with the rest of the House being absent/away on
vacation at the time(!) If this doesn't squash the
illegitimacy based on numbers argument, then I
really don't know what will... 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual
- --------------ms98F5FF2D39FCC010E3244EA0
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

- --------------ms98F5FF2D39FCC010E3244EA0--

- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 20:32:27 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CORRECTION!!!

This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.

- --------------ms3FEB969A500CAEB43E6F2925
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I made a HUGE error.  In fact, the Senate passed
the Federal Reserve Bill 43 to 25, with a total of
only 68 Senators present for the vote!!! (not 3!)
and by a difference of 18 votes... certainly NOT a
consensus by our current definition.  The absence
of the rest of the Senators was not an
invalidation of their vote... Had Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison or Andrew Jackson been
around, they would have no doubt started a second
American revolution!

Anyway, I apologize for that HUGE mistake... but
there's plenty of false information on the Web.  I
was a little suspicios of it myslef, so I checked
it out.. too late (as I'd already sent the post). 
Again, I apologize for the error.  

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual

P.S. This is my last post to the List today, as it
is my fifth.
- --------------ms3FEB969A500CAEB43E6F2925
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

- --------------ms3FEB969A500CAEB43E6F2925--

- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 17:57:42 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!

Hello Sotiropoulos,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 5:32:27 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I made a HUGE error.  In fact, the Senate passed
> the Federal Reserve Bill 43 to 25, with a total of
> only 68 Senators present for the vote!!! (not 3!)
> and by a difference of 18 votes... certainly NOT a
> consensus by our current definition.  The absence
> of the rest of the Senators was not an
> invalidation of their vote... Had Thomas
> Jefferson, James Madison or Andrew Jackson been
> around, they would have no doubt started a second
> American revolution!

Yes, in fact, under the rules, only 26 members could pass any
legislation, provided the smallest quorum is present (51 members).
members)

- -- 
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, 25 Mar 2001 19:27:00 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 05:57:42PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Sotiropoulos,
> 
> Sunday, March 25, 2001, 5:32:27 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> > I made a HUGE error.  In fact, the Senate passed
> > the Federal Reserve Bill 43 to 25, with a total of
> > only 68 Senators present for the vote!!! (not 3!)
> > and by a difference of 18 votes... certainly NOT a
> > consensus by our current definition.  The absence
> > of the rest of the Senators was not an
> > invalidation of their vote... Had Thomas
> > Jefferson, James Madison or Andrew Jackson been
> > around, they would have no doubt started a second
> > American revolution!
> 
> Yes, in fact, under the rules, only 26 members could pass any
> legislation, provided the smallest quorum is present (51 members).
> members)

The salient point here is that THERE IS A QUORUM RULE.  There is a clear
definition of exactly how many people are participating, how they got
there, and exactly how many of them it takes pass something.

That is not the case here.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:28:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I, myself have been more of a silent participant lately.  And while I was abroad,
I found the amount of mail often annoying and it just hit me that I did not
"unsubscribe" because I remained dedicated to learning and interested and ready
to act when I felt required.  I also related the information to many others who
like my summary but did not dare care to sign up.  I even think of the sites that
report on what happens here when deserving in their judgment.  I also think of
the responses from the BoD and NC when a post here requests it.
I often am amazed at the think tank that posts here.  And I give special thanks
to you intellectual and trained giants that contribute.
The GA meeting room had plenty of attendees in Melbourne but few got up to speak,
I also counted over thirty online particpants inside/out.  I am convinced that
those that remain on list are generally participating.  Actions and consensus
achieved here have the backing of the interested masses.
Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Sunday, March 25, 2001, 4:02:48 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
> > know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
> > GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
> > vote, means agreement.
>
> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
> taken into account, and it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever that
> should be taken into account.
>
> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
> it being the consensus.
>
> The actual number participating is really not that important, except
> to those who oppose the consensus and want to make it appear
> illegitimate.
>
> I saw Chuck make that argument in a half-way fashion as well.  I found
> it kind of amusing, since I could tell it goes against his personal
> grain to make such an argument, but in his role as a representative of
> Verisign, he had to make it (not to mention that this agreement will
> almost certainly make his stock options worth a lot more).
>
> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
> invalid.
>
> If they were silent, they were silent by their own choice. Either they
> didn't want their opinion taken into account, they had no opinion, or
> they saw that there was already sufficient support for their position
> and saw no reason to enter the fray.
>
> Those are the only reasonable and legitimate conclusions that can be
> drawn from the level of non-participation.
>
> --
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 00:28:22 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they? ...
> 
> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
> taken into account, ...

Nonsense.

> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
> it being the consensus.

Not voting gives up the right to vote on that issue, nothing more.
 
> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
> invalid.

No, but conversely there is no reason to imagine that a vote indicates
a valid consensus, short of a unanimous vote of all players.
 
> If they were silent, they were silent by their own choice. Either they
> didn't want their opinion taken into account, they had no opinion, or
> they saw that there was already sufficient support for their position
> and saw no reason to enter the fray.

Some of us feel that expressing an opinion on the list, and arguing for
it, is the interesting part. If a consensus is going to emerge, it will
emerge here.

Votes can be a useful exercise, measuring the weight of opinion. They
might confirm a consensus, or help clarify issues en route to one.
- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 22:00:36 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Sandy,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they? ...
>> 
>> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
>> taken into account, ...

> Nonsense.

Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
when deciding what consensus of the GA is?

>> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
>> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
>> it being the consensus.

> Not voting gives up the right to vote on that issue, nothing more.

And it also means that the declaration of consensus cannot be
invalidated because they want to come along later and declare an
objection once the issue has been sent on.

So please, explain your point.

>> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
>> invalid.

> No, but conversely there is no reason to imagine that a vote indicates
> a valid consensus, short of a unanimous vote of all players.

A valid consensus can ONLY be determined based on those that
PARTICIPATE.

So please, again, explain yourself here.

- -- 
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:35:48 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stability

Let us first remember that we are talking policy but the Verisign contracts
are just that, contracts.  I used to be a contract guy, and now I am a
policy guy.  If as the later I do not recognize the former I am ineffective.

When we negotiate contracts we should first look at the adversary and ask
what does he need and want, and more often than not, what does the
negotiator want.  Believe me when dealing with a Chinese General it is far
different than dealing with regional acquisitions expert for IBM.  But maybe
not so different.

What does ICANN have to offer and contractually what can Verisign really
require of us through their contractual rights which have vested or not.
The horrible answer, and one which is even more troubling for the ccTLDs, is
that both parties ain't got squat.  Until changed by Presidential decree
which is supported by US Congress the DOC owns this whole deal.  The bottom
line is that the US Gov. still owns the net and every facet thereof.  These
contracts are not entitlements but are revocable gifts.  They require
compliance with laws which oversee such things.  I do not speak merely of
can and cannots but funding.  What a delicate dance the ccTLDs do when
speaking of each countries rights, of which they have none.

I truly believe that the US Gov. does want to give this thing away
permanently.  But we cannot in such a way.  While ICANN is not a
governmental agency until we can get it together and protect the interests
of the individual user of the net, the US constitution simply (through
complex convolutions) cannot let ICANN have rights to then assign, transfer,
rent, lease, convey or gift to any any.  You simply cannot legally give U.S
property or rights to private or international interests without either or
both due compensation or due process and guarantee of surcharge/taxation
with representation. You must understand if the U.S Gov. owns it all of us
citizens own it.
Call us U.S. dudes crazy but that rule is the rule as simple as I can put
it.

So is it the American Joke; yes!

This brings me to the point of the Verisign contract.  Mr. Gomez, you are
doing a great job.  Unless you convince us this is a good Idea the Versign
deal might be executed but it is as dead as though there were no Verisign.
It is a tough business being a private concessionaire doing business with
the U.S. Gov. through an intermediary.  Tomorrow with a new administration
you could loose everything.  If you think I speak wrongly ask Thikol,
Rockwell, U.S. Steel, Jeep.  I think Ross Perot could help in this area.  If
you own stock in such an endeavor watch it closely.

All of the negative talk about corporate greed is really not helpful and the
obvious resentment of those who have not gotten the representation they want
is not relative to the agreements with Verisign.  The question is simply
should we endorse any agreement and thereby give stakeholder credence to
ICANN.  I am sure Mr. Gomez is doing all this work because he knows a
contract is worthless unless it is arguably a result of the consent of the
taxpayer users.

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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:38:36 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> Hello Sandy,
> 
> Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> >> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they? ...
> >>
> >> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
> >> taken into account, ...
> 
> > Nonsense.
> 
> Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
> when deciding what consensus of the GA is?

The consensus depends on and arises out of the discussion, primarily on
this list. Not voting is quite different from not participating.
 
A vote can be a useful means of measuring support for a position, one of
the inputs to the discussion. That is all it can be in this context.
- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 23:08:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Sandy,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 10:38:36 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Sandy,
>> 
>> Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
>> 
>> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>> 
>> >> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they? ...
>> >>
>> >> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
>> >> taken into account, ...
>> 
>> > Nonsense.
>> 
>> Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
>> when deciding what consensus of the GA is?

> The consensus depends on and arises out of the discussion, primarily on
> this list. Not voting is quite different from not participating.
 
> A vote can be a useful means of measuring support for a position, one of
> the inputs to the discussion. That is all it can be in this context.

What vote are you talking about?

- -- 
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 #309
************************