Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #311
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 311

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:43:44 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

Kent,

>
>I use the word "useless" to describe the "rule", because under this
>"rule", precisely one voter can pass a resolution, and no reasonable
>person from the NC or the Board or anywhere else is going to give any
>weight whatsoever to a "resolution" supported only by a single vote.

What Harald pointed out is that, useful or useless, we *do* have rules, that 
are known by everybody, or at least they should.
What happened looks like "déjà vu". The GA takes a vote (or a poll, or 
debates an issue), reaches rough consensus of the people that did vote (or 
expressed an opinion), and the "losing" part complains about the small 
number of voters. I've seen this before, I will see this again.

Folks, you all know the reality.
You all know that this list is just a subset of the Internet community (less 
than 300 people over a population of millions), and that just a small 
minority votes.
We have two possibilities:
1. to say that altogether this GA has no sense, and save our time for 
something else (or go play in another sandbox), or
2. try to get the best out of it, try to make the more out of the small 
resources and participation, try to have a meaningful debate.

Option number 2., IMHO, means also to accept the results of the (limited) 
participation, and not to cry foul if we don't like them.

>
>Therefore, one still must go back and analyze any vote to determine the
>level of support it had, to decide if the result should be given any
>weight.  Hence the "rule" has no significance.

Of course one must analyse the numbers.
That is why I gave the exact numbers in my report to the NC: I am not hiding 
the fact that only 27 people (over a GA of 300, over a population of 
millions) have voted, but this is what we managed to do with the *very 
limited* timeframe that has been imposed upon us.
Give us more time, and we'll do better.

The NC knows the reality, and will take this into account for what it is. It 
will most probably give it the correct weight.
But to me, no doubt exists that the GA has expressed rough consensus on 
option A.

Best 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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:21:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Roberto,

Monday, March 26, 2001, 11:04:47 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William,

>>
>>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.

> Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have 
> registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the possibility 
> that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot of 
> people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
> Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about the 
> eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter can 
> be enforced.

I've tried to find those messages, and found only one that says they
were concerned about just the issue of existing .org holders losing
their names compared to all of the others that opposed any change in
the charter.

>>
>>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.

> Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.
> I only stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that 
> the current bona-fide registrations be kept.
> In all fairness, this is what I understood.

No, but it implies that the GA thinks that a change in the charter
would be something that should be considered (not that it should be
changed, but that it even warrants consideration) rather than the out
and out statement that such a change should not even be open for
consideration.

> Nevertheless, we are now discussing just the VeriSign contract: there will 
> still be time to discuss explicitely about the possibility of a new charter 
> for .org,

Really, Roberto, are you so naive to think that if Option B goes ahead
and the changes .org were not an implied part of the deal with
Verisign, even if that's not what is on the papers themselves?

- -- 
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 14:36:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  Roberto, the main disconnect in your report and subsequent comments
below is that the consensus seem to be that NO changes to the current
registration practice for .ORG or .NET is made in perpetuity.  Your comments
below and your report differ on this point dramatically.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William,
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have
> registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the possibility
> that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot of
> people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
> Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about the
> eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter can
> be enforced.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.
> I only stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that
> the current bona-fide registrations be kept.
> In all fairness, this is what I understood.
>
> Nevertheless, we are now discussing just the VeriSign contract: there will
> still be time to discuss explicitely about the possibility of a new charter
> for .org, and following that discussion, a straw poll and/or a vote can be
> called. Incidentally, my personal opinion is also that the charter shall not
> be changed, as I stated in a couple of posts: but my own opinion and the
> posts of few other people that expressed similar positions is, IMHO, not
> sufficient to call it a consensus. We have enough problems with the people
> that estimate that 24 to 2 is not consensus enough, you can imagine the
> reactions to a consensus call that was more dubious.
>
> The main message this time was the favour to option A, and the reasons
> thereof. This is on record now. The management of .org can be discussed if
> option B prevails.
>
> 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

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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:26:01 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

Hello Kent,

Monday, March 26, 2001, 7:50:42 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> I use the word "useless" to describe the "rule", because under this
> "rule", precisely one voter can pass a resolution, and no reasonable
> person from the NC or the Board or anywhere else is going to give any
> weight whatsoever to a "resolution" supported only by a single vote.

> Therefore, one still must go back and analyze any vote to determine the
> level of support it had, to decide if the result should be given any
> weight.  Hence the "rule" has no significance.

Funny how this comes out only when a consensus that is against an
ICANN policy is adopted.

I'd give Kent and Dave credibility if they would just a few times be
against something ICANN has proposed or is doing.

And if they would stop trying to discredit a consensus simply because
it is against an ICANN policy or proposal.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:33:47 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Determining a "Valid Consensus"

On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:41 AM (AEST)
Bruce James <[email-masked]> wrote:

> A valid consensus can only be determined based on those that participate.
> Those who choose not to voice an opinion/vote do so at their own risk.
>
> American voting history shows that in a given public vote on a local issue a
> 5% to 10% turnout of voters happens. A sad fact of voter apathy. This group
> is no different.

Hi Bruce

In Australia it is well-known that there is compulsory voting in that there are
reasonably heavy penalties for anyone on the electoral roll who doesn't vote.
This seems like a generally "good idea" to most of the electorate.

In fact, it distorts the system in other ways.  There are unanticipated side
effects which I do not really need to go into right now.  However, I'll make a
couple of points.

One is the high rate of spoilt ballots papers.  Voters will often just write
offensive words or vote in unapproved ways (with ticks instead of crosses for
example).  A second is the difficulty that the Electoral Office has in
maintaining the register.  Many of the citizenry avoid getting their name on the
electoral roll in the first place as they can't be penalised if they are not on
the electoral roll.  You then end up with a real "silent majority" who cannot
even be targetted by the political groups.

But what I think is more important is that most voters will vote for their
preferred political party in the same way, year in year out.  As the country is
divided into constituencies political parties can easily recognise so-called
"safe seats".  These loyal seats get ignored by everybody.  All politicians
simply target the "marginals" especially those where a small swing is needed to
change the seat's status.

Where people have the choice of not participating, the political process is most
interesting.  First there is the challenge to target everybody (just to get them
to vote) then there is the need to persuade them which way to vote.

With mailing lists, some people do more work than others.  That's human nature.
As well some people will pick and choose the issues.  Some, for example, only
got involved with the ORG part of the discussion.  Others might take a "meta"
view and monitor the way the debate is going.  If the debate reflects their
views anyway, there is no need to get actively involved.  It doesn't mean they
are not interested.  That's why the "straw poll" is so necessary -- it gets a
good sense of the numbers.

Australia also has a system of "proportional representation" which allows
minority views to have an influence.  There really is no point in participating
in the process if you are always going to be outvoted.  That's what causes
minorities, like the Basque separatists in Spain, to take direct, often violent,
action.  In that case, at least it is certainly not because of voter apathy.

Some people, therefore, are more interested in making sure that the system
itself is functioning properly to reflect a "valid consensus".  The fact that
there are, what?, 291 people with a DNSO vote shows that there are much deeper
problems.  The push for an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency, for
example, reflects the need to get more people involved.

In fact, it is my view that modern politicians treat the population as composed
of so many "virtual" constituencies.  They target "women", "African-Americans",
"Hispanics", "the middle-class", "blue-collar workers", "students", "senior
citizens", etc as individual virtual constituencies.  Apathy on some issues is
then replaced by intense interest in relation to issues of direct personal
concern.

With electronic voting becoming common, I see more "straw polls" being
conducted.  Politicians are becoming more capable of satisfying the needs of
each virtual constituency in a way that starts to become truly democratic.  Then
you have cross-constituency membership.  A "woman" may be both a "student" and
"middle class" as well as being "African-American".  Any politician who can
satisfy all of her needs is truly taking a participative approach.  And I like
it.

That's why I'd like to see the present "physical" constituency structure of the
DNSO revised and made "virtual".  Of course, there must be constituencies but
these should be flexible.  Individuals, small businesses, major corporates,
registrars, countries, ISPs and other service providers, all need to be
represented.  Clearly some of these groups cross constituency boundaries.

I truly expect this particular debate to become the most challenging in the
modern world.  Perhaps it should start here in the DNSO General Assembly.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 15:28:58 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:43:44PM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Kent,
[...]
> 
> What Harald pointed out is that, useful or useless, we *do* have rules, 
> that  are known by everybody, or at least they should.

The discussion, recall, started from someone's mistaken claim that 
three votes passed a historic law in the US.  It was pointed out that 
the USG procedures define a quorum which make it impossible for such a 
thing to happen.  I said that the GA does not have such a rule, but I 
did not express it clearly.  We have rules, indeed, but we don't have a 
rule like that (with exception to the case when it is the voting rules 
themselves which are being voted on).

> What happened looks like "déjà vu". The GA takes a vote (or a poll, or 
> debates an issue), reaches rough consensus of the people that did vote (or 
> expressed an opinion), and the "losing" part complains about the small 
> number of voters. I've seen this before, I will see this again.

And the "winning side" always tries to claim that the result is
legitimate and authoritative, regardless of how ludicrous that might 
be.  You have seen that before, and you will see that again, as well.  
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the emphasis on voting 
is fundamentally destructive, and that it only serves to further 
polarize things.

> 
> Folks, you all know the reality.
> You all know that this list is just a subset of the Internet community (less 
> than 300 people over a population of millions), and that just a small 
> minority votes.
> We have two possibilities:
> 1. to say that altogether this GA has no sense, and save our time for 
> something else (or go play in another sandbox), or
> 2. try to get the best out of it, try to make the more out of the small 
> resources and participation, try to have a meaningful debate.
> 
> Option number 2., IMHO, means also to accept the results of the (limited) 
> participation, and not to cry foul if we don't like them.

1) Reminding people of limited participation is not crying "foul".  
Limited participation is a fact that everyone needs to keep in mind, 
not just the "losers".  (Love those polarizing terms, don't you?)

2) It is completely unrealistic to expect people to say "Oh, the GA
decided such and so, so I'm going to shut up and accept the decision of
the GA as the final word".  What comes out of the GA is just what comes
out of the GA.  Itis not binding on anyone, and every single participant
will pursue whatever other avenues are available to try to influence
events in their favor.

The GA has no mandate to be a decision-making body, and it is not
structured to be one.  It was intended to be forum, and a source of
people to do work. 

> >Therefore, one still must go back and analyze any vote to determine the
> >level of support it had, to decide if the result should be given any
> >weight.  Hence the "rule" has no significance.
> 
> Of course one must analyse the numbers.

That is all I reall said, you know...

- -- 
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:27:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Determining a "Valid Consensus"

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:41 AM (AEST)
> Bruce James <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > A valid consensus can only be determined based on those that participate.
> > Those who choose not to voice an opinion/vote do so at their own risk.
> >
> > American voting history shows that in a given public vote on a local issue a
> > 5% to 10% turnout of voters happens. A sad fact of voter apathy. This group
> > is no different.
>
> Hi Bruce
>
> In Australia it is well-known that there is compulsory voting in that there are
> reasonably heavy penalties for anyone on the electoral roll who doesn't vote.
> This seems like a generally "good idea" to most of the electorate.

  Agreed.   This sort of thing should be done within the ICANN Process.
I seriously doubt that this will happen however....

>
>
> In fact, it distorts the system in other ways.  There are unanticipated side
> effects which I do not really need to go into right now.  However, I'll make a
> couple of points.
>
> One is the high rate of spoilt ballots papers.  Voters will often just write
> offensive words or vote in unapproved ways (with ticks instead of crosses for
> example).  A second is the difficulty that the Electoral Office has in
> maintaining the register.  Many of the citizenry avoid getting their name on the
> electoral roll in the first place as they can't be penalised if they are not on
> the electoral roll.  You then end up with a real "silent majority" who cannot
> even be targetted by the political groups.
>
> But what I think is more important is that most voters will vote for their
> preferred political party in the same way, year in year out.  As the country is
> divided into constituencies political parties can easily recognise so-called
> "safe seats".  These loyal seats get ignored by everybody.  All politicians
> simply target the "marginals" especially those where a small swing is needed to
> change the seat's status.
>
> Where people have the choice of not participating, the political process is most
> interesting.  First there is the challenge to target everybody (just to get them
> to vote) then there is the need to persuade them which way to vote.
>
> With mailing lists, some people do more work than others.  That's human nature.
> As well some people will pick and choose the issues.  Some, for example, only
> got involved with the ORG part of the discussion.  Others might take a "meta"
> view and monitor the way the debate is going.  If the debate reflects their
> views anyway, there is no need to get actively involved.  It doesn't mean they
> are not interested.  That's why the "straw poll" is so necessary -- it gets a
> good sense of the numbers.
>
> Australia also has a system of "proportional representation" which allows
> minority views to have an influence.  There really is no point in participating
> in the process if you are always going to be outvoted.  That's what causes
> minorities, like the Basque separatists in Spain, to take direct, often violent,
> action.  In that case, at least it is certainly not because of voter apathy.
>
> Some people, therefore, are more interested in making sure that the system
> itself is functioning properly to reflect a "valid consensus".  The fact that
> there are, what?, 291 people with a DNSO vote shows that there are much deeper
> problems.  The push for an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency, for
> example, reflects the need to get more people involved.

  The current chair and co-chair have done more to discourage and really
prevent other interested parties to participate within the DNSO through
selective censorship.  This has been a documented part of the DNSO and
ICANN historical record now.  As such, gaining additional participation
has been and by the illegitimate current DNSO rules, will continue to be
thwarted or blocked in some way or another...

>
>
> In fact, it is my view that modern politicians treat the population as composed
> of so many "virtual" constituencies.  They target "women", "African-Americans",
> "Hispanics", "the middle-class", "blue-collar workers", "students", "senior
> citizens", etc as individual virtual constituencies.  Apathy on some issues is
> then replaced by intense interest in relation to issues of direct personal
> concern.
>
> With electronic voting becoming common, I see more "straw polls" being
> conducted.  Politicians are becoming more capable of satisfying the needs of
> each virtual constituency in a way that starts to become truly democratic.  Then
> you have cross-constituency membership.  A "woman" may be both a "student" and
> "middle class" as well as being "African-American".  Any politician who can
> satisfy all of her needs is truly taking a participative approach.  And I like
> it.
>
> That's why I'd like to see the present "physical" constituency structure of the
> DNSO revised and made "virtual".  Of course, there must be constituencies but
> these should be flexible.  Individuals, small businesses, major corporates,
> registrars, countries, ISPs and other service providers, all need to be
> represented.  Clearly some of these groups cross constituency boundaries.

  Also clearly many within these and other groups are NOT represented
and have been blocked form participating actively.

>
>
> I truly expect this particular debate to become the most challenging in the
> modern world.  Perhaps it should start here in the DNSO General Assembly.

  It has been discussed, debated on several occasions if you recall, Patrick.
The result is the same.  If the ICANN BoD does not want these groups,
individuals or organizations to participate, they simply "Create" a rule
preventing their participation.  Hardly an open process...

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 08:48:09 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hi, William.

>
> > Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have
> > registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the 
>possibility
> > that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot 
>of
> > people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
> > Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about 
>the
> > eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter 
>can
> > be enforced.
>
>I've tried to find those messages, and found only one that says they
>were concerned about just the issue of existing .org holders losing
>their names compared to all of the others that opposed any change in
>the charter.

If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on option 
A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus call on 
something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it has 
implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the 
position on the main statement.

>
>No, but it implies that the GA thinks that a change in the charter
>would be something that should be considered (not that it should be
>changed, but that it even warrants consideration) rather than the out
>and out statement that such a change should not even be open for
>consideration.

There's nothing wrong, once the contract issue behind us, in continuing the 
thread on the .org, and ending that thread with a consensus call or a vote. 
I agree with you that, if this question asked, the GA will answer for no 
change in the charter (incidentally, my argumentation for not making the 
consensus call is also that the question was not the one that was asked).
The good thing is that I see among the candidates for the GA Chairmanship 
the master of the consensus, who drove home some important points in WG-C: I 
am sure that if Jon gets elected he will do a beautiful job in fostering 
consensus, and recognizing when there is some.

>
> > Nevertheless, we are now discussing just the VeriSign contract: there 
>will
> > still be time to discuss explicitely about the possibility of a new 
>charter
> > for .org,
>
>Really, Roberto, are you so naive to think that if Option B goes ahead
>and the changes .org were not an implied part of the deal with
>Verisign, even if that's not what is on the papers themselves?

No, I'm not *so* naive.
But also think that with our limited resources we cannot fight *all the 
battles* at the same time. The battle for .org will keep us busy for the 
next months, once the contract is behind us - see, I'm not even so naive to 
think that any input will change what is already a done deal :<(

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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:01:42 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Roberto,

Monday, March 26, 2001, 10:48:09 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi, William.

>>
>> > Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have
>> > registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the 
>>possibility
>> > that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot 
>>of
>> > people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
>> > Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about 
>>the
>> > eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter 
>>can
>> > be enforced.
>>
>>I've tried to find those messages, and found only one that says they
>>were concerned about just the issue of existing .org holders losing
>>their names compared to all of the others that opposed any change in
>>the charter.

> If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
> On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on option 
> A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus call on 
> something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it has 
> implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the 
> position on the main statement.

I disagree. The FAQ clearly shows that the issue of .org's charter was
an integral part of the talks between the two parties, and that makes
it very much a part of the discussion of this agreement.

The decision to turn it over to a non-profit entity appears to be a
final decision if Plan B is approved, according to the staff answers
in the FAQ.

That was why everyone was pushing for a strong statement on that as a
part of the comments of this agreement.

The .org issue is a BIG part of these contracts, and it deserved to be
a part of our position.

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:09:15 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

At 15:28 26/03/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>The discussion, recall, started from someone's mistaken claim that
>three votes passed a historic law in the US.  It was pointed out that
>the USG procedures define a quorum which make it impossible for such a
>thing to happen.  I said that the GA does not have such a rule, but I
>did not express it clearly.  We have rules, indeed, but we don't have a
>rule like that (with exception to the case when it is the voting rules
>themselves which are being voted on).

the important point is that when we have a rule, and you think that this 
rule is not the right one, the Right Thing is to lobby for changing the rule.

I have not yet seen anyone propose that the GA adopt a minimum quorum for 
resolutions (I personally think this would not be helpful, btw).

                Harald

- --
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:23:10 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
No, I'm not *so* naive.
But also think that with our limited resources we cannot fight *all the
battles* at the same time. The battle for .org will keep us busy for the
next months, once the contract is behind us - see, I'm not even so naive to
think that any input will change what is already a done deal :<(

Hello Roberto,
Those of us who believe our opinions count do not appreciate the GA Chair
confirming directly to the NC Chair and DNSO Council, not to mention the
public archive, that we are in the loser's camp before the jury is out.
Certainly you are naive to think an individual voice cannot make a
difference to the outcome of deliberations. Let me assure you that even if
you have no experience in this regard, it happens all the time.
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:59:48 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Joanna,

Thank you for putting it so directly.  I was thinking the same thing
myself.

I'm very disappointed in this report and its failure to directly
report the full concerns of the participants.

Monday, March 26, 2001, 11:23:10 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
> No, I'm not *so* naive.
> But also think that with our limited resources we cannot fight *all the
> battles* at the same time. The battle for .org will keep us busy for the
> next months, once the contract is behind us - see, I'm not even so naive to
> think that any input will change what is already a done deal :<(

> Hello Roberto,
> Those of us who believe our opinions count do not appreciate the GA Chair
> confirming directly to the NC Chair and DNSO Council, not to mention the
> public archive, that we are in the loser's camp before the jury is out.
> Certainly you are naive to think an individual voice cannot make a
> difference to the outcome of deliberations. Let me assure you that even if
> you have no experience in this regard, it happens all the time.
> 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

- -- 
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:32:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
> No, I'm not *so* naive.
> But also think that with our limited resources we cannot fight *all the
> battles* at the same time. The battle for .org will keep us busy for the
> next months, once the contract is behind us - see, I'm not even so naive to
> think that any input will change what is already a done deal :<(
>
> Hello Roberto,
> Those of us who believe our opinions count do not appreciate the GA Chair
> confirming directly to the NC Chair and DNSO Council, not to mention the
> public archive, that we are in the loser's camp before the jury is out.

  I too am very concerned in this regard.  It is a problem that seems to
plague the ICANN process as a whole, not just the DNSO GA.  This
problem has been discussed and debated on several occasions.  The chair
responded with the banning of those that were concerned and expressing
those concerns...

>
> Certainly you are naive to think an individual voice cannot make a
> difference to the outcome of deliberations. Let me assure you that even if
> you have no experience in this regard, it happens all the time.
> Joanna

  Agreed.  I reflect back to the "Federalist Papers" where James Monroe
was almost signally responsible for most of them being published, and also
the primary author.

>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 22:50:57 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .ORG  STRAW POLL

>Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have 
>registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the possibility 
>that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot of 
>people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
>Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about the 
>eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter can 
>be enforced.
>

To make it clear how the "active participants" think about the issue, we
should do another straw poll. 

1. Do you feel that .org should remain open and self-selected, as is the
status quo at the moment. Yes[ ] No [ ]

2. Would you accept an enforced non-commercial charter for .org  if
guarantees were given that no current registration (a cut-off date needs to
be specified) would be affected, ever?  Yes [ ]  No [ ]

3. Would you accept an enforced non-commercial charter for .org  if  NO
guarantees were given that no current registration would be affected?  Yes
[ ] No [ ] 

Alternative formulations of these questions are most welcome. I can put
them up in the Booth to alleviate list traffic.
I agree with other GA members that the moment for making a pronouncement
on  .org is now. It is part and parcel of the Verisign contract issue. 

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #311
************************