Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #312
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 312

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:46:38 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
> No, I'm not *so* naive.

> Hello Roberto,
>
> 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
>

If a serious matter is at issue and a plain truth is spoken regarding that
issue, then it does not matter who or how many stated the truth.

If a serious matter is at issue and an opinion is given it is an opinion
regarding the issue and it does matter who or how many stated the opinion.

If one is dealing in the U.S. with matters involving the U.S. government then
both truths and opinions are important.

To members of this list and the NC my opinion may mean nothing and a truth may
not override other concerns.  But regardless of my relative merits when dealing
with such Internet giants, it still carries the weight of being more informed
than probably 99% of the world.

So let us think of a staffer for a senator, or a PR guy for Verisign or a
policy analyst for the DOC.  I believe it safe to say that any consensus we
reach is transparent enough for them to give it due weight and any truth or
opinion I give may have impact.

I am beginning to see a pattern which I believe could be used to make a good
case for the poor NC ending up being the scapegoats if any of these matters
goes seriously wrong. I would certainly not want the job at this time. And I
for one feel that they are responsive to this list. Not that I always like the
responses.

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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:46:39 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.

No need Roberto.  Speaking strictly for myself as
an individual, I believe you accurately depicted
and summarized the general sentiment of those who
spoke up when the opportunity presented itself. 
Nobody was gagged or tied down.  Any dissent
should have been voiced during the appropriate
period.  As far as I can recall, you did state
your intention of issuing a report of the general
feeling based on the straw poll.  After the fact
statements of dissatisfaction are... well, after
the fact.  Perhaps next time, those who feel
discontent at their lack of "active participation"
will take it upon themselves to make their
voice(s) heard.  You are not a psychic are you? 
is anyone else on this list a psychic?  I'm
certainly not.  How can anyone be expected to know
what others think or don't think if they don't
speak for themselves when the situation warrants? 
For someone who has had ample opportunity to speak
up, to come forth and complain after the fact is
rather bad form.  I'm of the opinion that your
report accurately reflected the consensus in the
GA.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Individual
- --
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 08:11:04 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG  STRAW POLL

Joop, thank you for this hard work.  I would prefer that all the questions begin
"are you in favor of". I become squimish about counting how things feel.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I am not in favor of any contractual provisions which will have an effect one
way or the other on the integrity of the .org as it currently exists. (With that
said I do not believe they can, except in a staging for future debate manner.)
Any forewarning we can give to policy makers regarding altering the current
policy on .org should be of great assistance.
I am not in favor of any changes to .org.

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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:31:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
>
> No need Roberto.

For anyone who is in need of clear black and white resolutions, I
suggest that they not try to find that here.  We all have to make our
best judgment calls at the time they are required.  The really important
thing is to keep all of this very transparent so that anyone interested
can judge these matters for themselves.  It is kind of like old math
tests where you had to turn in your worksheet along with your answer.
Even if you get the right answer sometimes it is the process which is
more important.

I perceive Mr. Gaetano's process to be very transparent and any reports
are easily evaluated on their merit.

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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:26:25 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

Within the context of discussions in the Review Working Group, a proposal on
restructuring the DNSO has emerged which will impact both the Names Council
and the General Assembly (if ultimately agreed to as a consensus formulation
by the Review WG, and if subsequently adopted by the ICANN Board).  Letters
have already been sent to Names Council representatives advising them that
as a potentially impacted party, they are being given the opportunity to
review this proposal and to fully participate in ongoing discussions.  As
members of the General Assembly have already been invited to participate in
the efforts of the Review Working Group, this message will serve as
notification that the General Assembly is also a party potentially impacted
by this proposal (which is now in resolution form), and that as such, the
commentary by members of the GA is once more requested.   The resolution as
presented to the working group follows:

To the members of the Review WG - a resolution for your consideration:

Whereas, during the 15 July 2000, Public Forum discussions held in Yokohama
the ICANN Board requested a "working group to address the DNSO Review
process";

Whereas, the ICANN Board designated ICANN Executive Committee member Pindar
Wong to act as Board liaison for the DNSO Review;

Whereas, on 9 August 2000, it was advised that Alejandro Pisanty, also an
ICANN Executive Committee member, will be replacing departing Board member
Pindar Wong in the capacity of liaison to the DNSO review project;

Whereas, on 17 October 2000 Roberto Gaetano, speaking in his capacity as
Chair of the General Assembly, reiterated to the Names Council the mandate
of the ICANN Board to establish a Working Group to pursue the DNSO Review
process;

Whereas, on 14 November 2000 the DNSO Names Council motioned to make
Ms.Y.J.Park the chair of a Working Group "to address certain DNSO specific
issues";

Whereas, during the 15 November 2000 Public Forum discussions held in Marina
del Rey, plans for a "comprehensive review of the DNSO" were confirmed;

Whereas, on19 December 2000, subsequent to another reminder by the Chair of
the General Assembly, the Names Council finally takes the decision to set up
the Working Group Review;

Whereas, on 23 December 2000, the Review Working Group accepted the Terms of
Reference provided by its Chair, Ms. Y.J. Park;

Whereas, beginning on 29 January 2001, members of the Review Working Group
posted their reports independently as public comments to the Report from the
DNSO Review Task Force;

Whereas, beginning on 19 February 2001, members of the Review Working Group
again posted their independent unfiltered conclusions to the Public Comment
Forum on the Report from the DNSO Review Task Force;

Whereas, the Review Working Group has abided by the need for bottoms-up
consensus-based decision-making processes, providing a written report and
supporting materials that (i) document the extent of agreement and
disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) document the outreach process used
to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
likely to be impacted, and (iii) document the nature and intensity of
reasoned support and opposition to the proposed changes;

Whereas, the Review Working Group process has generated over 3100 comments
and has maintained a level of membership far in excess of any other working
group to date;

Whereas, the ICANN Board has received the DNSO Review Report from the Names
Council, and "other materials on the subject";

Whereas, the Review Working Group has responded to ICANN Board resolution
01.28 by preparing a proposal "which may result in changes in the structure
of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning";

Whereas, the Review Working Group has responded to ICANN Board resolution
01.29 by providing "input related to changes that improve operations of the
DNSO as it is constituted today no later than April 16, 2001";

It is therefore

RESOLVED by the Review Working Group that the ICANN Board consider striking
Article VI-B of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers, and replacing it with the following text:

ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION

Section 1. DESCRIPTION

(a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating
to the Domain Name System.
(b) The DNSO shall consist of a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all
interested individuals and entities.

Section 2. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the
DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge
of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has
primary responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and
expertise to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and
development, discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
participation in research and drafting committees and working groups.

(b) The GA shall at a minimum meet in conjunction with regularly scheduled
meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent practicable, all meetings
should be available for online attendance as well as physical attendance.

(c) Administrative and operational costs of GA meetings shall be the
responsibility of ICANN. There shall be no other fees required to
participate in the GA.

(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures approved
by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for the
DNSO.

(e) The GA is responsible for the consensus building process of the DNSO. It
shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that
responsibility, including the designation of such research, drafting
committees, or working groups of the GA as it determines are appropriate to
carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. ALL GA members shall be invited
to participate in each of such bodies. Each of such bodies shall provide
appropriate means, as determined by the GA, for input and such participation
as is practicable under the circumstances by other interested parties. Any
reports or recommendations presented to the GA by such bodies shall be
posted on a web site accessible by the public for public review and comment;
absent clear justification, which shall be publicly stated at the time of
any action, the GA shall not act on any report or recommendation until a
reasonable time for public comment has passed and the GA has reviewed and
evaluated all public comments received. The GA is responsible for ensuring
that all responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a
decision by the GA.

(f) GA participants may propose that the GA consider domain name policies or
recommendations. If the GA undertakes consideration of a domain name topic,
the GA shall designate one or more research or drafting committees, or
working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall
recommend a time frame for the report of such committee or working group
each of whom shall be availed of a public mailing list for as long such
group requires . Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
such a body, the GA shall vote to either accept the report or recommendation
for submission as a consensus recommendation to the Board, or shall return
the report or recommendation to the body from which it originated for
further work.

(g) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the GA participating in such a
vote determine that the DNSO process has produced a community consensus,
that consensus position shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus
recommendation, along with all materials or other information that could
reasonably be relevant to the Board's review of that determination,
including (but not limited to) the dissenting statement(s) of any member(s)
of the GA. If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
members of the GA participating in the vote determine that the DNSO process
has produced a community consensus, that position may be forwarded to the
Board as a GA recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority
views, and any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the
GA. Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative vote
of one-half (1/2) of the members of the GA participating in the vote may be
returned to the body from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new
body, for further work. In such a case, the GA may report to the Board the
lack of a consensus and the steps, if any, it plans to take from this point
forward with respect to this particular recommendation. The GA is
responsible for ensuring that the Board is informed of any significant
implementation or operational concerns expressed by any responsible party.

(h) The GA shall forward to the Board, from among those persons nominated by
the GA, its selection(s) for the Director(s) to fill any open Board
position(s) reserved for the DNSO. Any such selection(s) must have the
affirmative votes of at least one-half (1/2) of all the members of the GA
participating in such vote. At any given time, no two Directors serving on
the Board selected by the GA shall be citizens of the same country or of
countries located in the same Geographic Region.

(i) The term of office for each officer of the GA shall be one year.
Officers of the GA shall be the Chair and Co-Chair of the GA, and the
elected Chair of each research or drafting committee, working group or other
body of the GA.

(j) No more than one officer, director or employee of a corporation or other
organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve as an
officer of the GA at any given time.

(k) Meetings of the GA may be held (i) in person or via teleconference, at
the discretion of the GA, so long as all members of the GA participating can
speak to and hear one another or (ii) via electronic video screen
communication or other communication equipment; provided, that (a) all
members of the GA participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one
another, (b) all members of the GA are provided the means of fully
participating in all matters before the GA and (c) the GA adopts and
implements means of verifying that (x) a person participating in such a
meeting is a member of the GA or other person entitled to participate in the
meeting and (y) all actions of, or votes by, the GA are taken or cast only
by the members of the GA or other persons entitled to cast votes. A majority
of the total number of GA members then in office shall constitute a quorum
for the transaction of business, and the act of a majority of the GA members
present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the
GA, unless otherwise provided herein. Advance notice of such meetings shall
be posted on a web site that is available for public access and, if
reasonably practicable, at least 14 days in advance of the meeting. Meetings
shall be open to physical or electronic attendance by all interested
persons. The GA shall post minutes of its meetings to a web site that is
available for public access as soon as practicable following the meeting,
and no later than 21 days following the meeting.

Section 3. THE GA BODIES

(a) Each Body shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for
participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from
participation in a Body merely because of participation in another Body, and
Bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
fairness.  Each Body will be provided with its own public mailing list, and
will provide a status report to the GA at each meeting.

(b) Each Body shall select one individual to represent that Body.

(c) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the GA for recognition
as a new or separate Body. A Body of the GA shall be deemed formed when at
least 10% of the GA members listed in the GA voting registry offer to the GA
Chair or Co-Chair a charter for such GA body.  Any such petition and charter
will be posted for public comment.  The GA will create new Bodies in
response to such petition.

(d) The initial Bodies shall consist of: individuals, ccTLD registries,
commercial and business entities, gTLD registries, ISP and connectivity
providers, non-commercial domain name holders, registrars, trademark and
other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting interests.  The veto of
any two such bodies will thwart a declaration of consensus by the GA.

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

All comments on this proposal, in favor or against, mild or strong, will be
noted in the Review Working Group's presentation to the ICANN Board.  You
are equally at liberty to offer alternate structural proposals for
consideration; the dialogue will be welcome.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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 09:36:02 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

ICANNs attempt to change the status of dot org runs "against" the current
dot
org definition by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
2900 Crystal Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513

EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99

September 29, 1999

(...)

.com         commercial, for profit organizations
.edu         4 year, degree granting colleges/universities
.gov         U.S. federal government agencies
.int            international organizations
.mil           U.S. military organizations, even if located outside the U.S.
.net           network infrastructure machines and organizations
.org           miscellaneous, usually non-profit organizations and
"individuals"

See:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm

/ Bruce

- --
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 10:24:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

Danny and all remaining assembly members,

  AGAIN, where can one sign up for the WG to which you mention?
I tried to after being invited to do so some weeks ago, and was told that
the WG in question was a PRIVATE ML.  As such, how can you state that
members of the GA are INVITED to participate?   The same problem
also has been reported to me and I reported it to you, Harald, and
the WG chair.  When will this problem be corrected?  Or will it?
Please advise...

babybows.com wrote:

> Within the context of discussions in the Review Working Group, a proposal on
> restructuring the DNSO has emerged which will impact both the Names Council
> and the General Assembly (if ultimately agreed to as a consensus formulation
> by the Review WG, and if subsequently adopted by the ICANN Board).  Letters
> have already been sent to Names Council representatives advising them that
> as a potentially impacted party, they are being given the opportunity to
> review this proposal and to fully participate in ongoing discussions.  As
> members of the General Assembly have already been invited to participate in
> the efforts of the Review Working Group, this message will serve as
> notification that the General Assembly is also a party potentially impacted
> by this proposal (which is now in resolution form), and that as such, the
> commentary by members of the GA is once more requested.   The resolution as
> presented to the working group follows:
>
> To the members of the Review WG - a resolution for your consideration:
>
> Whereas, during the 15 July 2000, Public Forum discussions held in Yokohama
> the ICANN Board requested a "working group to address the DNSO Review
> process";
>
> Whereas, the ICANN Board designated ICANN Executive Committee member Pindar
> Wong to act as Board liaison for the DNSO Review;
>
> Whereas, on 9 August 2000, it was advised that Alejandro Pisanty, also an
> ICANN Executive Committee member, will be replacing departing Board member
> Pindar Wong in the capacity of liaison to the DNSO review project;
>
> Whereas, on 17 October 2000 Roberto Gaetano, speaking in his capacity as
> Chair of the General Assembly, reiterated to the Names Council the mandate
> of the ICANN Board to establish a Working Group to pursue the DNSO Review
> process;
>
> Whereas, on 14 November 2000 the DNSO Names Council motioned to make
> Ms.Y.J.Park the chair of a Working Group "to address certain DNSO specific
> issues";
>
> Whereas, during the 15 November 2000 Public Forum discussions held in Marina
> del Rey, plans for a "comprehensive review of the DNSO" were confirmed;
>
> Whereas, on19 December 2000, subsequent to another reminder by the Chair of
> the General Assembly, the Names Council finally takes the decision to set up
> the Working Group Review;
>
> Whereas, on 23 December 2000, the Review Working Group accepted the Terms of
> Reference provided by its Chair, Ms. Y.J. Park;
>
> Whereas, beginning on 29 January 2001, members of the Review Working Group
> posted their reports independently as public comments to the Report from the
> DNSO Review Task Force;
>
> Whereas, beginning on 19 February 2001, members of the Review Working Group
> again posted their independent unfiltered conclusions to the Public Comment
> Forum on the Report from the DNSO Review Task Force;
>
> Whereas, the Review Working Group has abided by the need for bottoms-up
> consensus-based decision-making processes, providing a written report and
> supporting materials that (i) document the extent of agreement and
> disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) document the outreach process used
> to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
> likely to be impacted, and (iii) document the nature and intensity of
> reasoned support and opposition to the proposed changes;
>
> Whereas, the Review Working Group process has generated over 3100 comments
> and has maintained a level of membership far in excess of any other working
> group to date;
>
> Whereas, the ICANN Board has received the DNSO Review Report from the Names
> Council, and "other materials on the subject";
>
> Whereas, the Review Working Group has responded to ICANN Board resolution
> 01.28 by preparing a proposal "which may result in changes in the structure
> of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning";
>
> Whereas, the Review Working Group has responded to ICANN Board resolution
> 01.29 by providing "input related to changes that improve operations of the
> DNSO as it is constituted today no later than April 16, 2001";
>
> It is therefore
>
> RESOLVED by the Review Working Group that the ICANN Board consider striking
> Article VI-B of the Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers, and replacing it with the following text:
>
> ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
>
> Section 1. DESCRIPTION
>
> (a) The DNSO shall advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating
> to the Domain Name System.
> (b) The DNSO shall consist of a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all
> interested individuals and entities.
>
> Section 2. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
>
> (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
> and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the
> DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge
> of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has
> primary responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and
> expertise to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and
> development, discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
> participation in research and drafting committees and working groups.
>
> (b) The GA shall at a minimum meet in conjunction with regularly scheduled
> meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent practicable, all meetings
> should be available for online attendance as well as physical attendance.
>
> (c) Administrative and operational costs of GA meetings shall be the
> responsibility of ICANN. There shall be no other fees required to
> participate in the GA.
>
> (d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures approved
> by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for the
> DNSO.
>
> (e) The GA is responsible for the consensus building process of the DNSO. It
> shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that
> responsibility, including the designation of such research, drafting
> committees, or working groups of the GA as it determines are appropriate to
> carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. ALL GA members shall be invited
> to participate in each of such bodies. Each of such bodies shall provide
> appropriate means, as determined by the GA, for input and such participation
> as is practicable under the circumstances by other interested parties. Any
> reports or recommendations presented to the GA by such bodies shall be
> posted on a web site accessible by the public for public review and comment;
> absent clear justification, which shall be publicly stated at the time of
> any action, the GA shall not act on any report or recommendation until a
> reasonable time for public comment has passed and the GA has reviewed and
> evaluated all public comments received. The GA is responsible for ensuring
> that all responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a
> decision by the GA.
>
> (f) GA participants may propose that the GA consider domain name policies or
> recommendations. If the GA undertakes consideration of a domain name topic,
> the GA shall designate one or more research or drafting committees, or
> working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall
> recommend a time frame for the report of such committee or working group
> each of whom shall be availed of a public mailing list for as long such
> group requires . Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
> such a body, the GA shall vote to either accept the report or recommendation
> for submission as a consensus recommendation to the Board, or shall return
> the report or recommendation to the body from which it originated for
> further work.
>
> (g) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the GA participating in such a
> vote determine that the DNSO process has produced a community consensus,
> that consensus position shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus
> recommendation, along with all materials or other information that could
> reasonably be relevant to the Board's review of that determination,
> including (but not limited to) the dissenting statement(s) of any member(s)
> of the GA. If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
> members of the GA participating in the vote determine that the DNSO process
> has produced a community consensus, that position may be forwarded to the
> Board as a GA recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority
> views, and any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the
> GA. Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative vote
> of one-half (1/2) of the members of the GA participating in the vote may be
> returned to the body from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new
> body, for further work. In such a case, the GA may report to the Board the
> lack of a consensus and the steps, if any, it plans to take from this point
> forward with respect to this particular recommendation. The GA is
> responsible for ensuring that the Board is informed of any significant
> implementation or operational concerns expressed by any responsible party.
>
> (h) The GA shall forward to the Board, from among those persons nominated by
> the GA, its selection(s) for the Director(s) to fill any open Board
> position(s) reserved for the DNSO. Any such selection(s) must have the
> affirmative votes of at least one-half (1/2) of all the members of the GA
> participating in such vote. At any given time, no two Directors serving on
> the Board selected by the GA shall be citizens of the same country or of
> countries located in the same Geographic Region.
>
> (i) The term of office for each officer of the GA shall be one year.
> Officers of the GA shall be the Chair and Co-Chair of the GA, and the
> elected Chair of each research or drafting committee, working group or other
> body of the GA.
>
> (j) No more than one officer, director or employee of a corporation or other
> organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve as an
> officer of the GA at any given time.
>
> (k) Meetings of the GA may be held (i) in person or via teleconference, at
> the discretion of the GA, so long as all members of the GA participating can
> speak to and hear one another or (ii) via electronic video screen
> communication or other communication equipment; provided, that (a) all
> members of the GA participating in such a meeting can speak to and hear one
> another, (b) all members of the GA are provided the means of fully
> participating in all matters before the GA and (c) the GA adopts and
> implements means of verifying that (x) a person participating in such a
> meeting is a member of the GA or other person entitled to participate in the
> meeting and (y) all actions of, or votes by, the GA are taken or cast only
> by the members of the GA or other persons entitled to cast votes. A majority
> of the total number of GA members then in office shall constitute a quorum
> for the transaction of business, and the act of a majority of the GA members
> present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the
> GA, unless otherwise provided herein. Advance notice of such meetings shall
> be posted on a web site that is available for public access and, if
> reasonably practicable, at least 14 days in advance of the meeting. Meetings
> shall be open to physical or electronic attendance by all interested
> persons. The GA shall post minutes of its meetings to a web site that is
> available for public access as soon as practicable following the meeting,
> and no later than 21 days following the meeting.
>
> Section 3. THE GA BODIES
>
> (a) Each Body shall self-organize, and shall determine its own criteria for
> participation, except that no individual or entity shall be excluded from
> participation in a Body merely because of participation in another Body, and
> Bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and
> transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> fairness.  Each Body will be provided with its own public mailing list, and
> will provide a status report to the GA at each meeting.
>
> (b) Each Body shall select one individual to represent that Body.
>
> (c) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the GA for recognition
> as a new or separate Body. A Body of the GA shall be deemed formed when at
> least 10% of the GA members listed in the GA voting registry offer to the GA
> Chair or Co-Chair a charter for such GA body.  Any such petition and charter
> will be posted for public comment.  The GA will create new Bodies in
> response to such petition.
>
> (d) The initial Bodies shall consist of: individuals, ccTLD registries,
> commercial and business entities, gTLD registries, ISP and connectivity
> providers, non-commercial domain name holders, registrars, trademark and
> other intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting interests.  The veto of
> any two such bodies will thwart a declaration of consensus by the GA.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>
> All comments on this proposal, in favor or against, mild or strong, will be
> noted in the Review Working Group's presentation to the ICANN Board.  You
> are equally at liberty to offer alternate structural proposals for
> consideration; the dialogue will be welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> 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 11:29:30 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

Dear Jeff,

Members of the Names Council created an "approved membership list"
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00001.html when they formed
the Review Working Group.  Rather than opening up the list to all who wished
to contribute and participate, they chose instead to limit the membership.
We have been fighting such Names Council decisions since the day that this
group started, so we are more than sufficiently prepared to make sure that
your comments are heard and recorded.  Whether you post to the GA list, or
to http://www.internetstakeholders.com (a site created in the full knowledge
that the Names Council intends to pull the plug on the Review Working Group
mailing list), we will welcome your comments.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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 11:28:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Bruce and all remaining assembly members,

Remember, ICANN is supposed to ADVISE DOC/NTIA on these matters....
This is what and why ICANN was formed.

This could result in a policy change from DOC/NTIA regarding .ORG
and .NET, should DOC/NTIA consider the ICANN BoD's recommendation
superior to the predominance of the stakeholders as a whole....

Bruce James wrote:

> ICANNs attempt to change the status of dot org runs "against" the current
> dot
> org definition by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
>
> UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
> Patent and Trademark Office
> OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
> 2900 Crystal Drive
> Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513
>
> EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99
>
> September 29, 1999
>
> (...)
>
> .com         commercial, for profit organizations
> .edu         4 year, degree granting colleges/universities
> .gov         U.S. federal government agencies
> .int            international organizations
> .mil           U.S. military organizations, even if located outside the U.S.
> .net           network infrastructure machines and organizations
> .org           miscellaneous, usually non-profit organizations and
> "individuals"
>
> See:
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm
>
> / Bruce
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 09:29:05 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Resolution to Restructure the DNSO

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 6:26:25 AM, babybows.com wrote:
> All comments on this proposal, in favor or against, mild or strong, will be
> noted in the Review Working Group's presentation to the ICANN Board.  You
> are equally at liberty to offer alternate structural proposals for
> consideration; the dialogue will be welcome.

My problem with this post is that it is worded in such a way to make
it appear that it is a legitimate part of an internal process, but
appears to be an external effort to the actual DNSO process.

The relationship of this "review working group" needs to be clarified.

If this is not the Names council working group, I question whether
such an outside effort like this should be something we waste out time
with.

- -- 
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 #312
************************