Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #318
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 318

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:37:20 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: UN NGO - Was: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Jefsey wrote:
>This is why there is no other solution than:
>-  iCANN incorporating as the association of the national NICs (ccTLD, IP
>addressing, local/private TLD managing facilities, internet community
>services, etc...) and gTLDs at a lower degree.
>- that association requesting the UN NGO status.

Incidentally, UN NGO status is not something you get just by writing an 
application, but only by providing a framework of international traties, 
ratified by the applicant member states, by compliance with the UN rules 
(that, BTW, will not accept having most of the staff and the top executives 
coming from one country), ...
All this will take a large amount of time, and is formally opposed by one 
country, the US, that seems to me not to play a minor role ;>).

In other words, the possibility of putting (some of) the Internet Governance 
under the umbrella of the UN is just the last resort, if everything else 
fails. At present, it is not an option.

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:48:32 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: . ORG Straw Poll

Joop,
>
>Thank you, Roberto for  your tabulation of the opinions expressed by named
>GA members. It was a lot of work.
>
>I hope you do not consider the additional anonymous straw poll that is
>currently up in the Polling Booth premature (i.e. not sufficiently
>discussed), but if you would kindly encourage GA members to use the poll
>(and the comment line) at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/ we will have
>additional input to give to the NC and the Board on this highly charged
>subject.
>The additional advantage is that you don't have to do the counting work. 
>:-)
>

I have nothing against the straw poll in the polling booth, but, at present, 
I cannot consider it as the officila result of the GA.
I hope you understand that, as a Chairman of the GA of the DNSO, I have to 
make sure that all official facts (and a straw poll, even in its 
informality, becomes an official fact when the results are communicated) are 
managed by the DNSO officials (Chair, AltChair, Secretariat, ...) and not by 
voluntary individuals, even if they happen to have the best intentions in 
the world, and if their help would be greatly appreciated.
I think that, once we can divert resources and attention from the main 
issues we are covering in this period (VeriSign contract, Chair election, 
.org charter, ...), we will have to define the best "straw poll" procedure. 
Maybe then your poll booth (or any other solution proposed by any other 
member), provided that sufficient guarantees are given that the DNSO 
Secretariat (or other DNSO/GA appointed body) can access and monitor the 
flow of data and the results, may turn out useful.
But this is not a decision that the Chairman can take: it needs discussion 
and vote by the GA.

For the time being, I have no other solution than counting ballots :<(

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:04:55 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Another poll - Was: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Marylin,
>
>I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
>have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
>would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same but
>I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as "abstain".

I think that, indeed, the "option to have the community to undertake an 
indepth consideration of the charter" is an option that exist in reality.
Personally, I am not convinced that at this point in time to have a poll on 
this subject is very useful, but since many people have spoken in favour of 
it, I do not have any problem in endorsing it.

Later on, we will have to engage in a discussion on changing generally 
charters "en route", possibly vs. the introduction of new chartered TLDs.
With the purpose of contributing to the creation of a policy for the DNSO, 
to be debated by the NC.

In the meantime, please let me use this message to make everybody aware that 
I am counting on the basis of the current exchange of messages.
I will be counting until Saturday evening, European time, and I will send a 
summary to NC, copy to BoD Chair (because the NC would have delivered its 
report already, by then), informing of the result.
Where you all can help is in making sure that your message contains clear 
indication on which position you support:
1. the statu-quo for .org, i.e. no restriction in the registration
2. the enforcement of a charter restricting the registrations in .org

Please note that I already reported that the GA is against evition of 
existing names, so no need to repeat that.

I would appreciate if any further message containing indication of position 
on the .org matter clearly identifies this in the title subject: it will 
ease my work, allow me to sleep a more appropriate number of hours ;>), and, 
above all, will reduce the chance for mistakes.

Best regards
Roberto

P.S.: the opinions already expressed will be taken into account, no need to 
re-vote.

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:07:36 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2001 7:56 AM
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract
|>
|>
|> Hello Patrick,
|>
|> Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 7:57:09 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
|> > If you are going to change the charter for .org, you should do it
|> for .com also
|> > and make sure that the registrant is a registered commercial
|> organisation.  That
|> > would slow down the boom in dorcom sales and hurt Verisign in the
|> financial back
|> > pocket.
|>
|> Not to mention all the domain holders it would hurt.

True but if there is a push to reform one gTLD back to some semblence of
original purpose, the same conditions should be applied to all of them.  I'm
sure there would be enough negative feedback to quell any such intention if .com
was to be affected.

:)

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:10:28 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

At 11:45 29/03/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>This is why there is no other solution than:
>-  iCANN incorporating as the association of the national NICs (ccTLD, IP 
>addressing, local/private TLD managing facilities, internet community 
>services, etc...) and gTLDs at a lower degree.
>- that association requesting the UN NGO status.

heaven help us.
The alternative to a private-sector ICANN is the ITU, not a new UN body.

>I note that the USG legitimacy (as per Hans Klein at least) over the 
>Internet comes from two points:
>-  the IP addressing scheme the international and social complexity and 
>technical correlations of which are such that it is definitly an issue for 
>the ITU/T
>-  a missing (?) loop in the current BIND version that anyone may add, so 
>the root may be loaded as several root-file subsets. Once these may 10 
>lines of code aree added the unicity of the root is preserved but the 
>multiplicity of its origines is built-in. The role of the iCANN is then to 
>make sure (according to its equal treatment to all charter) that all the 
>subsets are presented in a proper format and there is no TLD naming 
>conflicts. All the current work with UDRP, Registrars and new TLD is QA by 
>a proheminent body: proposing solutions, control, label for the market to 
>better chose and be served.

this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?
as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a governing 
body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?

btw, it is rather obvious that you have not seen the configuration files of 
BIND; it does not work the way you think it does.

>In a nutshell, iCANN is not to "protect" us, but to serve us.

on that point, we agree.

- --
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:46:20 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

The list monitor has had four separate complaints about the list behaviour 
of Jeff Williams.

The complaints made by Joe Kelsey and Dave Geurs include posting irrelevant 
and offensive material; in particular, the following messages were cited:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01098.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01358.html

The monitor also notes that after being reminded about the posting limit 
(5) on March 20, the poster has chosen to violate the limit on March 27 (6) 
and March 28 (7).

Given the fact that the individual has otherwise behaved in a fashion not 
significantly disruptive to the list since his last suspension, which ended 
on Nov 27, the monitor sees no compelling reason to impose the normal 
doubling of length of suspension for repeat offenders that has been used 
earlier.

A suspension of 8 weeks, ending on May 24, 2001, is therefore imposed.
- --
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:17:25 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll - .Org charter/policy/practice change...

1.) Should the registration of Domain names Policy/practice/policy
     be changed irrespective to what entity will be the new registry
     for .ORG?    Yes [X]   No[]

2.) Should the new registry for .ORG be required to keep the
     current Policy/practice/charter for registration of Domain
     Names in the .ORG gTLD?  Yes [] No [X]

/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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:43:11 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

Thank you, Harald.....:)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:46 AM
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

The list monitor has had four separate complaints about the list behaviour
of Jeff Williams.

The complaints made by Joe Kelsey and Dave Geurs include posting irrelevant
and offensive material; in particular, the following messages were cited:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01098.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01358.html

The monitor also notes that after being reminded about the posting limit
(5) on March 20, the poster has chosen to violate the limit on March 27 (6)
and March 28 (7).

Given the fact that the individual has otherwise behaved in a fashion not
significantly disruptive to the list since his last suspension, which ended
on Nov 27, the monitor sees no compelling reason to impose the normal
doubling of length of suspension for repeat offenders that has been used
earlier.

A suspension of 8 weeks, ending on May 24, 2001, is therefore imposed.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:20:18 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN as a Governing Body

Hi Harald

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
On Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:10 PM (AEST)

> this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?
> as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a governing
> body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?

I don't really have the inclination right now to get into a debate but I will
make a couple of quick points.  At present we DO have a "governing body" called
ICANN and we ALSO have a business called New.Net.  Thus the governing body can't
stop the colliders.  I don't think they ever will have the capacity to do that.

Now you could argue that, in saying "a governing body" you didn't mean ICANN (as
ICANN doesn't have the necessary power).  In that case your argument is
unintentionally misleading.  It seems to me that there are three possibilities:

(1)    A world governing body with dictatorial powers to search and destroy any
root server it finds.  I'd put that it the category of impossible.

(2)    Lots of roots all competing for market share.  That's the present
position with the world's nation states.  Competition, hostility and war.  With
domain names, this is starting to happen now with New.Net and even
internationalized domain names.

(3)    A game theory approach whereby we all co-operate for the good of the
whole.  This is the idea of the United Nations, OPEC and the European Community.

It is my view that a functional society *must* be co-operative as in (3) to
survive.

Sooner or later there will be a technological advance that allows domains from
multiple roots   But absent such an advance, I would suggest that ICANN revise
its assumption that it can continue to maintain a unitary root in perpetuity.

The world just doesn't work that way.

Best 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:27:41 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Any Policy Language in NC Vote?

As I understand the By-Laws, cited below, now that the DNSO has submitted
its recommendation to the adopt "the existing agreement", if the Board
chooses to decline the recommendation, it must return the recommendation for
further study (improbable in view of time constraints), unless the Board
determines that either the "matter" was not within the scope of the primary
responsibility of the DNSO, or was a matter deemed "necessary" or
"appropriate to further the purposes of ICANN".

As the scope of the DNSO is defined as "policy issues relating to the Domain
Name System", I would inquire about the wording of the DNSO
recommendation... did the Names Council reaffirm their own Melbourne
resolution and frame the recommendation within the context of "a policy
issue", or did they only frame their written arguments on the basis of
substantive merits?

It would be nice to be able to see the full and complete NC document knowing
that " If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
members of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community
consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC
recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority views, and
any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
Perhaps someone call forward the URL of the official NC document?

I am looking forward to the opportunity of listening to the April 2 Board
meeting, which true to the ICANN spirit will assuredly be open, transparent,
and fair.  Perhaps a member of the ICANN staff can advise when this webcast
is scheduled and how the public may listen in to discussions on this, one of
the most important matters that the community has been asked to comment
upon?   For some reason, I cannot find any details posted regarding this
matter on the ICANN site.   An oversight perhaps?    One wouldn't want to
create the impression that matters of such gravity are decided in secret,
out of earshot of the Worldwide Internet Community.

ARTICLE VI: Section 2

(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a Supporting
Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the Supporting
Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of the
reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If, after reasonable
efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from
Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for
prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a
specific policy recommendation.

(g) Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the Board
or the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of primary
responsibility of a Supporting Organization or to take actions that the
Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of the
Corporation.

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:40:06 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

Of the four people nominated for the chair position who have accepted:

- - Dany Younger and Jonathan Weinberg have enough endorsements to be
   included on the GA ballot (2 or more)
- - NONE have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council
   according to the rules of the NC selection (10 or more).

The endorsement period closes TOMORROW, Friday, March 30.

Please help us have an election, not a mockery.

- --
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:45:03 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

At 00:20 30/03/2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?
> > as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a governing
> > body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?
>
>I don't really have the inclination right now to get into a debate but I will
>make a couple of quick points.  At present we DO have a "governing body" 
>called ICANN and we ALSO have a business called New.Net.  Thus the 
>governing body can't stop the colliders.  I don't think they ever will 
>have the capacity to do that.

Right. I do not want to have the power to stop them either; I think people 
who do stupid things should be allowed to do so (within reasonable limits).
What I WOULD like is to have a course of practice that I can recommend to 
people; at the moment my recommended practice is to use the ICANN root.
I cannot in sanity recommend what I think is the consequence of what Jefsey 
is saying.

I fail to see the difference at an abstract level between ICANN and the 
game theory you propose; ICANN *is* an attempt at "A game theory approach 
whereby we all co-operate for the good of the whole". It is just that we 
are ruinously bad at playing this game.

We have seen the enemy, and he is us.

- --
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:05:20 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> - NONE have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council
>  according to the rules of the NC selection (10 or more).
> 
> The endorsement period closes TOMORROW, Friday, March 30.

Harald, I believe that there's a problem with the endorsement process and/or
the web page reflecting endorsements. Below is a copy of a message I sent to
the ga-endorsements list three days ago. As you'll note, it does not show up
on the web page for Jonathan's endorsements:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.jwe.html

      -- Bret

- ------ Forwarded Message
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:06:18 -0800
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Endorsement

Endorsements must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
Please use a Template for endorsement:

       3a. Full name of the endorser: Bret Fausett
       3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
       3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
           you wish to endorse: Jonathan Weinberg

Jonathan Weinberg has been a thoughtful and active participant in the life
of the DNSO and its General Assembly since it was created. He has the rare
ability to provide focused leadership in a neutral and even-handed manner,
and he would be an excellent choice for Chair of the General Assembly.

- ------ End of Forwarded Message

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:38:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement of Jonathan Weinberg

3a. Full name of the endorser: Marc Schneiders
3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
    you wish to endorse: Jonathan Weinberg

- -- 
[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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:55:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, at 16:45 [=GMT+0200], Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 00:20 30/03/2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

[...]

> I fail to see the difference at an abstract level between ICANN and the 
> game theory you propose; ICANN *is* an attempt at "A game theory approach 
> whereby we all co-operate for the good of the whole". It is just that we 
> are ruinously bad at playing this game.
> 
> We have seen the enemy, and he is us.

So *all* participants are bad guys?

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:02:33 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Any Policy Language in NC Vote?

- --------------BBBA0865C1263C67778B106A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Danny would you do me a favor and break down your requests for notification
contained in this message into just that a request and cc the appropriates.  I
was going to do it but did not want to do it wrong.

The Articles set forth below are a great platform from which to discuss the
difficulties inherent in a structure that has to balance technical issues
regarding stability with social issues regarding stability. It really keeps
bringing us back to the issue that the final decision makers must all be elected
and that we must take up the board squatting issue in earnest.

Lest anyone get discouraged, they should take pause and realize the great job
they are doing by participating, and Danny lately this goes especially for you.
I also feel for Robertos sleep loss.

Thank you

"babybows.com" wrote:

> As I understand the By-Laws, cited below, now that the DNSO has submitted
> its recommendation to the adopt "the existing agreement", if the Board
> chooses to decline the recommendation, it must return the recommendation for
> further study (improbable in view of time constraints), unless the Board
> determines that either the "matter" was not within the scope of the primary
> responsibility of the DNSO, or was a matter deemed "necessary" or
> "appropriate to further the purposes of ICANN".
>
> As the scope of the DNSO is defined as "policy issues relating to the Domain
> Name System", I would inquire about the wording of the DNSO
> recommendation... did the Names Council reaffirm their own Melbourne
> resolution and frame the recommendation within the context of "a policy
> issue", or did they only frame their written arguments on the basis of
> substantive merits?
>
> It would be nice to be able to see the full and complete NC document knowing
> that " If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
> members of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community
> consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC
> recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority views, and
> any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
> Perhaps someone call forward the URL of the official NC document?
>
> I am looking forward to the opportunity of listening to the April 2 Board
> meeting, which true to the ICANN spirit will assuredly be open, transparent,
> and fair.  Perhaps a member of the ICANN staff can advise when this webcast
> is scheduled and how the public may listen in to discussions on this, one of
> the most important matters that the community has been asked to comment
> upon?   For some reason, I cannot find any details posted regarding this
> matter on the ICANN site.   An oversight perhaps?    One wouldn't want to
> create the impression that matters of such gravity are decided in secret,
> out of earshot of the Worldwide Internet Community.
>
> ARTICLE VI: Section 2
>
> (f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a Supporting
> Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the Supporting
> Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of the
> reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If, after reasonable
> efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
> Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
> Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
> between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from
> Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for
> prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a
> specific policy recommendation.
>
> (g) Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the Board
> or the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of primary
> responsibility of a Supporting Organization or to take actions that the
> Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of the
> Corporation.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
>

- --------------BBBA0865C1263C67778B106A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Danny would you do me a favor and break down your requests for notification
contained in this message into just that a request and cc the appropriates.&nbsp;
I was going to do it but did not want to do it wrong.
<p>The Articles set forth below are a great platform from which to discuss
the difficulties inherent in a structure that has to balance technical
issues regarding stability with social issues regarding stability. It really
keeps bringing us back to the issue that the final decision makers must
all be elected and that we must take up the board squatting issue in earnest.
<p>Lest anyone get discouraged, they should take pause and realize the
great job they are doing by participating, and Danny lately this goes especially
for you. I also feel for Robertos sleep loss.
<p>Thank you
<p>"babybows.com" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>As I understand the By-Laws, cited below, now that
the DNSO has submitted
<br>its recommendation to the adopt "the existing agreement", if the Board
<br>chooses to decline the recommendation, it must return the recommendation
for
<br>further study (improbable in view of time constraints), unless the
Board
<br>determines that either the "matter" was not within the scope of the
primary
<br>responsibility of the DNSO, or was a matter deemed "necessary" or
<br>"appropriate to further the purposes of ICANN".
<p>As the scope of the DNSO is defined as "policy issues relating to the
Domain
<br>Name System", I would inquire about the wording of the DNSO
<br>recommendation... did the Names Council reaffirm their own Melbourne
<br>resolution and frame the recommendation within the context of "a policy
<br>issue", or did they only frame their written arguments on the basis
of
<br>substantive merits?
<p>It would be nice to be able to see the full and complete NC document
knowing
<br>that " If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of
the
<br>members of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community
<br>consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC
<br>recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority views,
and
<br>any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
<br>Perhaps someone call forward the URL of the official NC document?
<p>I am looking forward to the opportunity of listening to the April 2
Board
<br>meeting, which true to the ICANN spirit will assuredly be open, transparent,
<br>and fair.&nbsp; Perhaps a member of the ICANN staff can advise when
this webcast
<br>is scheduled and how the public may listen in to discussions on this,
one of
<br>the most important matters that the community has been asked to comment
<br>upon?&nbsp;&nbsp; For some reason, I cannot find any details posted
regarding this
<br>matter on the ICANN site.&nbsp;&nbsp; An oversight perhaps?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
One wouldn't want to
<br>create the impression that matters of such gravity are decided in secret,
<br>out of earshot of the Worldwide Internet Community.
<p>ARTICLE VI: Section 2
<p>(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a Supporting
<br>Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the Supporting
<br>Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of the
<br>reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If, after reasonable
<br>efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting
<br>Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this
<br>Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
<br>between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations
from
<br>Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification
for
<br>prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve
a
<br>specific policy recommendation.
<p>(g) Nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the
Board
<br>or the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of primary
<br>responsibility of a Supporting Organization or to take actions that
the
<br>Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of
the
<br>Corporation.
<p>Best regards,
<br>Danny Younger
<br>&nbsp;
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------BBBA0865C1263C67778B106A--

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:10:47 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair andalternate  chair

I also have been a little confused as it seemed on the list that Jonathan had
received enough, but not on the page.

In that I am one of the unendorsed nominates I would request clarification.  I
also would like to point out that it does not seem that there is a problem with
the fact that we settled into a goup mindset based on endoresements that
Jonathan and Danny would make fine chairs.  If we simply need the counted votes
to make it appear more ligitimate, please let me know and I will go about
pesturing people to cast a ballot.

Sincerely,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > - NONE have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council
> >  according to the rules of the NC selection (10 or more).
> >
> > The endorsement period closes TOMORROW, Friday, March 30.
>
> Harald, I believe that there's a problem with the endorsement process and/or
> the web page reflecting endorsements. Below is a copy of a message I sent to
> the ga-endorsements list three days ago. As you'll note, it does not show up
> on the web page for Jonathan's endorsements:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.jwe.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:13:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign  contract)

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?
> as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a governing
> body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?

If ICANN derives it's power from contracts, and new.net does not have a
contract with ICANN, what if any power would ICANN have over new.net?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:26:10 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I do appreciate your post, William. I just wanted to note that I was
abstaining and why. I understand the point you are making and respect it...

It seemed to me that the process suggested would leave it to the community
of stakeholders to express their input. This immediate process seems to me
to be in advance of that future "suggested" process; and this process can
show some early view of where some are.

:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:24 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 4:37:23 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
> have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
> would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same
but
> I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as
"abstain". 

I think the principle is if a change in policy is appropriate to even
consider for TLD that has been in use so long.

Obviously the sense of most of us is absolutely not, under any
circumstances.

The harm to the internet community, and to domain name holders, is way
too much to even make this something that should ever be reasonably
considered.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #318
************************