Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #319
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 319

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:46:09 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

Harald and all remaining members:-
Excuse me? This is the first I have heard that the GA Election rules are a
mockery. The mockery is that if a candidate needs 10 endorsements to be
considered legitimate by the body that rubber stamps the people's choice,
then GA Election Rules should reflect that, and not state only 2
endorsements. This amounts to changing the rules in the middle of an
election. You cannot do that.

With the greatest respect, you drafted the Rules. Why have you waited until
now to raise the issue? I read all the discussion on the GA ML on this
topic, and in WG-Review, and furthermore, you were actively involved in
those discussions. At no time was any reference made to this NC rule that
has now suddenly popped up out of nowhere.

The NC's job right now is to sit back and wait until due process has been
completed. What you are suggesting is that the NC will now impose their own
choice of candidate over the top of this election. That would not be very
clever. This is not going to fly with those in the media who have power the
NC can only dream about. There is nothing in your comment that fits with a
sense of fair play and frankly, I am very disappointed to think the NC would
stoop so low.

My personal view is that the majority of the NC want the GA to select it's
own Chair by it's own rules and will honor the choice of any candidate that
has received 2 or more endorsements. Anything else would be a mockery.

Sincerely,
Joanna

Joanna

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:-
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

- --
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 20:01:24 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] (1) WG-Review list (2) GA list

> From [email-masked] Wed Mar 28 11:26 MET 2001
> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 28 Mar 2001 01:26:21 -0800
> X-Sent: 28 Mar 2001 09:26:21 GMT
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Complaint by Jeff Williams
> 
> I have noted, on both the GA list and the WG-Review list, complaints that
> some participating members of the General Assembly are being denied the
> opportunity to participate on the WG-Review list.  Could you offer a
> clarification or insight into this process for the benefit of the
> membership?
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger

1. With regard to Working Group lists:

   All Working Group lists are managed by the Co-Chairs, and not
   by the DNSO Secretariat.
   All subscriptions to WG-Review list are subject to approval by
   YJ Park. The DNSO Secretariat is not involved in that process.

2. With regard to GA ga list:

   The "Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly 
   of the DNSO", in
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html
   has been voted and approved by the GA in November 2000.
   On the matter on [email-masked] list the Secretariat follows those
   rules, and is in charge only for technical matters.
   The technical problems with email addresses on the DNSO GA's 
   mailing lists are recorded in
   http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsotechproblems.html
   (access from the main page through "Number of participants in 
   the DNSO mailing lists over time")

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 12:54:05 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Did everyone see this--10 endorsements needed per candidate!

I just went to http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html where I
found the following endorsements:

Jonathan Weinberg  9
Patrick Corliss 3
Danny Younger 2
Eric Hugh Dierker 0

Harald has encouraged everyone to endorse their preferred candidate to maximize
voter options.
What people think of such requirement is a separate issue.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:-

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:20:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: . ORG Straw Poll

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  Ok Roberto, if a straw poll is not what you would like to see to
in some way measure where GA members stand on certain issues
what is?  I would also suggest that possibly it would be good to
have a GA vote using the current procedures on specific issues
with respect to the Verisign Option B contract.  Would that
suffice?  And if not, why not?  And if so, lets get on with it...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:31:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 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.

  The ITU is not the only alternative, Harald.  Future more you know that it
isn't.

>
>
> >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?

  The ICANN BoD created the possibility of conflicting TLD's, not New.Net.
The ICANN BoD did so in Marina Del Rey.  New.Net didn't exist
than.  It does not however.  RFC1591 provided a course by which new
TLD's could be introduced.  The ICANN BoD rejected RFC1591 for
reason or reasons unknown.  Hence the free market came into play
more forcibly al la New.Net.  You will see more New.Nets in the future,
more than likely unless or until the ICANN BoD has a process that
is open, fair, and in the best approved interest of the stakeholder community.
The process that was executed in Marina Del Rey is not such a process.

>
> 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?

  New.Net has proven no such thing.  But the ICANN BoD has...
(See comments above and archives of the Marina Del Rey ICANn Meeting)

>
>
> 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 it's current form, no it doesn't, your right.  But Bind 8.2 can with
about a 36 line modification.  This much has been proven and tested...

>
>
> >In a nutshell, iCANN is not to "protect" us, but to serve us.
>
> on that point, we agree.

  Thank god!

>
>
> --
> 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

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:32:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

  What is the nature of these complaints Harald.  Please advise.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 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

- --
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:30:46 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Did everyone see this--10 endorsements needed per candidate!

I just went to http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html where I
found the following endorsements:

Jonathan Weinberg  9
Patrick Corliss 3
Danny Younger 2
Eric Hugh Dierker 0

This is not correct. Danny Younger has 3 endorsements. Patrick has 2.
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:37:55 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.

Even then, their power would come from contracts and agreements 
only, not law.  In addition, ICANN has no control over the root and 
there is the probability that DoC will not hand over control of the 
root or com/net/org to anyone.

A root can be developed by anyone, anywhere in the world and 
users can choose to adopt or point to any other computer in the 
world.  When those who perceive they have the "power" to control 
the Internet by crushing innovation and indivdual choice realize the 
nature of this communications medium, we might just reach a point 
where they also realize that cooperation works best.  Big Brother is 
usually rejected by most of the world out of hand.

ICANN could have gone a long way in fostering an atmosphere of 
cooperation.  Instead they have tried to play Big Brother - control 
by a select segment of commercial interests, and conquer.  It has 
not worked.

> 
> >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.

BIND is not the only game in town either.  Even if what you suggest 
were possible or probable, there would be a shift to another open 
source code to allow Unix users choice for configuration.  There are 
several available. 

> 
> >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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:28:48 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

At 12:46 29/03/2001 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Harald and all remaining members:-
>Excuse me? This is the first I have heard that the GA Election rules are a
>mockery. The mockery is that if a candidate needs 10 endorsements to be
>considered legitimate by the body that rubber stamps the people's choice,
>then GA Election Rules should reflect that, and not state only 2
>endorsements. This amounts to changing the rules in the middle of an
>election. You cannot do that.

I sometimes feel that I am made a mockery of, yes.
I drafted the rules that I think make sense (that you need 2 endorsers, 
which means that at least one other person has to like you enough to 
endorse you).
I also wrote the rules to allow self endorsements and multiple endorsements.

I HOPE that these rules will be around a lot longer than the NC rule set.

But - the NC chose to follow "exactly the same procedure as last year", I 
assume without any discussion of the details. This included the "10 
endorsements required" limit.

This has not proved a big hurdle in the past (most candidates for Board 
representative sailed right past it when nominated); I guess the NC never 
thought about it, and I kept silent, hoping that it would not be a problem.
But now, through voter apathy or attention to other matters, we have been 
caught on the horns of this dilemma; both the NC and the GA have adopted 
their rulesets, and changing them now would indeed be changing the rules in 
the middle of an election.

>With the greatest respect, you drafted the Rules. Why have you waited until
>now to raise the issue? I read all the discussion on the GA ML on this
>topic, and in WG-Review, and furthermore, you were actively involved in
>those discussions. At no time was any reference made to this NC rule that
>has now suddenly popped up out of nowhere.

announcement of unchanged rules:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html
mention of the "rule of ten":
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html (agenda item 5)

Unfortunately, it did not pop out of "nowhere". If it had, we could send it 
right back there.

>The NC's job right now is to sit back and wait until due process has been
>completed. What you are suggesting is that the NC will now impose their own
>choice of candidate over the top of this election. That would not be very
>clever. This is not going to fly with those in the media who have power the
>NC can only dream about. There is nothing in your comment that fits with a
>sense of fair play and frankly, I am very disappointed to think the NC would
>stoop so low.

The comment I heard from the NC was that the NC hoped to "appoint" the GA 
chair this year in the same sense that the Queen of England "appoints" the 
Prime Minister: because it is the right thing to do.
I think no NC member is less unhappy with this silliness than I am.

Go endorse!

- --
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 21:55:52 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign  contract)

At 14:37 29/03/2001 -0500, JandL wrote:
> > heaven help us.
> > The alternative to a private-sector ICANN is the ITU, not a new UN
> > body.
>
>Even then, their power would come from contracts and agreements
>only, not law.

take care what you think.
the governing members of the ITU are NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS - a lot of those 
think that they don't need contracts to have power.

- --
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 12:02:59 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:45 AM

> 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.

I might submit that the ORSC has proven themselves much better at that game.
One of the first steps is to acknowlege, without reservation, that an
outside world exists. The failure of the ICANN, to take this crucial step,
is a large part of what presented new.net with their market opportunity. Had
ICANN incorporated ORSC principles, as they agreed to in 1998, new.net might
not even exist. The systematic disenfranchisement, of those working in the
other root-zones, is a large part of the problem. It presented the
market-gap that new.net is moving to fill.

- --
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 15:01:26 -0500
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: . ORG Straw Poll

In light of:

"Given the fact that the individual has otherwise behaved in a fashion nots
 ignificantly disruptive to the list since his last suspension, which endedo
 n 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] "

how did this message propagate to the list?

>>> Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> 03/29/01 04:20PM >>>
Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  Ok Roberto, if a straw poll is not what you would like to see to
in some way measure where GA members stand on certain issues
what is?  I would also suggest that possibly it would be good to
have a GA vote using the current procedures on specific issues
with respect to the Verisign Option B contract.  Would that
suffice?  And if not, why not?  And if so, lets get on with it...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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 

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 

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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 12:04:51 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:55 AM
> 
> 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?

No, he is simply stating the obvious for ICANN, as a group/org. Many of us
individual players know better. But, you must admit that we have been
collectively ineffective.
- --
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 12:16:10 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign  contr act)

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:56 AM
> 
> At 14:37 29/03/2001 -0500, JandL wrote:
> > > heaven help us.
> > > The alternative to a private-sector ICANN is the ITU, not a new UN
> > > body.
> >
> >Even then, their power would come from contracts and agreements
> >only, not law.
> 
> take care what you think.
> the governing members of the ITU are NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS - a 
> lot of those 
> think that they don't need contracts to have power.

That depends entirely on where you are geo-politically located, relevent to
that National Government.
- --
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 22:38:35 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

At 12:02 29/03/2001 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>I might submit that the ORSC has proven themselves much better at that game.
>One of the first steps is to acknowlege, without reservation, that an
>outside world exists. The failure of the ICANN, to take this crucial step,
>is a large part of what presented new.net with their market opportunity. Had
>ICANN incorporated ORSC principles, as they agreed to in 1998, new.net might
>not even exist. The systematic disenfranchisement, of those working in the
>other root-zones, is a large part of the problem. It presented the
>market-gap that new.net is moving to fill.

OTOH, one could argue that ICANN has been successful in gathering the 
interest, and sometimes even the support (albeit never warm, and with much 
argument and maneuvring), of the world's governments, Internet service 
provicers, Internet commercial organizations and even some Internet users - 
something ORSC has spectacularly failed to do.

- --
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 22:43:02 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: . ORG Straw Poll

At 15:01 29/03/2001 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>"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] "
>
>how did this message propagate to the list?

because I did not check that the administrator was physically at her 
console at the time I sent the message, so there was a time window.
I have now had confirmation that action has been taken.

- --
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 16:24:07 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ten Endorsement "Rule"

Dear Harald,

The members of this General Assembly were notified that, "the Names Council
has decided to invite the GA to manage an election process to select a
nominee for appointment by the NC to the position of Chair of the GA."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

Through this statement the Names Council relinquished control over the
General Assembly's election procedures  -- this is why, in fact, we have our
own rules for this election instead of a complete set of rules provided by
the Names Council (and we do appreciate your contribution in drafting such
rules).

We voted on these rules, and accepted these rules...

And now you tell us that the Names Council is *still* managing this
election, and that we are expected to abide by procedures that governed the
last election with regard to endorsements?

I know that being blind-sided is a fairly common occurrence in the ICANN
world, but I did not expect it to come from a member of this election's
Watchdog Committee on the last day of the endorsement cycle.

You have made the comment:   "But - the NC chose to follow "exactly the same
procedure as last year", I assume without any discussion of the details.
This included the "10 endorsements required" limit."

You fail to mention the remainder of this quote:  "Decision D5: Ph. Sheppard
proposed to proceed as last year, without changing the Bylaws".   The
quotation here clearly refers to the Names Council decision not to call for
a change in the Bylaws that would allow for the GA to elect its own Chair -
nothing more.

In my view, your interpretation is seriously flawed;  I am truly surprised
that you did not share your views with all the candidates prior to the start
of this endorsement period.   But be that as it may, I am not overly
troubled by this issue and bear you no ill will... we all make mistakes.

As I see it, the Names Council has deteriorated into a largely irrelevant
institution.  I fully expect that the re-structuring of the DNSO will result
in the dissolution of the Names Council, folding it back into the General
Assembly in a manner akin to that described by Director Auerbach in his
comments to the Review WG.  I even note a recent comment by Council members
that tends to confirm this sentiment:

"Even worse: The Board was the first to bypass the NC when we've proven to
be unable to make a substantial policy recommendation on new gTLDs. Today,
even the GA and the DNSO constituencies do no longer care
too much about what we're doing. They're putting their drafts forward to the
Board immediately instead of wasting their time and resources with another
hop over the Council." "I'm sure, it's our last chance to demonstrate good
reasons not to dissolve the NC."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00081.html

Frankly, an "acceptance" by the Names Council is not high on my list as a
major achievement.  It is more important to me, and most likely to all the
other candidates, to focus on the accomplishments that the GA can achieve
through its own efforts.  While the Names Council chooses to convene
"committees" that barely function, we can create full working groups to
offer the ICANN Board true consensus-based determinations.  While the Names
Council chooses to bury its head in the sand in response to the challenge
posed by New.net and the alternate root community, we have the members that
can constructively engage in dialogue.  It is time for this General Assembly
to become pro-active.

I am a candidate seeking major reform.  I hope that I can count on your
participation to make the DNSO the policy-recommending body that it truly
should be.  The GA is the future of the DNSO; it is now time to focus our
efforts, and to help the Board with substantive recommendations to improve
overall GA / DNSO operations.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #319
************************