Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #320
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 320

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:58:14 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: One comment from Mr Touton in a Teleconference does not a rule make

Harald wrote:-
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.

Harald and all remaining members,

Contrary to what you have said, there is NO reference made to the "rule of
ten" in the DNSO announcement of March 2nd and I contend that the "Rule of
Ten" is something coined out of somebody's imagination. No such rule exists
anywhere that I can find. Certainly a clear description of this so called
"rule" as part of the process used to select the nominee was not
communicated to the GA.

The relevant NC Teleconference minutes for Agenda Item 5 seems to have been
posted on March 4th, significantly two days after the DNSO Announcement was
made that election procedures had started. At the NC Teleconference, it was
agreed that Elizabeth Portneuve would draft a document
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html , which was posted to
the DNSO website on March 16th, 12 days after procedures had started.
Reference is made in that document that Teleconference Minutes were not yet
available. I don't believe the NC can now use these announcements to claim
that information on the so called "rule of ten" was made readily available
by the DNSO Secretariat to the GA prior to the start of the election
process.

In fact, I can find no reference to this so called rule at all, save a brief
mention by Louis Touton during the NC Teleconference Minutes under Agenda
item 5: DECISION of NC 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.

"L. Touton recalled that there was a procedure in place used for the last
election: nomination of a candidate by GA, endorsement by 10 members
required, all candidates endorsed (there were 2) presented to the NC for
election. On that occasion, the NC elected one of the presented candidates
as GA Chair and one as Alternate Chair."

There is no indication of whether or not other NC members agreed with Mr
Touton and the Decision that was unanimously agreed at the end of that
meeting referred only to proceeding in terms of the Bylaws. There is no
"rule of ten" in the Bylaws.

Finally, it is interesting to note that during the NC Teleconference, Erica
Roberts reminded members that at its meeting in LA the NC had indicated it
would be guided by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.

*One comment from Mr Touton in a teleconference does not a rule make.*

<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!

Glad to hear it Harald, so let's please stick to the facts and the facts do
not support your contention. There is absolutely no relation between the
Queen of England and the NC. She is a monarch, not a dictator.

In conclusion,  I move that the so called "rule of ten" be dismissed by a
formal motion of the GA voting assembly, then the NC will have the guidance
they obviously need.

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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:30:26 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and  alternate chair

Hello Joanna,

Joanna Lane wrote on 29.03.01, 16:58:14:
> In fact, I can find no reference to this so called rule at all, save a brief
> mention by Louis Touton during the NC Teleconference Minutes under Agenda
> item 5: DECISION of NC 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.

The reference is to the "Nomination Procedures for the Chair 
of the General Assembly (GA)", rule 8, from the previous election:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html#TEND

It is indeed unfortunate and confusing to have two procedures
with different thresholds, and it's admittedly hard to spot. 
However, the easiest way out this time seems to be (if you
are not among the 13 people who already have) to send an 
endorsement mail to 

   [email-masked]

until **TODAY**, 13:00h L.A., 16:00h New York, 21:00h UTC,
23:00h Paris, 06:00h next day Tokyo. Here's the template again:

  3a. Full name of the endorser:
  3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
  3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
      you wish to endorse:
      (specific statements of endorsements
      may also be submitted and are encouraged)

Please note also that members of the GA may endorse as many 
accepted nominees (Danny Younger, Eric Hugh Dierker, Jonathan 
Weinberg, Patrick Corliss) as they wish.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 15:41:00 -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 12:39 PM
> 
> 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.

It sounds like complementary successes could lead to a merger?
- --
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 20:24:22 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

The reference is to the "Nomination Procedures for the Chair
of the General Assembly (GA)", rule 8, from the previous election:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html#TEND

It is indeed unfortunate and confusing to have two procedures
with different thresholds, and it's admittedly hard to spot.

 However, the easiest way out this time seems to be (if you
are not among the 13 people who already have) to send an
endorsement mail to

   [email-masked]

Mr Svensson,
Thank you for pointing us to this elusive document, however, paragraph
numbered 8 "All accepted nominees that receive 10 or more endorsements by
18:00 CET on December 10, 1999 shall be forwarded to the Names Council for
selection" is noted by it's absence from procedures for the 2001 election
published by the DNSO Secretariat at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html.

The fact that it has been omitted cannot be accidental, and certainly does
not fit with NC statement from LA, which Ms Roberts kindly reminded NC
members about only a week or so before this election began, which was
immediately prior to drafting the election announcement, which reminder was
to ensure that a clear description of the process used to select the nominee
be communicated to the GA..

One cannot assume that people interested in this election are reading this
thread, whereas it is a reasonable assumption that some members believe
their preferred candidate already has the requisite number of endorsements
to go forward. I really must insist that those GA members rights are
protected. After the election we can revisit the rules should you so wish.

It would be helpful for the DNSO Secretariat to explain why paragraph
numbered 8 from 1999 was omitted from this year's announcement, if it was,
in fact, supposed to be part of the procedure (which I refute), but I
repeat,  you cannot change the rules in the middle of an election, and that
includes introducing old rules about which new members have no knowledge
whatsoever.

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 21:38:33 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe the
financial impact to ccTLDs.

Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
ccTLD registries.

From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease in
the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.

You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option C"
available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the board
to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to reflect a
more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andy
Gardner
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote

>"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
>or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
>existing agreement."
>
>Voting in favor:
>M. Mueller
>Vany Martinez
>YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
>M. Schneider (ISP)
>H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
>P. Sheppard (B&C)
>P. Kane (registrar)
>G. Forsyth (B&C)
>K. Stubbs (registrar)

That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.

>Voting Against:
>Guillermo (IPCC)
>C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
>R. Cochetti (registry)
>T. Swineheart (B&C)
>P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
>E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)

The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).

Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
might see them with more business?

- --
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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

- --
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 21:27:50 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: .ORG Poll

I support

1. the statu-quo for .org, i.e. no restriction in the registration

After giving careful consideration to this matter, I believe that any change
of policy for .org would have a destabilizing effect on the net. and that
until we reach the point where we have scaleable means to enforce a
non-profit policy, there is no viable alternative to the status quo.

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 20:37:04 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

PLEASE folks, send in your endorsements. Your vote is a terrible thing to
waste!

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and
alternate chair

Hello Joanna,

Joanna Lane wrote on 29.03.01, 16:58:14:
> In fact, I can find no reference to this so called rule at all, save a
brief
> mention by Louis Touton during the NC Teleconference Minutes under Agenda
> item 5: DECISION of NC 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.

The reference is to the "Nomination Procedures for the Chair
of the General Assembly (GA)", rule 8, from the previous election:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html#TEND

It is indeed unfortunate and confusing to have two procedures
with different thresholds, and it's admittedly hard to spot.
However, the easiest way out this time seems to be (if you
are not among the 13 people who already have) to send an
endorsement mail to

   [email-masked]

until **TODAY**, 13:00h L.A., 16:00h New York, 21:00h UTC,
23:00h Paris, 06:00h next day Tokyo. Here's the template again:

  3a. Full name of the endorser:
  3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
  3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
      you wish to endorse:
      (specific statements of endorsements
      may also be submitted and are encouraged)

Please note also that members of the GA may endorse as many
accepted nominees (Danny Younger, Eric Hugh Dierker, Jonathan
Weinberg, Patrick Corliss) as they wish.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 21:58:05 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote

I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and I
expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain name is
something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on that fact
being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that their
jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of the
ccTLD to the country.
With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and personally
felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully working
on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for the
faulty justification.
The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as a
whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially damaged the
value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you Mr. de
Blanc, what is up?

Sincerely,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe the
> financial impact to ccTLDs.
>
> Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
> are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
> As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
> name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> ccTLD registries.
>
> >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease in
> the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
>
> You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option C"
> available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the board
> to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to reflect a
> more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andy
> Gardner
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
>
> >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
> >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> >existing agreement."
> >
> >Voting in favor:
> >M. Mueller
> >Vany Martinez
> >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> >M. Schneider (ISP)
> >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> >P. Kane (registrar)
> >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> >K. Stubbs (registrar)
>
> That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
> they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
>
> >Voting Against:
> >Guillermo (IPCC)
> >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> >R. Cochetti (registry)
> >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
>
> The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
>
> Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
> might see them with more business?
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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
>
> --
> 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 18:59:35 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

At 05:38 PM 3/29/2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
>are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
>As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
>registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
>name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
>ccTLD registries.

Peter,

You seem to think that looking at real and practical differences between 
the old-vs-new contracts is somehow relevant.

Shame on you.  You should know better than to try to inject serious 
analysis into the fray.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 14:22:17 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: One comment from Mr Touton in a Teleconference does not a rule make

At 16:58 29/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>In conclusion,  I move that the so called "rule of ten" be dismissed by a
>formal motion of the GA voting assembly, then the NC will have the guidance
>they obviously need.
>

Seconded.
There is nothing to stop us from proceeding with an election of all
endorsed candidates.

- --Joop
- --
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 10:21:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and  alternate chair

At 21:28 29/03/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>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.
>

The results of the now published endorsement figures may be prejudicial to
a proper election.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:31:37 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:41:00PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It sounds like complementary successes could lead to a merger?

If there was any such success, sure.  But in fact, ORSC hasn't gained 
any widespread support from *anywhere*.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:25:45 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Did everyone see this--10 endorsements needed per candidate!

Hi Eric

Thank you for your email (see below) in which you noted the number of
endorsements received.  It seems, however, that these are not being properly
updated against the individual candidtate.  For example, if you look at mine,
Patrick Corliss, at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.pco.html

this only shows one endorsement, from Marc Schneiders.  But, as you point out, I
have received three endorsements including yours and that of Bruce James.

I join with Eric in noting that Harald has encouraged everyone to endorse their
preferred candidate to maximize voter options.  I understand that each member
may endorse more than one candidate.

On a personal note I did not know until Harald posted his message that this was
any sort of requirement.  I trust that members will consider Harald's comments.

Yours faithfully
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:54 AM
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
>

- --
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 14:39:39 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CORRECTION - Did everyone see this--10 endorsements needed per candidate!

Hi Eric

I made an error in my last email which I must immediately correct.

I have now received 4 endorsements.  One of those was from Eric Dierker which I
mistakenly attributed to you, Eric Weisberg.  My apologies for the error.

My thanks to you both and to all those who have participated.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Did everyone see this--10 endorsements needed per candidate!

> Hi Eric
>
> Thank you for your email (see below) in which you noted the number of
> endorsements received.  It seems, however, that these are not being properly
> updated against the individual candidtate.  For example, if you look at mine,
> Patrick Corliss, at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.pco.html
>
> this only shows one endorsement, from Marc Schneiders.  But, as you point out,
I
> have received three endorsements including yours and that of Bruce James.
>
> I join with Eric in noting that Harald has encouraged everyone to endorse
their
> preferred candidate to maximize voter options.  I understand that each member
> may endorse more than one candidate.
>
> On a personal note I did not know until Harald posted his message that this
was
> any sort of requirement.  I trust that members will consider Harald's
comments.
>
> Yours faithfully
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
> To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:54 AM
> 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
> >
>

- --
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 14:53:00 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement of Patrick Corliss

3a. Full name of the endorser:  Patrick Corliss

3b. E-mail address of the endorser:  [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
       you wish to endorse:    Patrick Corliss

Harald Tveit Alvestrand has written:

> 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 consider that self-endorsement is essentially meaningless and should be taken
as self-evident.  However, given the rules I hereby endorse myself.   I believe
I have the skills and essential attributes to perform this role as set out in my
acceptance.

Your faithfully
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:55:06 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

Jeff, et all..

I have not been "gotten to" by anyone.

Of course, a domain name is valuable to the holder! what does that have to
do with my position vis-a-vis ccTLD contributions to ICANN.

The ccTLD is asked to pay over 1/3 of the ICANN budget, and at least 100 of
the ccTLDs, if not 150 ccTLDs have a problem with that now.

Option "B" means that ccTLDs will pay less money, period. You may wax
eloquently about the moral implications, but you are not the one that has to
come up with US $ 1.5 million, and rising each year.

Money IS an issue with the majority of my constituents.

I will continue to seek maximum benefits for the majority of my constituency
members, as long as i am in a position to do so.

In a few days, you will see the results of the ccTLD "straw poll", and, rest
assured, the money issue is at the forefront of many ccTLD's responses.

regards

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:02 AM
To: Eric Dierker
Cc: Peter de Blanc; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I am a little surprised at Peters position here as well.  Seems that maybe
he has been "Gotten to" by someone?  However given that the DNSO
Chair has instituted a BAN on my posting to the GAL list inappropriately
such a possibility is not to far fetched.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and
I
> expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain
name is
> something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on
that fact
> being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that
their
> jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of
the
> ccTLD to the country.
> With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and
personally
> felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
> What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully
working
> on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for
the
> faulty justification.
> The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as
a
> whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially
damaged the
> value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you
Mr. de
> Blanc, what is up?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> > representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> > assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe
the
> > financial impact to ccTLDs.
> >
> > Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from
VeriSign/NetSol
> > are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the
registrar.
> > As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> > registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost
per
> > name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> > ccTLD registries.
> >
> > >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease
in
> > the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
> >
> > You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option
C"
> > available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the
board
> > to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to
reflect a
> > more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andy
> > Gardner
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
> >
> > >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing
agreement
> > >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> > >existing agreement."
> > >
> > >Voting in favor:
> > >M. Mueller
> > >Vany Martinez
> > >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> > >M. Schneider (ISP)
> > >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> > >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> > >P. Kane (registrar)
> > >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> > >K. Stubbs (registrar)
> >
> > That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest
that
> > they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
> >
> > >Voting Against:
> > >Guillermo (IPCC)
> > >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> > >R. Cochetti (registry)
> > >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> > >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> > >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
> >
> > The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
> >
> > Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> > see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something
that
> > might see them with more business?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew P. Gardner
> > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #320
************************