Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #321
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 321

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:57:00 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

Dave, I do not understand if you are meaning sarcasm, criticism, or support
of my position.

Please clarify.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:00 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [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

- --
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 21:11:03 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

At 08:57 PM 3/29/2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>Dave, I do not understand if you are meaning sarcasm, criticism, or support
>of my position.
>
>Please clarify.

sarcasm.

You raised a significant point that is directly based on clear, explicit 
and real differences between the two contracts.  You provided a simple 
explanation of the impact.

Essentially all of the public debate so far has studiously refused to pay 
any attention to real or concrete issues, instead preferring to complain 
about being given a real topic to consider, or else to fritter away time 
debating secondary or imaginary issues.

So, shame on you for being serious, concrete and relevant.

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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:32:10 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Names Council vote

Hello Peter,

Thursday, March 29, 2001, 8:57:00 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Dave, I do not understand if you are meaning sarcasm, criticism, or support
> of my position.

> Please clarify.

Dave is being sarcastic, because of criticism of him where he has
tried to claim the new contract is preferable, but has failed to
provide anything substantive as to why he thinks that, or come up with
anything specific where it is beneficial to the internet community.

He is incorrect trying to say that you would be subject to the
criticism, but as I said, he is incorrect, since you provided specific
reasons why you supported the contract you did.

That can be respected, even if I, or others, disagree with those
reasons.

Dave however, provides no specific reasons whatsoever to back up his
position.

So Dave is trying to claim that discussing "practical" differences
isn't wanted by us, when in fact it is.  He is trying to cloud the
issues, in order to make it look like we don't want to hear about
practical differences.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Dave, however, doesn't provide any explanation of the practical
differences that provide the basis for his support of the new
contract, despite repeated calls for him to do so.  THAT is what he
has been criticized for.

He thinks that by coloring that criticism in this way, he can make it
look like what the GA has said and concluded should be discounted.

Again,he couldn't be farther from the truth.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:37:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and  alternatechair

Now from this post forward we have the premature declaration of who was
winning, the ridiculous change of rules which were not mentioned in the
first place but then brought into play by you and no one else and then
your use of the word mockery as far as who would be the GA Chair.
Meanwhile you suspend Jeff Williams for nothing of any import and post too
many times on your own agenda.

Your timing is wonderful and most of your posts are antangonistic toward
those involved with the WG-Review. All this on top of you being in a lame
duck position with nothing to lose.  Certaainly two of your posts today
were worse than Mr. Williams'.  All of this after your co-chair Roberto
was scolded and apologized for making comments which hurt the credibility
of this assembly, then you do the same thing.

Anyone care to refute my statement?
While your at it would someone defend Mr. de Banc as he seems willing only
to attack the weakest messenger.

And by the way I can appreciate receiving no endorsements after the brutal
attacks I received by Mr. walsh which went un-admonished by Mr. Harald.

Mr. Crocker, Mr. Crispin and Mr. Gomez unless this becomes more credible
someone from the outside is going to step in and deny you rights to
advocate your position.

Sincerely,

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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:46:39 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

On Friday, March 30, 2001 12:45 AM (AEST)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

> 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.

Hi Harald

The difference is between internal and external.  ICANN has gathered together
many of the internet players in an inclusive venture under a single root model.
In that sense, they are following the game theory co-operative approach
internally.

That is not the case externally as ICANN has chosen to ignore competing root
systems as being outside of its sphere of influence or control.  Other roots,
such as ORSC and New.Net are operating independently to some extent outside of
ICANN.

Unless and until, ICANN makes a concerted effort to join with those independent
roots in a co-operative arrangement, they are following the competitive model.
It is as if they are somehow not part of a shared internet.  It doesn't make
sense to me.

It's my view that ignoring other root systems is a foolish strategy which is
destined to fail as more and more cash-up entrepreneurs start competing in the
namespace.  This is well demonstrated by New.Net and the internationalized
naming systems.

ICANN cannot keep burying its head in the sand and hoping they'll go away.

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 21:48:16 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Names Council vote

Hello Dave,

Thursday, March 29, 2001, 9:11:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:57 PM 3/29/2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>>Dave, I do not understand if you are meaning sarcasm, criticism, or support
>>of my position.
>>
>>Please clarify.

> sarcasm.

> You raised a significant point that is directly based on clear, explicit 
> and real differences between the two contracts.  You provided a simple 
> explanation of the impact.

> Essentially all of the public debate so far has studiously refused to pay 
> any attention to real or concrete issues, instead preferring to complain 
> about being given a real topic to consider, or else to fritter away time 
> debating secondary or imaginary issues.

> So, shame on you for being serious, concrete and relevant.

No, Dave, the conversation HAS been serious, concrete, and relevant.
It just didn't go to the side you supported, and you failed to
provide ANYTHING serious concrete and relevant to support your
position, even when pointedly asked to do so a number of times.

Look at yourself before criticizing others, Mr Crocker.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:59:42 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Names Council vote

Thank you, William.

I must admit, I tend to be a "straight-ahead" kind of person in my politics
and relations. Also, I go to the extreme to write my postings in such a
manner as that non-english speakers can have a chance of understanding
and/or translating them. I spent 5 years with UNIDO (united nations
industrial development org) as technical consultant for IT, telecom, and
internet in developing countries in latin america and the caribbean, and in
about 4 languages. I myself am about 33% fluent in spanish, and certainly
not able to present technical or political material in spanish. (I can order
a large selection of food, though!)

Anyway, I can understand the issues of north america and big business, ICANN
approved registrars, etc, and I certainly favor competition to (hopefully)
lower the price to consumers of a commodity. In this case, domain names.

However, my personal interests and philosophy are put on the side when it
comes to representing the constituency that elected me to the Names Council.
So I need to look to the ultimate consequences to the ccTLDs of any
ICANN-VeriSign deals. Then I vote based on what I feel is best for the
majority of ccTLDs.

It is truely unfortunate that some persons on this list do not understand
the international nature of this communication medium.If they did, they
would prepare simple and concise postings that could easily be translated by
http://world.altavista.com/ .

We can all take a lesson from Pilar Luque of .ES, who says she will "devote
her lifetime" to improving communication.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:32 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Names Council vote

Hello Peter,

Thursday, March 29, 2001, 8:57:00 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Dave, I do not understand if you are meaning sarcasm, criticism, or
support
> of my position.

> Please clarify.

Dave is being sarcastic, because of criticism of him where he has
tried to claim the new contract is preferable, but has failed to
provide anything substantive as to why he thinks that, or come up with
anything specific where it is beneficial to the internet community.

He is incorrect trying to say that you would be subject to the
criticism, but as I said, he is incorrect, since you provided specific
reasons why you supported the contract you did.

That can be respected, even if I, or others, disagree with those
reasons.

Dave however, provides no specific reasons whatsoever to back up his
position.

So Dave is trying to claim that discussing "practical" differences
isn't wanted by us, when in fact it is.  He is trying to cloud the
issues, in order to make it look like we don't want to hear about
practical differences.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Dave, however, doesn't provide any explanation of the practical
differences that provide the basis for his support of the new
contract, despite repeated calls for him to do so.  THAT is what he
has been criticized for.

He thinks that by coloring that criticism in this way, he can make it
look like what the GA has said and concluded should be discounted.

Again,he couldn't be farther from the truth.

- --
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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:04:02 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsing Rival Candidates

All

As I noted earlier Eric Dierker has endorsed my candidacy in this election.  He
has also endorsed Danny Younger and Jonathan Weinberg.  I'm sure we all thank
him.

It seems to me that if there is some arbitrary rule that we should have 10
endorsements, all candidates should follow Eric's lead and endorse all other
candidates.

On the other hand, it is an election with each candidate competing against the
other (and may the best candidate win).  This is an interesting dilemma which
goes to the heart of the co-operative vs. competitive approaches running through
all of our lives.

I have now puzzled over this for some time and cannot decide what is
appropriate.  The decision becomes different dependent on your standing relative
to the other candidates and whether you have already gained the necessary 10
endorsements.

Remember that we can endorse ourselves (and I would encourage all candidates to
do so) or endorse all other rival candidates.  Multiple endorsements are also
permitted.  As Harald says obtaining 10 endorsements is not normally a problem.

So I have decided to throw it open to the list while there is still time.

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 22:34:45 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and  alternatechair

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 30, 2001, 12:37:55 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> Anyone care to refute my statement?

Certainly.

> Now from this post forward we have the premature declaration of who was
> winning

No, all we have is a list of the number of ENDORSEMENTS, which were
already available on a public webpage, and were an integral part of
the process.

>  the ridiculous change of rules which were not mentioned in the
> first place but then brought into play by you and no one else

The rules were not changed, but the point wasn't made clear
apparently, and the post by the secretariat did not address this
point.  That is an error, but not a fatal one, and not one that is
really all that important, to be honest.  The need for endorsements
should have been readily apparent, even from the posted rules, and
from the many endorsements that were CC'd to this list, showing that
the GA was in fact supporting a particular candidate over the others.

> Meanwhile you suspend Jeff Williams for nothing of any import and post too
> many times on your own agenda.

Jeff was suspended for cause, as is usual for him, just as you were
recently.

There are no posting limits, those are guidelines, and are meant only
to stop excessive posts that are serving more to quell positive
discussion than anything else.

> Your timing is wonderful and most of your posts are antangonistic toward
> those involved with the WG-Review.

I have seen no such thing,and this kind of an inflammatory and
absolutely baseless charge lends little credibility to your comments,
Mr Dierker.

> Certaainly two of your posts today
> were worse than Mr. Williams'.

References please?  I have seen no such thing, but if this is true,
provide references to the messages you are complaining about, and if
you are in fact correct, I will be right there with you to file a
complaint with the Chair over it.

> All of this after your co-chair Roberto
> was scolded and apologized for making comments which hurt the credibility
> of this assembly, then you do the same thing.

You're propensity for exaggeration doesn't help, Eric.  Certainly the
above is not an accurate portrayal of what has happened here.

> While your at it would someone defend Mr. de Banc as he seems willing only
> to attack the weakest messenger.

I presume you mean Peter de Blanc.  Peter doesn't need a defender, he
can certainly hold his own, and presents his views and positions in a
clear and respectable manner.  No one is attacking him, so what
exactly are you suggesting he be defended from?

> And by the way I can appreciate receiving no endorsements after the brutal
> attacks I received by Mr. walsh which went un-admonished by Mr. Harald.

You were never attacked by me, Eric.  Your suitability for the
position you sought was challenged by me, and I provided the reasons I
felt that you were not suitable.  There was no attack involved, and
there was no reason for those posts to be subject to any action
whatsoever.

The rules are not there to protect you from yourself and from the
views of others about you, especially when you make yourself a
candidate for an office in this assembly.

Had I not focused on your suitability, and instead directed my
comments to thinks that I personally dislike about you, that would
have been a personal attack.  I suggest you might want to learn the
difference.

Have a nice day, Mr Dierker.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:39:55 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsing Rival Candidates

Hello Patrick,

Thursday, March 29, 2001, 10:04:02 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> All

> As I noted earlier Eric Dierker has endorsed my candidacy in this election.  He
> has also endorsed Danny Younger and Jonathan Weinberg.  I'm sure we all thank
> him.

> It seems to me that if there is some arbitrary rule that we should have 10
> endorsements, all candidates should follow Eric's lead and endorse all other
> candidates.

Endorsements should only be sent in for those candidates whom you
personally endorse as qualified and suitable candidates for the
position.

That is the role of the endorsements process.

The GA members can look at who endorsed which candidates, and based on
their trust in those people's opinions and judgement, will vote
accordingly.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:01:19 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] IMPORTANT: One comment from Mr Touton in a Teleconference does not a rule make

At 14:22 30/03/2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>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.

Indeed, the GA, by its own rule, has no choice but to proceed with an 
election from all the candidates endorsed by 2 or more people.

And I believe that the NC wishes to follow the result of such an election.

But *in order to make sure nobody can challenge the NC decision to do so*, 
it would be a Good Thing to have all relevant candidates have 10 or more 
endorsements.

If we are to become an organization that follows the rules, we have to 
follow the rules, not cavalierly dismiss them when they get in our way.
Even when the rules in question are a result of not thinking things through.

- --
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 23:08:42 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:32 PM
> 
> 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*.  

... and you know this by what evidence?
- --
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 02:13:45 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

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
________________________________________________________

Roberto and all remaining members,

Whereas it is not a requirement of the GA that members of the voting roster
must also subscribe to the GA mailing list.
Whereas the standard procedure for determining the will of all those
affected by election procedure is by Ballot of the Voting Roster prepared by
the DNSO Secretariat.
Whereas All candidates for GA Chair and Alternate Chair who have accepted
the nomination, and had at least two endorsements from members of the voting
roster of the General Assembly, are considered candidates, under rules
approved by Ballot of the GA for the 2001 election.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
Whereas  the DNSO Chair and Alternate Chair Election Rules posted to the
DNSO website on March 16th give a clear description of  the process used to
select the nominee in accordance with the 2001 rules communicated to the GA.
. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
Whereas at its 1999 meeting in LA the NC indicated that it would be guided
by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.
Whereas a DECISION of NC taken in February 2001 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 was unanimously approved by council members.
Whereas on March 29, immediately prior to closure of the endorsement period
of the 2001 election, the GA Alternate Chair announced to the GA ML that
under NC rules adopted for the 1999 Election that none of the candidates
have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council according to
the rules of the NC selection, which rules increase the number of
endorsements required by 8 (eight) and require the names of all candidates
with 10 (ten) or more endorsements to be put forward for the NC to make the
final selection for GA Chair and Alternate Chair, these being in opposition
to 2001 rules.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01473.html

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly ( in their capacity as
managers of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment by
the NC to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA) to dismiss
the Rules applied to the previous election in 1999.
__________________________________________
The above Resolution to be put to the voting roster by Ballot prepared by
DNSO Secretariat, to run in tandem with the election process currently
underway.

BALLOT QUESTIONS

1. The 1999 election rules should be dismissed by the NC
2. The 1999 election rules should be adopted by the NC
3. Abstain

- --
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 02:51:22 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Endorsing Rival Candidates

Patrick Corliss wrote:-
 As Harald says obtaining 10 endorsements is not normally a problem.

Patrick,
Strangely, I expected an opportunity to get to know all the candidates
better before casting my votes and felt assured you had already met
requirements. By this new logic, every member of the voting roster should
endorse every nominee regardless. What a waste of precious DNSO Secretariat
resources that would be.

I must say I completely failed to take on board any plan to throw out the
2001 rules in preference for the 1999 rules, which in effect, make the
endorsement period the election itself. Not only do these require candidates
to obtain 10 endorsements instead of 2, but once obtained, it is the NC, not
the GA, who then makes the selection. In case you hadn't noticed, there is
no Ballot at all under the 1999 rules!! Bad luck for those on the voting
roster who do not subscribe to the Mailing List. The will of those people
would never be heard.

As you can see, I am trying very hard to put these outdated rules where they
belong, in the trash.

Patrick wrote:-
So I have decided to throw it open to the list while there is still time.

Regards

Good luck to you. I regret I have decided not to play this game on principal
and instead, explicitly assert my right to participate in an election run by
the 2001 rules we have all agreed upon. I would encourage all to do the
same.

Regards,
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

- --
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 02:58:22 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

Harald Tveit Alvestrand 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.

The enemy is within... but who exactly is the "us"
Harald?

>From the speech of Athenagoras to his fellow
Syracusans in Book VI of The Peloponnesian War by
Thucydides:

<snip>"What fools you are!  In fact the stupidest
of the Hellenes I know, if you do not realize that
your aims are evil, and the biggest criminals if
you do realize this and still have the face to
proceed with them.  But there is still time for
you, if not to repent, at any rate to become
instructed in wisdom and to promote the interests
of the country, which are shared by all of us. 
Reflect that in the country's prosperity the men
of merit in your ranks will have a share and a
larger share than the great mass of your fellow
countrymen, but that if you have other designs you
run a risk of being deprived of all; and desist
from reports like these, as the people know your
object and will not put up with it."
<snip>

I thought I'd break the monotony somewhat...
Eric's not the only amateur historian.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:59:13 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

Hello Joanna,

I submit that it is way too late for this, and this would require yet
another vote of the GA, and further delay the election.

I really do not think it is necessary to make this point now, and we
should go ahead with the election.

I really do not think that this rule will have that much impact on the
outcome of the election.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:26:26 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Request to GA Chair for Ballot

Revisiting the wording of the resolution itself, I would like to make an
amendment as follows:- .

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly in their capacity as managers
of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC
to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA  IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ITS OWN POLICY AND to dismiss the previous Rules applied to the 1999
election.

Regards,
Joanna

> Whereas it is not a requirement of the GA that members of the voting
roster
> must also subscribe to the GA mailing list.
> Whereas the standard procedure for determining the will of all those
> affected by election procedure is by Ballot of the Voting Roster prepared
by
> the DNSO Secretariat.
> Whereas All candidates for GA Chair and Alternate Chair who have accepted
> the nomination, and had at least two endorsements from members of the
voting
> roster of the General Assembly, are considered candidates, under rules
> approved by Ballot for the 2001 election.
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
> Whereas  the DNSO Chair and Alternate Chair Election Rules posted to the
> DNSO website on March 16th give a clear description of  the process used
to
> select the nominee in accordance with the 2001 rules communicated to the
GA.
> . http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
> Whereas at its 1999 meeting in LA the NC indicated that it would be guided
> by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.
> Whereas a DECISION of NC taken in February 2001 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 was unanimously approved by council members.
> Whereas on March 29, immediately prior to closure of the endorsement
period
> of the 2001 election, the GA Alternate Chair announced to the GA ML that
> under NC rules adopted from the 1999 Election that none of the candidates
> have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council according
to
> the rules of the NC selection, which rules increase the number of
> endorsements required by 8 (eight) and require the names of all candidates
> with 10 or more endorsements to be put forward for NC to make selection
for
> GA Chair, in opposition to 2001 rules.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01473.html
>
> IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly, in their capacity as
managers
> of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC
> to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA, to dismiss the
> previous Rules applied to the 1999 election.
> __________________________________________
> The above Resolution to be put to the voting roster by Ballot prepared by
> DNSO Secretariat, to run in tandem with the election process currently
> underway.
>
> BALLOT QUESTIONS
>
> 1. The 1999 election rules should be dismissed by the NC
> 2. The 1999 election rules should be adopted by the NC
> 3. Abstain
>
>
>
>
>
>

- --
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 #321
************************