Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #324
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 324

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:33:59 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hi Eric

On Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:01 AM (AEST)
Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So then the problem is when we give Corliss over to the Council to ratify as
our
> leader but it is clear that his position came from a very direct influence
that
> is supporting a very specific agenda, must they ratify him or is that a good
> reason to pick a person more reflective of the GA which at this point is an
> Assembly within what would seem to be a competing organization.

My agenda is relation to the GA was clearly stated in my acceptance.  It said:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.html

Statement of the nominee's objectives in the role as Chair of the GA:

I see a significant problem in co-ordinating the views of the various
constituencies into a shared voice.  I see this as an important function of the
Chair.  Hence the arguments for a single constituency.  On balance I don't
favour that approach as there is too much common ground within each group.  A
good example is the shared views within a cohesive group like the ccTLDs or the
ISPs.

My feeling is that you must have a consituency structure.  That's not the
problem at all.  Our real problem, as in politics or other constituency
structure, is balancing the various constituencies.  They could be of roughly
equal weight or according to some other criteria such as representativeness.

That's a hard thing to assess when it comes to internet usage !!

The second problem is to make sure that the actual categorisation is fair.  At
present, for example, there is unfairness in not having constituencies for
individuals or small businesses etc.  So they are not properly represented.  It
is also important to allow sufficient flexibility to re-organise the
constituency should it prove to necessary.

And, of course, the third problem is the cross-constituency membership.

In summary, I do not agree that we should necessarily eliminate the Names
Council constituency structure, rolling it into the General Assembly, but I do
believe the ideal constituency structure is an entirely "virtual" structure with
every member being flagged as to their constituency.  This would allow us to
re-formulate the constituencies, quickly if needed.

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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:44:27 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA and process

I have personally felt every possible emotion and intellectual challenge
while working on this and the WG-Review lists.

After the last 24 or so hours I have been truly amazed, at the hard work
and exceptional intellectual ability exhibited on this list.

The issues are very difficult, the stakes very high and the long
histories often bitter.  But to a very high degree the current several
debates have been nothing short of extremely professional, educational
and productive.

At first I was going to withdraw out of apathy, mine and others.  Over
the last few hours I was going to withdraw because I had a profound
feeling that I could not contribute in such an elite (and I mean that
positively) group.

Now I think I should continue just to see if a commoner like myself can
contribute and assure that other commoners interests are protected or at
least heard.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:54:34 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

Can somebody explain me where the problem is?
Roberto,
 I am not making myself clear to you and will try to make my points again in
simpler language.
You have URL reference to documents from my other posts and I oversimplify
my points in the interests of better understanding.

Roberto wrote:-
This is my POV.

1. We have 4 candidates that are all four eligible under our currently
adopted rules to be included in the ballot to be issued by the Secretariat
on 2001-03-31 (and this solves Joop's concern, as he expressed it below).

[Joanna] No. All four candidates are not eligible. Eric Dierker has no
endorsement. He will be stopped from the next round, as we agreed under 2001
rules. He would need two endorsements. If 1999 rules are to be applied by
the NC, (which I argue they not),  the NC has the power to end the election
today, after endorsement closes. Then, the NC may chose any candidate from
those who have 10+ endorsements. The Secretariat does not have to issue a
Ballot. This is the way Louis Touton wanted the election to be run, (see NC
Teleconference Minutes of Feb 26th). He is on record for the "rule of ten"
in this Election, but it was deleted by Elizabeth Portneuve when she drafted
the Election Rules for 2001 and posted them to the DNSO website. Obviously,
the GA cannot agree to take one old rule (the rule of ten) and leave out
another (voting to select candidate from endorsed nominees). Therefore, it
is either 2001 rules, or it is 1999 rules. It cannot be both. And if we do
nothing about it, next time, another old rule could be used to skew the
result. We cannot always be looking back.

2. The NC has *its* procedures, never changed AFAIK, that include the "rule
of ten" (as part of the 1999 rules): these are not GA rules, but NC rules,
and as correctly pointed out by Joanna, NC should change them (if they
wish), not us.

[joanna] They were replaced by the 2001 Election Rules, which the NC
approved. The only thing the NC did not approve was the Bylaws change. That
was to stay the same for this election. There is a typo in the NC
Teleconference minutes. Harald can explain. No, I disagree they are not NC
Rules. They are GA Rules, approved by the NC for use in the 1999 GA
Election. The NCwas *managing* the Election in 1999, but in 2001, the NC
made the decision to ask the GA to *manage* the election process, so the all
rules pertaining to GA Election are now GA responsibility to manage. The
situation has changed and what we have been doing is taking over management
functions of the NC. The 2001 rules were drafted by the GA, not by the NC.
Harald raised the problem that the NC may use the 1999 "Rule of ten". This
is a *management* problem which is now GA responsibility. For this reason,
we need a Resolution, and must dismiss the 1999 Rules from the process or
adopt them properly. (I guess nobody in the GA wants them except Louis
Touton). For the time being, we manage the transition through
recommendations to the NC, until such time as ICANN Bylaws are changed.
Change in Byelaws has to be agreed first with the NC. Management of the
Election process is already agreed by the NC.

3. The NC has expressed its willingness to ratify the choice of the GA,
therefore to appoint the candidate with more votes: it may do so even if the
candidate has not received 10+ endorsments in the endorsment phase (but it
may be source of embarassment).

[Joanna] There is NO evidence that the NC wants candidates with minimum
10+endorsements. No NC member has said this in 2001, not in NC
teleconference (except Louis Touton), not in LA in 1999, not in any document
at DNSO website, not in the GA ML, not in WG-Review. It is an imagination.
There is no embarrassment  in managing the election process properly
according to the 2001 rules, which is 2+ endorsements and a proper ballot of
the voting roster. The embarrassment is allowing an outdated rule from an
old Agreement to override the new rules half way through the election
because somebody has noticed a member of ICANN staff mentioned it at the NC
Teleconference. In my book, that is called mis-management. If the "rule of
ten" exists, we must now do some work to make sure this and nothing else
from 1999 rules interferes with due process. It is simple housekeeping.

I interpreted Harald's message in this way: please guarantee that every
candidate fulfills *also* the 1999 requirements, so that we can avoid
discussions, and we can avoid potential opposition by any individual member
of the NC, that may raise formal objections.
I may incidentally note that the number of bytes needed to flow in the Net
to provide the missing endorsement to the candidates that still did not pass
the 10 cap is substantially lower than the number of bytes flowing in this
argumentation.

[Joanna] Power is not given, it is taken, and that costs bytes, sorry.
If you want the NC to manage this election, we can save bytes...:-).

In any case, I believe that a motion of the GA on this subject is out of
order for the following reasons:
- - it changes the rules of the election while the election is ongoing;
- - the motion presented aims at putting to vote a subject that has been
discussed for not even 24 hours.

- - No. It is the other way round. If you do not have the Motion, it changes
the rules. It amounts to the GA agreeing that the NC can manage the election
process using 1999 rules if they want. I disagree with that position.
- - How long do you need to agree that the GA did not adopt 1999 rules for
it's 2001 election?

As I noted above, even if I accepted this motion, and the GA approved this
motion, this would only mean to be a recommandation to the NC, who could
still be free to accept it or to reject it.
In the meantime, rest assured that I will pass the official results of the
GA election process to the NC without application of the "rule of 10". We
will elect the candidate(s) according to our rules, and let's the NC take
its decision according to its rules.

- - Please feel free to amend the wording as you see fit.
- - Yes, the NC could reject it, but they have delegated responsibility for
management to the GA, so we are free to make management decisions as we see
fit.
- - Yes, I agree you should not apply the "rule of 10". If you did, you would
not be following Election rules for 2001.

Thank you. I hope we understand each other better.
Joanna

>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:58:36 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:34 AM

> In summary, I do not agree that we should necessarily 
> eliminate the Names
> Council constituency structure, rolling it into the General 
> Assembly, but I do
> believe the ideal constituency structure is an entirely 
> "virtual" structure with
> every member being flagged as to their constituency.  This 
> would allow us to
> re-formulate the constituencies, quickly if needed.

I might point out that this was suggested before and is something that the
ICANN BoD is proven to be steadfastly against. Although, Karl Auerbach is
one of the original supporters of such a flexible constituency model and the
@large BoD members may favor it, I don't believe that the four BoD squatters
would continence such behaviour. Together with the carry-over interim BoD,
they have the veto capability.

Personally, I don't see how it can be implemented with the resources at
hand. The theory is nice, but can it fly? The KISS method would elect all NC
seats, from the GA, and relegate constituencies to the role of PACs, until
such time as we can figure out a way to do it better. I submit that such
activity will take a number of years to complete. We need to start looking
at this in tiered near-term,  mid-term, and long-term views, IMHO. Without
doing so, we run into conflict with what can be done now v. what we want to
do in the future.
- --
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 21:43:12 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Roeland,

>It is the ex-chair of the IAHC and the PAB chair (D'Crock and Crispin) that
>were the most staunch proponents for an exclusive-elite model. Both had
>involvement in CORE, to my knowlege.

Can you please tell me which involvement, in what capacity, and possibly 
substantiate this with any documentation in support?

I have been one of the "founding" members of CORE, in the sense that the 
company I was working for participated in the initial phases, and I attended 
in Tokyo the very first meeting of CORE, the one where the seat was 
established (BTW, I have been the one who insisted in voting right away for 
the seat, endorsing Geneva, when some orientation in CORE wanted to postpone 
the issue). I did not see either then, nor did I see them in the following 
months. I subscribed to the PAB list, and so read something from Kent (and 
confess that I appreciated him very much as a PAB Chair).
I was never involved in the IAHC, but have been the elected CORE rep in POC, 
its successor, so I should know. POC and CORE, even if on some basic issues 
were agreeing (for instance on the Registry as a public service) had 
different positions on several issues, and had different approaches (which 
is pretty logical, if you think that CORE was an association for business 
purposes, while POC was a policy oversight body, where CORE was represented, 
but other very different realities were represented as well).
I have also been for a while in CORE's ExCom, had access to each and every 
CORE document, and never found any mention of Kent or Dave, except for some 
reference to e-mail messages in the PAB list (public, though).

But without any doubt, you (that have never been part of either CORE or POC) 
know better than me all the details.
Well, the IAHC and its successor POC are out of the picture, CORE has 
evolved dramatically since those days in 1997, and this whole argument that 
we have had all these years along is now moot, but my single question stays, 
on a different list now but with the same simplicity: if you know something 
that I don't know about CORE, POC, and their secret plans to take over the 
world, please tell me, please show me one single document that proves any 
practical involvement of Dave Crocker and/or Kent Crispin in CORE.

If I have been blind and stupid, at least I would like to know ;>)

Regards
Roberto
(5th of the day and over)

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:51:56 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

As long as we all agree these are just positions to be discussed, that it is a
developing concept. Then I agree with this line of logic completely.

I am having trouble with combining anything in the existing structure.  What I
believe is that for now if we just get every existing (and developing as in the
IDNH Const.) up and running then we can adapt from there.  Its hard to find
leaks until you fill the pipes with water.

The GA is making great strides toward being a truly functional body and the IDNH
is on the Horizon, and whether I like the study delay or not, there is progress
in the @large.

No one has convinced me that the structure is bad, it is just that we have been
having a hard time implimenting it.

Sincerely,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:34 AM
>
> > In summary, I do not agree that we should necessarily
> > eliminate the Names
> > Council constituency structure, rolling it into the General
> > Assembly, but I do
> > believe the ideal constituency structure is an entirely
> > "virtual" structure with
> > every member being flagged as to their constituency.  This
> > would allow us to
> > re-formulate the constituencies, quickly if needed.
>
> I might point out that this was suggested before and is something that the
> ICANN BoD is proven to be steadfastly against. Although, Karl Auerbach is
> one of the original supporters of such a flexible constituency model and the
> @large BoD members may favor it, I don't believe that the four BoD squatters
> would continence such behaviour. Together with the carry-over interim BoD,
> they have the veto capability.
>
> Personally, I don't see how it can be implemented with the resources at
> hand. The theory is nice, but can it fly? The KISS method would elect all NC
> seats, from the GA, and relegate constituencies to the role of PACs, until
> such time as we can figure out a way to do it better. I submit that such
> activity will take a number of years to complete. We need to start looking
> at this in tiered near-term,  mid-term, and long-term views, IMHO. Without
> doing so, we run into conflict with what can be done now v. what we want to
> do in the future.
> --
> 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 13:49:51 -0600
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] TLDA IS NOT ORSC Was Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[MY OWN OPIONION - DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY GROUP OR ORGANIZATION]

TLDA and ORSC have no connection between them besides Richard being on the
board.

The TLDA is an association of Top-level domain holders. ORSC is a root.

TLDA does not operate a root.  There are TLDA board members who have had
their
(big) differences with ORSC.

It cannot emphasised enough that ORSC and TLDA are not the same.

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'babybows.com'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> > From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:25 AM
>
> > On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed
> > (www.tlda.org).
>
> > While I loudly applaud the efforts of the alternate root
> > community to seek
> > out efforts to eliminate collisions in their own namespace, I
> > find myself
> > deeply troubled by the fact that none of these members that routinely
> > participate on the GA list have commented on this development
> > in the midst
> > of this GA election cycle.
>
> You must be unaware of the history between the ORSC and the ICANN. After
the
> ICANN was endorsed, by the USG/DOC, there came a furious round of
proposals
> and counter-proposals, for the DNSO, by ORSC, BWG, and CORE. After Berlin,
> '99', it quickly became apparent that the process was stacked, and the
ORSC
> refused to lend the ICANN its legitimacy. Some of us disagreed and
continued
> our involvement, knowing that everything was pre-arranged but hoping to
make
> some sort of difference. But, most of the ORSC decided to play
> independently.
>
> > What has happened to the concept of openness and transparency
> > by which we
> > are expected to abide?    The Bylaws of our Corporation point
> > to the need
> > for full disclosure of "conflicts of interest" by members of
> > our Board; can
> > we expect anything less from candidates to the highest office
> > of the GA?
>
> The ORSC and the TLDA are not the ICANN. It is composed of many that were
> systematically disenfranchised by activities of the ICANN and the DNSO.
> Along with openness and transparency was also to have been inclusiveness.
> ICANN/DNSO have been nothing short of exclusive wrt the ORSC and other
root
> zone publishers. The most vocal proponents of this exclusivity were
D'Crock
> and Crispin. Much of their writtings are of "elitist" bent.
>
> > But I cannot approve of his decision to both accept a
> > position as a Director
> > of the TLDA, and to simultaneously run for the office of Chair of this
> > General Assembly.
>
> Isn't this position promoting the exclusivity of the ICANN/DNSO much
> further? The TLDA only is possible because the ICANN forced it into being.
> Most would readily be part of ICANN were they given an equal voice and a
> place to be heard.
>
> > I look forward to working with Patrick, and with the many of you that
> > respect the fact that the worldwide Internet community includes the
> > alternate root system - but I believe that in this instance,
> > Patrick made an
> > error in judgement... one cannot effectively serve two such disparate
> > masters.
>
> They are only disparate because the ICANN has forced the disparity. ORSC
was
> once a very vocal supporter of the [IFWP] process and was the first to
call
> for openness and transparancy. The third leg of that stool is
inclusiveness.
> You are making an argument for exclusiveness and fostering the continuance
> of the fragmentation and polarization that is caused directly by the ICANN
> itself.
>
> The ICANN was supposed to be an inclusive alliance of all internet
> stakeholders. Instead, it has become a tightly knit club of an elite few.
> --
> 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 14:54:27 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: [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

- --
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 13:54:35 -0600
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>; "General
assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> For the purposes of my argument, IANA :== CORE.
>
...

> Crispin, has repeatedly, with pungent correctness, pointed out that the
> ICANN is a privately-held corporation that is NOT democratic and is NOT a
> governance organization. The flip-side of that argument is that ICANN is
an
> exclusive club that is only open to a select few, the periphery being not
> much more than window-dressing, to keep the mob occupied. The behavior of
> the past few years seems to give credence to that argument.

If we take him at his word that ICANN is not democratic and not a governance
organization, why are they trying so hard to become a governance
organization and
if they do, do you really think that such an organization (with a lack of
accountability)
should run the USG root???

I'd feel safer with the DoC running it forever, if thats the case.

John

- --
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:58:34 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (2)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] Status of Election for Chair and Alternate Chair

Patrick,

  Well maybe.  What's in it for me?  Where is the value add to the
DNSO GA in your becoming chair or Co-Chair/Alt-Chair?  What
improvements do you intend to introduce to the DNSO GA?

  Two other candidates I know of are willing to promote the following
as Chair or Co-Chair.  Are you willing to support the following
DNSO GA List rule changes and DNSO purview changes to the
current illegitimate ones:

1.) Elimination of banning of any participant from the DNSO GA List.

2.) Open participation to any and all interested participants on the DNSO
     GA list, all Working groups that may be formed or are in progress.

3.) Personal privacy is the purview of the participant.  That participant has
     the right to keep private any or all personal information about his/herself
     without exception or fear of penalty.

4.) Modify the existing voting procedures to be absolutely inclusive of
     any stakeholder whom is self declaring.

5.) That any participant is eligible to vote in the DNSO GA on an equal basis
     with all other participants.

6.) Any DNSO participant or stakeholder may put forward any resolution for
     a vote or debate at any time and that said resolution must be considered
     openly for debate or vote as indicated.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey
>
> I now have 9 endorsements and am second after Jonathan Weinberg in the
> election for Chair and Alternate Chair of the DNSO General Assembly.  Harald
has
> said that 10 endorsements are needed in this election process.
>
> I am therefore short one endorsement.
>
> If you would like to see my voice in the GA, I would urge you to endorse my
> candidacy as quickly as possible as the elections close today, Friday (Paris
> time).  I understand you may endorse more than one candidate.
>
> As described at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
> endorsements must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
> using the following template:
>
> 3a. Full name of the endorser:
> 3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
> 3c. Full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse.
> Please note: statements of endorsements are encouraged.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Patrick Corliss
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 AM
> Subject: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate
chair
>
> > Of the four people nominated for the chair position who have accepted:
> >
> > - Dany Younger and Jonathan Weinberg have enough endorsements to be
> >    included on the GA ballot (2 or more)
> > - NONE have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council
> >    according to the rules of the NC selection (10 or more).
> >
> > The endorsement period closes TOMORROW, Friday, March 30.
> >
> > Please help us have an election, not a mockery.
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> > +47 41 44 29 94
> > Personal email: [email-masked]
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >

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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:04:21 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (1) What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: [PRIVATE] Status of Election for Chair and Alternate Chair

Hi Jeffrey

I now have 9 endorsements and am second after Jonathan Weinberg in the
election for Chair and Alternate Chair of the DNSO General Assembly.  Harald has
said that 10 endorsements are needed in this election process.

I am therefore short one endorsement.

If you would like to see my voice in the GA, I would urge you to endorse my
candidacy as quickly as possible as the elections close today, Friday (Paris
time).  I understand you may endorse more than one candidate.

As described at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
endorsements must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked].
using the following template:

3a. Full name of the endorser:
3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse.
Please note: statements of endorsements are encouraged.

Thank you.

Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternate chair

> Of the four people nominated for the chair position who have accepted:
>
> - Dany Younger and Jonathan Weinberg have enough endorsements to be
>    included on the GA ballot (2 or more)
> - NONE have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council
>    according to the rules of the NC selection (10 or more).
>
> The endorsement period closes TOMORROW, Friday, March 30.
>
> Please help us have an election, not a mockery.
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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 12:02:54 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hello Patrick,

Friday, March 30, 2001, 9:52:35 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> It is true that I have accepted a position as a Director of the Top Level Domain
> Association but I cannot see any mention in the mission statement which you just
> quoted that this association is directed towards "the alternative root
> community".  That is your interpretation only.

Patrick, this is more than a little disingenuous, to claim that the
TLDA is not an effort of what is recognized as the alternative root
community.

> It is my understanding that the TLDA aims to encompass all "top level domains"
> whether these are included in the ICANN system or otherwise.  In other words
> membership will be open to ccTLDs, the new gTLDs, chartered TLDs, and "inclusive
> root" TLDs.  In fact, I hope any TLD will be welcome to join the association.

While this may be true, none of done so, nor have any expressed an
interest in doing so.  The TLDA was born completely out of the
alternative root community, and all of its board/officers are well
known from that community.

> It has also been suggested to me, privately, that the Names Council would be
> reluctant to endorse a candidate that it felt was not aligned with ICANN.  I
> would make it clear that I fully support ICANN and merely wish to assist ICANN
> in fulfilling its charter.   I believe this can be achieved in a way that
> unites, rather than divides, the major participants.

My problem with the above is that the GA Chair is not there to be an
advocate in any way for his own views.  S/He is there to be the
conduit to the NC for the views of the GA.

> My view remains that it is in the interests of the internet community that ICANN
> should seek a co-operative arrangement in order to avoid collisions in the
> namespace.

My view is that the alternative root systems should earn the right to
be recognized by ICANN or anyone else in this type of way. They have
not done so, in that their TLDs are not visible by the internet
community in any number that would indicate they have been successful
in achieving anything resembling widespread use or support.

Until they do so, there is no need, justification, or reason, for
any organization, including ICANN, to seek accommodations with them.

- -- 
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:04:42 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (3) What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] Status of Election for Chair and Alternate Chair

Hi Jeff

> Are you willing to support the following
> DNSO GA List rule changes and DNSO purview changes to the
> current illegitimate ones:
>
> 1.) Elimination of banning of any participant from the DNSO GA List.

No.

> 2.) Open participation to any and all interested participants on the DNSO
>      GA list, all Working groups that may be formed or are in progress.

Yes subject to (1).

> 3.) Personal privacy is the purview of the participant.  That participant has
>      the right to keep private any or all personal information about
his/herself
>      without exception or fear of penalty.

Yes unless proof of identity needed.

> 4.) Modify the existing voting procedures to be absolutely inclusive of
>      any stakeholder whom is self declaring.

Yes subject to (3).

> 5.) That any participant is eligible to vote in the DNSO GA on an equal basis
>      with all other participants.

Yes subject to (3).

> 6.) Any DNSO participant or stakeholder may put forward any resolution for
>      a vote or debate at any time and that said resolution must be considered
>      openly for debate or vote as indicated.

Yes.  Any resolution must have a nominator and a seconder.

> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeffrey

<snip>

- --
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 #324
************************