Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #325
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 31 2001           Volume 01 : Number 325

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:06:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (4)  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 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [PRIVATE] Status of Election for Chair and Alternate Chair

Patrick,

 Well I am sorry.  I am not able to support your nomination given the
answers to the questions and reasonable requirnments I listed below.
Two other candidates DO support these basic principals....

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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>

- --
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:04:53 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] And I agree with Eric [Was: I agree with everything Roberto (and Harald) said]

Hello Roberto,

I can't support this view.

An endorsement means, and should mean, that you, as an individual,
personally support the person indicated, and state that they not only
have the qualifications, but that they are well suited to fill the
role for which they are being nominated.

Endorsements are meaningless otherwise.  If this means that a
candidate does not get the required number of endorsements, then so be
it.

- -- 
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 06:19:29 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (5)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject: [ga-nominations] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis

To Roberto
cc Harald

Dear Chair and Alternate Chair

I formally object to the nomination of Bob Davis, and indeed his membership, on
the grounds that he does not exist as a real person.  He is an alter ego of Jeff
Williams.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

[ga-nominations] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga-nominations] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:03:41 -0800
CC: Bob Davis <[email-masked]>, General Assembly of the DNSO
<[email-masked]>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
Sender: [email-masked]

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

All remaining assembly members,

To: GA-nominations
with CC to the GA and Bob Davis

   1a. Full name of the nominee: Robert A. Davis
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
   2a. Full name of the nominator: Jeffrey A. Williams
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: GA
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry

  I nominate Bob Davis because of his steller preformance as a
leader and facilitator in our organization, a execellent business
community leader in his community, a knowledgable individual
in areas of internet affairs, ecommerce.  He has been a participant
of the DNSO GA for some time and understand the issues
involved.

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: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:10:00 -0800
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:08:42PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > 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?

Direct and informed observation.

- -- 
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:27:16 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

To:    Roberto Gaetano, Chair
cc:    Harald Tveit Alverstrand

I refuse to be blackmailed by the likes of Jeff Williams.  He has

(1)    falsified the electoral roll with the addition of the non-existent Bob
Davis, his alter ego,
(2)    attempted to fool a genuine candidate into agreeing to allow future false
identities, and
(3)    tried to blackmail that candidate with implied threats and intimidations.

Fortunately I always behave with integrity and am not at all concerned.

I ask that Jeff William be disqualified from this list as an unfit person.

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 12:32:23 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (2)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Hello Patrick,

Friday, March 30, 2001, 11:58:34 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> ----- 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:

Jeffrey wants to bring his aliases back to the list.

Any candidate who supports anything that would result in that please
state so now.  If you wait until after the election, and take any such
action, you will find yourself the subject of a petition to the NC for
removal.

- -- 
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 12:36:22 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:43 AM
> 
> >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?

As my disclaimer stated "to my knowlege". I had not claimed certainty. CORE
came about from the IAHC process. Whom did what to whomelse is not clearly
known outside of that process and that opacity is/was one of the chief
complaints against the IAHC. Incidently, this is also what gave rise to the
ORSC.

> 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). 

What seat(s) are you talking about?

> 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).

The relevent points are that the IAHC agenda was propogated through its
children. If it weren't for the IAHC, CORE would not have had a venue.

> But without any doubt, you (that have never been part of 
> either CORE or POC) 
> know better than me all the details.

No I don't and that was my major point. The whole thing was very opaque and
what was visible was obfuscated. The term "alphabet soup" comes to mind.

> 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,

As you say, it is almost irrelevent. However, the ORSC was born out of
direct opposition to what much of the IAHC/POC/PAB/CORE group(s) were doing
and policies that they were creating, as well as the methods that were being
used to create them.

> 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 ;>)

Actually, that wasn't the point that I was fielding. I espouse no conspiracy
theories. I am trying to view the gestalt.

When I first became involved with this whole mess, I gravitated towrds the
more inclusive group. It wasn't the IAHC and Co.

Oh well, my copy of Jbuilder Enterprise just arrived and I will e busy for a
few days. I have a DevLab to upgrade.
- --
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 22:37:50 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC resolution on the proposed Verisign agreement

The NC resolution in HTML format has been published on the web site in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NC-resolution-VeriSign-agreement.html

The Word format document is in NC mailing list archive:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00100.html

DNSO Secretariat
- --

  From [email-masked] Fri Mar 30 16:49 MET 2001
  Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
  From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
  To: "Stuart Lynn ICANN" <[email-masked]>, "Vint Cerf ICANN" <[email-masked]>
  Cc: "NC \(list\)" <[email-masked]>, "Louis Touton ICANN" <[email-masked]>
  Subject: [council] NC resolution on the proposed Verisign agreement
  Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:48:07 +0200
  
  Further to the Board's request in Melbourne, I take pleasure in 
  enclosing as a Word document a resolution of the Names Council on the 
  proposed Verisign agreement (pages 1-2) and a compilation of statements 
  from each constituency and the General Assembly (pages 3-11).
  
  Philip Sheppard
  NC Chair
- --
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 16:01:58 -0500
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsements

3a. Full name of the endorser: Sotiris Sotiropoulos
3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse: Eric Hugh Dierker

SS

- --
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 16:23:32 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE 
TLDA

Eric:

Let me just ask a question.  Are members of the registry 
constuency, IPC, non-commercial at all biased for their positions?  
Would that preclude a member from competing for chair of the GA?  

It seems to me that there would be no one eligible if affiliation with 
other organizations were a negative criteria.  Patrick is known to be 
in favor of a voice for individuals.  I do not see that as negative or 
a conflict.  Many GA members also enjoy the Inclusive Name Space 
TLDs, as does an ICANN board member.  There are many GA 
members who are TLD holders.  That is not a conflict.

It is my understanding, as I have said before, that ALL TLD holders 
are welcome to join the TLDA.  This includes the DoC and DoC could 
have ICANN represent them.  If the premise is to open 
communication among all parties, how is this in any way a conflict?  
Bringing the Internet community together is supposed to be the aim 
of these organizations.

I happen to believe that Patrick is a very reasonable individual and 
strives for fairness to all sides.  If the GA is to be representative of 
the community, can it exclude those who have disagreements with 
any segment?  

Again, there is no conflict and if asked questions on a wide range of 
topics rather than focusing on one, I believe you would find that 
Patrick is not in a rut at all and the GA is not anywhere near 
capture by those who wish to have an open Internet.  If there is 
any capture, it is by a powerful minority of commercial interests.  It 
is certainly not by the general community.  We have had no voice.

> I do not really see a direct conflict.  However if I understand the
> term correctly I am watching a capture.  This seems to be the product
> of apathy in general and great interest on the other.  I do not view
> this as a good or bad thing, neutral. Who ever can rally the troops
> can take control.  It would appear that the TLDA, is the one rallying
> the troops, I guess I better go over and join so as not to be left
> out. 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. ( a radical cybersquatter
> cannot be a member of the IP, a non-ccTLD manager cannot be a member
> of the ccTLD)
> 
> These are just questions I have not developed a firm opinion on this
> matter but feel we should address them, thanks to Danny and Corliss
> for bringing them to the forefront.
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > [THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
> > THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA]
> >
> > I would like to second Leah's message below.
> >
> > The TLDA (www.tlda.org) is an inclusive organization. While some
> > folks who are working in the TLDA may disagree with the direction
> > that ICANN has taken, this does not mean that there is a conflict of
> > interest.
> >
> > We all want the same thing - a stable, collision free internet
> > namespace. ICANN happens to beleive that they should be the ones to
> > control the one and only root network. Many others, including myself
> > beleive that there can be many root networks and that it is in
> > everyone's best interest to avoid collisions.
> >
> > There are IP issues here. While the USPTO and several courts seem to
> > beleive that there are no ownership rights of TLDs, there are still
> > IP rights. TLDs are business products and it is wrong (and probably
> > illegal) for the USG to take someone's business product away without
> > just compensation (5th Amendment takings clause).
> >
> > Many of us have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on
> > developing our business products and should not be disenfranchised
> > by one organization claiming to have the right to control
> > everything. I think that what ICANN is proposing with .BIZ (that the
> > USG take this business product from AtlanticRoot) is wrong. ICANN
> > should respect the business products of other organizations and
> > should avoid selecting colliding TLDs.
> >
> > ICANN and DNSO have done positive things in the past. I think the
> > TLDA will move in the direction of focusing on those things and will
> > try to foster a good working environment. If there is animosity and
> > conflict, it will not come from TLDA.
> >
> > ICANN/DNSO really needs to drop this "God Complex". They do not own
> > the process and never will. The internet is too big and there are
> > too many other points of view out there.
> >
> > There is no conflict of interest here. Both TLDA and ICANN/DNSO
> > claim to have the same goals - a stable, growing internet. Because
> > of this, I do not consider my position on the TLDA board and my
> > status as a voting member of the GA to be in conflict.
> >
> > John Palmer
> > http://www.adns.net
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>; "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> >
> > > Danny:
> > >
> > > I respectfully strongly disagree with you in your assertion that
> > > there would be a conflict of interest with participation in both
> > > the GA and the TLDA.  Please note that the mission statement reads
> > > "ALL TLD holders are welcome to join the TLDA."  This includes DoC
> > > as well. All means ALL Why, then would you perceive a conflict
> > > when the goal is to have everyone at the table in a cooperative
> > > manner?
> > >
> > > In addition, the press release was also clear with regards to this
> > > being an initial board with limited terms of service.
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope that the GA would not wish to discriminate
> > > against TLD holders in this fashion.  There are many members,
> > > including myself who are TLD holders and strong advocates for
> > > individual domain name holders as well.  I see absolutely no
> > > conflict whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Patrick Corliss is an honest and principled man, IMO, who would
> > > serve the GA well.  This assembly is made up of every conceivable
> > > Internet particpant, from the IP interests all the way to the end
> > > user.  If you would discriminate against a TLD holder who is a
> > > member, then why not a user who may disagree with you?  If
> > > involvement in formation of the TLDA is grounds for conflict, then
> > > surely IP interests are grounds, participation in WIPO, as well as
> > > membership in the ISP/C or any other trade association or industry
> > > specific organization.  There are many voting members of the GA
> > > who actively participate in trade associations.  Using your
> > > criteria, no one from other constituencies would qualify to run
> > > for GA chair.
> > >
> > > How many voices would be silenced in typical ICANN fashion if
> > > membership in other organizations were criteria for discrimination
> > > in the GA?  Half?
> > >
> > > I would ask you to reconsider your statements regarding any
> > > alleged conflict of interest on the part of Patrick.  It is
> > > non-existent.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Leah Gallegos
> > >
> > > > On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed
> > > > (www.tlda.org).
> > > >
> > > > Preliminary participants in this association include six members
> > > > of the Voting Registry of the GA:
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Corliss - Director
> > > > Leah Gallegos - Director
> > > > Miles Eugene Marsh - Chairman of the Board
> > > > John Palmer - Secretary
> > > > Bruce James - Initial Advisory Committee member
> > > > Prof. A. Michael Froomkin - Initial Advisory Committee member
> > > >
> > > > A member of the Names Council, Milton Mueller, is similarly
> > > > listed as an Initial Advisory Committee member, and assuredly
> > > > other GA members will soon declare themselves as participants in
> > > > the TLDA efforts.
> > > >
> > > > The mission statement of this association represents that it is
> > > > a:
> > > >  "trade association of Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) holders.
> > > >  This
> > > > organization represents the interests of TLD Holders and will
> > > > seek to foster cooperation among TLD holders to advance the
> > > > cause of building a stable, collision free namespace. All TLD
> > > > holders are welcome to become members of the TLDA."
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Up until a few days ago, I was fully prepared to endorse Patrick
> > > > Corliss for the Chairmanship of this Assembly.  These recent
> > > > events have made me reconsider my position.  I respect Patrick's
> > > > efforts to work in his own way towards achieving the goal of a
> > > > stable Internet; I still believe that Patrick is a pioneer and
> > > > visionary with a heart of gold and a passion for safeguarding
> > > > the rights of Individuals.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Danny Younger
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe
> > > > ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:58:52 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA Chair election -- 4 candidates

30 March 2001

Election to the Chair and Alternate Chair of the DNSO GA
- --------------------------------------------------------

The Call for Endorsements was closed today, Friday, 30 March 2001,
at 21:00 UTC, 23:00 CET (Paris time).
Since 23:30 Paris time any message sent liste [email-masked]
is returned with a Delivery-Report "User unknown".

The Candidates for the Chair of the General Assembly (GA) are:

 * Danny Younger: nomination, acceptance and list of 13 endorsers
   in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.dyo.html

 * Eric Hugh Dierker: nomination, acceptance and list of 7 endorsers 
   in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.ehd.html

 * Jonathan Weinberg: nomination, acceptance and list of 21 endorsers 
   in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.jwe.html

 * Patrick Corliss: nomination, acceptance and list of 18 endorsers 
   in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/2001.pco.html

Archives of endorsements received:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/Arc01

Please consult
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.

Tomorrow, 31 March 2001, at 18:00 CET (Paris time), the ballots
will be sent to the members of the GA Voting Registry, which will
select the Chair and the Alternate Chair according to adopted procedures
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html.

It is an advisory vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of
its preferences. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:34:03 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Patrick, [no CC list]
plese calm down.

You have spammed the list with 5 separate messages that were copies of a 
private conversation. If you want to post private mail to the list, please 
at least take the time to do so in a rational manner.

At 06:27 31/03/2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>To:    Roberto Gaetano, Chair
>cc:    Harald Tveit Alverstrand
>
>I refuse to be blackmailed by the likes of Jeff Williams.  He has
>
>(1)    falsified the electoral roll with the addition of the non-existent Bob
>Davis, his alter ego,

You did notice that the nomination of "Bob Davis" never made it to the list 
of nominees? And that he is not on the list of voters either?

>(2)    attempted to fool a genuine candidate into agreeing to allow future 
>false identities, and
>(3)    tried to blackmail that candidate with implied threats and 
>intimidations.
>
>Fortunately I always behave with integrity and am not at all concerned.
>
>I ask that Jeff William be disqualified from this list as an unfit person.

What exactly is it that you want to happen to Jeff Williams, and under what 
rule are you asking that this action be taken?

Again, I believe that we need to act according to the rules we have created 
for ourselves, including changing the rules if needed to allow doing that 
which must be done - but never to break them capriciously.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [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 14:14:19 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I absolutely do not see any opposition in our statements and questions.  I
appreciate your point of view and believe that no real conflict exists.  The
whole concept of capture really only relates to if you agree with the
position being espoused.

I don't see a current conflict in Alternatives and others.  As a person who
generally writes policy for projects involved in marketing I see great
potential in the two working side by side for varying reasons.

Truly this disclosure has developed into great enlightenment which is
helping all of us to see that ORS are not a boogey man at all but people
just like us dotcommoners.
Ignorance and bias are our only enemies, certainly not each other.

My groups favorite saying is "Education is Marketing and Marketing is
Education."

Sincerely,

JandL wrote:

>
> Again, there is no conflict and if asked questions on a wide range of
> topics rather than focusing on one, I believe you would find that
> Patrick is not in a rut at all and the GA is not anywhere near
> capture by those who wish to have an open Internet.  If there is
> any capture, it is by a powerful minority of commercial interests.  It
> is certainly not by the general community.  We have had no voice.
>
> > I do not really see a direct conflict.  However if I understand the
> > term correctly I am watching a capture.  This seems to be the product
> > of apathy in general and great interest on the other.  I do not view
> > this as a good or bad thing, neutral. Who ever can rally the troops
> > can take control.  It would appear that the TLDA, is the one rallying
> > the troops, I guess I better go over and join so as not to be left
> > out. 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. ( a radical cybersquatter
> > cannot be a member of the IP, a non-ccTLD manager cannot be a member
> > of the ccTLD)
> >
> > These are just questions I have not developed a firm opinion on this
> > matter but feel we should address them, thanks to Danny and Corliss
> > for bringing them to the forefront.

- --
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 14:21:43 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Delivery Status Notification

I'm getting real tired of this. Can we remove this dweeb until they get
their act together?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Delivery Status Notification
> 
> 
> This message could not be delivered to the following recipients:
> 
> <[email-masked]>:
> This mailbox has exceeded their disk quota. (#5.2.2)
> 
- --
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 14:24:58 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

> From: 'Kent Crispin' [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:10 PM
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:08:42PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > > 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?
> 
> Direct and informed observation.

The same sort of evidence tells me otherwise.
- --
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 14:27:53 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body

Reality is staring you in the face.  People from the ORSC just rallied behind
a chair nominee, not only got him the requisite number, but increased positve
contributions to this list greatly. Now you are saying they have no success?

Perhaps you are referring to operating the ORSs.  This certainly cannot be
true as their existance speaks for itself.

Sincerely,

'Kent Crispin' wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:08:42PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > > 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?
>
> Direct and informed observation.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 #325
************************