Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #326
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 31 2001           Volume 01 : Number 326

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:30:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bret Fausett's MP3 audio archives of the NC meetings

The URLs to Bret Fausett's MP3 audio archives of the NC meetings
have been added in the main page as well as in:
    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2001calendardnso.html

24 Jan, 8 Feb, 26 Feb and 28 March so far.

Thank you Bret.

DNSO Secretariat

| From [email-masked] Wed Mar 28 18:58 MET 2001
| User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
| Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:52:02 -0800
| Subject: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting
| From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
| To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
| Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
| 
| An mp3 archive of today's Names Council meeting is available at:
| 
|     http://www.lextext.com/nc03282001.html
| 
| Many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its meetings open to
| the public in spite of its budget constraints and for its willingness to
| explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.
| 
|       -- Bret
| 
- --
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 16:42:52 -0600
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] TLDA IS NOT ORSC Was Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Inclusive Name Space Root Servers is the correct term.

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] TLDA IS NOT ORSC Was Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> 
> But we do refer to them as ORSs, correct?
> 
> Or is Alternate Root Servers more correct?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 

- --
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 15:46:07 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's MP3 audio archives of the NC meetings

Many thanks to Bret Fausett, for continuing this hard work in keeping us and the
rest of the world that cares informed.  You are a model of Education and Outreach
being personified.

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> The URLs to Bret Fausett's MP3 audio archives of the NC meetings
> have been added in the main page as well as in:
>     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2001calendardnso.html
>
> 24 Jan, 8 Feb, 26 Feb and 28 March so far.
>
> Thank you Bret.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> | From [email-masked] Wed Mar 28 18:58 MET 2001
> | User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> | Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:52:02 -0800
> | Subject: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting
> | From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
> | To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> | Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> |
> | An mp3 archive of today's Names Council meeting is available at:
> |
> |     http://www.lextext.com/nc03282001.html
> |
> | Many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its meetings open to
> | the public in spite of its budget constraints and for its willingness to
> | explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.
> |
> |       -- Bret
> |
> --
> 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 17:45:54 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lawmakers Want Review Of ICANN-VeriSign Deal

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C0B941.452158C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lawmakers Want Review Of ICANN-VeriSign Deal

A quartet of influential lawmakers today asked the Commerce
Department to review the behind-the-scenes deal that may soon give
Internet addressing giant VeriSign [NASDAQ:VRSN] near permanent
control over the incalculably valuable ".com" registry.

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/163911.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C0B941.452158C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Lawmakers Want =
Review Of=20
ICANN-VeriSign Deal<BR><BR>A quartet of influential lawmakers today =
asked the=20
Commerce<BR>Department to review the behind-the-scenes deal that may =
soon=20
give<BR>Internet addressing giant VeriSign [NASDAQ:VRSN] near=20
permanent<BR>control over the incalculably valuable ".com"=20
registry.</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><FONT =
size=3D3>
<DIV><BR></FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/163911.html"><FONT=20
size=3D3>http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/163911.html</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>/Bruce</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C0B941.452158C0--

- --
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 18:46:22 -0500
From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Subject: [ga] Endorsement rejected

Is it too late to submit GA endorsements? this one was rejected ...

Bill Semich

>To: [email-masked]
>From: Mail Administrator<[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: Mail Administrator<[email-masked]>
>Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:35:43 -0500
>
>This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
>
>Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server.
>The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why
>each recipient was rejected. 
>
>    Recipient: <[email-masked]>
>    Reason:    <[email-masked]>... User unknown
>
>
>Please reply to [email-masked]
>if you feel this message to be in error.
>
>Received: from bill ([66.31.217.214]) by mail.nic.nu
>          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-61576U100L100S0V35)
>          with SMTP id nu for <[email-masked]>;
>          Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:35:11 -0500
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:30:23 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
>Subject: Endorsement for Eric Dierker
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>3a. full name of endorser: J. William Semich
>3b.Email address of the endorser: [email-masked]
>3c. full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse:  Eric Dierker
>
>Eric looks like a good candidate to me, and he should have the opportunity
>to run unencumbered.
>
>
>
>
Bill Semich
President and Founder
WorldNames, Inc.
http://www.worldnames.net
[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 18:46:09 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a reminder

A REMINDER:

Therefore it is resolved that:

   [Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
   to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
   DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes
   in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

   [Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes that
   improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later
   than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input
   will be scheduled at the end of that period."

In accordance with these resolutions, Names Council, working group,
constituency, and general assembly input related to improvements to the
operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today should be submitted by
16 April either to the web-based public comment forum at
<http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/> or by sending an e-mail to
<mailto:[email-masked]).

For the last several months all of us have had the opportunity to actively
participate in a review of the DNSO.    The origins of this review may be
traced back to the "Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts,
March 4, 1999"  http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html wherein it was
stated:

"The ICANN Board should periodically review the status of the constituency
groups to determine whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented."

One readily notes the substantive contributions of Jon Weinberg, Eric
Dierker, and many others in this process, a process that is now (at least
within the Review Working Group), culminating in a series of final
recommendations for DNSO improvement, both procedural and structural.

However, there are many that have chosen not to participate, not to offer
suggestions or even to offer constructive criticism.   You have been invited
to take hold of the opportunity to work from within ICANN for the betterment
of ICANN.   Two weeks remain for your recommendations to be submitted.   I
look forward to seeing your comments in the Public Forum.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
Member, Review Working Group

- --
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 17:18:06 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

At 11:43 AM 3/30/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

Having not read the original note, I've no idea what an "exclusive-elite 
model" is.

However one indication of the factual accuracy of the rest of the note is 
that I was never chair of the IAHC (nor chair of the POC).  I was merely a 
member of each.

My involvement with CORE was limited to participation in a single, 
formative meeting in New York City, some years ago, before CORE was 
formally active.  The meeting was for the purpose of formulating an initial 
specification of registry technical requirements.

The author has been active in this topic for a long time and should know 
such facts.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:34:07 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Gentlmen,

I am deeply troubled by this entire problem.  I believe that we must not look at
the individual but the GA when trying to resolve this issue.  After the flury of
activity of the last 24 I believe it prudent to evaluate this situation over some
time.

A censor or other ban without the right of some sort of appeal is a little
repugnant to the notions of fair play.  However on the other hand we must maintain
order in order to be productive.

Today, heat of the moment and exhaustion obviously had a negative effect on the
two involved men.

I thank you Mr. Alvestrand for slowing the moment down and not taking any rash
actions.  Please let us set up some type of process to handle this and subsequent
problems of this nature.

Sincerely

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 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.
> 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

- --
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 13:48:55 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (4)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 06:06:27 +1000, you wrote:

>----- 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....
>
>> > 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.

In case Jeff's claims are true could all the candidates for Chair
confirm their position on whether they support getting rid of the rule
which allows for suspensions etc.

For the record I will not vote for any candidate who wants us to go
back to the days when there were no list rules.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 18:19:27 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 30, 2001, 5:34:07 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Today, heat of the moment and exhaustion obviously had a negative effect on the
> two involved men.

There was only one involved person.

> I thank you Mr. Alvestrand for slowing the moment down and not taking any rash
> actions.  Please let us set up some type of process to handle this and subsequent
> problems of this nature.

We have a process.

Harald is asking what changes need to be made to it to deal with any
problems people have seen recently that are not covered by those
rules.

- -- 
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 00:18:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Members (you know I hate that all remaining members deal)

No Mr. Walsh's post was not good enough and neither is summary execution.

In response to DPF I, as a non candidate will state my position on the Idea of
Censorship.
1.    Outside Inside
2.    Inherant rights
3    Due Process

    1.    If we are not very careful we look very bad from the outside, and that is
very bad.
    2.    One man, to date has been Harald decides what is wrong or right on freedom
of speech issues?  No this is not good and looks bad.  I would set up a committee of
three and give 48 hour notices and response time or more.  Immediacy in stopping
public opinion is not necessary.  To tell you the truth it looks like book burning.
Regardless of the antagonist Jeff from Texas.  Many of the the things we said today
rate far worse than what he was accused of doing.
    Here is a real problem that we should all take note of;  Mr. Corliss's posts that
should have been private were a horrible lack of decorum.  I believe it was an
accident that he GAed all those privates but nonetheless he did it. No, not one but a
group of three should decide these things over a several day period.  If during that
period a recalcitrant is worse well then he has hung him self.
    3.      I do not need to tell anyone involved here that an Alternative chair
should not be given the power to dispose of one man's opinion, Especially if for his
livelihood he is hired by someone like Hi-Tek or Cisco. That makes us look really bad,
i mean really bad.

So if any candidate is elected please endorse this principal that we can all live with
and at least try to find some compliance with the APA before it is too late.

So please everyone look at this situation and give it your best efforts at your
opinions of right and wrong and help us decide a nice path to follow which will
accomplish all goals, please.

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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:19:22 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Gentlmen,
>
> I am deeply troubled by this entire problem.  I believe that we must not look at
> the individual but the GA when trying to resolve this issue.  After the flury of
> activity of the last 24 I believe it prudent to evaluate this situation over some
> time.
>
> A censor or other ban without the right of some sort of appeal is a little
> repugnant to the notions of fair play.  However on the other hand we must maintain
> order in order to be productive.
>
> Today, heat of the moment and exhaustion obviously had a negative effect on the
> two involved men.
>
> I thank you Mr. Alvestrand for slowing the moment down and not taking any rash
> actions.  Please let us set up some type of process to handle this and subsequent
> problems of this nature.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > 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
>
> --
> 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 21:49:31 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Hello Eric,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 12:18:24 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Members (you know I hate that all remaining members deal)

> No Mr. Walsh's post was not good enough and neither is summary execution.

> In response to DPF I, as a non candidate will state my position on the Idea of
> Censorship.
> 1.    Outside Inside
> 2.    Inherant rights
> 3    Due Process

>     1.    If we are not very careful we look very bad from the outside, and that is
> very bad.
>     2.    One man, to date has been Harald decides what is wrong or right on freedom
> of speech issues?  No this is not good and looks bad.

It looks just fine.  No it does not look bad.  We have rules, they are
enforced, and if someone has a problem, they can appeal that decision
to the chair.

The rules are there to prevent people participating under various
pseudonyms, but they do NOT prevent anonymous participation.  Jeff's
real identity is not known, but that alone isn't reason, under the
rules, to ban him from the list.  When he was unable to provide any
evidence that he was not distinct from the many personalities commonly
known be other aliases of his, those aliases were removed.

The other rule is there to protect civil discourse.

>     Here is a real problem that we should all take note of;  Mr. Corliss's posts that
> should have been private were a horrible lack of decorum.  I believe it was an
> accident that he GAed all those privates but nonetheless he did it.

It was not an accident, but no action was taken against him.  What are
you complaining about with regard to this?

>     3.      I do not need to tell anyone involved here that an Alternative chair
> should not be given the power to dispose of one man's opinion, Especially if for his
> livelihood he is hired by someone like Hi-Tek or Cisco. That makes us look really bad,
> i mean really bad.

And you can provide evidence that this is how the rules are being
used?

I didn't think so.

The rules are in place.  If, by some very unlikely turn of events, you
are elected to chair or alternate chair, it is your duty to enforce
those rules, as adopted by the GA.  If you are indicating you would
refuse to do so, then you should go ahead and recuse yourself.

- -- 
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 08:14:40 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: List rules again (Re: [ga] Re: (6))

At 00:18 31/03/2001 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>     2.    One man, to date has been Harald decides what is wrong or right 
> on freedom of speech issues?  No this is not good and looks bad.  I would 
> set up a committee of three and give 48 hour notices and response time or 
> more.  Immediacy in stopping public opinion is not necessary.  To tell 
> you the truth it looks like book burning.
>Regardless of the antagonist Jeff from Texas.  Many of the the things we 
>said today rate far worse than what he was accused of doing.

Reminders:

1) The rules are at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
2) The rules were adopted by list vote, gathering a majority of 46 out of
    55 votes, November 6-17, 2000. This was the first vote to be taken after
    a voting rule had been voted in by the GA members.
3) The rules do not mandate a single list monitor, or that this list monitor
    should be the alternate chair. There have been no volunteers to help
    with the job; I think we need at least one more person.
4) I will argue strenously that the list monitor needs the right to act
    rapidly - that means the ability to act on his own. There is an appeals
    procedure in place (appeal to GA chair).
    (This also means that the GA chair SHOULD NOT be a list monitor....)
5) I regard the idea that my employer is relevant to my integrity as
    a personal insult.
    Remember - we ALL work for someone. If one allows silencing on that
    basis, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
6) On the "others have been worse than Jeff" argument:
    Surprisingly, no complaint has been lodged with the list monitor over
    any behaviour except that of Jeff Williams. The list monitor has chosen
    not to generate any complaint either.
    This does NOT mean that angry participants don't need to tone down!

- --
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:57:00 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

At 16:23 30/03/2001 -0500, JandL wrote:
>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.

The TLDA has not defined what it is to "hold" a TLD.
I wonder how the TLDA will adjust to the situations:

a) where a member "holds" a TLD (by their definition), and a nonmember 
wishes to join, "holding" a TLD with the same name
b) where an existing member starts insisting that he "holds" a TLD of the 
same name that another existing member "holds"
c) where a nonmember claims to "hold" a TLD of the same name that a TLDA 
member "holds", but shows no interest in joining the TLDA

The answers to those questions will pretty much determine whether the TLDA 
will be a "we are not ICANN" club, a coordinating body for a coherent 
alternative root name set, a club of "we got here first" TLDsquatters, or 
something different from the above.

I cannot evaluate the effort before those answers are in.
Unfortunately, getting to those answers will involve a great deal of work 
within the organization, meaning that I am not likely to know for some time.

Good luck.

- --
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:45:38 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: (6)  What's In It For Me?  -  Jeff Williams

Colleagues,

Maybe this will help to understand the dichotomy between freedom of speech and order. Bill
has one perspective and i another, eh somewhere in between they shall meet.

It is neither my habit nor custom to include past posts and thereby take up space in a full
reply.  But Mr. Walsh, in keeping with my position that it is not the man but the idea that
is important, I will fully respond because your questions deserve response because they are
important to all members. I also thank you for the effort you put into this assembly
although we normally disagree on perspective but not conclusion.

>
> It looks just fine.  No it does not look bad.  We have rules, they are
> enforced, and if someone has a problem, they can appeal that decision
> to the chair.
>
> The rules are there to prevent people participating under various
> pseudonyms, but they do NOT prevent anonymous participation.  Jeff's
> real identity is not known, but that alone isn't reason, under the
> rules, to ban him from the list.  When he was unable to provide any
> evidence that he was not distinct from the many personalities commonly
> known be other aliases of his, those aliases were removed.
>
> The other rule is there to protect civil discourse.
>
> >     Here is a real problem that we should all take note of;  Mr. Corliss's posts that
> > should have been private were a horrible lack of decorum.  I believe it was an
> > accident that he GAed all those privates but nonetheless he did it.
>
> It was not an accident, but no action was taken against him.  What are
> you complaining about with regard to this?
>
> >     3.      I do not need to tell anyone involved here that an Alternative chair
> > should not be given the power to dispose of one man's opinion, Especially if for his
> > livelihood he is hired by someone like Hi-Tek or Cisco. That makes us look really bad,
> > i mean really bad.
>
> And you can provide evidence that this is how the rules are being
> used?

>
> Here the point is missed and stop acting like you do not get it.   It looks really bad,
> let me repeat it looks really bad, can you get it through your head it matters how it
> looks. By goodness you have to get it, it does matter to the world and Senators, and DOC
> that it looks so bad.  If you cannot understand this concept then those who agree with me
> will and those who do not will not.

We may act a certain way but showing off arrogance does not help our cause.

>
> I didn't think so.
>
> The rules are in place.  If, by some very unlikely turn of events, you
> are elected to chair or alternate chair, it is your duty to enforce
> those rules, as adopted by the GA.  If you are indicating you would
> refuse to do so, then you should go ahead and recuse yourself.
>
>

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Bill but the way you express is hurts our cause
in legitimizing ICANN.  I advocated change Bill, read a civics book.

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

At this point I would rely on the alternate chair position that I am not eligible to run
for chair due to lack of endorsements.  I defer, yet will cooperate with Ms. Joanna in that
regard, she seems to have a far better handle on that than do we.
    That brings us to the alternate chair and appeal to the chair.  That is not good enough.
Balance is where it is at.  If the chairs are held by bottom up dudes like myself I want
Cisco dudes like Harald counter balancing that, that is why the committee.  I am not
whining, and to heck with Jeff, he is a man who can take what was given under existing
rules. Just like you on your penalties. If anyone has a problem with that read Platos'
Republic and then leave, I take liberty Sotiris.
    I am suggesting a manner in which it is a little more palatable for the world so that we
gain some credibility.
    I suppose in some way I am saying that if I were chair, due process would be a bigger
part of the picture, and it would, but I think that is moot.
    Harshness dealt with unfairness is the perpetuation of bad.  Frustration dealt with
tolerance is the perpetuation of solution. And you can quote that, for free.

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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:51:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ok Harald,  you layeth the hatchet now do you endorse a TLD candidate or not?

"Be careful on who's doorstep you lay your opinion it may be asked" (ed2001)

Sincerely,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 16:23 30/03/2001 -0500, JandL wrote:
> >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.
>
> The TLDA has not defined what it is to "hold" a TLD.
> I wonder how the TLDA will adjust to the situations:
>
> a) where a member "holds" a TLD (by their definition), and a nonmember
> wishes to join, "holding" a TLD with the same name
> b) where an existing member starts insisting that he "holds" a TLD of the
> same name that another existing member "holds"
> c) where a nonmember claims to "hold" a TLD of the same name that a TLDA
> member "holds", but shows no interest in joining the TLDA
>
> The answers to those questions will pretty much determine whether the TLDA
> will be a "we are not ICANN" club, a coordinating body for a coherent
> alternative root name set, a club of "we got here first" TLDsquatters, or
> something different from the above.
>
> I cannot evaluate the effort before those answers are in.
> Unfortunately, getting to those answers will involve a great deal of work
> within the organization, meaning that I am not likely to know for some time.
>
> Good luck.
>
> --
> 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 23:23:42 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hello Eric,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 1:51:01 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Ok Harald,  you layeth the hatchet now do you endorse a TLD candidate or not?

What the heck is a "TLD candidate" ?

We are electing a GA Chair, who will advocate those things on which
the GA develops Consensus, not any personal agenda.

If a candidate cannot set their personal agenda down, then they should
not be a candidate.

The one candidate I know for a fact who can do that, and not only that
but has also shown a remarkable and incredible skill at building
consensus even on the most contentious issues, is Jonathan Weinberg.

That is the most important skill when looking at suitability.

A GA Chair who holds too strong an opinion on any particular
controversial issues, such as alternative roots or TLDs, would not be
a suitable GA Chair if they are not able to completely and totally
separate themselves from that, and be willing to advocate on behalf of
the GA and the consensus developed by the GA, even if that consensus
is contrary to what their own position on that issue, and even if that
consensus would be harmful to their position.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #326
************************