Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #329
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 1 2001            Volume 01 : Number 329

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:59:39 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> With all the traffic these days I don't remember if anybody has already
> posted about the update in ICANN web pages on the VeriSign contract
> (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm)...

It has been suggested that ICANN announce all new postings to its site
through a list serve as people hate to constantly search an ever growing
hay stack for new morsels.  Is that something you might want to raise
with the staff?
- --
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 14:28:52 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 Sotiris,

What is a newbie?  If the criteria is the Boston meeting, I fail the 
test.  At that time I was caring for my terminally ill parent and 
attended nothing, had little time for mail lists...  However, I've kept 
up with the Internet evolution since the early 80's.  Am I a newbie?  
In addition, there are newbies who have done their homework and 
are as well versed in the isues as some of the oldest participants.  

Presence on these lists should not be the criteria.  I lurked for years 
before joining.  If a person has little to say, why clutter the list?  
That does not mean that he or she does not have the valuable 
experience to participate and/or lead.  I think it is much more 
important to know if a candidate has an understanding of the issues 
and the qualities to uphold the position for which he or she is 
running.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Leah

> William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > Saturday, March 31, 2001, 2:56:49 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I am sorry but I have not seen anything about the man JW.  Where I
> > > come
> from a man
> > > who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
> >
> > Eric, if you don't know who he is, then perhaps you need to take
> > into account how new you are to the process, and that maybe you
> > should look into more than just the events in few months that the
> > At-Large has been around, which brought many "newbies" such as
> > yourself to the process.
> 
> William,
> 
> Since I began my invovlement in ICANN there have been may "newbies",
> including yourself... I don't see your name on the Boston meeting
> List: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/attendees.html
>  Roberto gaetano is there and so are some of the others... but your
> characterization of Eric as a "newbie" is like the pot calling the
> kettle black in my opinion.  William, in comparison to some of us
> you're a "newbie", but so what?  In fact, none of the current
> candidates are listed for the Boston Meeting in '98, should we
> consider all of them "newbies"?  Please William, drop the
> characterizations.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Individual
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Individual
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:36:55 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hello JandL,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 11:28:52 AM, JandL wrote:

>  Sotiris,

> What is a newbie?

What has been snipped from all of this discussion of the term newbie,
is the context in which it was actually used:

> Eric, if you don't know who he is, then perhaps you need to take into
> account how new you are to the process, and that maybe you should look
> into more than just the events in few months that the At-Large has
> been around, which brought many "newbies" such as yourself to the process.

As you will note, it was used to remind "newcomers" that there is vastly
more to this process and its history that deserves recognition than
what has happened in the few months since the At-Large process brought
most of these "newcomers" into the process.

Let's make sure we look at things in context.

- -- 
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 13:45:13 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

> Yes, personally, I feel any candidate that feels a need to "campaign"
> for the position is probably not the kind of candidate needed for that
> position.

I think it is helpful and honorable for candidates to state their
positions and demonstrate how they would handle various situations which
they might face if entrusted with an office.  In fact, I like long and
brutal campaigns in most political settings so the candidates' real
attributes may become exposed. I don't like people sliding by without
contest.  

In a small professional group, such as this, much less is needed.  But,
the best candidate for the job may not be best known.  And, people don't
pay that much attention to who stands for what or who has which
qualifications or leadership traits until they are put to a choice, at
which time they appreciate information with which to make informed
decisions.  

In this case, you may already have made and will not be swayed from your
first choice for Chair.  But since we are using an election system based
upon how we rank the candidates, you may need help deciding the order of
your preference with regard to the other three candidates, especially
since we are filling two positions.  As we have seen, the office of
alternate chair is not ceremonial.  Thus, we need to think about
candidates with whom we are less familiar.  

Thus, candidates should not be made to feel self-conscious about
speaking up during this stage of the election.
- --
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 15:46:45 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Suggestions

My preliminary suggestions for DNSO improvement have been posted to the
Public Forum.
The URL:
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030

I look forward to seeing your comments posted as well.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:35:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Campaigning for Position of GA Chair

On Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:23 PM (AEST), William X. Walsh wrote:
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> 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.

On Sunday, April 01, 2001 4:38 AM (AEST), William X. Walsh wrote:
Subject: Re[2]: Function and quality of GA Chair- (was RE: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level
Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

> Yes, personally, I feel any candidate that feels a need to "campaign"
> for the position is probably not the kind of candidate needed for that
> position.

Hi William

You've said you favour Jonathan Weinberg and I have no problem with that.
I was taken to task for NOT disclosing my interests but when I did you suggest
I'm incapable of developing consensus.  Now you say I'm unsuitable because
I'm campaigning.   You also suggested earlier that I was "disingenuous".

The truth is that you've known me on these lists for a long time.  Anyone can
have a look at the archives of at least six lists -- including this one -- to
see my postings for at least a year.  I have not been on this list for some
time.  Actually Iquit in September returned in November and quit again.  Others
on this list might not know me that well.  Roberto and Harald both should.

You know as well as I do that a person cannot come to a task without some
baggage.  You also know that I have experience and a bit of wisdom.  My postings
are almost always restrained and I am, like you, experienced on the lists.

It is my nature to seek consensus and that's why I'm proposing peace between
ICANN and the alternative community.  It's also why I'm proposing a peaceful
resolution of colliding TLDs.  It's because I'm in favour of democracy,
participation and more that I am proposing a fairer constituency structure.

And it's because I'm in favour of peace and harmony that I would see the rules
of order maintained on the GA list.  This, as you know, is an ongoing problem.

I'm in favour of anything which builds a better online environment.  To imply
that this somehow makes me an unsuitable candidate is very cheeky.

I don't expect the GA to require me to act in an unsuitable way.  But please
don't campaign on behalf of Jonathan Weinberg and tell me not to campaign on
behalf of myself.   Perhaps you could let Jonathan speak for himself.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 23:36:33 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

Eric,
>
>I think it is helpful and honorable for candidates to state their
>positions and demonstrate how they would handle various situations which
>they might face if entrusted with an office.  In fact, I like long and
>brutal campaigns in most political settings so the candidates' real
>attributes may become exposed. I don't like people sliding by without
>contest.
>
>In a small professional group, such as this, much less is needed.  But,
>the best candidate for the job may not be best known.  And, people don't
>pay that much attention to who stands for what or who has which
>qualifications or leadership traits until they are put to a choice, at
>which time they appreciate information with which to make informed
>decisions.
>
>In this case, you may already have made and will not be swayed from your
>first choice for Chair.  But since we are using an election system based
>upon how we rank the candidates, you may need help deciding the order of
>your preference with regard to the other three candidates, especially
>since we are filling two positions.  As we have seen, the office of
>alternate chair is not ceremonial.  Thus, we need to think about
>candidates with whom we are less familiar.
>
>Thus, candidates should not be made to feel self-conscious about
>speaking up during this stage of the election.

Your posting makes a lot of sense to me.

So far, it seems that we have been thinking mostly about "one" candidate, 
but the points implied in your reasonment are:
- - it becomes important how we rank the "second choices", in case our "first 
choice" is not the chosen one
- - the result of this election is not one name but two, Chair + AltChair

Incidentally, what is the feeling of the Assembly about exceptionally 
waiving the message limit for the four candidates during this week?
If the debate becomes interesting, the candidates may want to answer to 
different questions, and be unable to do so before midnight ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 23:43:19 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chair Election 

The quality of the four nominated persons for Chair and co-Chair, shows 
that this GA is becoming a mature body.
The future of the DNSO and the GA has been discussed at length in the 
WG-Review allowing each candidate to give his own position.
To the benefit of the GA I would like to ask the four of them to comment 
the following positions:

1. the DNSO should be made of the GA with freely created GA/SIGs ranging 
form existing constituencies to Working Groups and Centers of Interests. It 
elects its own Chairs.

2. each SIGs has its own rules and Charter. SIGs are registered by 
Secretariat and provided with a DNSO specialized mailing list and a link on 
the DNSO welcome page.

3. SIGs are acknowledged by the GA on a regular basis as representative of 
real interests/results. No being acknowledged does not dissolve an SIG (it 
may be a new, a side interest, etc... SIG).

4. Members of the DNSO/GA are supposed to possess the technical/political 
knowledge of a Domain Name owner.

5. A Mailing List gathers *one* representative per SIG to help coordinating 
the SIGs.  That mailing list could eventually replace/complete the NC.

6. The transition could be implemented simply in welcoming specialized 
Centers of Interests (providing them with an ML and a link) and in creating 
an ML for their Chairs, the Chairs of the Constituencies and the Chair of 
the NC. And in reviewing the result.

7. The WG-Review would become one of these SIG and would stay on a 
permanent basis as some QA center for the DNSO.

8. as a Support Organization, the DNSO missions is to uncover consensus on 
"netwide" concerns (even if they are only the list of the various 
positions) providing the BoD with advise on the "reality", the "possible" 
and the "advisable". It is the role of the @large to vote on positions and 
to allow stakeholders on the "desirable" and on the "demanded". In a 
nutshell netwide, consensus and consulting belong to the DNSO while 
stakeholders interests, votes and requests belong to the @large.

9. The DNS is a public domain program. Each machine using it needs a unique 
root. It is advisable that every machine on the network uses the same 
unique root. To reach this all the existing roots should be accepted as 
sub-sets of a unique common root and be equally supported as per the iCANN 
Charter and bylaws.

10. The iCANN should disengage from the USG control in becoming an 
international association of the national and market Internet communities. 
Its charter is to ordinarily serve these communities and exceptionally to 
represent them on a consensual and formally defined delegation.

I thank the four candidates for their comments.

Jefsey

- --
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 15:54:45 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] If that is a motion, I second it.  If not, I make it.

Or, if this is subject to discretion (as previously demonstrated), I
support

> waiving the message limit for the four candidates during this week.
- --
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 16:58:15 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Being busy as we all are, getting around to routinely checking any site
(even ICANN) is hard to do!

I think the idea of a "notice of a change and what the subject is" would be
great!  How do others feel? I may be alone in this.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Weisberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> With all the traffic these days I don't remember if anybody has already
> posted about the update in ICANN web pages on the VeriSign contract
> (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm)...

It has been suggested that ICANN announce all new postings to its site
through a list serve as people hate to constantly search an ever growing
hay stack for new morsels.  Is that something you might want to raise
with the staff?
- --
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:05:11 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "newbies"

Sotiris,

As midnight is approaching over here, I will dedicate my fifth and last of 
the day to comment your post.

>
>It has been brought to my attention that I have erred with my appraisal of 
>the duration of WXW's participation in ICANN.  Well, let me just say that 
>over the years, I have been more of an observer than participant, mostly 
>because I was busy trying to learn all I could about the issues and the 
>matters involved in ICANN and its formation. I hope that's OK with all of 
>you?  But, if you were to search some of the past forum boards, you will 
>find my name, just like you do for the Boston Meeting in '98.  I've not 
>been on many of the previous MLs as I preferred to take an outsider's look 
>in.   Not everyone speaks up who watches... this List is good evidence of 
>that.  To be honest, I came forward into the "limelight" so
>to speak, after years of "doing my homework" because the disgust I felt 
>drove me to do so.  So, I may not have crossed paths with Mr. Walsh... I do 
>not recall having done so, just as I've never heard of many of you till 
>now.
>

Let's be clear: without "newbies" this list will continue to hash the same 
subjects with the same people and become greatly irrelevant in the global 
picture.
Welcome to the "newbies": you must be proud of having been able to join this 
debate and cope with the sometimes overheated discussion, and rejected the 
temptation to leave.

But we must understand that there is a balance that we must find in the 
understanding of eachother's point of view.
The "newbies" should understand that there's respect in the community for 
people that have already given, and the "oldies but goldies" should be 
humble enough not to dismiss the newcomers.

As to look for the participants list in meeting, two warnings.
First, participation to a physical meeting or to a particular list may not 
be indicative of a particular engagement. I know people that attended each 
and every ICANN meeting, and I bet will be unable to tell what was going on, 
and people that are very well informed, and contributing positively, but 
attended only the few meetings that were at their reach (geographically, 
economically, or timewise).
Second, most of the so called "participants lists" do not list the 
attendees, but the people who registered in advance. You may see Jeff 
Williams registered for most ICANN meetings, but nobody ever saw him.

Good night.
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:02:46 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

I am very much in favor of being notified of changes to the ICANN 
website - any changes.

Leah

> Being busy as we all are, getting around to routinely checking any
> site (even ICANN) is hard to do!
> 
> I think the idea of a "notice of a change and what the subject is"
> would be great!  How do others feel? I may be alone in this.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weisberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site
> 
> 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > With all the traffic these days I don't remember if anybody has
> > already posted about the update in ICANN web pages on the VeriSign
> > contract
> > (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm)...
> 
> It has been suggested that ICANN announce all new postings to its site
> through a list serve as people hate to constantly search an ever
> growing hay stack for new morsels.  Is that something you might want
> to raise with the staff? -- 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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:37:19 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .org poll

Dear GA members,

As promised, 'round midnight I counted the ballots for .org.
Since my message that was indicating in 0/7/5+34 the split among, 
respectively, [change]/[no change]/[abstain], I received only half a dozen 
messages.
This indicates clearly that the abstention party is still the vast majority.
If I may draw any conclusion, it is that at this point in time the GA is 
focusing more on the election of its Chair, and that the discussion of this 
very important policy issue should be resumed after the elections.

Best regards
Roberto
(P.S.: this is not an April Fool's message, it's a serious one)
_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:50:05 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

>>what is the feeling of the Assembly about exceptionally  waiving the
message limit for the four candidates during this week?<<

My feeling is to waive the message limit for only the 4 candidates.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

Eric,
>
>I think it is helpful and honorable for candidates to state their
>positions and demonstrate how they would handle various situations which
>they might face if entrusted with an office.  In fact, I like long and
>brutal campaigns in most political settings so the candidates' real
>attributes may become exposed. I don't like people sliding by without
>contest.
>
>In a small professional group, such as this, much less is needed.  But,
>the best candidate for the job may not be best known.  And, people don't
>pay that much attention to who stands for what or who has which
>qualifications or leadership traits until they are put to a choice, at
>which time they appreciate information with which to make informed
>decisions.
>
>In this case, you may already have made and will not be swayed from your
>first choice for Chair.  But since we are using an election system based
>upon how we rank the candidates, you may need help deciding the order of
>your preference with regard to the other three candidates, especially
>since we are filling two positions.  As we have seen, the office of
>alternate chair is not ceremonial.  Thus, we need to think about
>candidates with whom we are less familiar.
>
>Thus, candidates should not be made to feel self-conscious about
>speaking up during this stage of the election.

Your posting makes a lot of sense to me.

So far, it seems that we have been thinking mostly about "one" candidate,
but the points implied in your reasonment are:
- - it becomes important how we rank the "second choices", in case our "first
choice" is not the chosen one
- - the result of this election is not one name but two, Chair + AltChair

Incidentally, what is the feeling of the Assembly about exceptionally
waiving the message limit for the four candidates during this week?
If the debate becomes interesting, the candidates may want to answer to
different questions, and be unable to do so before midnight ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
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

- --
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 16:56:23 -0800
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Endorsements

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

- --
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 16:57:08 -0800
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Endorsements

       3a. Full name of the endorser:  Cindy Merry	
       3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
       3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
           you wish to endorse: Danny Younger

- --
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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 01:09:40 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Yes, it would be a tremendous help.
I asked Alejandro Pisanty about a month ago whether he could
"urge ICANN staff to send out all the Web announcements
on the announce list, too" and he answered on the NCDNHC's
list with "will do".

/// Alexander

> I am very much in favor of being notified of changes to the ICANN
> website - any changes.
>
> Leah

>> Being busy as we all are, getting around to routinely checking any
>> site (even ICANN) is hard to do!
>>
>> I think the idea of a "notice of a change and what the subject is"
>> would be great!  How do others feel? I may be alone in this.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Weisberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:00 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site
>>
>>
>> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > With all the traffic these days I don't remember if anybody has
>> > already posted about the update in ICANN web pages on the VeriSign
>> > contract
>> > (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm)...
>>
>> It has been suggested that ICANN announce all new postings to its site
>> through a list serve as people hate to constantly search an ever
>> growing hay stack for new morsels.  Is that something you might want
>> to raise with the staff?
- --
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 17:30:43 -0800
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Function and quality of GA Chair- (was RE: Re[2]: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:38 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:

>snip....Yes, personally, I feel any candidate that feels a need to
"campaign"
for the position is probably not the kind of candidate needed for that
position."<

Personally, if campaigning is explaining your positions, interests, ideals,
and thoughts, along with motivating folks to come to a consensus than I am
most interested in hearing from the candidates.  Furthermore as a "newbie"
it is always nice to understand what goes on behind the scenes.  Education
and Outreach are probably one of the most important "needs" demonstrated in
the GA of the DNSO.  In my own mind I am still debating whether
participating in this organization and on the WG Review will accomplish
anything, so more power to a "newbie" like Eric and Danny who dove in and
found something worthy about participating.  Encouragement, along with
guidance, might bring more talent to the General Assembly and at some point
mean something to the overall ICANN / internet world.
Thanks, Cindy Merry

- --
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 18:37:42 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

Incidentally, what is the feeling of the Assembly about exceptionally 
waiving the message limit for the four candidates during this week?

Yes, candidates should not be limited in any way during the next week.
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:41:36 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Campaigning for Position of GA Chair

At 12:35 PM 3/31/2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>You also know that I have experience and a bit of wisdom.

Maybe even 2 bits.

Is that enough in a world of terabits?

To claim that someone else credits you with with wisdom is impressive.

And often wrong.

And usually is, itself, a solid demonstration of the reason the claim is wrong.

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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:54:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Yes, it's especially frustrating that only certain changes are noted on
the front page - and not always in date order, either.

One of the goals of ICANNWatch (and the ICANNBlog, I'm sure) is to fill
this gap - but I'd be happy to have less to do).

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Being busy as we all are, getting around to routinely checking any site
> (even ICANN) is hard to do!
> 
> I think the idea of a "notice of a change and what the subject is" would be
> great!  How do others feel? I may be alone in this.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weisberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site
> 
> 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > With all the traffic these days I don't remember if anybody has already
> > posted about the update in ICANN web pages on the VeriSign contract
> > (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm)...
> 
> It has been suggested that ICANN announce all new postings to its site
> through a list serve as people hate to constantly search an ever growing
> hay stack for new morsels.  Is that something you might want to raise
> with the staff?
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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 19:18:29 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Candidate Questions

Dear Mr. Weinberg,
The role of GA Chair ranges from hi-profile to fairly mundane. While your
qualifications are not in doubt,  I notice that you have not been active on
the GA ML or filed any public comments for some time. My concern is that
heavy commitments elsewhere will impact your ability to fulfill all the
requirements of the role over an extended period of time.
Question: Do you foresee managing all day to day GA Chair functions
personally, or would you need to delegate some aspects to the Co-Chair? If
so, which and to whom?
Thank you,
Joanna Lane

- --
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 #329
************************