Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #330
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 1 2001            Volume 01 : Number 330

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:52:01 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Campaigning for Position of GA Chair

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 1:35:15 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 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.

I suggested no such thing.  I suggested that a candidate who is
campaigning because of his positions isn't necessarily the best
candidate, that instead we need one that will bring us to consensus,
and advocate that consensus, and do those things despite his
positions.

> Now you say I'm unsuitable because
> I'm campaigning.

My general feeling is that if one feels a need to campaign for the
position, that candidate is probably not one I would consider.

This isn't like an ICANN board seat, where you are electing someone
BECAUSE of their views, this position is not something someone is
elected to for their views, but for their abilities.

> You also suggested earlier that I was "disingenuous".

I said that claiming that the TLDA was not about the alternative roots
and TLDs was disingenuous.

> It is my nature to seek consensus and that's why I'm proposing peace between
> ICANN and the alternative community.

That is not a job of the GA Chair.

> It's also why I'm proposing a peaceful
> resolution of colliding TLDs.

That is not a job of the GA Chair.

> It's because I'm in favour of democracy,
> participation and more that I am proposing a fairer constituency structure.

That is not a job of the GA Chair.

> 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.

As I said, if you feel the need to campaign, that is significant.  The
fact that others are not only willing, but eager, to speak in favor of
a candidate, is significant as well.

I've not done anything for Jonathan not to speak.  I'm merely
presenting my own views and opinions.

- -- 
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 19:50:35 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

I'd like to see the candidates making statements, and responding to
inquiries about their statements.   I'm not sure that equates to "unlimited
in any way".  :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:38 PM
To: [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
- --
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 16:54:05 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org poll

Hello Roberto,

Since when has abstentions mannered in developing consensus positions?

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 2:37:19 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

- -- 
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 20:26:30 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

My attitude is give a person enough rope to hang themselves. After all, who
will moderate the moderator after they are elected..:-)
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:51 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Campaigning is good; stealth is bad

I'd like to see the candidates making statements, and responding to
inquiries about their statements.   I'm not sure that equates to "unlimited
in any way".  :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:38 PM
To: [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

- --
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 17:29:02 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] .org poll

Hello William,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 4:54:05 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Roberto,

> Since when has abstentions mannered in developing consensus positions?

That should be mattered of course.

- -- 
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 00:54:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Dear Dave,
I suppose your point could be well taken except ...

On 04:33 29/03/01, Dave Crocker said:
>At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
>Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of 
>discussion?
>That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed 
>opportunity.
>The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the 
>charter of .org.

True. But the negociation with th iCANN does.

>People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter 
>that is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored 
>the major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.

The most important feature in the contract is that this contract 
proposition - as you may have noticed it - does exist.

What people question through a very clear example  affecting them (.org 
change) is that incredible fact that the Staff does engage the future of 
the Internet without respecting any of the rules set-up by the Charter, not 
the BoD to object.

Plan B is complex. Plan A supersedes Plan B only because it keep the 
possibility of a confusion which may benefit to the Internet community. So, 
Plan B will necessarily lead to a duopolitsic situation calling on a 
detrimental international anti-trust action (as you may note that view I 
support from the very beinging is now substantiated at top European level).

As suche Plan A vs Plan B are therefore quite confusing points. Cf. ccTLDs 
confused analysis.

.org is not confusing. It is a consensual matter: "one does not change a 
TLD charter.".

But the matter, and the issue are the same: "iCANN Staff has no capacity to 
neither to engage a negociation with VRSN nor to take away hundred of 
thousands businesses", either through  a VRSN contract review, either 
through .biz or through .org. I note this is as much against its Charter 
and bylaws as against NSI Protocol and White Paper: this is what the people 
object picking a clear example which speaks by iteself..

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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 02:19:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

On 14:10 29/03/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>this is just plain silly. What does one do when those sources conflict?

Source? Since when a config file like root.ca can be qualified of source?

>as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a 
>governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?

New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I am 
surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support his 
point. Either your point is good and please use relevant example, or your 
point is not and please do not try to confuse the issues.

Now the remark about conflicts is correct. The improvement is that the 
regulation will not come from a legal staff and thousands/billions of 
dollars but from a the market and the users. The crrent scarcity of TLDs 
has created a wrong economical which will be corrected.

You point is possible conflicts.
My point is existing disrepect of bylaws and charter.

Your position is like saying "if we allow people to do all what they are 
allowed to, there will be problems. So let put them in camps and let 
control everythikng they do". Mine is to say "let them to do what they are 
allowed to and let manage it".. Upto you to feel what the future will be.

>btw, it is rather obvious that you have not seen the configuration files 
>of BIND; it does not work the way you think it does.

This kind of childish remark does not bring anything to the discussion, 
except may be that you de facto acknowledge I am right while you not want 
to tell it...

Harald, what I say is simply that if BIND was written in a slightly 
different way, the whole conception of the iCANN and the USG will be 
different. Exactly like if the use of the DNS was slightly different the 
whole TM issue would be different. This you should undestand and know. 
(Will I have some spare time, I will pick and change my named code and use 
it for my own root).

This only means that the ICANN/Staff 's TLD model is so much linked to a so 
limited use of the DNS that if we allow them to continue they will meet 
real problems and affect the stability of the network. They are like a big 
truck running at 10 mph on an highway and trying to impose its speed  to 
others....

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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 02:35:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

On 15:43 29/03/01, Bruce James said:
>Thank you, Harald.....:)

I am sorry but I disagree. I certainly agree that Jeff Williams has his
own way to post which may lead superficial readers not understand
what he says.

However, if the quoted posts are used as reasons for an exclusion
it means they have not been read in a superficial way. So I do not
understand ...

I motion that when a new Chair is elect all the suspensions are
removed.

Jefsey

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:46 AM
>Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams
>
>
>The list monitor has had four separate complaints about the list behaviour
>of Jeff Williams.
>
>The complaints made by Joe Kelsey and Dave Geurs include posting irrelevant
>and offensive material; in particular, the following messages were cited:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01098.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01358.html
>
>The monitor also notes that after being reminded about the posting limit
>(5) on March 20, the poster has chosen to violate the limit on March 27 (6)
>and March 28 (7).
>
>Given the fact that the individual has otherwise behaved in a fashion not
>significantly disruptive to the list since his last suspension, which ended
>on Nov 27, the monitor sees no compelling reason to impose the normal
>doubling of length of suspension for repeat offenders that has been used
>earlier.
>
>A suspension of 8 weeks, ending on May 24, 2001, is therefore imposed.
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: [email-masked]
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 18:24:48 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] removal of posting rights for Jeff Williams

Hello Jefsey,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 4:35:43 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 15:43 29/03/01, Bruce James said:
>>Thank you, Harald.....:)

> I am sorry but I disagree. I certainly agree that Jeff Williams has his
> own way to post which may lead superficial readers not understand
> what he says.

> However, if the quoted posts are used as reasons for an exclusion
> it means they have not been read in a superficial way. So I do not
> understand ...

> I motion that when a new Chair is elect all the suspensions are
> removed.

Your motion doesn't comply with our 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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:27:11 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 02:56:49 -0800, you 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.

As JW has written extensively on ICANN and in fact is a co-editor IIRC
of icannwatch.org it is pretty easy to know what he stands for.  I
have only become active (lurked for a while before that) in DNSO
matters the last three months or so and have managed to get a very
good idea about him.

>And no I do not want to hear from his friends and I do not want to hear his past,
>but since he does not contribute I want to hear his ideas.

What do you mean he does not contribute?  Certainly he has avoided the
regrettable attacks some candidates have been making on others in the
last few days which puts him up in my esteem.  

>Keep in mind this is from someone that was kept from being a candidate by Mr.
>Alternative Chair.

You are still a candidate.

>He does not contribute to this list so Who is he?, He did not attend Melbourne, and
>he is not a member of the WG-Review. 

He is or at least was a member of wg-review because he posted some
excellent stuff to the list.  

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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:29:28 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:16:21 -0500, Sotris wrote:

>---- Original Message -----
>From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
>> 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.
>
>Especially someone who's a favourite among the "old guard" so to speak...

Is he?  I seconded him and am new to ICANN but had seen enough of him
in a couple of months to do so.

>> Keep in mind this is from someone that was kept from being a candidate by
>Mr.
>> Alternative Chair.
>
>Truly unfortunate!! this sort of thing must stop!  I did not hear Jon
>Wienberg's opinion on this situation... but I sure would like too.

No-one has been stopped.  Eric has appeared on the ballot.

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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:15:38 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

i support that- provided it is limited to just that. a robot program could
work for this purpose.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:58 PM
To: 'Weisberg'; [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

- --
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 22:22:07 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote by the GA - preferences for a Chair and an Alternate Chair

At 8:53 pm +0200 3/31/01, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>    * Electorate. Voting roster
>      http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04rosterindex.html,

Hmmm. Why has my name been removed from the Register?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:33:51 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .org poll

roberto, et all..

after names council and ccTLD work on verisign agreements, NC budget
committee, and GA elections, plus my "day job", i can not give enought
attention to .org issue to make substantive comment.

Please let us re-visit that issue after GA elections, ICANN board decision
on Verisign, and first "Rites of Spring" ;-)

Peter de blanc
chair, ccTLD AdCom
ccTLD NC member
NC Budget Committee
ICANN Budget Group
NC Business Plan Committee
Teaching my dogs new tricks
learning how to sleep on 15 hour airplane flights

( It is TOO MUCH!)

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:37 PM
To: [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

- --
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 00:38:47 -0500
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site

I think it would be a good idea, provided that all updates and changes were
part of any proposed notificaton system.  I'm especially curious about the
removal of the AtLarge Membership link from the ICANN homepage.  Can anyone
shed some light on it?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Peter de Blanc <[email-masked]>
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <[email-masked]>; 'Weisberg' <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

> i support that- provided it is limited to just that. a robot program could
> work for this purpose.
>
> peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:58 PM
> To: 'Weisberg'; [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.

- --
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 03:48:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Candidates

Just so you all know;

I am not an expert in any relevant field.  I am a policy writer as far
as the internet goes.  I gave up a consulting business, and said "hey
pay me to understand the Internet and I will do my own thing on the side
to make ends meet"  They gave me two computers and said "learn".  Then I
accidentally told a Secretary General in charge of the internet for his
country all that I had learned and he said "your it" and now I write
policy for emerging economies.

It is all a big mistake.  Sure I have a law degree and was a member of
MENSA but you all know I am a "newbie".  Compared to Mr. Walsh or Mr.
Teernstra and on and on, I don't know squat.  In my office they joke
that with the electricity in my body I could ruin a VCR.  I can't work
my Cellphone, here or in southeast Asia.

My three wonderful children learn from the net, are bilingual and insist
we do what we are doing.  I stand by the proposition that it is not our
net but it belongs to the children you cannot yet see.

I am not just like you, I am a newbie with some domains, a wierd job,
and a ministry license in the second degree. I learned a monstrous
amount in Melbourne. Ok so I have a degree in Philosophy also (that
should not go outside this list)

I will say this two American ways:

Shocka bro check this wierd thing out, I aint wit it but i in it.
DAng sure there I was and here I is.

I am a dotcommoner and nothing more.

I know this is not correct because any chair should only stand for what
the GA says he stands for but I will not and can not give up these three
principals:
    1.     Multilingualism
    2.    Education
    3.     Outreach

    These are non-debatable issues, they have been decided.  We must
move forward to increase our effectiveness in each principal.
Multilingualism first because it is the "root service" to all the rest.
    I have no right to be on this list of distingushed candidates, but
if I die increasing lingual and cultural understanding then my children
will endorse my platform, and so will yours.

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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 05:38:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org poll

No gentlemen It does not work that way;

This is an issue each potentiate should weigh in on.

I know that it is perfectly legal for the U.S. gov. to alter the conditions of a
contract and no one can claim detrimental reliance upon such promises made by
the U.S. gov.

But now enter the APA and it is not proper to make such alterations without due
process.  At the very least it requires RFPs.  And getting down to the gitty it
requires a whole lot of us effected to talk about it and get with it.

Well working backwords/ we ain't with it, we ain't talked about it, there ain't
been a process, Nobody has even tried to comply with the APA.

Finally it is not right to give someone something, or entice them to play a game
or business, and then change the rules, (a great example is Joanna and her beef
over the rule of ten).  Well those that bought into dotorg are entitled to
stability just like everyone else.

NEXT - MONOPOLIES ARE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES &
            ISN'T IT GREAT HOW U.S. COURTS ARE RESOLVING ip
            DISPUTES.  AND INVITE EVRYONE TO WATCH "SHOULD
            THE GA CARE ABOUT THE ccTLDS"

Call me crazy but these are the current issues and if you people make me chair
we are going to deal with them.  So you better hurry and elect someone else.

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> roberto, et all..
>
> after names council and ccTLD work on verisign agreements, NC budget
> committee, and GA elections, plus my "day job", i can not give enought
> attention to .org issue to make substantive comment.
>
> Please let us re-visit that issue after GA elections, ICANN board decision
> on Verisign, and first "Rites of Spring" ;-)
>
> Peter de blanc
> chair, ccTLD AdCom
> ccTLD NC member
> NC Budget Committee
> ICANN Budget Group
> NC Business Plan Committee
> Teaching my dogs new tricks
> learning how to sleep on 15 hour airplane flights
>
> ( It is TOO MUCH!)
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:37 PM
> To: [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
>
> --
> 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 22:16:23 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Candidates

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 03:48:07 -0700, Eric wrote:

>I know this is not correct because any chair should only stand for what
>the GA says he stands for but I will not and can not give up these three
>principals:
>    1.     Multilingualism
>    2.    Education
>    3.     Outreach

Your school teachers had funny names.  I never had a Mr/Ms Outreach.

Unless you mean principles of course.

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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 12:23:02 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I see this supposed conflict of interest as a pure misunderstanding.
I think I may clarify this due to my own positions irt the TLDA.

1. The "alternative root" does not exist except in history

2. The "inclusive root" corresponds to the real Internet root
     made of zone servers description, including iCANNs, Chinese,
     ccTLDs, multiorganization TLDs (RFC 920) and private TLDs.
     cf. a previous post opposed by Harald on "religious" rather
     than on technical grounds.

3. the charter/bylaws of the iCANN ask iCANN to:

     - treat them all equal as you know
     - forbide iCANN to act as a Registry what they it does for top
       level names.
     - foster competition what they do not do in trying to
       limitate the number of TLDs. There are today 469 known
       multi-organization and private TLDs.

     As such any attempt by people like Patick Corliss, Gene
     Marsh, Leah Gallagos, Michael Fromkin and others to
     develop the TLDA  is therefore in strict conformance with the
     White Paper and the bylaws  that (current) BoD (partly) and
     Staff seem not to conform with.

4. I personnaly disagree with the TLDA initiative on several
     issues (I dont want them to become a defacto TLD registry).
     But I certainly support their approach of being a TLD
     industry professional association and representaitive.

     I certainly support that NSI and other gTLDs and ccTLDs
     become a Member, and I investigated that possibility as
     a potential supporter of the TLDA.

5. I note that :

     -  several TLDA founding members supported  the creation
        of the sTLD center of interest within the WG-Review (as
        was created the IDNH center of interest).

     -  Patrick farily campaigns with the same enthusiasm and
        dedication at the GA and at the ORSC (this lead us to
        disagree/clash several times)

6. I note that Patrick belongs first to the ccTLD community
     and that one iCANN Director holds a private TLD. If there
     was a conflict this should be first addressed. IMHO it has
     been clearly addressed by Vint Cerf saying that it was
     "not his cup of tea".

7. I wish to recall you that the official position expressed
     by the BoD at the MDR GAC meeting in response to the
     question of a Governement Delegate "how many TLDs
     may the DNS support?" is "one million". We can reasonably
     thank that among this million TLD manager, the TLDA has
     a reasonable number of potentiial Members :-) ?

8. I add that my own position is somewhat particular as I
     am setting up several multi-organization TLDs the iCANN
     will probably not acknowledge while they are described
     in RFC 920 as part of the Legacy. This means that the
     TLDA would be for my members a way to represent their
     rights *within* the iCANN itself.

     Defending Legacy rights within the iCANN policy and
     structure can hardly be qualified as a conflict of interest
     of a GA CHair candidate !!!!

Jefsey

On 22:02 30/03/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Patrick,
>
>Friday, March 30, 2001, 9:52:35 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > It is true that I have accepted a position as a Director of the Top 
> Level Domain
> > Association but I cannot see any mention in the mission statement which 
> you just
> > quoted that this association is directed towards "the alternative root
> > community".  That is your interpretation only.
>
>Patrick, this is more than a little disingenuous, to claim that the
>TLDA is not an effort of what is recognized as the alternative root
>community.
>
> > It is my understanding that the TLDA aims to encompass all "top level 
> domains"
> > whether these are included in the ICANN system or otherwise.  In other 
> words
> > membership will be open to ccTLDs, the new gTLDs, chartered TLDs, and 
> "inclusive
> > root" TLDs.  In fact, I hope any TLD will be welcome to join the 
> association.
>
>While this may be true, none of done so, nor have any expressed an
>interest in doing so.  The TLDA was born completely out of the
>alternative root community, and all of its board/officers are well
>known from that community.
>
>
> > It has also been suggested to me, privately, that the Names Council 
> would be
> > reluctant to endorse a candidate that it felt was not aligned with 
> ICANN.  I
> > would make it clear that I fully support ICANN and merely wish to 
> assist ICANN
> > in fulfilling its charter.   I believe this can be achieved in a way that
> > unites, rather than divides, the major participants.
>
>My problem with the above is that the GA Chair is not there to be an
>advocate in any way for his own views.  S/He is there to be the
>conduit to the NC for the views of the GA.
>
> > My view remains that it is in the interests of the internet community 
> that ICANN
> > should seek a co-operative arrangement in order to avoid collisions in the
> > namespace.
>
>My view is that the alternative root systems should earn the right to
>be recognized by ICANN or anyone else in this type of way. They have
>not done so, in that their TLDs are not visible by the internet
>community in any number that would indicate they have been successful
>in achieving anything resembling widespread use or support.
>
>Until they do so, there is no need, justification, or reason, for
>any organization, including ICANN, to seek accommodations with them.
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 #330
************************