Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #335
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 335

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:40:21 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I grow stupid in that I cannot help people understand the area that I truly do
> understand.

Thank you, very much ! I like to be educated.

> 
> Whether we like it or not, the U.S. Government owns the Internet.  I ask all who
> disagree to contact our lawyers, Touton and Sims and ask their opinion and from
> what my lawyer told me they have about 48 hours to get back to you, otherwise
> they are neglectful. Remember we are the clients not the Board.

I do not have to consult a lawyer on this. The fact is, that the USG may *own"
a machine running the root that we currently are pointing at. But.....
we (TLD's) may decide to point to another machine, and then the USG can have
their *intranet* as they like. Dont forget that the net itself is a net of tele-
comlines. And that is certainly not owned by the the USG. And for IP.numbers
your statement is even more funny. Do you really believe that the USG *owns*
all numbers from "0" to "4.294.967.295" ? In that case a lot of say banks around
the world is in big trouble. 

> 
> Jefsey, the way you ignore this reality, is dreaming.  Yes your French language
> concepts add to the debate about how Gov and all it's uses are varying.
> 
> But we have to deal in reality here, if the USG does not own the resource of the
> Internet, who does?  Are you saying it is like outer space?  Are you saying that
> it is all free enterprise?

See above... The net is owned by thousands of owners of nets.

Regards
Per Koelle
.DK

- --
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:52:47 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:36:29 -0700, you wrote:

>At 10:50 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>I'm not sure anyone here has said they are angry.   I am disappointed
>>not that modifications were made but that they were made after
>>explicit assurances were given that there would be no changes.  This
>>is a bit like changing the rules in the 9th innings.
>
>No, it is a bit like a large, intractable company deciding that bad public 
>press is worth responding to.
>
>We should take some pleasure in Versign's concessions, rather take part in 
>the constant complaint-fest.

Oh please.  You wave every single complaint about ICANN away as
unjustified whinging and never ever seem to wonder if there is a
reason for it.  Do you really think the whole world is wrong all the
time?

I have said the concessions are welcome but the fact concessions have
been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
irreversible effects.  

>>The issue is not whether the changes enhance Option B.  It is whether
>>it is good process to have the Board making decisions on new
>>agreements with no chance to consult on them and less than 24 hours to
>>consider them.
>
>Your statement is directly in line with the many other participants who are 
>more concerned about the precise details of process than they are about 
>making real progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.

On the contrary I have made many posts on the substance of the
proposals and on other substantive issues.  In fact Mr Crocker with
all respect you have been singled out many times as one who has
refused to address substantive issues.  

You also do a dis-service by suggesting that all complaints re process
are unimportant.  A complaint that one only has 60 days instead of 62
days to consider an issue is trivial.  A complaint that one has less
than 24 hours and no formal opportunity for input is not trivial and
in fact goes to the very heart of ICANN's bylaws and founding
principles.

>Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack of 
>real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a 
>disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.

If I had a casual attitude about the content I would try to make a
snap judgement on them without having time to gather further
information and do a detailed analysis.  It is due to my desire to be
able to consider the content that say the main issue for now is
gaining the delay.

>Let's stop treating this as an academic exercise in abstract governance and 
>treat it more like the pragmatic task of operations administration that it is.

As someone who has practical experience in government and operations
administration I find your perception somewhat lacking.  

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:26:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Hello DPF,

Sunday, April 01, 2001, 11:34:29 PM, DPF wrote:

> My initial feel is that B is improved by these changes but
> nevertheless it would be ir-responsible to insist on changes being
> voted on within 24 hours.  Verisign should not ask ICANN Board to
> force itself to do so.  If Verisign agreed to last minute changes then
> as a corollary it should also agree IMO to a time extension so that
> they can be considered fairly.

Let's deal with the facts here.

These "changes" are being made so that the ICANN board can "approve"
the contract, and point to those changes as a justification for
overriding the advice given to it by the DNSO Constituencies, the DNSO
Names Council, and the DNSO General Assembly.

As it stood, the BoD could not approve the contract and maintain any
semblance of bottom up consensus, but by making a couple of relatively
minor changes at the last minute, they give the "appearance" of
accommodating the community's concerns, while still taking an action
that really is against that community's general consensus of what
should occur.

They did this with the demands by the DoC that they deal with the BWG
and the ORSC, making "token" changes for nothing but appearances sake.

That is what has happened here.

History shows that this is SoP for ICANN.

- -- 
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:54:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dave Crocker wrote:

Your statement is directly in line with the many other participants who are more
concerned about the precise details of process than they are about making real
progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.

>
> Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack of
> real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a
> disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.
>
> Let's stop treating this as an academic exercise in abstract governance and
> treat it more like the pragmatic task of operations administration that it is.
>
> d/

I definately hope this was tongue in cheek, because it is almost word for word,
the justification for the group that started WWII  Someone correct me if I am
wrong.  And I fall all over myself saying I am sorry ahead of time. But Whoa we do
not do away with process to placate dollar people.  This is not OK.

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 04:03:49 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Names Council, Mr. Auerbach and Members of
the Board,

It is with great regret that members of the General assembly of DNSO have no
alternative but to inform you that any attempt by the BoD to approve or
agree the   .com Agreement with VeriSign in advance of proper consultation
with the DNSO Names Council, Constituencies and General assembly with
respect to the new revisions is hereby objected in full for procedural
reasons.

The General Assembly of the DNSO, including members of the Names Council and
all Constituencies, cannot either approve or reject the new revisions unless
all members have a reasonable opportunity to review details agreed
previously between Stuart Lynn and Stratton Scavlos directly on behalf of
ICANN and VeriSign respectively . Since these revisions were made available
less than 24 hours ago, any decision made by the Board of Directors to
proceed without referral to proper reference to stakeholders represented by
ICANN, would be made without the support of the General Assembly at this
time.

In the short time available of only a few hours since the latest revisions
were made public, comments have been aggregated from Members posting to the
GA ML under the thread "Last minute changes to VeriSign Agreements",
commencing 2001, April2, 01;45;17 GMT with
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01691.html. Please refer to the
mailing list for precise details of authors and the full context of comments
snipped below. The salient points are summarized as follows:-

1) ICANN is claiming changes have been made to the new agreement with the
clear intention of making the new contract more attractive, in which case,
these cannot be simply minor procedural changes.
2) Changes are being rushed through with no time for consideration or review
by the participate, community-based organizations set up for that purpose
3) VeriSign would rather have some DNSO support behind any Board decision to
go with option B in the face of all the comments supporting the "status quo"
or option A.
4) It could be argued that ICANN management, having stated publicly that no
changes were possible, should now want to agree to more time if that
undertaking is to be reversed.
5) That changes to the agreement are welcome, but it would be a terrible
policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours to consider
and analyze them
6) That VeriSign and the DoC should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to the
May 18 deadline to allow consideration of the new changes.
7) That while VeriSign said they would not agree to an extension previously,
they also said no changes would be considered.
8) That until this matter is resolved, Option A (status quo) is the safest
option.
9) That there are merits and benefits in both options, with the most recent
changes offering some benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.
10) Alternative regularizes the contract, compared with other registries,
removes fee restrictions, now will add sanctions for misbehaviors, and so
on.
11) What are the contractual benefits of the existing contract that could
possibly make it preferable to the revised Alternative B?
12) If Verisign agreed to last minute changes then
as a corollary it should also agree IMO to a time extension so that
they can be considered fairly.
13) If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
confidence a win-win solution can be found.
14) it is a bit like a large, intractable company deciding that bad public
press is worth responding to.
15) Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack
of
real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a
disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.
16)  In fact on the
basis of their existing policy I believe it would be appropriate for
the NC Chair to personally urgently communicate to the Board that the
DNSO would like time to evaluate the latest set of proposals.
17)the fact concessions have
been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
irreversible effects.
18)As it stood, the BoD could not approve the contract and maintain any
semblance of bottom up consensus, but by making a couple of relatively
minor changes at the last minute, they give the "appearance" of
accommodating the community's concerns, while still taking an action
that really is against that community's general consensus of what
should occur.
.
Sincerely,
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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:21:41 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter to board.

All Members,

Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
modifications and new contract with Verisign.

So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
this letter.

Speak now or do not be counted.  If the timing seems completely
unreasonable, well that is the point.

If you are in agreement, please email me personally, as it is unfair to
the list to do otherwise. If you would either agree with this letter or
not and put in the subject line agree or do not agree that will suffice.
It is the letter that you either agree with or not and not the contract.

Thank you for your kind and considerate attention to my childrens'
Interenet.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
Any attempt by the BoD to approve or agree the new .com Agreement with
VeriSign in advance of proper consultation with the DNSO Names Council,
Constituencies and General assembly is hereby objected in full for
procedural reasons. The General Assembly of the DNSO, including members
of
the Names Council and all Constituencies, cannot possibly approve or
reject
the new revisions unless all members have a reasonable opportunity to
review
the details agreed exclusively between Stuart Lynn and Stratton Scavlos
on
behalf of ICANN and VeriSign respectively . Since these latest revisions

were made available less than 24 hours ago, any decision to proceed
regardless of attempts to seek consensus, will be made without the
support
of the General Assembly and could therefore be challenged.
In the short time available, here are a summary of comments  from GA
Members
that note the following salient points:-
1) ICANN is claiming changes have been made to the new agreement with
the
clear intention of making the new contract more attractive, in which
case,
these cannot be simply minor procedural changes.
2) Changes are being rushed through with no time for consideration or
review
by the participate, community-based organizations set up for that
purpose
3) VeriSign would rather have some DNSO support behind any Board
decision to
go with option B in the face of all the comments supporting the "status
quo"
or option A.
4) It could be argued that ICANN management, having stated publicly that
no
changes were possible, should now want to agree to more time if that
undertaking is to be reversed.
5) That changes to the agreement are welcome, but it would be a terrible

policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours to
consider
and analyze them
6) That VeriSign and the DoC should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to
the
May 18 deadline to allow consideration of the new changes.
7) That while VeriSign said they would not agree to an extension
previously,
they also said no changes would be considered.
8) That until this matter is resolved, Option A (status quo) is the
safest
option.
9) That there are merits and benefits in both options, with the most
recent
changes offering some benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.

All errors in posting are mine and mine alone.  If I have offended
anyone or broken any rules I accept all consequences.  Any copyright I
may have violated is my own publishing and not that of another.  I only
ask that you complain in private as I ahve already burdened this list
beyond reason.

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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:00:09 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No response from me on some messages

I have stopped listening to Eric Dierker.

If you wish to hear comments from me on his viewpoints, please quote them.
- --
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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 05:00:26 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to board.

Eric,
The letter you have posted here is the rough draft. Since then, I have
posted a revised letter,  which is available at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01725.html. Given time
constraints, I decided to forward the revised version directly to NC members
and BoD through Karl Auerbach.
Regards,
Joanna

Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
modifications and new contract with Verisign.

So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
this letter.

Speak now or do not be counted.  If the timing seems completely
unreasonable, well that is the point.

If you are in agreement, please email me personally, as it is unfair to
the list to do otherwise. If you would either agree with this letter or
not and put in the subject line agree or do not agree that will suffice.
It is the letter that you either agree with or not and not the contract.

Thank you for your kind and considerate attention to my childrens'
Interenet.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
Any attempt by the BoD to approve or agree the new .com Agreement with
VeriSign in advance of proper consultation with the DNSO Names Council,
Constituencies and General assembly is hereby objected in full for
procedural reasons. The General Assembly of the DNSO, including members
of
the Names Council and all Constituencies, cannot possibly approve or
reject
the new revisions unless all members have a reasonable opportunity to
review
the details agreed exclusively between Stuart Lynn and Stratton Scavlos
on
behalf of ICANN and VeriSign respectively . Since these latest revisions

were made available less than 24 hours ago, any decision to proceed
regardless of attempts to seek consensus, will be made without the
support
of the General Assembly and could therefore be challenged.
In the short time available, here are a summary of comments  from GA
Members
that note the following salient points:-
1) ICANN is claiming changes have been made to the new agreement with
the
clear intention of making the new contract more attractive, in which
case,
these cannot be simply minor procedural changes.
2) Changes are being rushed through with no time for consideration or
review
by the participate, community-based organizations set up for that
purpose
3) VeriSign would rather have some DNSO support behind any Board
decision to
go with option B in the face of all the comments supporting the "status
quo"
or option A.
4) It could be argued that ICANN management, having stated publicly that
no
changes were possible, should now want to agree to more time if that
undertaking is to be reversed.
5) That changes to the agreement are welcome, but it would be a terrible

policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours to
consider
and analyze them
6) That VeriSign and the DoC should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to
the
May 18 deadline to allow consideration of the new changes.
7) That while VeriSign said they would not agree to an extension
previously,
they also said no changes would be considered.
8) That until this matter is resolved, Option A (status quo) is the
safest
option.
9) That there are merits and benefits in both options, with the most
recent
changes offering some benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.

All errors in posting are mine and mine alone.  If I have offended
anyone or broken any rules I accept all consequences.  Any copyright I
may have violated is my own publishing and not that of another.  I only
ask that you complain in private as I ahve already burdened this list
beyond reason.

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

- --
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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 02:10:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

Hello Eric,

If you send a letter, do so only in your own name, as each member
should do if they feel the need.

However, do not do harm to the GA process by trying to claim that your
letter speaks as a consensus of the GA or is on behalf of the GA.

We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
that we are trying to build.

Monday, April 02, 2001, 4:21:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> All Members,

> Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
> Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
> in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
> modifications and new contract with Verisign.

> So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
> this letter.

> Speak now or do not be counted.  If the timing seems completely
> unreasonable, well that is the point.

> If you are in agreement, please email me personally, as it is unfair to
> the list to do otherwise. If you would either agree with this letter or
> not and put in the subject line agree or do not agree that will suffice.
> It is the letter that you either agree with or not and not the contract.

> Thank you for your kind and considerate attention to my childrens'
> Interenet.

> Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
> Any attempt by the BoD to approve or agree the new .com Agreement with
> VeriSign in advance of proper consultation with the DNSO Names Council,
> Constituencies and General assembly is hereby objected in full for
> procedural reasons. The General Assembly of the DNSO, including members
> of
> the Names Council and all Constituencies, cannot possibly approve or
> reject
> the new revisions unless all members have a reasonable opportunity to
> review
> the details agreed exclusively between Stuart Lynn and Stratton Scavlos
> on
> behalf of ICANN and VeriSign respectively . Since these latest revisions

> were made available less than 24 hours ago, any decision to proceed
> regardless of attempts to seek consensus, will be made without the
> support
> of the General Assembly and could therefore be challenged.
> In the short time available, here are a summary of comments  from GA
> Members
> that note the following salient points:-
> 1) ICANN is claiming changes have been made to the new agreement with
> the
> clear intention of making the new contract more attractive, in which
> case,
> these cannot be simply minor procedural changes.
> 2) Changes are being rushed through with no time for consideration or
> review
> by the participate, community-based organizations set up for that
> purpose
> 3) VeriSign would rather have some DNSO support behind any Board
> decision to
> go with option B in the face of all the comments supporting the "status
> quo"
> or option A.
> 4) It could be argued that ICANN management, having stated publicly that
> no
> changes were possible, should now want to agree to more time if that
> undertaking is to be reversed.
> 5) That changes to the agreement are welcome, but it would be a terrible

> policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours to
> consider
> and analyze them
> 6) That VeriSign and the DoC should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to
> the
> May 18 deadline to allow consideration of the new changes.
> 7) That while VeriSign said they would not agree to an extension
> previously,
> they also said no changes would be considered.
> 8) That until this matter is resolved, Option A (status quo) is the
> safest
> option.
> 9) That there are merits and benefits in both options, with the most
> recent
> changes offering some benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.

> All errors in posting are mine and mine alone.  If I have offended
> anyone or broken any rules I accept all consequences.  Any copyright I
> may have violated is my own publishing and not that of another.  I only
> ask that you complain in private as I ahve already burdened this list
> beyond reason.

> 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

- -- 
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:14:33 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dear DPF,
Under such circumstances and due to the importance of the issue I strongly
recommend you word a motion of defiance to the whole process the largest
number of people/organizations may sign.

The idea is not to fight against/for Plan A, Plan B, Staff, BoD ... but to 
claim
loud and clear that this whole thing is not acceptable. This Document should
be written in such a way that anyone (DNSO, association, private company,
individual owner, etc... may sign it and send it to the Press, to GAC Members,
to BoD Members, to Verisign, to US and 243 countries Senators and Reps.
etc.. )

Enough is enough.

On 03:45 02/04/01, [email-masked] said:
>I am extremely nervous about the possibility of ICANN Board having to vote on
>such huge and critical issues with less than 24 hours to analyse the changes.

Also, I strongly recommand for lawyers and politicians to look at the protocol
with USG under which VeriSIgn works. It seems to me that such speedied
things can not be so perfect that there is not a loophole somewhere.

This use of the emegency procedure becomes usual enough to have the entire
iCANN management reviewed as per the EU and Queens Counsellor review.
I think that an appropriate protest of some magnitude may help this coming
faster.

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:14:57 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to board.

WXW wrote:-
We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
that we are trying to build.

William,
What is doing more harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and the processes
we are trying to build is last minute revisions to irrevocable ICANN
contracts that we were told could not be revised. This warrants a clear
message of objection to be sent to the decision makers in a timely fashion.
The letter does not claim to represent your views, only those whose posts
are quoted, so I fail to see your objection to it. Neither does it claim any
form of consensus. How could it in such a short time-frame. Everybody knows
that.

Sincerely,
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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:34:12 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Letter to board.

On Monday, April 02, 2001 6:03 PM (AEST)
Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> It is with great regret that members of the General assembly of DNSO have no
> alternative but to inform you that any attempt by the BoD to approve or
> agree the   .com Agreement with VeriSign in advance of proper consultation
> with the DNSO Names Council, Constituencies and General assembly with
> respect to the new revisions is hereby objected in full for procedural
> reasons.

On Monday, April 02, 2001 7:10 PM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

> If you send a letter, do so only in your own name, as each member
> should do if they feel the need.
>
> However, do not do harm to the GA process by trying to claim that your
> letter speaks as a consensus of the GA or is on behalf of the GA.

Hi William

I understood that Eric Dierker was referring to a letter from Joanna Lane
(quoted above).  In this letter Joanna says "members" of the General Assembly of
DNSO and makes it clear that that she is not referring to a formal resolution of
the GA.  She also makes it clear that she is gathering opinions of the members
themselves.

That is also apparent by the fact that the letter is not written, endorsed or
approved by the Chair or Alternate Chair.  I'm not sure that anything else is
needed.

Personally I endorse Joanna's letter and hereby give her, full permission to
extract, summarise or reference my publicly stated views, within this list or
elsewhere, on the understanding that they are not misrepresented.

I would ask that those of us who support Joanna's attempt to capture members'
concerns in this short period endorse her letter and/or add their signature.

Joanna may add my endorsement as one of the "members" she referenced.

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:34:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Letter to board.

Hello Joanna,

Monday, April 02, 2001, 3:14:57 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> WXW wrote:-
> We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
> dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
> that we are trying to build.

> William,
> What is doing more harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and the processes
> we are trying to build is last minute revisions to irrevocable ICANN
> contracts that we were told could not be revised. This warrants a clear
> message of objection to be sent to the decision makers in a timely fashion.
> The letter does not claim to represent your views, only those whose posts
> are quoted, so I fail to see your objection to it. Neither does it claim any
> form of consensus. How could it in such a short time-frame. Everybody knows
> that.

Joanna, I was not criticizing your letter.

I was directing my comment at a particular individual, who tends to
take things too far, and seemed to be on the border of trying to claim
to speak for the GA on the issue.

While I agree with your characterization of the action (reference my
email about the real motivation behind these changes) one does not
answer illegitimate process with illegitimate process, and I wanted to
simply avoid any person, particularly the one I was addressing, from
trying to claim that the view they were presenting was "The GA's View"
or something resembling that.  The GA has a process for that, albeit
one that I think that has some inherent flaws, and while we criticize
the BoD and staff for process violations, we should be careful not to
do the same simply because it would suit our collective views.

That makes us no better than they are.

- -- 
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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:37:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

Hello Patrick,

Monday, April 02, 2001, 3:34:12 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Monday, April 02, 2001 6:03 PM (AEST)
> Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

>> It is with great regret that members of the General assembly of DNSO have no
>> alternative but to inform you that any attempt by the BoD to approve or
>> agree the   .com Agreement with VeriSign in advance of proper consultation
>> with the DNSO Names Council, Constituencies and General assembly with
>> respect to the new revisions is hereby objected in full for procedural
>> reasons.

> On Monday, April 02, 2001 7:10 PM (AEST)
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

>> If you send a letter, do so only in your own name, as each member
>> should do if they feel the need.
>>
>> However, do not do harm to the GA process by trying to claim that your
>> letter speaks as a consensus of the GA or is on behalf of the GA.

> Hi William

> I understood that Eric Dierker was referring to a letter from Joanna Lane
> (quoted above).

Eric Dierker was sending what sounded like an ultimatum to speak up if
you wish to be EXCLUDED, which sounded a lot like the letter he wanted
to see moved forward would claim to speak for the GA except for those
who spoke up.

Reference my other reply for why questions of process need to be
addressed, even when they are inconvenient.

- -- 
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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:51:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

>At 10:23 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
>>public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
>>to consider and analyse them.
>
>Given that the changes are directly in line with the public requests, what 
>is the purpose of additional delay?

Dave,
The issue isn't if option C is an improvement on option B (which it
apparently seems to be), but whether it's an improvement on option A.
Which means, that even if it's obvious that it's a step in the right
direction, it may take more than 24 hours to analyze wether it goes
far enough.

	/Paul

- --
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 #335
************************