Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #340
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 340

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:01:35 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dave,

>
>As has been repeatedly explained:
>
>         The EXISTING contract does not prevent Verisign from running
>         BOTH registry and registrar businesses.

As has been repeatedly explained, it is highly questionable whether the sale 
by VeriSign of the registrar business to a subsidiary or other controlled 
party (which was the only way for VeriSign to keep the control on both 
parts) would have stood in court a judgement on antitrust.
As of the letter of the current (previous, at the time of my reply to your 
message) contract, VeriSign would have lost the renewal of its contract if 
the separation was not going to become effective.

Anyway, with the recent vote of the BoD, this is behind us. Now, it is clear 
that the separation is no longer a policy of the house, and therefore the 
point is, unfortunately, moot.

>
>The claim that there is a a policy against it is negated by the fact that
>Verisign has no contractual limitation in this matter.

See above.

>
>So you are rejecting a markedly better contract because of a so-called
>policy that has no relevance to the comparison between alternatives.

IMHO, the question is: better for whom.

I still think that to be able to run (and now without time constraints 
and/or other future limitations) the Registry and the Registrar for the 
major generic TLD *is* giving to VeriSign unfair competitive edge.
As I said, the matter may now be moot, but IMHO we have just witnessed the 
formalization of a change in policy by ICANN.

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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:41:40 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to board.

Joanna, William,

>
>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.

I appreciate that the letter Joanna has sent was not intended to be a show 
of consensus of the GA, and as such could not have effect on the legitimacy 
of the GA, but let me make a couple of considerations on the issue.

IMHO, to rush a position of the GA in few hours would have been 
counterproductive. I agree with William when he stated (in a different post) 
that "one does not answer illegitimate process with illegitimate process" 
(please note that I make questions of principle, I am not judging the 
legitimacy of the actions).
I am not referring to Joanna's letter, which she stated as a personal 
opinion that everybody had the chance to show support or not, but to the 
discussion afterwards on whether the GA should rush a vote on it in few 
hours, violating its own procedures.
Once we state the principle that we can violate our own procedures, we don't 
know where we end to.

On the matter, which is the BoD decision on the VeriSign contract, the 
situation should have been pretty obvious. Summarizing:
- - the NC had a split vote on the subject, specifically showing that some 
constituencies, like f.i. the ccTLDs, already bought in the new regime;
- - by addressing some of the concerns of the constituencies that were on the 
borderline, they could have won the support (or at least the non-opposition) 
of more NC reps.
By putting on the table a new proposal, they have put the ICANN BoD in a 
very awkward situation. Besides the fact that there was some kind of 
inclination by the Board to make this step anyhow, there was an objective 
risk by ICANN in rejecting the offer, the possibility, that was not unlikely 
at all, that the NC could have changed majority in voting on the new 
comparison Option"A" vs. Option"B+". Wouldn't the Board have looked silly if 
they did reject a proposal that had fair chances to be approved by the NC, 
even if with a narrow majority vote?
The Board could have voted for Option"A" only if there had been a deep 
convincement of the correctness of the policy of the separation between 
Registrar and Registry, which this Board does not have.

I am as upset as most of the people that have hoped to conclude this story 
in a different way, but in putting in place some doubtful initiative we 
would have lost credibility without, IMHO, having increased the chances to 
win.

I would like to close by joining Jefsey in thanking Amadeu, Andy and Karl 
for their vote.

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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:30:43 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:45:31PM +1200, DPF wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
[...]

> This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
> intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
> such as ICANN.  

Your experience is quite different than mine, then.  I don't see that 
much coverage at all in mainstream, relatively objective media; and 
most of the highly critical reports seem informed by the same 
misunderstandings about ICANN that drive a lot of the criticism on 
these lists.

> >Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few 
> >elected officials in Congress.  
> 
> Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
> members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
> it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
> members in the telecommunications area.

Once again, your experience is different than mine.  There are actually
only a few such comments from members of Congress, and they seem (to my
ear) to be prompted by definite complaints by particular parties. 
Moreover, if you listened to the recordings of the various hearings that
Bret has posted, you get a rather different perspective.  In the Senate
hearing, Mike Roberts testimony was quite well received; in the House
Judiciary committee hearing the major concern that the concerns of
intellectual property owners were not being given sufficient weight in
ICANN processes -- hardly the criticism that you will find on these
mailing lists. 

In fact, while the press reports have been somewhat lurid, the hearings
themselves have been relatively mild affairs, in my opinion, and 
frequently concerned about things that are not at all what people here 
would worry about.
 
[...]
> Oh just like in NZ I have no doubt that you have your fair share of
> thick representatives.  We had one who basically tried to ban the
> Internet.

The danger in the US is that many representatives believe that the 
Internet belongs to the US.

> However we should not assume all representatives are
> uninformed on such issues and that their comments can be ignored.

Not what Dave said.

> Let's remember that it was politicians who effectively stopped the
> IAHC and led to ICANN being set up.

Yes, that is a quite serious point, and it is quite obvious that ICANN
takes the congressional hearings very seriously.

>>Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's 
>>difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious, 
>>both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with 
>>their supposed concern.
> 
> Some is posturing but if one really wants to ignore the increasing
> frequency of negative comments from senior representatives it is at
> your own peril.

Of course.  But your premise is incorrect: ICANN is not at all ignoring
the Congress or the Senate -- in fact, they expend a great deal of
energy attending to such matters.  But when you look in *detail*, there
isn't much in the way of useful direction that comes from those sources,
and all that they really do is increase the heat and temperature applied
to ICANN. 

For example: the House Judiciary committee is very concerned that ICANN
is not doing anywhere near enough to protect the rights of TM owners. 
But what, exactly, do you propose that ICANN should do to do to deal
with that concern?  Especially given that the overwhelming sentiment 
expressed on these lists is that ICANN gives too much support to TM 
interests, anyway?

>>And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN 
>>meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to 
>>discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the 
>>meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested 
>>interest.

I don't think analyzing things in terms of "vested interest", in the
strict sense, is very useful to this particular discussion -- I'm quite
ready to conceed that there could be many people at an ICANN meeting
with no direct financial stake.  The issue is what would cause people to
have a bias one way or another towards ICANN, and that is a far more 
general issue.

> A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
> close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
> vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
> cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.

I submit that the above statement reveals a far more significant bias 
than you realize.  

> They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
> none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
> eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
> concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.

I agree that this is a concern.  

> I want to do my part to make things better, not just pretend everyone
> complaining is a lazy journalist, an ignorant politician or an
> unrepresentative vested interest.

I don't think that is a fair characerization.

[...]
>>>I have a lot of respect for those who have put hard work into making
>>>ICANN work but I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
>>>that all criticism is wrong and ICANN could not be performing a lot
>>>better.
>>
>>It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who 
>>has ever expressed such blinkered view.
> 
> No ever says it explicitly but when over a period of several months
> the vast majority of posts from certain individuals are attacking
> those who are criticising ICANN, then they get seen mainly as
> apologists.  

That's more a function of the forum than the points of view involved. 
Bear in mind that the sword cuts both ways -- people who are unrelenting
critics of ICANN can be conveniently labeled in the same manner.  In
fact, if someone truly is an unrelenting critic, then it becomes
*necessary* to disregard them, because in fact there is nothing you can
do to satisfy them, and the time spent arguing with them is wasted time. 

There is a very unfortunate social dynamic involved, as well: ICANN, by
its nature, has certain classes that simply cannot be satisfied, and
such parties become a permanent group of nay-sayers who quickly reach
the point of criticizing absolutely everything that ICANN does. 

The alt-root crowd, for example, is never going to get any satisfaction
from ICANN.  This is true by construction -- ICANN's whole existence is
predicated on the existence of a single root, and nothing is going to
change that.  And indeed, if you look at this list, a very significant
number of the loudest critical voices are ssociated with the alt-roots.  
They talk to the press, they talk to their congresspeople, they take 
their case everywhere they can, but there really isn't anything that 
ICANN can do for them.

> I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
> unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
> been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.

Indeed, there have been numerous areas where ICANN's performance can be
questioned, but to me that is an almost insignificant issue, given the
incredible obstacles that ICANN has had to deal with.  And most of the 
criticism doesn't deal with those issues at all, but rather with things 
that ICANN simply can't do because of the constraints it is under.

Think of ICANN as a rat in large, complex maze, with a 10 kilo lead
weight strapped to its back.  We are standing around the maze, looking
through the thick glass top, and criticizing the rat's performance. 
Some of the criticism is from people who aren't aware of the glass, and
who think that the rat should simply leap over the maze to the prize. 
Some of the criticism is from people who aren't aware of the lead
weight, and who think that the rat should move faster.  Other people are
annoyed at the attitude of the rat.  A *very tiny* amount of the
criticism is actually directed at anything the rat has real control
over.

> >Given the highly distorted history of mis-steps that ICANN inherited from 
> >the US government, and the thoroughly politicized pressure-cooker that 
> >ICANN lives in now, you should be astonished, impressed and delighted that 
> >it has forged anything even close to "okay".
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree.  Nine months ago I was agreeing
> with you but I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
> things with some simple steps.

What steps?

> Of course there will always be
> pressure but let's not pretend ICANN is somehow unique as a non profit
> in this respect.

It certainly appears to me that you are unaware of many of the constraints.

[...]
> >No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive 
> >matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is 
> >a contract.
> 
> But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
> the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
> best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
> consultation with it.

How?

> Last minute changes with no input do not further these aims.

This is nonsense.  The last minute changes were THE RESULT OF INPUT.

> I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
> when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
> analysis of where ICANN could do better.

I would like to see such an analysis from you that expressed some 
awareness of the constraints that I see.

[...]

> >1.  How do you know that?
> 
> Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
> Their position was the same as Verisigns.

That's your spin.  My spin: their position reflected their best
understanding at the time of what Verisign would do. 

> >2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public 
> >exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.
> 
> Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
> those who did the negotiations.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that such a 
request was not made.  My understanding, in fact, is that Verisign was 
asked, and they said no.

> >> >What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?
> >>
> >>Huge huge incentive.  If they are told not agreeing will increase the
> >>chance of the status quo remaining.
> >
> >That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status 
> >quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is 
> >your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a 
> >horrible outcome to Verisign?
> 
> I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.

I'm sorry, but you are quite incorrect in this belief.  If that were the
case Verisign would *clearly* have done things very differently.  All 
the evidence points to this being a relatively last minute brainstorm 
on VRSN's part.

> The
> value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity and keeping
> the registrar business is worth not hundreds of millions but quite
> possibly over a billion dollars in the next few years.  

It is also quite possibly worth very little -- no one knows what will be
the result of competition from new gTLDs. 

[...]

> >You appear to believe that the DNSO is supposed to participate in contract 
> >negotiations.
> >
> >They are not.
> 
> I believe they contained important policy issues which were the
> province of the DNSO.

That is irrelevant to Dave's point.  Even if the contracts contain
significant changes in policy (which I dispute), the fact remains that
the province of the DNSO does not include contract negotiations.  In
fact, the province of the DNSO does not include policy *enforcement* of
any kind.  Moreover, regardless of what the DNSO thinks, the ultimate
responsibility rests with the board.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:12:36 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On 2001-04-03 18:01:35 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I still think that to be able to run (and now without time
> constraints and/or other future limitations) the Registry and the
> Registrar for the major generic TLD *is* giving to VeriSign
> unfair competitive edge. As I said, the matter may now be moot,
> but IMHO we have just witnessed the formalization of a change in
> policy by ICANN.

Indeed.  Let me, once again, pull out my favorite Kraaijenbrink
quote on IOD's .web from Marina del Rey:

        "IOD goes against everything we ve worked on the last two
	years they join registrar and registry, and they have a high
	price."
			
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111600.html

Now, if "all we've worked on the last two years" isn't as valuable
and important as an explicit policy, I really don't know what is.

I suppose the lesson learned is that nobody should make any implicit
assumptions even about basic ICANN principles, ever.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:31:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Withdrawal of candidacy

	With the humblest of apologies to everyone involved in the process
of electing a new chair for the General Assembly, I find that I have to
withdraw my name as a candidate.  I've concluded - belatedly - that I
simply don't have the time just now that the position of GA Chair demands,
and I'm unwilling to accept the responsibility of election and then do a
half-baked job.  I apologize deeply, because I should have come to this
conclusion before standing for election in the first place.  (Actually, I
did initially come to this conclusion, and on this basis declined the
nomination; later on, colleagues convinced me to accept a nomination after
all.  But after a lot of thought, I've concluded that I was right the
first time.)  It's obviously disruptive to the process for me to pull out
at this point, with the election already in process.  Luckily, the
instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that people may have
cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.  Again, I apologize
for the late withdrawal; I should have come to this conclusion earlier.  
But I've decided that it's better (though embarrassing) for me to pull out
of the process now, than to win election to the job but be unable to do it
justice, while paying a price in my family and professional commitments.

	I'm genuinely thankful for the support people have given me and
for the kind words folks have said about me on the ga list.  I'm surely
going to continue participating on the list.  And I'm confident that
whoever *is* elected to the position of GA Chair is going to do a great
job.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:04:23 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Hello Chuck,
I appreciate your input, as always. However, the point was that the GA
hasn't had the time to investigate all of the implication of the new
contract. Even the NC and BoD haven't explored the more important ones. They
certainly haven't commented and thes points were never raised. Yes, your
references answer *some* of the questions. That they don't answer *all* of
them indicates that those questions should have been answered and that the
contract probably shouldn't have been signed until they were, regardless of
the answers. 

Yes, this is a point that should also be brought up with WG-Review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:19 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; ga dnso
> Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> 
> 
> Roland,
> 
> If you have not already done so, take a look at Section 5.1 
> in the .org
> agreement and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 in the .net agreement.  
> Terms spelled out
> there answer some of your questions regarding the transition 
> of the .org and
> .net registries.
> 
> Also, the registry agreements (new and old) do not come 
> directly from DoC.
> They are between VeriSign and ICANN with terms that tie in 
> the cooperative
> agreement VeriSign has with DoC.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:08 AM
> To: ga dnso
> Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> 
> 
> One consequence is stated below. Since NSI has agreed to 
> divest themselves
> of the ORG and NET registries, that means that someone has to 
> run them. Does
> ICANN take that over directly? Do they contract it out to 
> NSI? Do they sell
> the franchise to someone else? Does someone have to buy them 
> from NSI (if
> so, how much)?
> 
> It gets better ... Since the registry contract comes directly 
> from the DOC,
> can ICANN even have direct say? Will DOC award the contracts 
> to ICANN, so
> they can sub it back out to NSI?
> 
> We haven't even broached those issues, in the last 48 hours. Who said
> 24-hours, over a weekend, was sufficient to analyze the new 
> contract? Not
> D'Crock, certainly.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland Meyer 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:58 AM
> > To: 'Steve Sobol'; Patrick Greenwell
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd)
> > 
> > 
> > > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:12 AM
> > > 
> > > Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > >  
> > > > For those of you not following this, the following 
> decision means
> > > > effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over 
> > > .com (they
> > > > spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split 
> the registry
> > > > operation from the registrar operation.
> > > 
> > > ?!
> > > 
> > > uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars?
> > > 
> > > I mean, is ICANN asking to be hauled into court or what?
> > 
> > Nothing of the sort. It simply means that the NSI registrar 
> > can continue as-is. The prior agreement would have forced NSI 
> > to divest of either the registrar or the registry. Now, they 
> > get to keep both but have to divest themselves of ORG and NET 
> > registries. BTW, their are legitimate COM/NET/ORG registrars. 
> > They are legitimate re-sellers. If you are speaking towards 
> > the independent inclusive TLD registries, that remains status 
> > quo, as well.
> > 
> > What this will mean is that someone has to deploy ORG and NET 
> > registries. How much you wanna bet that ICANN contracts NSI 
> to do so?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> --
> 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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:04:57 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:31:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> Luckily, the
> instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that people may have
> cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.

The question of what to do when a candidate withdraws in the midst of 
an election is a matter of policy, not mechanism.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:26:58 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Kent Crispin wrote:
>> Luckily, the instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that people
>> may have cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.
> 
> The question of what to do when a candidate withdraws in the midst of
> an election is a matter of policy, not mechanism.

In most jurisdictions in the United States, as an example, the practice is
to inform the voters of the withdrawal but allow the election to proceed as
planned under the current ballot. (Of course, this practice has led to at
least one dead man being elected to a high office. :-)

    -- Bret

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:24:18 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:26:58AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> Luckily, the instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that people
> >> may have cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.
> > 
> > The question of what to do when a candidate withdraws in the midst of
> > an election is a matter of policy, not mechanism.
> 
> In most jurisdictions in the United States, as an example, the practice is
> to inform the voters of the withdrawal but allow the election to proceed as
> planned under the current ballot. (Of course, this practice has led to at
> least one dead man being elected to a high office. :-)

Well, none of the candidates are dead, that I know of.  But we have no
established practice here, and it seems pretty clear that the NC will 
have to make a determination.  Well, I suppose the GA could vote on 
what to do...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:56:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 11:24:18 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:26:58AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >> Luckily, the instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that people
>> >> may have cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.
>> > 
>> > The question of what to do when a candidate withdraws in the midst of
>> > an election is a matter of policy, not mechanism.
>> 
>> In most jurisdictions in the United States, as an example, the practice is
>> to inform the voters of the withdrawal but allow the election to proceed as
>> planned under the current ballot. (Of course, this practice has led to at
>> least one dead man being elected to a high office. :-)

> Well, none of the candidates are dead, that I know of.  But we have no
> established practice here, and it seems pretty clear that the NC will 
> have to make a determination.  Well, I suppose the GA could vote on 
> what to do...

I think the voting system adequately deals with this.  There really is
no crisis here.

- -- 
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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:55:41 -0700
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:52:24PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > Sorry, that is simply incorrect.  Said laws do not mandate a 
> > membership.  It is perfectly legal to have a corporation without 
> > members.
> 
> Not for a California non-profit.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

    5310.  (a) A corporation may admit persons to membership, as
    provided in its articles or bylaws, or may provide in its articles
    or bylaws that it shall have no members.  In the absence of any
    provision in its articles or bylaws providing for members, a
    corporation shall have no members. 

    (from the california corporations code, in part 2, describing 
    nonprofit public benefit corporations, visible at
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp/5310-5313.html)

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:42:00 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

What to do?!?!

Why... we go on with the election of course!

Damn pity Jon Weinberg dropped out, but there's no need to stall the
election... unless certain parties are apprehensive about... what, I wonder?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:26:58AM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >> Luckily, the instant-runoff voting system will allow any votes that
people
> > >> may have cast for me to be redistributed to other candidates.
> > >
> > > The question of what to do when a candidate withdraws in the midst of
> > > an election is a matter of policy, not mechanism.
> >
> > In most jurisdictions in the United States, as an example, the practice
is
> > to inform the voters of the withdrawal but allow the election to proceed
as
> > planned under the current ballot. (Of course, this practice has led to
at
> > least one dead man being elected to a high office. :-)
>
> Well, none of the candidates are dead, that I know of.  But we have no
> established practice here, and it seems pretty clear that the NC will
> have to make a determination.  Well, I suppose the GA could vote on
> what to do...
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:50:39 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Just because ICANN wishes to say the sky is pink and blue pinstripe, doesn't
mean it's not blue... just take a look out the window.

Must we rehash this?  Although the Bylaws may contend the ICANN has no
members, the FACT that the ATLARGE puts DIRECTORS on the BOARD, who may
participate in and qualify for quorum requirements, and thereby influence
the allocation and distribution of Corporation assets, speaks for itself...
ICANN does in FACT have members.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- ----- Original Message -----
From: 'Kent Crispin' <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:52:24PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > Sorry, that is simply incorrect.  Said laws do not mandate a
> > > membership.  It is perfectly legal to have a corporation without
> > > members.
> >
> > Not for a California non-profit.
>
> Sorry, that is incorrect.
>
>     5310.  (a) A corporation may admit persons to membership, as
>     provided in its articles or bylaws, or may provide in its articles
>     or bylaws that it shall have no members.  In the absence of any
>     provision in its articles or bylaws providing for members, a
>     corporation shall have no members.
>
>     (from the california corporations code, in part 2, describing
>     nonprofit public benefit corporations, visible at
>     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp/5310-5313.html)
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:55:06 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> From: 'Kent Crispin' [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:56 AM
> 
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:52:24PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > Sorry, that is simply incorrect.  Said laws do not mandate a 
> > > membership.  It is perfectly legal to have a corporation without 
> > > members.
> > 
> > Not for a California non-profit.
> 
> Sorry, that is incorrect.
> 
>     5310.  (a) A corporation may admit persons to membership, as
>     provided in its articles or bylaws, or may provide in its articles
>     or bylaws that it shall have no members.  In the absence of any
>     provision in its articles or bylaws providing for members, a
>     corporation shall have no members. 
> 
>     (from the california corporations code, in part 2, describing 
>     nonprofit public benefit corporations, visible at
>     http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp/5310-5313.html)

See Karl's analysis;

http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members

BTW, Karl is a ICANN BoD member AND a lawyer.

- -- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #340
************************