Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #342
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, April 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 342

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:36:08 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hi Alexander

On Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:41 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Problem:
> To fill out the ballot, you are not required to rank all
> candidates, you may also rank one or two of them.
> (cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html)
>
> If you have just cast a vote for a candidate which now
> resigns and not for any other ones, your vote is wasted.

Thank you for your comments.  A posting of mine made a few minutes ago did not
reflect this possibility.  I voted all four candidates on the ballot paper (a
common voting method in Australia) and expected all electors to do likewise.
Clearly my expectation was distorted by local customs.

This now presents another problem.  Do you allow all voters to recast their
ballots ? Or only those who did not select all four candidates (i.e. submitted
an incomplete ballot)?

There's also difficulty in determining who voted befor/after Jon's announcement.

Should there be any possibility of submitting another vote, it must be afforded
to all.  Othererwise you have intense problems in deciding the cut-off time of
Jon's announcement.

Effectively that means a new election.

In hindsight, it is necessary to require voters to complete the ballet paper
with all four choices.  Provided no new candidates are introduced, the voter's
intention could have been determined without calling for a new ballt paper.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:43:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Board Member Blasts VeriSign Decision - Update  

 ICANN Board Member Blasts VeriSign Decision - Update
By David McGuire, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A.,
02 Apr 2001, 7:09 PM CST

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) violated its own
bylaws and shortchanged the Internet community by approving a contract that
could give VeriSign Inc. near permanent control over the ".com" addressing
space, an ICANN board member said today.

One of only three ICANN board members to vote against approving the
controversial contract, Cisco Systems Engineer Karl Auerbach said that the US
Government would be justified in stepping in to nullify the deal.

"This was not a win for the Internet community. This was a win for some business
interests, VeriSign in particular," Auerbach said. "The Department of Commerce
has a responsibility to the citizens of the United States who have been left out
of the benefits of this contract."

More:    http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/163983.html

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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:00:49 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 09:01 AM 4/3/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

Roberto, I do not know whether you are an expert on the relevant law.  I 
know that I am not.

I also know that a number of lawyers who ARE knowledge on the topic seemed 
willing to characterize the relevant part of the ICANN/Verisign contract as 
a loophole.

I also know that it is very dangerous to rely on court processes to do the 
right thing.

For a number of offenses over recent years, I would have expected Verisign 
to be ground into legal dust.  But as we can see it has not happened.

>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.

And they stated they were ready to do the separation.  Hence they keep 
.com.  And the loophole lets them back into the registrar business.

No, it's not a good thing, but it IS reality.

>>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.

Verisign would be fools if they did not see it as better for themselves, of 
course, but they are not our (my or your) concern.

So the question is whether it is better for ICANN's performance of its job 
and the answer is yes.  At a minimum, registry fees will be more equitable 
and administration of registry contracts will be more uniform.

>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.

I entirely agree.

But it does not matter.

They already had access to that unfairness.

The new contract changed a few details surrounding the unfairness but does 
not create the problem.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:19:02 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> Without any comment on votes, given that I endorsed all four candidates to
> ensure that there could be a valid election, I am somewhat concerned.
> Without a fourth candidate, I probably would have worked harder to recruit
> someone to run.  That might be true of others, as well.
> 
> This is in no way a commentary on the candidates who are standing, but more
> a comment on other things.  Everyone who is standing has made a considerable
> effort to organize themselves/their work/etc. so they can offer to take on
> the considerable work of chair, c-chair.
> 
> We are all obviously learning as we build... 

I do not believe one can decline a nomination after voting has begun.  The vote 
has to go to its natural conclusion and then a winner is declared.  Now if it 
is not Jon then we have no problem.  If it is Jon then he effectively resigns 
immediately as the GA nominee to the NC for Chair.

The question then before us is whether we run another election with fresh calls 
for candidates.  One can argue this has some merit as some may not have 
accepted nomination because Jon was a nominee.

The other option is that as we are fortunate enough to have a preferential 
voting system (lowest polling candidate drops off until someone gets 50%+1) one 
can re-allocate votes for Jon according to the next preferences and declare 
that person the GA nominee for Chair.

I believe that the GA itself has to decide this issue and that a quick poll 
should be done of whether we wish to re-open nominations *if Jon is the winner* 
or just allocate preferentials.  I believe such a vote should be held without 
knowing who the 2nd placed candidate is (ie delay the detailed results 
publication).

DPF

- --
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 17:32:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Hello Dave,

Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 5:00:49 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 09:01 AM 4/3/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>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.

> Roberto, I do not know whether you are an expert on the relevant law.  I 
> know that I am not.

> I also know that a number of lawyers who ARE knowledge on the topic seemed 
> willing to characterize the relevant part of the ICANN/Verisign contract as 
> a loophole.

Lawyers representing parties who had a significant stake in the
outcome, including the ones working on behalf of ICANN.  As noted,
ICANN NEEDED this agreement to go through, one way or the other, if no
other reason than because under it Verisign agrees to pay a very
significant amount more than they do now to 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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:47:09 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Election process

While the GA election rules may not have provided for the current set of
circumstances, the GA did establish a Watchdog Committee charged with the
responsibility of ensuring the fairness of the election process.   I am sure
that their implied mandate will allow them to promptly act upon these
process issues, and as a candidate I am willing to abide by whatever
decision is reached by this committee.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:48:56 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Eric Weisberg wrote:

>  Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > am i to assume then that the vote i cast is for naught .
>
> That is an interesting question.

I think that the most important thing is to have a legitimate "selection".  It would
not due to send names to the NC which were tainted. (not that mine isn't already,
but I mean by the process)

> This issue must be resolved by the NC which created the election structure and
> time table.  But, it is something we can address by suggesting a rule to cover
> this and similar cases.
>

I want to put this as delicately as possible;  If the selection gives room for doubt
then the NC has a justification for picking whomever they want. For myself I have
the option of withdrawing and then making the acceptable votes unanamous for Danny
and Patrick, but that would be unanamous by default and apathy and also taint the
selection.

Even though there are many that strongly disagree with my positions, I would hope
that you would understand that I would do the job for what I perceive as the good of
the GA, even if you disagree with my views.  Therefor I would just as gladly
withdraw if it were for the integrity of the GA.

I would like to hear your thoughts, or if I hear none, that may be all the advice I
need.

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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:52:28 -0400
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

How does this sound:

(1) Proceed with the voting.
(2) If the margin of victory > # of votes for the withdrawn candidate, then the result is academic.
(3) Otherwise, re-poll.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

>>> <[email-masked]> 04/03/01 08:19PM >>>
> Without any comment on votes, given that I endorsed all four candidates to
> ensure that there could be a valid election, I am somewhat concerned.
> Without a fourth candidate, I probably would have worked harder to recruit
> someone to run.  That might be true of others, as well.
> 
> This is in no way a commentary on the candidates who are standing, but more
> a comment on other things.  Everyone who is standing has made a considerable
> effort to organize themselves/their work/etc. so they can offer to take on
> the considerable work of chair, c-chair.
> 
> We are all obviously learning as we build... 

I do not believe one can decline a nomination after voting has begun.  The vote 
has to go to its natural conclusion and then a winner is declared.  Now if it 
is not Jon then we have no problem.  If it is Jon then he effectively resigns 
immediately as the GA nominee to the NC for Chair.

The question then before us is whether we run another election with fresh calls 
for candidates.  One can argue this has some merit as some may not have 
accepted nomination because Jon was a nominee.

The other option is that as we are fortunate enough to have a preferentialv
 oting system (lowest polling candidate drops off until someone gets 50%+1) one 
can re-allocate votes for Jon according to the next preferences and declaret
 hat person the GA nominee for Chair.

I believe that the GA itself has to decide this issue and that a quick polls
 hould be done of whether we wish to re-open nominations *if Jon is the winner* 
or just allocate preferentials.  I believe such a vote should be held without 
knowing who the 2nd placed candidate is (ie delay the detailed results 
publication).

DPF

- --
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 

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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 21:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election process

I think this suggestion shows real leadership.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, babybows.com wrote:

> While the GA election rules may not have provided for the current set of
> circumstances, the GA did establish a Watchdog Committee charged with the
> responsibility of ensuring the fairness of the election process.   I am sure
> that their implied mandate will allow them to promptly act upon these
> process issues, and as a candidate I am willing to abide by whatever
> decision is reached by this committee.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:35:11 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  wrote:

> Without any comment on votes, given that I endorsed all four candidates to
> ensure that there could be a valid election, I am somewhat concerned.

To be frank, I am more than `somewhat' concerned that you (and certain
others) are concerned about this.  The election is valid.  I never heard of
an election being called off because a nominee ditched... never.

> Without a fourth candidate, I probably would have worked harder to recruit
> someone to run.  That might be true of others, as well.

So basically, your "apathy" in this process was due to regarding Jon
Weinberg as the "sure thing"... I wonder what you'd have posted had he run
and *not* won?  Marilyn, have you ever laid bets at the horse track, or on a
roulette wheel?  Life is surely a strange scenario... especially when things
don't go our way, eh?  This is surely not meant to be a serious post, is it?

> This is in no way a commentary on the candidates who are standing, but
more
> a comment on other things.

Such as?  Please be specific... I for one would definitely like to know what
these "things" are?

>Everyone who is standing has made a considerable
> effort to organize themselves/their work/etc. so they can offer to take on
> the considerable work of chair, c-chair.

I am glad you think so.  Therefore, you don't really have a problem with
continuing the election, right?

> We are all obviously learning as we build...

Some lessons are more painful than others:  Fact of life.

If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
from.

I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe otherwise.
I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I urge
others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
concern?  Somehow I doubt it...

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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 20:42:47 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election process

I agree with this idea. Let them do their work.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:47 PM
Subject: [ga] Election process

While the GA election rules may not have provided for the current set of
circumstances, the GA did establish a Watchdog Committee charged with the
responsibility of ensuring the fairness of the election process.   I am sure
that their implied mandate will allow them to promptly act upon these
process issues, and as a candidate I am willing to abide by whatever
decision is reached by this committee.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

- --
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 21:55:14 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

I think you mistook my message -- this election deserved a number of
candidates, as well as all the quality of candidates which it got... that's
"choice".  

Lots of participants on this list... I suspect that few would describe me as
"apathetic"... :-)  But maybe there is someone...?

I could have sat by and not endorsed the candidates, thus perhaps, if there
weren't sufficient endorsement, lending some question to the election. I
didn't do that, and made an effort to ensure that all candidates had
endorsements, so there would be no other challenge.  You seem not to
acknowledge that and to be critical ... not sure how I make any contribution
in that case.

so, reluctantly, signing off from further discussions on this issue.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:35 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Patrick Corliss'; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Jonathan Weinberg; Eric Dierker; Danny Younger;
[GA]
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  wrote:

> Without any comment on votes, given that I endorsed all four candidates to
> ensure that there could be a valid election, I am somewhat concerned.

To be frank, I am more than `somewhat' concerned that you (and certain
others) are concerned about this.  The election is valid.  I never heard of
an election being called off because a nominee ditched... never.

> Without a fourth candidate, I probably would have worked harder to recruit
> someone to run.  That might be true of others, as well.

So basically, your "apathy" in this process was due to regarding Jon
Weinberg as the "sure thing"... I wonder what you'd have posted had he run
and *not* won?  Marilyn, have you ever laid bets at the horse track, or on a
roulette wheel?  Life is surely a strange scenario... especially when things
don't go our way, eh?  This is surely not meant to be a serious post, is it?

> This is in no way a commentary on the candidates who are standing, but
more
> a comment on other things.

Such as?  Please be specific... I for one would definitely like to know what
these "things" are?

>Everyone who is standing has made a considerable
> effort to organize themselves/their work/etc. so they can offer to take on
> the considerable work of chair, c-chair.

I am glad you think so.  Therefore, you don't really have a problem with
continuing the election, right?

> We are all obviously learning as we build...

Some lessons are more painful than others:  Fact of life.

If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
from.

I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe otherwise.
I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I urge
others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
concern?  Somehow I doubt it...

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual
- --
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 22:12:03 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Well, I hate to say it, but that's pretty typical: feigned indignance to beg
off from any meaningful response.  It's a tiresome ploy in these circles...
;-)

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <[email-masked]>
To: 'Sotiropoulos' <[email-masked]>; 'Patrick Corliss'
<[email-masked]>; Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Cc: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>; Jonathan Weinberg
<[email-masked]>; Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger
<[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

>
> I think you mistook my message -- this election deserved a number of
> candidates, as well as all the quality of candidates which it got...
that's
> "choice".
>
> Lots of participants on this list... I suspect that few would describe me
as
> "apathetic"... :-)  But maybe there is someone...?
>
> I could have sat by and not endorsed the candidates, thus perhaps, if
there
> weren't sufficient endorsement, lending some question to the election. I
> didn't do that, and made an effort to ensure that all candidates had
> endorsements, so there would be no other challenge.  You seem not to
> acknowledge that and to be critical ... not sure how I make any
contribution
> in that case.
>
> so, reluctantly, signing off from further discussions on this issue.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:35 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Patrick Corliss'; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Jonathan Weinberg; Eric Dierker; Danny Younger;
> [GA]
> Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy
>
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  wrote:
>
>
> > Without any comment on votes, given that I endorsed all four candidates
to
> > ensure that there could be a valid election, I am somewhat concerned.
>
> To be frank, I am more than `somewhat' concerned that you (and certain
> others) are concerned about this.  The election is valid.  I never heard
of
> an election being called off because a nominee ditched... never.
>
> > Without a fourth candidate, I probably would have worked harder to
recruit
> > someone to run.  That might be true of others, as well.
>
> So basically, your "apathy" in this process was due to regarding Jon
> Weinberg as the "sure thing"... I wonder what you'd have posted had he run
> and *not* won?  Marilyn, have you ever laid bets at the horse track, or on
a
> roulette wheel?  Life is surely a strange scenario... especially when
things
> don't go our way, eh?  This is surely not meant to be a serious post, is
it?
>
> > This is in no way a commentary on the candidates who are standing, but
> more
> > a comment on other things.
>
> Such as?  Please be specific... I for one would definitely like to know
what
> these "things" are?
>
> >Everyone who is standing has made a considerable
> > effort to organize themselves/their work/etc. so they can offer to take
on
> > the considerable work of chair, c-chair.
>
> I am glad you think so.  Therefore, you don't really have a problem with
> continuing the election, right?
>
> > We are all obviously learning as we build...
>
> Some lessons are more painful than others:  Fact of life.
>
> If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such
activity.
> The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> from.
>
> I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe
otherwise.
> I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I
urge
> others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
> concern?  Somehow I doubt it...
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Individual
>
>

- --
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 19:14:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Sotiropoulos,

[excess CC's removed since everyone gets a copy from the ga list
anyway]

Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 6:35:11 PM, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
> The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> from.

> I am greatly disturbed and disappointed that some people believe otherwise.
> I will not vote in another election should this one be cancelled, and I urge
> others who feel the same to act accordingly.  Will my lack of voting cause
> concern?  Somehow I doubt it...

Let's not blow things out of proportion, it really doesn't help you or
your view, or the GA.

- -- 
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 02:22:48 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Sotiris wrote:
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  wrote:
> 
> 
> If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such activity.
> The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> from.

I agree the election can not be called off.  However it is too late for Jon to 
be withdrawn as the voting has started.  Now if some other candidate wins then 
I beleive that person should be the GA Chair.  If however Jon wins and resigns 
we have a vacancy and it is quite legitimate to hold another election. 

DPF

- --
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 21:53:12 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Eric,

Let me remind you :-
1) That On 26th of February , the Names Council decided to invite the GA to
manage an election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to
the position of Chair of the GA.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html  The NC, BY
ITS OWN POLICY has no reason to overturn the process unless specific
circumstances are met (see paragraph 3 below), which they have not.
2)The NC requested the Secretariat to determine dates and move the process
forward. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html , which it
did (Thank you Elisabeth), according to rules approved by the GA
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html.
3) A nomination watchdog committee was formed to police the nomination
process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
connection with the nomination process. Any instances of fraudulent
nominations or endorsements would have been be reported to the committee by
now, with a copy to the Names Council, which they have not. There is nothing
fraudulent about Jon Weinberg's resignation as a candidate. The watchdog
committee and the Names Council only have the sole discretion as to how to
deal with any such reported activity, not any other kind of activity.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html This is the limit of
their powers in this election.

Personally, I too am disappointed that a person of Jon's immense knowledge
and experience has decided to withdraw from the election, but as I stated
publicly, the level of commitment he could bring to the job was questionable
and I now applaud him for the courage to acknowledge his own limitations.
Equally, I have no reason to doubt that Jon will bring whatever expertise he
can to the GA in the future, including guidance to whoever is elected to GA
Chair, and that his contributions will be commensurate to the time he has
available, whether or not he carries the "label" of GA Chair.

At the end of the day, there is more at stake than any one candidate. Due
process must be followed, regardless of the results, and a little faith at
this point is all that is required.

Regards,
Joanna

 Ken Stubbs wrote:

> am i to assume then that the vote i cast is for naught .

That is an interesting question.  Harald suggests that this case is not
covered
by the rules, but should be resolved by having your vote count exactly as
you
would have cast it had Jonathan not been in the race (i.e. that the election
proceed with the current ballot, but that his votes would be ignored in
ranking
your preferences under STV).  Others have suggested that this situation is
analogous to that in which the deceased Carnahan beat the living Ashcroft in
the
Missouri senate race--e.g. that Jonathan's votes must be counted as if he
were a
viable candidate, and, should he "win," that result will be taken as  "none
of
the above."

Treating the NC as "governor" acting upon a clean slate would frustrate the
NC's
reported desire to appoint someone approved by a vote of the GA.  But, some
are
objecting to the loss of options for voters who preferred Jonathan.  His
candidacy may have kept others from running who would have appealed to the
same
constituency.   Neither option--taking the "second" choice or vesting "clean
slate" discretion in the NC--may be satisfactory from their point of view.
Their concerns may only be met by starting the process again, from
nominations
to voting.

This issue must be resolved by the NC which created the election structure
and
time table.  But, it is something we can address by suggesting a rule to
cover
this and similar cases.

- --
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 23:03:10 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Sorry David, in true ICANN fashion I'm going to flip-flop now...

I think we *should* cancel the election ASAP.  I wish to make a motion of
it.  Who will second?

(Also, if this motion is carried, I wish to nominate Marilyn Cade, Kent
Crispin, and Dave Crocker as candidates for any new election for GA Chair).

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> Sotiris wrote:
> > Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  wrote:
> >
> >
> > If this election is called off, this will be the surest sign of complete
> > corruption of the GA.  I cannot, and will not countenance any such
activity.
> > The election must continue as there are still 3 candidates to be decided
> > from.
>
> I agree the election can not be called off.  However it is too late for
Jon to
> be withdrawn as the voting has started.  Now if some other candidate wins
then
> I beleive that person should be the GA Chair.  If however Jon wins and
resigns
> we have a vacancy and it is quite legitimate to hold another election.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> 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 #342
************************