Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #344
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, April 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 344

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:16:14 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Making Sense on the List

On Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:58 PM (AEST), Eric Dierker wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and
> Mr. Crocker and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post
> this concept from the Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we
> are not outnumbered but only have to vote.  I finally realized why these list
> centurions were against campaigning, it might upset the goal they were sent
> to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view off the active
> participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
> the same thing.

Hi Eric

Please trust me when I say that it is not worth supporting Jeff Williams.

Mr Williams has been a disruptive influence on this list and many others for a
considerable time as has been banned on several occasions and not just by
Harald.  He knows very well that he has been banned and continues to post to the
[ga] list in order to get a response.  I would truly prefer that none of us
cater to his demands for attention -- it just encourages him to more excess.

William X. Walsh is very well-informed on DNS issues and often makes good sense.
Kent Crispin's views stimulate the debate and allow some of us to examine issues
from a different perspective.  Dave Crocker's postings should be dealt with in
the manner they deserve.

Some list postings may not be to my own taste but that's to be expected when
a diverse group of highly intelligent people tackle issues of importance.  All
of us must deal with the facts of life as we find them.

Personally I feel quite comfortable with my capacity to deal with provocation.
However, I have the greatest respect for the other members and do not want to
burden them with constant argument.  I try therefore to make each contribution
worthwhile in its own right.  It's nothing to do with being stifled.

I really don't believe that debate has been stifled in any real sense.  In fact,
the reverse is true as was shown by Roeland Meyer's debate with Kent Crispin
on ICANN membership.  I found that exchange most informative.

The best course of action is to write carefully and treat the issues sensibly.
My preferred technique is to address the points I want to make clearly the first
time then step away from any ongoing debate.  I also try to ignore criticism.

The worst mistake that any of us can make is to try to have the last word.

Best wishes
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, 04 Apr 2001 11:23:48 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

At 03:03 04.04.2001 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>I of course agree with this.  And so I post it.  I do not expect to be 
>elected but I do expect to press a few points.  As Harald already said, 
>even though I am a popular candidate and not a hand picked one like him, 
>he refuses to even consider my posts.

That was a mistake, and I apologize for it.
As alternate chair, I cannot in good faith ignore any postings that make it 
to the GA list, even though my personal inclination is quite different.

FWIW, I think there is no sense in harping on "popular" candidate or a 
"hand picked" candidate. There are only candidates that got nominated and 
accepted the nomination.

Eric Dierker might win the booby prize of least popular candidate, but that 
is another matter. He is certainly at the top for most voluble candidate.

The voters have the decision.

- --
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, 04 Apr 2001 21:14:07 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

At 02:16 4/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

>
>I stand against the status quo and for Mr. Auerbachs' positions.
>
Thank you Eric. Could you please enumerate what parts of the status quo you
would like to see changed. Then it becomes possible to win support for
specific changes.

>If you do not like this campaigning it is jsut because you do not want the
>issues raised.
>
I feel that this is unfair to the other candidates. Danny has pledged that
he will work as the GA's humble servant. If he is elected, it is up to the
GA members to make proposals, motions, seconds and he will be the one who
makes sure that the will of the GA is given expression.
With regards to his current employment: unless I am very much wrong in my
judgement of character, I think this is even less relevant than Karl A.'s
employment as a Cisco engineer.

>
>p.s. I beg the other candidates to state their real opinions, although I
realize
>that both of the other candidates have decided it is far better to lay low on
>their opinions and therefor win by not making the players mad.

We have heard opinions from both candidates. Especially Patrick has told us
what he thinks about opening up to the TLD community. 
 However, they are not standing as our representatives on the NC, but for
the role of Chair, which means that once elected they will have to go slow
on their personal opinions and enlarge their ear for the opinions that they
hear in the GA.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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, 04 Apr 2001 08:06:08 -0400
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Since I filter Jeff (On the Internet nobody knows you are a dog) Williams, I did not receive the original post.

What in the name of frelling drenn is going on here?

I am having _serious) trouble following the list. Its signal-to-noise ratio is very low, even for a domain name war battlefield.

I sang Hosanna when he whose name need not be repeated was suspended.

When was his suspension lifted? For what earthly reason?

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.

>>> Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> 04/04/01 04:58AM >>>
In that I do not agree with the method of banning and i find Mr. Crispin and Mr. Crocker
and Mr. Walsh far more culpable as far as stifling input, I post this concept from the
Harald eradicted Mr. Williams as a suggestion that we are not outnumbered but only have to
vote.  I finally realized why these list centurions were against campaigning, it might
upset the goal they were sent to realize; Keep anyone who differs from their point of view
off the active participation list and do it by whipping them to death so no one else tries
the same thing.

Well we have precedence.

More on the behind the scenes capture of votes later.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Eric,
> > >
> > > None of which justifies blowing this one issue out of proportion.
> >
> > 100% I agree with you but he is not doing that, however your taking issue with it is
> > blowing it out of proportion.
>
>   I would have to agree with you very well put evaluation here Eric.  Thank
> you for making it.
>
> >
> >
> > 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 
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked] 
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:02:23 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
|> Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2001 9:45 PM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy
|>
|> Damn straight and a big Thank you!
|> And if that kid would of offended everyone and his words were right
|> he would have been rebuked.
|> I get your point. Yoour point is well taken this school is only for
|> kids who have been here for awhile, lest I do things quietly for my first
little while I ain't
|> gonna make it. Ah whatthe heck you are right no one likes a guy like me. I
guess it comes from
|> being youngest of six, getting a philosophy and law degree and being a prick,
but I hope
|> you can attest I did try before I quit.
|>
|> Adios,

I don't know you Eric aside from observations of your posting.  However there
are a couple of things I would like to comment on with your recent exchanges.

Having only recently starting participating myself, I do not find the barriers
that others obviously do in achieving a reasonable level of participation.  It
has not been my experience to be intimidated by any other poster although I have
been in disagreement with a number of people, including WX.  Yes, although I do
agree with WX on a lot of things there are some matters that we do disagree on.
The same goes for a lot of others.  We all find the level of participation we
are comfortable with, and the opportunity is there for anyone to participate in
a constructive way.  This goes for the all the lists I am currently subscribed
to.

One thing we should all keep in mind, others do not direct our actions unless we
let them.

A little story which may be of some assistance to others is the story of the
King who, when on the point of giving up, observed a spider attempting to build
a web, the observance of the persistence displayed by the spider convinced the
King to rejoin a battle and continue the struggle.  In the end persistence and
perseverance can win the day.  My apologies if I mixed up the story a little, it
was something I read as a youngster many years ago.

In this group are many diverse individuals.  We come from varied backgrounds and
life experiences.  We will not always get along and due to the passion felt by
some towards the topics under discussion, there will always be some disorder.
The objective is to overcome the little things and focus on the larger issues.
Personally I consider the GA has achieved this ideal to a remarkable degree.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 07:22:37 -0700
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:24:01PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
[...]
> > So, bottom line, ICANN does not have members (as defined by the 
> > CNPBCL), and it is under no legal obligation to have them.  There 
> > really is no question about this.
> 
> Yes there is

One could say that some who really should know better have a mischievous
and irresponsible interest in causing people to think so. 

> ... and I'd rather take the word of a member of the California
> State BAR over yours.

Yes, that would in general be wise.  However, this is not really a 
conflict between me and Karl; it is a conflict between Karl and the 
lawyers who wrote the bylaws, who are also members of the BAR.  
Moreover, they are practicing attorneys who do this kind of stuff on a 
daily basis.

Let's put this in a different realm: you discover you have a heart
condition, and you need an operation.  You need to select a doctor to do
the operation.  You don't actually know any doctors, but two choices are
suggested to you.  Would you select

    a) a currently practicing surgeon who has done hundreds of
    operations just like the one you need, or

    b) someone who went to medical school, and has a medical license,
    but who doesn't practice, and instead for the last 15 years has been
    working as a network engineer?

> I note that you have made no IANAL disclaimers, are
> you pretending to be a lawyer?

No.  I am not a lawyer, and this is just my opinion as an intelligent
layperson.  It is, of course, obviously an opinion shared by the 
members of the BAR who drafted the bylaws...

> Thanks to Karl Auerbach for the following (posted with permission);
[...]
> > But membership may arise from either a positive explicit 
> > declaration in
> > the Corporation's organic documents (Articles of Incorporation or the
> > By-Laws) *OR* by the indirect consequences of procedures written into
> > those same documents.

Nope.  In my humble opinion Karl's "indirect conseqences" theory is his
own creation, and is not in the law.  Unless there is specific, explicit
provision to the contrary, CNPB corporations do not have members.  The
default state is to not have members; members must be explicitly
designated.  The law goes out of its way to make this clear, as I show below.

> > And one of those procedures through which a corporation comes to have
> > members is by having elections for directors pursuant to 
> > provision in the
> > Articles or Bylaws. (Section 5056 of the California 
> > Corporations Code.)
> > 
> >   5056. (a) "Member" means any person who, pursuant to a specific
> >   provision of a corporation's articles or bylaws, has the 
> >   right to vote for the election of a director or directors... 
> >   "Member" also means any person who is designated in the articles 
> >   or bylaws as a member and, pursuant to a specific provision of 
> >   a corporation's articles or bylaws, has the right to vote on 
> >   changes to the articles or bylaws.

Note carefully the phrase "pursuant to a specific provision of the 
corporations articles of bylaws".  

Note also that Karl studiously ignores 5056 (d)(2):

   (d) A person is not a member by virtue of any of the following:
   (1) Any rights such person has as a delegate.
   (2) Any rights such person has to designate or select a director
       or directors.
   (3) Any rights such person has as a director.

That is, in addition to requiring "specific provision", the right to
select directors is *explicitly marked* as insufficient to make one a
member.  The drafters of the law went to some lengths to make it
clear... 

[...]

> > Notice that the first sentence of section 5310(a) merely allows a
> > corporations to *state* in its articles or bylaws that it 
> > shall have no members.  But such a provision is, in and of itself,
> > nothing more than a bald statement.  The second sentence of 5310(a)
> > is the real meat - according to that sentence it is only the
> > *absence* of any membership-causing provision, such as 5056, anywhere
> > in the articles or bylaws that causes there to be no membership.

The actual text reads:

    In the absence of any provision in its articles or bylaws providing
    for members, a corporation shall have no members. 

Karl imagines that there are all kinds of things that *implicitly*
create membership, that's why he uses the phrase "membership-causing
provision".  But the law actually goes far out of its way to make clear
that membership must be *explicitly* provided for.  A provision
"providing for members" would be something like "The coroporation shall
have members..." If the bylaws say "notwithstanding anything else, the
corporation does not have members", there really isn't much else to say
- -- the corporation doesn't have members.

- -- 
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:41:03 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Actually, I don't think it's the potential $B that's the real concern. As I
stated earlier, NET and ORG are two new balls being put in play, with this
contract. This separates them from COM. I'll also tell you what else it
does; once those charters begin being enforced again, that may create the
legal environment to fence trademark holders within those charters. The
problem is, if this is any part of the intent, it may be "day late ...
dollar short", as precedents and expectations have already been set. Those
may be poisoned wells, for that purpose.

What the contract does is to hand over ORG and NET to someone else (yet to
be detirmined). That's millions of dollars of business each. Even, if they
are less than COM. Granted that, many are also COM registrants who wanted to
make sure that "whitehouse.com" doesn't happen to them.

Once DOC gives their imprimatur, the next question is "whom will run the
registries for NET and ORG?" (I strongly suggest that ARIN should run NET.
ARIN needs the revenue to run IN-ADDR.ARPA and other activity that they
should be doing [but aren't] and the NET charter, as written, fits into what
they are doing [infrastructure support] anyway).

This leaves ORG. Note that ORG has a "miscellaneous" charter and is largely
believed to be non-profit. That is a perception, it may not be correct.
However, the registry does not have to be non-profit, in order to register
non-profit entities. I note that, just because it doesn't fit into either
the COM or NET charter, doesn't mean that it must be a non-profit. EDU is a
case in point here. It would not prevent NEW.NET from applying to run ORG,
for another example.

The other question is associated with the transfer of assets of NET and
ORG.[BTW, I regret that MHSC doesn't have the resources to take advantage of
this new development and that is the only reason I am pointing these items
out in public, rather than acting upon them in private]. These TLDs have
established market-share, registrants, and revenue. In short, they are
ready-built businesses. I am reasonably certain that VRSN would want to be
compensated for their loss. Conservative estimates would be in the millions
of dollars. Also, it would take some real work to extricate them from
GTLD.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is work that VRSGN would also wish to be
compensated for (man-hours). What are these TLDs worth and who gets the
revenue from the sale?

Note that VRSGN stock has been taking a beating. The sale of NET and ORG
would help boost VRGN stock price. But, for VRGN to see that benefit, they
would have to make 100's of millions from their sale. Remember how much
VRSGN paid for NSI.

- -- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:-
>  All the evidence points to this being a relatively last 
> minute brainstorm
> on VRSN's part.
> 
> If so, all the evidence points to this being a relatively last minute
> agreement on ICANN's part.  Not exactly appropriate behaviour for a
> corporation that is supposed to go through a consensus 
> procedure involving
> interested stakeholders before giving away a key contract 
> worth potentially
> billions of dollars.
> Joanna
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:57:28 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Net Keepers

Dear Roberto,
You are certainly right. But beyond a change in policy we have witnessed 
the formalization of a change in the nature of the iCANN, which has now 
established its new target: to rule the Internet in using a rigid non 
innovative TLD contract model (VeriSign, bilateral/trilateral ccTLDs, 
gTLDs), targeting a full governorship over the SLDs themselves (cf. .biz, 
.org / UDRP).

I certainly understand the logic. But on several examples like the 
trilateral contracts, that logic turns being irrealist. It is also in 
opposition with the White Paper and the whole Internet story, nature and 
practice.

This de facto monopolistic private ownership of the Internet by a few 
individuals results from a subtle competition established between 
GAC/USG  (for an international legitimacy), the various ccTLDs ('divide to 
reign' and to keep control of the Internet local communities) and 
VRSN/gTLDs for the financial and technical DNS aspects. Some other 
additional controversial equilibriums like DNSO vs @large, ... US Staff vs 
multinational stakeholders... add some pieces to the chessplate.

On 18:01 03/04/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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.

This situation is not acceptable to many and IMHO will lead to an 
international anti-trust action we already see the seeds in the USA, in 
Europe and in Far-East at top political level. This action will create 
development delays and major instabilities. The only solution we have left 
to develop a stable approach is to use the "low interest" tools (in 
Vint/Staff's opinion): DNSO, DNSO/GA, @large, DNS software analysis, TLDA, 
ML, etc...

This happens while the Chair of the DNSO/GA is at its weakest with only now 
three candidates.

I therefore suggest this: to gather an informal working group of seasoned 
people and ready to invest corporations, wanting genuinely to work for the 
stability and the development of a deregulated and financially distributed 
Internet. Each of them explaining his intellectual, technical, financial, 
etc... interest in an Internet by the users for the users (hence the 
subject "the net keepers"). They will focus on a stable vision of the 
Internet progressively embodied through a pragmatic rewriting of the RFC 
1591. This RFC should be based upon experience and become the international 
White Paper of the Internet users. The positions taken will have to be 
explained and documented to Govs, corporations, user associations,etc... It 
should also help/catalyze the development of one or several commercial/non 
profit DNS galaxies to complement the VeriSign Galaxy. These are the early 
days of Airbus vs Boeing.

As a construed action it would call for a lot of money. As a coordination 
spirit it does not: the idea is only to help our political and 
commercial  synergies. I am sure it can achieve much. Actualy being cheap, 
stable, reliable and light is exactly what we want to achieve. Being it in 
our own relations should be a strength?

People interested in joining/discussing the concept please respond on the 
DNSO/GA or privately (not to inform the iCANN of the whole picture 
immediately). I will help as a secretariat should the idea take off.

I want to underline that in my mind this is NOT a competition with any 
existing effort or a diversion, but to the contrary a way to help 
developing a mutual and focussed assistance among the "loyal opposition" 
now a "determined opposition". Just two opposite examples: the established 
DNSO/GA may now be the key place after the seemingly hi-jacking of the 
@large. The new born TLDA may be of precious help if it enlarges its 
concerns to all the TLD managers interests. And there are many others.

Again nothing formal. Just: "hi! I am here, I want to be counted in that 
talk" or "we should ask xxxx".

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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:34:01 -0700
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

This may be posted under the wrong thread but perhaps it's an appropriate
heading.  Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of the
General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?
Thanks,  Cindy Merry

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:38:43 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN & other Major Corporations

Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> Hey, I have a GREAT IDEA!
> 
> Every voting American Netizen could get in communication with their
> Government Representatives and help them understand:  1) The Internet,
> 2)  The ICANN, 3)  The IETF.

I very much doubt that most Netizens understand the net in any depth. Yes,
we use it and are aware of some of the issues, but that's not the same. As
for ICANN and the IETF, I suspect many users wouldn't even recognise the
names. I've met "web designers" who did not recognise "W3C" or "SSL"!

So to some extent, what you suggest would be the blind leading the blind.

That said, anyone with some understanding should be both monitoring and
lobbying their elected representatives on net.issues. While you're at it,
do anything you can to inform colleagues, friends, net.acquaintances, the
media, ...
- --
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, 04 Apr 2001 11:54:16 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No Members?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BCFD.F9C8AD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:

      1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits    $30,000

If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?

http://www.icann.org/financials/markle-grant-letter-06mar00.htm

/Bruce

~IANAL~ I Am Not A Lawyer. Seek legal advice.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BCFD.F9C8AD40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4613.1700" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>OK, I am dumb.... Why =
did the=20
Markle Foundation say in its Grant:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D2 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"97%" border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D"65%"><FONT face=3DArial>1) Membership =
Program Manager=20
      - 6 months including benefits</FONT></TD>
    <TD width=3D"11%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D"24%"><FONT=20
  =
face=3DArial>&nbsp;$30,000</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></STRON=
G></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>If we don't have any =
*Members*??=20
Did ICANN return the money?</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/markle-grant-letter-06mar00.htm">=
http://www.icann.org/financials/markle-grant-letter-06mar00.htm</A></FONT=
></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>~IANAL~ I Am Not A =
Lawyer. Seek=20
legal advice.<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BCFD.F9C8AD40--

- --
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 10:33:09 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:54:16AM -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> 
>    _OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:_
>    
>    __1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits
>    $30,000
>    
>    _If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?_

No.  The position was for 6 months, and the 6 months was up some time 
ago.  That is, the program funded by Markle was explicitly short term. 

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 10:53:01 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

People use the term "member" informally all the time; it's 
convenient.  That does not mean that their use in any way relates to the 
legalities associated with formal use of the term.

People often refer to IETF "members" but, in fact, there is no such 
thing.  There are participants, but nothing that constitutes membership.

Instead of looking around for non-legal examples that use the term, why not 
pay attention to the very simple and direct explanations that have been 
provided.  They are not very complicated.

California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.  It is, 
in fact, more common that they do NOT have members because of management 
complexity when formal membership exists.  (I have run a 503(c)(3) and a 
503(c)(6).)  I am not a lawyer, but this issue is extremely well 
understood, concerning non-profit formation.

d/

ps.  What is the productive goal in pursuing this matter in such 
detail?  Are there no other issues for the GA to consider?

At 09:54 AM 4/4/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:
>
>1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits    $30,000
>
>If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?

- ----------
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, 04 Apr 2001 10:54:37 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Cindy Merry wrote:
> This may be posted under the wrong thread but perhaps it's an appropriate
> heading.  Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of the
> General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?

Cindy,

"Generally" speaking, a "general assembly" is a meeting place of everyone
who is involved in a given area. There is a "General Assembly" meeting of
the Address Supporting Organization this afternoon, for example, in
conjunction with the ARIN meeting in San Francisco. ICANN's Address
Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization have elected to
have one "general assembly" meeting a year, usually to present status
reports and elect Board members.

The Domain Names Supporting Organization, on the other hand, has chosen to
implement the "General Assembly" concept both as an in-person meeting and as
a virtual space in the form of this mailing list. This particular General
Assembly is subject specific -- the domain name system ("DNS") -- and there
are many aspects of ICANN that are outside its scope and purpose. In that
sense, it is different from the "At Large" concept, which is intended to
find a representative vehicle for Internet users to address the user
perspective on *all* of the issues facing ICANN.

The DNSO's General Assembly meets in real space in conjunction with each
quarterly ICANN meeting and continues its discussions on the DNS here.

A description of *this* general assembly is included in the ICANN bylaws:

Article VI-B, Section 4. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the
DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge
of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has
primary responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and
expertise to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and
development, discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
participation in research and drafting committees and working groups.

(b) The GA shall meet at least once a year, if possible in conjunction with
regularly scheduled meetings of the Board. To the maximum extent
practicable, all meetings should be available for online attendance as well
as physical attendance.

(c) The costs of GA meetings shall be the responsibility of the DNSO, which
may levy an equitable, cost-based fee on GA attendees to recoup those costs.
There shall be no other fees required to participate in the GA.

(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by
the NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
seats reserved for the DNSO.

I hope that is helpful.

   -- 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 11:08:35 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

If you can access Mr. Younger's (babybows) posts on this matter he is as
close as anyone to understanding this issue. At any rate his analysis is
excellent, perhaps he can respond with direction.

Sincerely,

Cindy Merry wrote:

> This may be posted under the wrong thread but perhaps it's an appropriate
> heading.  Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of the
> General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?
> Thanks,  Cindy Merry
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 #344
************************