Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #346
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, April 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 346

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:19:48 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On 2001-04-04 11:34:00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> What is the productive point behind your pursuing your
> discomfort?

... instead of finally suing ICANN for exercise of membership rights
and getting a clear court judgement which finishes this fruitless
discusison once and forever?

If some of you folks are so absolutely sure that ICANN breaks the
"clear intent" of the California Law, and plays obvious legal "shell
games" which only a fool can beliefe, sue them.  And don't complain.

Whining around on mailing lists about this membership issue is
pretty fruitless, and basically a waste of time.

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:28:06 -0400
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

The only document that matters in this context is the certificate of incorporation. That's located at http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm. Please read the document. I think it says that while ICANN may elect to have members in the future (and spells out some of what those rights will be) nowhere is there a statement that ICANN has members.

The question of whether ICANN _should_ have members is entirely distinct and, I believe, a distraction at this point in time.

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 03:47PM >>>
Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.
>

Mr. Crispin, this does not address the obvious issue raised.  It occurred in
a "legal document" and it sets precedent. And it helps to understand the
issue to look at specific examples of how ICANN treats and defines
membership, and whether we have a right to it as internetstakeholders.

Sincerely,

>
> --
> 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 

*******************************************************************************
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 15:41:05 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To be or not to be?

From: Kristy McKee:
> Now that we've heard from the cheerleaders will someone from the team
> please answer the question... I'd like to know where the money went as
well.

Where's the money?  LOL  As if we're ever going to learn...

Or, maybe Kent Crispin or Dave Crocker can tell us?  So, Kent, Dave, what
did happen to the money?  Informally, of course Dave... after all, perhaps
the good people at the Markle Foundation were referring to "money" in an
"informal" manner, like in the phrase "Show me the money!"?!

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        ICANN AtLarge MEMBER

- --
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 12:41:40 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

> California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.

That's right. The reason for the continuing debate is that, under some
sections of California corporations law, corporations with statutory members
are defined by whether members have certain rights -- such as whether the
"members" can elect Directors, for example. But the creation of statutory
members under the California law is dealt with in several different sections
of the Code, some of which are seemingly contradictory, so it's a nuanced
question that we're unlikely to answer here.

The only reason any of this matters is that "statutory members" have certain
rights guaranteed under California law. Whether ICANN has *statutory*
members, as opposed to participants that it may choose to call "members," is
entirely academic unless you want to exercise a right guaranteed to
statutory members that ICANN refuses to recognize. At that point, there's a
real issue, but the only way to have it resolved is through the California
state courts. 

Nevertheless, and to return to the original point, the statute makes clear
that a corporation can have things that are called "members" without
necessarily making them statutory members. So the fact that Markle made a
grant to fund certain aspects of the membership program is irrelevant to the
statutory membership question.

     -- 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, 4 Apr 2001 16:02:19 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE:  serious participation in ICANN processes

Cindy Merry asked, "Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of
the General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?

For all of us a simple explanation would be of value; regretfully, nothing
is ever simple in the ICANN world.   The last few days have demonstrated
that the ICANN Board will take whatever action it perceives to be necessary
to further the interests of the Corporation, even if such action formalizes
policy changes at odds with the recommendations of the DNSO.

In the Internet world, change is always just beyond the immediate horizon,
and as ICANN changes, so too will the DNSO, the NC and the GA.  Even a
casual observer of the process will note that there have already been a
number of changes made to the ByLaws of the Corporation, and assuredly there
will be more in the months ahead.

What we require first is an understanding of where we are in the scheme of
things, in order to be better prepared to move forward to the next stage in
our evolution as an organization.

Under the terms of the current Bylaws, the General Assembly is essentially a
public meeting place for open discussion and the expression of ideas.
Jonathan Weinberg, in his "Review of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization" http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg/dnso_review.htm
made the following observations:

* The General Assembly labors under the handicap of having no function and
no authority. The only function given by the bylaws to the General Assembly
*as a body* is to "nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC and
approved by the Board," the DNSO members of the ICANN board. Under the Names
Council's procedures, a candidate shall be deemed nominated if he is
endorsed by at least ten members of the General Assembly. Experience has
shown this to be an inconsequential hurdle.
* Because the GA is powerless, participation in the affairs of the GA as a
body has no payoff.  Because participation has no payoff, few people
participate in the GA's discussions.  That result is inevitable so long as
the GA, as a body, has no function.
* The GA barely exists now.  To the extent that the GA is simply a label for
the set of interested persons who may volunteer from time to time to serve
on working groups, etc., then that label can surely continue to be used.  To
the extent that the GA is intended to signify an institution that has have
functions and authority *as a body* in the domain name policy making
process, no such institution currently exists.  I think that it would be
desirable if such an institution did exist but we need not worry about
abolishing something that doesn't exist today.

While I completely concur with Jonathan's assessment, where we are now is a
far cry from where the General Assembly will soon be.   The Board, by way of
resolutions recently passed in Melbourne, has signaled that change is
forthcoming:

	[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
   to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
   DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes
   in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

        [Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes
that
   improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later
   than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input
   will be scheduled at the end of that period."

There is every reasonable expectation to believe that the ByLaws of the
Corporation will again be changed to accommodate the needs of the future; we
need not be locked into the mentality that these ByLaws are a static
limitation.   In an earlier post, Prof. A. Miachael Froomkin wrote, "The
substance of the GA is that it is a debating forum whose outputs do not, so
far as I've been able to discern, have any substantial influence on ICANN
policy."  I contend that both the current substance and the current purpose
of the GA will soon be subject to a profound metamorphosis.

The General Assembly of the DNSO will have a new purpose, a purpose in part
to be shaped by the recommendations that all of us may now submit to the
Board.  This is a time to help define our own future.   If we have learned
any lesson at all in the course of the last few days, it is this - the Board
will chart its own path, but in so doing it will allow for the concerns of
its stakeholders to be addressed in some fashion, and it will include in its
formulations "a number of suggestions contained in community recommendations
and comments".

The members of this General Assembly have been given the opportunity to help
shape the coming reality.   So far, only a few have heeded this call.   It's
easy enough to sit back and be no more than a critic of the process; let's
see if we members have the strength of purpose to rise to the occasion and
actually offer constructive recommendations.   This is our opportunity to
make a positive difference.  Take it.  Act to determine the best possible
purpose for the GA.  We are the voice of the community.

Please note that the Review Working Group has welcomed all comments on this
topic and continues to seek further input.

Thank you, Cindy, for posing such a reasonable question.

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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:07:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Thomas,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 12:19:48 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-04-04 11:34:00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> What is the productive point behind your pursuing your
>> discomfort?

> ... instead of finally suing ICANN for exercise of membership rights
> and getting a clear court judgement which finishes this fruitless
> discusison once and forever?

> If some of you folks are so absolutely sure that ICANN breaks the
> "clear intent" of the California Law, and plays obvious legal "shell
> games" which only a fool can beliefe, sue them.  And don't complain.

> Whining around on mailing lists about this membership issue is
> pretty fruitless, and basically a waste of time.

"Whining" ?

It has sounded like an interesting and definitely relevant debate on
the subject.

Just because you, who is admittedly not as familiar with California
law as many of the other participants in the discussion, do not agree
with the positions being put forward, does not mean that you are
justified in painting a relevant discussion as whining.

- -- 
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 13:09:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Kevin,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 12:28:06 PM, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> The only document that matters in this context is the certificate of incorporation. That's located at http://www.icann.org/general/articles.htm. Please read the document. I think it says that while
> ICANN may elect to have members in the future (and spells out some of what those rights will be) nowhere is there a statement that ICANN has members.

> The question of whether ICANN _should_ have members is entirely distinct and, I believe, a distraction at this point in time.

The way I read it, Kevin, the documents can only provide for an
explicit statement on the subject of membership, but that under the
law members may be created and/or recognized through practice, even if
not expressly recognized by the corporate documents.

That seems to largely agree with Karl Auerbach's assessment, and in
reading the relevant material on the subject, he seems to make a
strong case for that.

- -- 
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 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

- --- Andy Gardner wrote:
> non-corporate-aligned US Senators

I have heard stories about such creatures, but I have
seen little evidence of their existence.

The key is to inform elected representatives on how
misguided ICANN BoD decisions can adversely affect
their constituencies.

These constituencies are (for better or worse)
composed of both individual and corporate interest,
and it often (unfortunately) takes the ire of both
components to draw a representative official to
action.

In this way, the representatives of states that are
home to potential competitors of VSGN might be more
receptive to lobby, since the economy and labor of the
region they represent depends on the contracts
negotiated with VSGN.

- -jason graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:17:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On 2001-04-04 11:42:39 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> We are spending big money studying the At Large. This directly
> ties into boardsquatter issues. Some Congressmen are extremely
> interested in it. At least one two outside groups are funding
> their own research into it. It is supposedly how we elect the
> people who approve contracts with the USG and Versign.

Indeed.  But does this mean that the California code's notion of
membership with a non-profit organization is the best way to create
an at large membership?  Does it mean that it's reasonable to give
these rights to an at large membership?

Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not it would be healthy for ICANN
to have an at large membership with all the rights of statutory
members.  However, I'm quite sure that an at large membership which
elects members of the board and creates additional accountability
for the board would be quite helpful to the net at large.

So, please, let's get away from the legal battle on whether or not
ICANN successfully managed to avoid a statutory membership. Instead,
let's look at what kind of at large membership would be helpful,
healthy and reasonable for ICANN.

BTW, I do acknowledge that some of the statutory rights should
reasonably be given to an at large membership, or would be helpful
in order to create an ALM which could actually provide ICANN with
reasonable input.  But even this doesn't mean that trying to gain
that rights by using legal loopholes is helpful in any way.

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:22:26 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

Dave Crocker wrote:

> >It does not sit right that ICANN has a grant for a Membership Program
> >Manager and computer software for members and has no members.
> 
> And your difficulty with loose use of the term "membership" is exactly what?

As you know perfectly well, but have chosen not to acknowledge here, Auerbach
and others have raised the question of whether ICANN is obligated, by the
California law under which it is incorporated, to legally recognise that it
has a membership and that the membership has certain rights.

Rejecting that argument is certainly legitimate. ICANN's lawyers clearly
don't believe it, and several people (including you, as I recall) have argued
against it here.

> What is the productive point behind your pursuing your discomfort?

It is remarkably silly to pretend you don't understand that ICANN  having a
"Membership Program" strengthens the Auerbach et al. argument considerably,
or that success of that argument would have substantial consequences.

What is the productive point behind dismissing an interesting question with
such a disingenuous comeback?
- --
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 15:31:59 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

okay, that's all fine folks.

I'd like everyone to consider ICANN's incredible need for funds.  This need 
for money is the crutch that keeps the pace for their progress.  I would 
like to see what they use their money for.  I think that is my right.  I 
think that when we are able to locate this fallacy so easily that there 
must be many others.  Maybe it's simply my nature to question waste or 
misuse: unannounced, unreported reallocation of funds acquired for a 
specific purpose may be fraudulent behavior and it may not; but give them 
the benefit of the doubt and look over their reports.

:)

~k

- --
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 13:37:46 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:22 PM

> What is the productive point behind dismissing an interesting 
> question with
> such a disingenuous comeback?

The point is that D'Crock is one of the architects of the status quo. He'd
like it to remain unchallenged.
- --
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 13:46:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Thomas,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:17:37 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-04-04 11:42:39 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

>> We are spending big money studying the At Large. This directly
>> ties into boardsquatter issues. Some Congressmen are extremely
>> interested in it. At least one two outside groups are funding
>> their own research into it. It is supposedly how we elect the
>> people who approve contracts with the USG and Versign.

> Indeed.  But does this mean that the California code's notion of
> membership with a non-profit organization is the best way to create
> an at large membership?  Does it mean that it's reasonable to give
> these rights to an at large membership?

> Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not it would be healthy for ICANN
> to have an at large membership with all the rights of statutory
> members.  However, I'm quite sure that an at large membership which
> elects members of the board and creates additional accountability
> for the board would be quite helpful to the net at large.

> So, please, let's get away from the legal battle on whether or not
> ICANN successfully managed to avoid a statutory membership. Instead,
> let's look at what kind of at large membership would be helpful,
> healthy and reasonable for ICANN.

If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
"bottom up" consensus.

I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful.   The ICANN board
has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
appropriate changes, it will not do so.  The only way to force ICANN
to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.

- -- 
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 22:41:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On 2001-04-04 13:07:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Just because you, who is admittedly not as familiar with
> California law as many of the other participants in the
> discussion, do not agree with the positions being put forward,
> does not mean that you are justified in painting a relevant
> discussion as whining.

William, how about arguing your cause instead of attacking others ad
hominem?

There are still two questions even I as a European who is not
familiar with California law can ask after having read the relevant
material (which is entirely available from the ICANN web site), and
these two questions went largely unanswered:

- - Why does the California code specifically talk about a SPECIFIC
  PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES, when the legislator's "clear
  intent" was that any BOARD RESOLUTION which gives someone the
  opportunity to participate in an election of board members should
  be sufficient?  
  
  Also, if that's the intent, why is 5056 (d)(2) there? (See
  <[email-masked]> from Kent Crispin for
  details.)

- - Why does nobody sue ICANN for membership rights? 

  I got an answer in private mail why one particular individual
  didn't sue, but since - as you say - there are (multiple) other
  participants in the discussion who are familiar with California
  law, why don't these people take this issue to a court?

Please, William, before claiming that my contributions are
irrelevant because I'm not a California lawyer, answer these two
questions.  If the world looks like what Karl and you suggest, that
should be a fairly easy thing to do.

- -- 
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: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:59:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Thomas,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:41:44 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-04-04 13:07:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> Just because you, who is admittedly not as familiar with
>> California law as many of the other participants in the
>> discussion, do not agree with the positions being put forward,
>> does not mean that you are justified in painting a relevant
>> discussion as whining.

> William, how about arguing your cause instead of attacking others ad
> hominem?

Actually I was responding to your assertion that those who were
discussing this were "Whiners".

And you have the gall to use the words "Ad hominem" at me?

I think you need to look at yourself before you start telling others
how to act, Thomas.

> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a SPECIFIC
>   PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES

That is only ONE way in which a statutory member may be recognized.
Read it in context with the surrounding provisions.  Membership may
also be asserted based on other grounds, as was already discussed.

- -- 
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, 04 Apr 2001 15:52:51 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BD1F.4DF03E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>>Thanks to everyone who registered to participate in ICANN's At Large
Membership for this year's vote. With over 76,000 activated members, ICANN
achieved its goal of a large, globally diverse membership. Double thanks to
the At Large members who cast their votes!

ICANN's At Large Membership is selecting 5 members of the ICANN Board of
Directors in a worldwide online vote. One Director will be selected from
each of five geographic regions: Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific, Europe,
Latin America/Caribbean, and North America<<<<

1.)    A statutory member is one who has vote in an election of a Board
Member.

2.)    A non statutory member is one who does not have a vote in an election
of a Board Member.

        What part is unclear?

/Bruce

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

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BD1F.4DF03E80
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>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D-1>&gt;&gt;&gt;Thanks to everyone who =
registered to=20
participate in <A href=3D"http://www.icann.org/">ICANN</A>'s At Large =
Membership=20
for this year's vote. With over 76,000 activated members, ICANN achieved =
its=20
goal of a large, globally diverse membership.</FONT> <FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D-1>Double thanks to the At Large members who cast their =
votes!</FONT>=20
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D-1>ICANN's At Large Membership is selecting =
5 members=20
of the ICANN Board of Directors in a worldwide online vote. One Director =
will be=20
selected from each of five geographic regions: Africa, =
Asia/Australia/Pacific,=20
Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North =
America&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>1.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A statutory member is one =
who has vote=20
in an election of a Board Member. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>2.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A non statutory member is =
one who does=20
not have a vote in an election of a Board Member.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What part is =

unclear?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>/Bruce</FONT></P>
<P></FONT></STRONG><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New" size=3D2>~IANAL~ I =
Am Not A=20
Lawyer. Seek legal advice.</FONT></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG><FONT face=3D"Courier New"=20
size=3D2><BR>&nbsp;</P></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0BD1F.4DF03E80--

- --
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 13:31:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To be or not to be?

At 12:41 PM 4/4/2001, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Or, maybe Kent Crispin or Dave Crocker can tell us?  So, Kent, Dave, what
>did happen to the money?  Informally, of course Dave... after all, perhaps
>the good people at the Markle Foundation were referring to "money" in an
>"informal" manner, like in the phrase "Show me the money!"?!

Thank you.  Always glad to see a serious participant, pursuing serious matters.

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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:10:41 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Statement

On Wednesday, April 04, 2001 7:14 PM (AEST)
Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> 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.

I make the same pledge.  You understood that when you nomnated me.

> 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.

Agreed.  Danny's employment is not relevant as long as it's known.

> We have heard opinions from both candidates. Especially Patrick has told us
> what he thinks about opening up to the TLD community.

My view is that ICANN's charter is not to "fracture the internet".

>  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.

As I've said before, my personal opinions are participatory and inclusive.

On the Board of auDA      .au ccTLD, AUNIC registry
My own business              business
Sell domain names             registration service provider
Personal holder                  individual
On Board of TLDA            alternate TLDs
Member "at large"              ICANN supporter
Member GA                        consultative

The only real omission is the IP constituency.  I support UDRP but think it most
properly applies to use of the domain name in a manner which diminishes the
trade or service mark.

I also believe in transparency and openness in an election process.  The
electors are then in the best position to decide for themselves.  I will respect
their judgement and thank them for partipating..

I have made my position plain and do not intend to comment further.

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 14:13:19 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 03:52:51PM -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> 
>    _>>>Thanks to everyone who registered to participate in [1]ICANN's At
>    Large Membership for this year's vote. With over 76,000 activated
>    members, ICANN achieved its goal of a large, globally diverse
>    membership. Double thanks to the At Large members who cast their
>    votes!
>    _
>    ICANN's At Large Membership is selecting 5 members of the ICANN Board
>    of Directors in a worldwide online vote. One Director will be selected
>    from each of five geographic regions: Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific,
>    Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America<<<<
>    
>    
>    1.)    A statutory member is one who has vote in an election of a
>    Board Member.

Nope.  A statutory member is one who is explicitly described as a 
member in the foundation documents.  The law *explicitly disavows" 
voting rights as a sufficient criteria for membership.

>    2.)    A non statutory member is one who does not have a vote in an
>    election of a Board Member.
>    
>            What part is unclear?

It's clearly false. 

- -- 
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 14:30:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 2:14:07 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  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.

A most important point, that seems to have been lost by some recently.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #346
************************