Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #362
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 9 2001            Volume 01 : Number 362

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:19:46 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

Yes, there were complaints of that nature.

It is an indication of a problem that the UDRP systems keeps no metrics on
its own performance. Without metrics, it can't be managed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 9:57 AM
> To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; Marc Schneiders
> Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases
> 
> 
> Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for 
> an extension
> and been denied?  I don't know the answer to that, by the 
> way.  I don't know
> whether there is an existing process for a short extension... 
> does anyone
> else?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:02 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases
> 
> 
> At 00:38 08.04.2001 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >And there are reports of cases, where the respondent received the
> >complaint so late, that he could not respond in time, despite correct
> >whois details, so without any fault on his part. People are also away
> >for some days or a week. Bad luck then under the UDRP.
> 
> Yes. The timeout is too short, and the procedures for "oops, 
> I should have 
> replied" are nonexistent.
> 
> I think a revised UDRP should have a longer timeout for 
> initial response, 
> and a procedure for re-evaluation of the case within (say) 3 
> months in the 
> case of new evidence (such as the owner coming back from 
> holidays) coming 
> to light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
- --
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:21:35 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Removal of Directors

I believe that Kent is correct that there was not a consensus position of
the NC. However, there has been reflection of the points the NC did make as
significant policy comments. 

As I recall, generally, the NC said that absent some changes, the number of
NC members (noted by Kent below) reluctantly supported Option A. Then they
went on to identify areas where change was needed in Option B.  I believe,
from a reading of the exchange of letters between Verisign and Stuart
Lynn,President, ICANN, that there has been agreement to address some of the
areas noted by the NC.

If these changes particularly address WHOIS and structural safeguards, as I
believe that they do, as well as other issues raised by individual
constituencies, then the vote of the board can be seen as reflecting and
taking into account the policy guidance of the NC. 

I'll get out the submission from the NC to the board and read it again,
against the letters exchanged, to see if my memory serves me correctly on
those issues. But I do believe that there are changes committed to in the
letter from Verisign, which reflect input through the NC to the Board.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 12:16 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 09:41:22AM -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> Siegfried Langenbach has made a very reasonable comment.  In requesting
that
> Directors Alejandro Pisanty and Jonathan Cohen justify their decision (to
> vote against the consensus position of the DNSO)

Correction: contrary to popular belief, there was no consensus position
of the DNSO.  The vote in favor of retaining the current contract was
only 9 out of the 19 directors -- not even a majority, and far less 
than that required for a determination of consensus.

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:37:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Sunday, 8 April 2001, 19:30 Paris time.

Re: b04
Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences
for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

The vote was conducted by the DNSO Secretariat using Instant Runoff Vote
according to the Election Rules adopted by the GA and published in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html.

The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
      Roberto Gaetano
      Harald Alvestrand
      Kent Crispin
      Dany Vandromme
      Alexander Svensson
      Izumi Aizu

The time for the vote was:

    * Begins: Saturday 31 March 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
      (8:00 LA, 11:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)
    * Ends: Saturday 7 April 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)
      (9:00 LA, 12:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)

A. The final result:
- --------------------
The ranking by the GA of candidates for Chair and Alternate Chair
in year 2001:
     1. Danny Younger
     2. Patrick Corliss

B. Information about ballots received:
- --------------------------------------
Number of ballots received: 102
Three (3) Delivery-Reports:
     1. K484cZ
     2. K5b66Z
     3. K7ce3Z
One (1) ballot empty:
     1. K25b3Z "I ABSTAIN." outside of BEGIN-END zone.
which adds to number of valid ballots, and increases majority
requirement in the first step.

C. Adjustements:
- ----------------
Besides trashing HTML format, the following adjustements were made:

1. b04:Kbe7dZ, line END__: completed
2. b04:K1801Z, splitted lines accolated
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      1
      >] Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 1 ] Danny Younger
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      2
      >] Patrick Corliss
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 2 ] Patrick Corliss
3. b04:Kd838Z, in the re-sent ballot, a perenthesis was missing, completed:
   received:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1 Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1] Danny Younger

D. Five (5) "x" adjustements:
- -----------------------------
Five (5) received ballots were with only one candidate marked,
but not with "1" but with "x". Three (3) for Eric Hugh Dierker,
two (2) for Jonathan Weinberg.
The Secretariat tends to consider these ballots valid,
"x" replaced by "1" for results calculation.
   b04:K814fZ:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K9301Z:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K964bZ:[x] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K5cecZ:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
   b04:K90c0Z:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
Nota bene: if the above five ballots are discarded, the results remain
the same.

E. Full public record:
- ----------------------
The calculations step by step using Instant Runoff Vote are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04fullrecord.html

These calculations has been validated by the Watchdog Committee.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:44:39 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 09:57 AM 4/8/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for an extension
>and been denied?

In fact this thread has devolved into making a series of undocumented 
claims about one or another pattern of problems with the UDRP.

         The rule for deciding what to change in an
         established process is first to document the
         problem that needs fixing.

         That is, make sure there is a significant problem.

Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere has some sort of 
problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that particular 
thing never happens again.

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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 12:59:36 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

Congratulations and Best Wishes to our New Leaders:

Danny Younger

Patrick Corliss

Good Luck Guys......:)

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 12:37 PM
Subject: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the
GA

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Sunday, 8 April 2001, 19:30 Paris time.

Re: b04
Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences
for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

The vote was conducted by the DNSO Secretariat using Instant Runoff Vote
according to the Election Rules adopted by the GA and published in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html.

The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
      Roberto Gaetano
      Harald Alvestrand
      Kent Crispin
      Dany Vandromme
      Alexander Svensson
      Izumi Aizu

The time for the vote was:

    * Begins: Saturday 31 March 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
      (8:00 LA, 11:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)
    * Ends: Saturday 7 April 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)
      (9:00 LA, 12:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)

A. The final result:
- --------------------
The ranking by the GA of candidates for Chair and Alternate Chair
in year 2001:
     1. Danny Younger
     2. Patrick Corliss

B. Information about ballots received:
- --------------------------------------
Number of ballots received: 102
Three (3) Delivery-Reports:
     1. K484cZ
     2. K5b66Z
     3. K7ce3Z
One (1) ballot empty:
     1. K25b3Z "I ABSTAIN." outside of BEGIN-END zone.
which adds to number of valid ballots, and increases majority
requirement in the first step.

C. Adjustements:
- ----------------
Besides trashing HTML format, the following adjustements were made:

1. b04:Kbe7dZ, line END__: completed
2. b04:K1801Z, splitted lines accolated
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      1
      >] Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 1 ] Danny Younger
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      2
      >] Patrick Corliss
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 2 ] Patrick Corliss
3. b04:Kd838Z, in the re-sent ballot, a perenthesis was missing, completed:
   received:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1 Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1] Danny Younger

D. Five (5) "x" adjustements:
- -----------------------------
Five (5) received ballots were with only one candidate marked,
but not with "1" but with "x". Three (3) for Eric Hugh Dierker,
two (2) for Jonathan Weinberg.
The Secretariat tends to consider these ballots valid,
"x" replaced by "1" for results calculation.
   b04:K814fZ:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K9301Z:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K964bZ:[x] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K5cecZ:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
   b04:K90c0Z:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
Nota bene: if the above five ballots are discarded, the results remain
the same.

E. Full public record:
- ----------------------
The calculations step by step using Instant Runoff Vote are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04fullrecord.html

These calculations has been validated by the Watchdog Committee.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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

- --
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:09:51 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:45 AM
> 
> At 09:57 AM 4/8/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for 
> an extension
> >and been denied?
> 
> In fact this thread has devolved into making a series of undocumented 
> claims about one or another pattern of problems with the UDRP.
> 
>          The rule for deciding what to change in an
>          established process is first to document the
>          problem that needs fixing.
> 
>          That is, make sure there is a significant problem.
> 
> Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere 
> has some sort of 
> problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that 
> particular 
> thing never happens again.

However, it is a serious complaint that a performance tracking system does
not exist for UDRP. It is simple to construct one and WIPO ain't broke.
- --
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:07:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Removal of Directors

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, April 08, 2001, 10:21:35 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I believe that Kent is correct that there was not a consensus position of
> the NC. However, there has been reflection of the points the NC did make as
> significant policy comments. 

> As I recall, generally, the NC said that absent some changes, the number of
> NC members (noted by Kent below) reluctantly supported Option A. Then they
> went on to identify areas where change was needed in Option B.  I believe,
> from a reading of the exchange of letters between Verisign and Stuart
> Lynn,President, ICANN, that there has been agreement to address some of the
> areas noted by the NC.

> If these changes particularly address WHOIS and structural safeguards, as I
> believe that they do, as well as other issues raised by individual
> constituencies, then the vote of the board can be seen as reflecting and
> taking into account the policy guidance of the NC. 

> I'll get out the submission from the NC to the board and read it again,
> against the letters exchanged, to see if my memory serves me correctly on
> those issues. But I do believe that there are changes committed to in the
> letter from Verisign, which reflect input through the NC to the Board.

Read it again

B: The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing
agreement or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly
chooses the existing agreement.

9 members of the NC in favor, 6 opposed.

The majority of those voting said that EVEN with ALL of the changes
noted in resolution "a" that they still prefer the existing contract.

Further, Kent's comments are irrelevant.  The only reason it was not a
a majority of all the elected positions was because the conference did
not have all of the elected members there.

The changes that were made did NOT address all of the points the NC
raised, and further the NC said that even if those points were
addressed, it preferred the existing contract anyway.

- -- 
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:57:25 -0700
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:07:27PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Further, Kent's comments are irrelevant.  The only reason it was not a
> a majority of all the elected positions was because the conference did
> not have all of the elected members there.

Doesn't matter what the reason.  The bylaws say a vote of all members, 
not a vote of members present.  Fact.

- -- 
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:35:07 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Results of Ranking Vote

Congratulations to Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss.

We expect good work from you guys :)

Leah
- --
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:47:40 -0400
From: sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

Congratulations to Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss!!

Now, I hope all of us (big and little, rich and poor people together), can put
aside our fears, prejudices and petty animosities, and GET SOME WORK DONE.
This List has been through a veritable roller-coaster of emotion, logic, and
innuendo... it's time we got off that ride.

The GA now has it's 2001 Chair and co-Chair.  Let us stand up and sing the hymn
of wise works and fruitful labours in their honour.  A brand new day has
dawned, and the future awaits, shall we disappoint our grandchildren?  Or, will
we work in conjunction to ensure that the Net is a better place?  Our quickly
degenerating real-world political, social, and environmental situations need a
counterbalance somewhere...  Perhaps we can start here, and others will
recognize and emulate our efforts elsewhere.

I, for one, am leaving all the past rankling, bitterness, and recriminations in
the dustbin of this ML.

I look forward to the coming days, months, years...  To the time(s) when we
will all look back to these moments and nod in satisfaction.

We can and will make a difference.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

P.S.  I will admit, I've come to be quite fond of all of you... even those with
whom I disagree!  After all, where else would I find such challenging and
thought-provoking exchanges?  Ladies and Gentlemen, let us turn all this
incredible brain power to making this organization better.  It's a tough job to
be sure... but someone's got to do it!  Why not us?

DNSO Secretariat wrote:A. The final result:

> --------------------
> The ranking by the GA of candidates for Chair and Alternate Chair
> in year 2001:
>      1. Danny Younger
>      2. 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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:24:33 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Thank you

I am honored to have been selected by the members of the General Assembly to
serve as Chair, and look forward to working closely with our Co-Chair
Patrick Corliss.  I would like to take a moment to offer a special note of
thanks to Joop Teernstra who was kind enough to have nominated the both of
us, and to thank all of the candidates for a spirited election in which many
issues were brought forth.  Our future now begins.   Good luck to us all.

Appreciatively,
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:29:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

Hello sotiris,

Sunday, April 08, 2001, 12:47:40 PM, sotiris wrote:

> The GA now has it's 2001 Chair and co-Chair.

No, the GA has made its recommendation to the NC.  At this point, we
still have to wait on them.

- -- 
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:49:42 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] congratulations

and thanks to those who also ran... the campaign was hard work too, and we
all owe a vote of thanks to the other candidates as well. 

Gee, Danny and Patrick, I guess your hard work begins... or continues, as
the case may be.  :-) 

I look forward to working with you.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to
the GA

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Sunday, 8 April 2001, 19:30 Paris time.

Re: b04
Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences
for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html

The vote was conducted by the DNSO Secretariat using Instant Runoff Vote
according to the Election Rules adopted by the GA and published in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html.

The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
      Roberto Gaetano
      Harald Alvestrand
      Kent Crispin
      Dany Vandromme
      Alexander Svensson
      Izumi Aizu

The time for the vote was:

    * Begins: Saturday 31 March 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
      (8:00 LA, 11:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)
    * Ends: Saturday 7 April 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)
      (9:00 LA, 12:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)

A. The final result:
- --------------------
The ranking by the GA of candidates for Chair and Alternate Chair
in year 2001:
     1. Danny Younger
     2. Patrick Corliss

B. Information about ballots received:
- --------------------------------------
Number of ballots received: 102
Three (3) Delivery-Reports:
     1. K484cZ
     2. K5b66Z
     3. K7ce3Z
One (1) ballot empty:
     1. K25b3Z "I ABSTAIN." outside of BEGIN-END zone.
which adds to number of valid ballots, and increases majority
requirement in the first step.

C. Adjustements:
- ----------------
Besides trashing HTML format, the following adjustements were made:

1. b04:Kbe7dZ, line END__: completed
2. b04:K1801Z, splitted lines accolated
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      1
      >] Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 1 ] Danny Younger
   received:
      > b04:K1801Z:[
      2
      >] Patrick Corliss
   replaced by:
      > b04:K1801Z:[ 2 ] Patrick Corliss
3. b04:Kd838Z, in the re-sent ballot, a perenthesis was missing, completed:
   received:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1 Danny Younger
   replaced by:
      >  b04:Kd838Z:[ 1] Danny Younger

D. Five (5) "x" adjustements:
- -----------------------------
Five (5) received ballots were with only one candidate marked,
but not with "1" but with "x". Three (3) for Eric Hugh Dierker,
two (2) for Jonathan Weinberg.
The Secretariat tends to consider these ballots valid,
"x" replaced by "1" for results calculation.
   b04:K814fZ:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K9301Z:[X] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K964bZ:[x] Eric Hugh Dierker
   b04:K5cecZ:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
   b04:K90c0Z:[x] Jonathan Weinberg
Nota bene: if the above five ballots are discarded, the results remain
the same.

E. Full public record:
- ----------------------
The calculations step by step using Instant Runoff Vote are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04fullrecord.html

These calculations has been validated by the Watchdog Committee.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:05:46 -0700 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] broken record, broken rule

"Hence, Dave's 2nd rule:  If you think someone is consistently unworthy of reading,
shun her.  DON'T RESPOND!"

So far, this entire mailing list falls under this rule, and thus should be shunned.

In the words of Ramses: So let it be written; so let it be done!

Good luck to you all.  Unfortunately, I'll look forward to reading about more ICANN fiascoes in the news.

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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:32:56 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thank you

At 16:24 8/04/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>I am honored to have been selected by the members of the General Assembly to
>serve as Chair, and look forward to working closely with our Co-Chair
>Patrick Corliss.  I would like to take a moment to offer a special note of
>thanks to Joop Teernstra who was kind enough to have nominated the both of
>us, and to thank all of the candidates for a spirited election in which many
>issues were brought forth.  Our future now begins.   Good luck to us all.
>

Thank *you* and Patrick very much for standing and not (baby)bowing out.
As Roberto can tell you, this is probably the most exposed and thankless
job in the whole ICANN structure.

Looking forward to an effective GA with its own elected Chairs.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:57:06 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 10:44 8/04/01 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 09:57 AM 4/8/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for an extension
>>and been denied?
>
>In fact this thread has devolved into making a series of undocumented 
>claims about one or another pattern of problems with the UDRP.
>

Marilyn's question is reasonable and should be part of any investigation
into the functioning of the UDRP.

>         The rule for deciding what to change in an
>         established process is first to document the
>         problem that needs fixing.
>
>         That is, make sure there is a significant problem.
>
>Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere has some sort of 
>problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that particular 
>thing never happens again.
>
I hope this remark is a not a reflection of an unwillingness to improve the
administration of justice in an experimental setup as the UDRP.

The GA of the DNSO is the one place where such improvements can be
meaningfully debated.
Fact finding is the first step. Roeland's suggestion of  IP lobby funding
for a "performance tracking system" (carried out independently) makes good
sense to me.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:23:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

With all due respect Mr. Crocker but this analysis is wrong.

It is like saying if you cannot prove what casuses the symptoms do not
dare try
and cure the illness.  You put modern remedial logic on it's head in a
foot of
water with these comments.

If you have an infection, a doctor tries one antibiotic, if it does not
work
then he has narrowed it down and gives your a different spectrum base.
And in
modern medicine most infections are defeated.

We have an ill UDRP, let us not wait till the patient is dead before we
try to
cure it. Even if we only cure the perceptions, as in a hypocondriac, the
patient will be well.
Hum, maybe some amendments could be looked at as a placebo?

Good logic is most often useful when the dilema is present but the facts
elude
us.

Sincerely,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 09:57 AM 4/8/2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for an extension
> >and been denied?
>
> In fact this thread has devolved into making a series of undocumented
> claims about one or another pattern of problems with the UDRP.
>
>          The rule for deciding what to change in an
>          established process is first to document the
>          problem that needs fixing.
>
>          That is, make sure there is a significant problem.
>
> Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere has some sort of
> problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that particular
> thing never happens again.
>
> 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
- --
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 #362
************************