Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #368
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 10 2001           Volume 01 : Number 368

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:45:32 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Gavin,

Some of the largest name holders/horders are big corps protecting various
variations on their tradenames. I would even bet your own corporation has done
that. 

(...seems to remember Autodesk's little squabble over the The3DStudio.com 
domain name, that ended up being resolved peaceably in favour of the domain
holder. Domain holder has a real viable tutorial site for the program, too, and
has it featured on About.com. Tis NOT a cybersquatter.)

Better look before ya leap into that hole. :) There be alligators in there!

Or is the philosophy, 'do as I say but not as I do?' Just wondering.

all the best, Robin

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, what does ICANN do about name-hoarders?  Nothing.
> 
> This is exactly where ICANN should be taking action in the interest of the public, but so far there hasn't been a peep about it.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:51:38 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Eric,

>...  And with Mr.
>Crispin refreshed after coming off his election watchdog committee post,
>wherein he
>only contributed to three substantive changes to rules during one voting
>in an election while

Which three substantive changes?

>Mr. Crocker was busy getting his suspension overturned. (buy the way has
>anyone
>ever seen that happen before?).

It sure happened before.
Whenever an appeal to the decision of the List Monitor is accepted by the 
Chairman.

Incidentally, that's why we have appeals. If there were no possibility to 
overturn the previous decision, why bother having appeals?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:02:43 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>
>         I want to add my voice to congratulate Danny and Patrick and to
>thank Roberto and Harald for their unstinting, extended efforts.
>(Also, this is a belated congratulations to Harald on his new job as chair
>of the organization where they do the *real* work the results of which we
>fight about in ICANN.)  This is an important year for the GA; I'm confident
>that Danny and Patrick will do a great job moving us forward.

Thanks for your thanks ;>)

I would also congratulate Danny and Patrick for having picked the short 
straw ;>)

Incidentally, the NC is expected to ratify the election today, in a couple 
of hours. I think that there are some admin things that will face the new 
team, first of all to appoint the new List Monitors.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:00:32 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

Andy Gardner wrote:

> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

glad I wasnt the only one that thought that. And what the heck is the UDRP
anyway? did Gavin forget about that??

http://www.rtmark.com/autodesk.html

that ought to shed some light on the activities of Autodesk against honest
domain name holders...

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:29:42 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:20:49PM -0400, I wrote:
> >  Back when the
> > DNSO constituencies were formed, as you remember, ICANN paid great
> > attention to the makeup and structure of each constituency.  The Board
> > directed that it would recognize the various constituencies only
> > provisionally, while staff worked with the organizers of each to ensure
> > that their makeup and structure were open, fair, inclusive and
> > procompetitive.

And at 09:35 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin responded:
>Sorry, you are confused.  There was no requirement that each
>constituency represent every possible perspective, and indeed the idea
>is contrary to the whole notion of constituencies.  Constituencies are
>*expected* to represent a particular point of view.  That a constituency
>would have a particular interest is an expected result.  In particular,
>the gTLD constituency is *intended* to support the interests of real
>gTLD registries, the ones that ICANN really does have contractual
>relationships with, precisely because these registries are in a special
>relationship with ICANN.  There might possibly be a case for a separate
>constituency for "prospective registries" (though I doubt it), but
>current registries (both ccTLD and gTLD, in fact) are absolutely
>critical special cases.

         There was no requirement that each constituency represent every 
possible perspective in the world at large.  There was a requirement that 
each constituency represent every perspective within the constituency, as 
the Board understood the scope of that constituency.  That's why the Board 
refused to recognize constituencies until, among other things, the 
proposals were modified to broaden participation and to ensure that the 
organizers did not have too much authority over who could join.  See the 
Berlin meeting minutes.  ICANN staff, working at the direction of the 
Board, mandated exactly the result that Dave, below, suggests could never 
happen:

>The intellectual property constituency has shown entirely too much tendency
>to be biased towards protecting intellectual property holders, so we had
>better require them to admit the anti-IP groups...

Fact is, the IPC was required to include the Domain Name Rights Coalition 
as a member.

         This doesn't by itself answer the question whether prospective 
registries should be considered to be within the scope of the gTLD 
registry.  Your argument that the constituency should be limited to those 
who have a "special relationship" with ICANN by virtue of having signed a 
contract is worth considering, but it's not obviously correct.  Where I 
came into this discussion was in support of Bret's point that, in 
considering the proper scope of the "new" gTLD constituency, it's useful to 
bear in mind that including prospective registries would generate a more 
balanced set of views, and would include a group that would otherwise be 
unrepresented on the NC.  Still makes sense to me.

Jon

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:36:20 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC endorsment of GA Chair Elections

Hi.
The NC just voted to endorse the GA Chair election.
The vote was an unanimous "yes" of the representatives present, but there 
was no quorum, so the formal endorsment will be done by e-mail.
The only question was whether there was a conflict of interest in the 
position of Patrick Corliss.
Regards
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:42:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

You have got to be kidding me, there were more than three? Well while I had
no intention before, perhaps with the fact that there were more changes and
that as closely as I watch this public list I did not know about them, I will
reconsider.

Let us also make the record clear, I am not appealing the voting at this
time.

The above fact makes me wonder why you adopted the new thread, did you
anticipate an appeal, because of these unknown changes we did not know about?

An appeal as we have been discussing regarding improvements to the UDRP,
would require an outside group, not the same group that ran the election.
And an appeal would lend ligitimacy and credibility to the process. From what
I see none of this exists in the present operation.

Again I give my best to Danny and congratulate him, and remind him publicly
that any request by him will be taken very seriously, with an effort to
comply.

Sincerely,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Eric,
>
> >...  And with Mr.
> >Crispin refreshed after coming off his election watchdog committee post,
> >wherein he
> >only contributed to three substantive changes to rules during one voting
> >in an election while
>
> Which three substantive changes?
>
> >Mr. Crocker was busy getting his suspension overturned. (buy the way has
> >anyone
> >ever seen that happen before?).
>
> It sure happened before.
> Whenever an appeal to the decision of the List Monitor is accepted by the
> Chairman.
>
> Incidentally, that's why we have appeals. If there were no possibility to
> overturn the previous decision, why bother having appeals?
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:52:37 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

At 01:00 AM 4/10/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>from a legal point of view you are right
>  from a "spirit" point of view 9 against 5 in favor is something I
>personally would not oversee.

Siegfried,  this sounds as if you believe the rules should be ignored.  We 
are talking about formal representation of the DNSO.  And the rules were 
created for a reason.

>  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect NC-
>members which are not able to handle proxies :-)

Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies get 
to represet their constituencies.

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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:30:43 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Removal of Directors

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:53 AM
> 
> At 01:00 AM 4/10/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:

> >  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not 
> elect NC-
> >members which are not able to handle proxies :-)
> 
> Proxies means that people who were not selected by their 
> constituencies get 
> to represet their constituencies.

Yes and no, proxies allow the elected representitive to temporarily appoint
a substitute, whom they feel confident will vote as they would, in their
absence. This is often done with explicit instructions, from the
representative. Your evil-implication, is as usual, perverse and misleading.
I only say that because I know that *you* know better. Even, if other may
not.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:48:19 +0200
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On 10 Apr 01, at 8:52, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:00 AM 4/10/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
[...]
> >  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect 
NC-
> >members which are not able to handle proxies :-)
> 
> Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies get 
> to represet their constituencies.

 Oh, I guess I was unclear , what I meant was :
 I am really upset about those NC members which "forgott" to attend
 the tel-conf in which the decision was done (knowing that IF they had attended
 and IF they had voted as they explained before, the BoD had not only
 broken the spirit but also the law {a minor difference from my point of view} )

siegfried

> 
> 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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:46:29 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 10:07 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Dave Said...
> > Well, let's see.  Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and
> > every constituency needs to have balancing forces.
>
>Nope. That's not it at all. Simply that this constituency needs to be 
>comprised
>of all gTLD registries, both applicant, accepted, and operational (or any
>combination of the three).

Glad to clarify that.

Let's be clear, however, that merely making an application does not mean 
that the applicant has any experience as a registry.  Some do, some 
don't.  So calling an applicant a registry, just because they have made an 
application is really identical to calling someone a citizen just because 
they applied for citizenship.

Ultimately, however, your model means that anyone with a lot of money can 
buy membership in this constituency.

> > Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be
> > entitled to vote in US elections?
>
>Again, you're diverting the issue. This analogy has nothing to do with the
>case at hand.

It is structurally identical to your recommendation, but applied to another 
context so that the implication is highlighted.

If I tried to claim that applying for a driving license means that you 
should be allowed to drive, THAT would be invalid, because the permitted 
activity is not "structurally" the same as in your model.

While I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable, it is a a very run-of-the-mill 
method of trying to show weaknesses in logic.

d/

ps.  For all your preference in ad hominems, Chris, I notice the you 
ignored my observation that my position on where to draw the membership 
line is not consistent with what you would expect to be my client's 
preference.  Oops.

- ----------
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:51:53 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

The webcast of today's teleconference of the Names Council is available at:

    http://www.lextext.com/nc04102001.html

As always, many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its
meetings open to the public in spite of budget constraints and for its
willingness to explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.

    -- Bret

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:11:21 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> Ultimately, however, your model means that anyone with a lot 
> of money can buy membership in this constituency.

Please show evidence where this is NOT the current case. Every participant
on these lists and thorughout this process, over man-many years, has shown
persistent financial resource in order to take part in this whole mess. This
indicates significant financial investment, on part of the players. Those
with the most time/money get to play at the top. The sources are either
personal, or some supporting institution (Universities, corporations).

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:48:18 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

At 09:48 AM 4/10/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>On 10 Apr 01, at 8:52, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies 
> get
> > to represet their constituencies.
>
>  Oh, I guess I was unclear , what I meant was :
>  I am really upset about those NC members which "forgott" to attend
>  the tel-conf in which the decision was done (knowing that IF they had 
> attended

Given the lack of quorum at today's meeting, it DOES appear that there is a 
problem with names council participation.

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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:32:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

I cannot come up with a good reason why a man as bright as Mr. Crocker would
write and send such a misleading post. Proxy alway has and always will mean to
act "for antoher" and in no way means to act for oneself. Someone once told me
that more U.S. stock is voted by proxy than direct, that could be false, but I
hold proxies and would never consider voting in my interest as opposed to the
owner.

Actually maybe we should set up a proxy base for GA and At Large elections.
People could give their proxy to someone who could keep them up to date without
the owner having to follow this list so closely. Maybe this could significantly
help with outreach.

Sincerely,

p.s. It is very tiring for us newbies to constantly have to educate the
oldtimers on common words and useage.:>)

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:00 AM 4/10/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >from a legal point of view you are right
> >  from a "spirit" point of view 9 against 5 in favor is something I
> >personally would not oversee.
>
> Siegfried,  this sounds as if you believe the rules should be ignored.  We
> are talking about formal representation of the DNSO.  And the rules were
> created for a reason.
>
> >  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect NC-
> >members which are not able to handle proxies :-)
>
> Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies get
> to represet their constituencies.
>
> 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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:43:50 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>Given the lack of quorum at today's meeting, it DOES appear that there is a
>problem with names council participation.

For the record, the problem today was a different one.
I counted 15 votes (but I may be wrong - there's Bret's usual good webcast 
at http://www.lextext.com/nc04102001.html for who wants to check) between 
"in person" and "proxy", but the physical attendance (to the call) was the 
problem.
(Too bad, because one person was unable to get into the call, but was 
available)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:03:03 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] And these mean?

FWIW, here are the results to the following previous post:
<--------------- start post ---------------->
Kudos to the first person that knows all the below listed (and recently used
on this list) acronyms:

NADF
SEI
LASC
NGO
RTFA
APA
RSN
YMMV
RIR
IM(nl)HO  <---just the "nl" part)
CNPB
MHSC
STV
<--------------- end post ---------------->
I only got two responses...there was agreement on the following 9 acronyms:

NADF -- North American Directory Forum
SEI -- Software Engineering Institute
NGO -- Non-Government Organisation
RTFA -- Read The Freaking Article
APA -- Administrative Procedures Act
YMMV -- Your Mileage May Vary
RIR -- Regional Internet Registry
MHSC -- Morgan Hill Software Company
STV -- Single Transferable Vote

and the following 4 acronyms had two different answers or guesses:

LASC -- Lisp and Symbolic Computation and Los Angeles   ????????
RSN -- Real Soon Now and Root Server Network
IM(nl)HO -- In My (nl) Humble Opinion and In My No Longer Humble Opinion ??
CNPB -- CardeoNeuroPulmonaryBypass and California Nonprofit Public Benefit
Corporation Law ("CNPBCL")

So, sorry!  No kudos this time around.  BTW, I don't know the answers
myself, just wanted to see if anyone else did.  And, judging from the low
level of responses recieved (only two) and that neither knew them all,
perhaps people posting to this list would be a bit more considerate in their
use of acronyms.  They are definitely a "barrier to entry" for newbies.
Anyway, just one person's (with too much time on his hands) opinion.

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:11:56 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] NC Proxies

| >  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect NC-
| >members which are not able to handle proxies :-)
| 
| Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies get
| to represet their constituencies.

The Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council, adopted 26 Feb 2001,
cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
state:

   4. Proxies
   
   4.1 Eligibility
   
   Only elected Names Council members may cast a proxy vote on 
   behalf of another Names Council member. 

It is compliant with ICANN Bylaws:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B

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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:01:28 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> Let's be clear, however, that merely making an application does not mean 
> that the applicant has any experience as a registry.  Some do, some 
> don't.  So calling an applicant a registry, just because they have made an 
> application is really identical to calling someone a citizen just because 
> they applied for citizenship.

If they're not qualified, they should have been turned down by ICANN.
Since they were not, take it up with the board.

> ps.  For all your preference in ad hominems, Chris, I notice the you 
> ignored my observation that my position on where to draw the membership 
> line is not consistent with what you would expect to be my client's 
> preference.  Oops.

No oops. I didn't choose to point out the obvious. I guess you're asking
me to. Your client has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of ICANN
and that there are no threats to that stability. Hence your tactics of diversion
and avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN. Your client has
a vested interest in preventing new competition, hence your position of
not allowing applicants in the constituency.

I would have thought this obvious.

Christopher

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:29:45 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:01 PM

> > ignored my observation that my position on where to draw 
> the membership 
> > line is not consistent with what you would expect to be my client's 
> > preference.  Oops.
> 
> No oops. I didn't choose to point out the obvious. I guess 
> you're asking
> me to. Your client has a vested interest in ensuring the 
> stability of ICANN
> and that there are no threats to that stability. Hence your 
> tactics of diversion
> and avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN. Your client has
> a vested interest in preventing new competition, hence your 
> position of
> not allowing applicants in the constituency.
> 
> I would have thought this obvious.

I don't track something here. I thought that his client is/was in the same
boat with you.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:33:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Clarification] NC Proxies & broadcast

Thank you,

And if you read those sections of the by-laws restricively rather than liberally,
the NC cannot use the newest technology to broadcast and insure participation in
their meetings. What happened today as Roberto pointed out, has to occur because
the by-laws only provide for the technology as we witnessed today.

I am sure those fighting so hard to keep the general internetstakeholders out
will love this argument.

Sincerely.

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> | >  from a practical point of view it shows that we should not elect NC-
> | >members which are not able to handle proxies :-)
> |
> | Proxies means that people who were not selected by their constituencies get
> | to represet their constituencies.
>
> The Rules of Procedure for the DNSO Names Council, adopted 26 Feb 2001,
> cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
> state:
>
>    4. Proxies
>
>    4.1 Eligibility
>
>    Only elected Names Council members may cast a proxy vote on
>    behalf of another Names Council member.
>
> It is compliant with ICANN Bylaws:
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B
>
> 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: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:04:33 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> I don't track something here. I thought that his client is/was in the same
> boat with you.

His client is NeuStar, who owns an interest in .biz, and approved registry.
Their "boat" is decidedly different than mine.

Christopher

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:07:52 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 12:01 PM 4/10/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Let's be clear, however, that merely making an application does not mean
> > that the applicant has any experience as a registry.  Some do, some
> > don't.  So calling an applicant a registry, just because they have made an
> > application is really identical to calling someone a citizen just because
> > they applied for citizenship.
>
>If they're not qualified, they should have been turned down by ICANN.

You take a less constructive position than did the ICANN board.  You also 
seem to miss the distinction between hopeful vs. qualified, and that 
learning can take place, to move from the former to the latter.

Again, the practical reality of your view is that anyone paying US$50K 
would get to be part of the gTLD constituency.  That is a simple fact in 
your position.

This, then, is entirely independent of whether the applicant has any 
experience as a registry.

Allowing people into a constituency who have no practical experience in the 
matters that are relevant to the constituency makes for a pretty awful 
criterion.

> > ps.  For all your preference in ad hominems, Chris, I notice the you
> > ignored my observation that my position on where to draw the membership
> > line is not consistent with what you would expect to be my client's
> > preference.  Oops.
>
>No oops. I didn't choose to point out the obvious. I guess you're asking
>me to. Your client has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of ICANN
>and that there are no threats to that stability. Hence your tactics of 
>diversion
>and avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN.

NOW who is diverting?  The issue was that I took a position that would not 
appear to be ideal for my client.  You have STILL chosen not to respond to 
it, instead inventing a chain of supposed motives and logic about both my 
client and me.

You also ended with a fully inaccurate statement, using your own model:  If 
I were " avoiding issues that are troublesome to ICANN" I would not be 
arguing about this or other troublesome topic.  Exactly the opposite of my 
actual behavior.

But again thank you for underscoring the fundamental problems with publicly 
pursuing motives and their implications.

>a vested interest in preventing new competition, hence your position of
>not allowing applicants in the constituency.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of this that has any sort of effect 
at preventing competition.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #368
************************