Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #375
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 375

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:29:54 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

The point that is missed in analyses, such as the one below, is that those 
in other roots chose to establish those roots (namespaces) independently of 
IANA/ICANN.  It therefore makes no sense at all to now expect IANA/ICANN to 
"coordinate" with those independent activities.

People who choose to work independently should be allowed and encouraged to 
operate in the mode they chose:  independent.

d/

At 12:37 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
>This will be my last post in this thread, as it seems to be going
>nowhere.
>
>It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN
>uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others can
>do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that there is
>a singular name space which makes the technical argument one of
>fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN divides it with a
>collider, it is a done deal.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:54:15 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Hello Jonathan,

This is the first election I have participated in where I was allowed to
change my mind and vote again having already cast my vote. Not only that,
there was no limit to the number of ballots I could send, for only the LAST
one counted. Please point me to the relevant section in the rules agreed by
a vote of the GA that confirms the procedure that took place.

Clearly, the watchdog committe made it up as they went along. That may have
been the best possible solution in the circumstances, and if anything, Eric
would have gained more votes from the second ballot cast after one candidate
dropped out.  Nevertheless, the second ballot was an invention of the
Watchdog committee, which was not elected by the GA, but was a group of
people selected behind closed doors.

The rules clearly say *one* ballot. One cannot fault the DNSO Secretariat,
nobody claimed they had not received a ballot, or denied an opportunity to
vote. Nevertheless, new ballots were sent simply because some members had
decided to throw away three of the four votes allowed in the first round. If
those who voted only for you in the first round, had instead, identified
their order of preference for all 4 candidates, as would have been sensible,
then there would have been no reason to send a second ballot.

Even if you had not withdrawn, any one of the candidates could have been hit
by a bus and members who had failed to consider that possibility when
casting their first vote had only themselves to blame. This second ballot
was an "oops ballot".

If the candidate that lost is now crying foul, it is hardly suprising. I'm
not meaning to say that Eric is acting wisely in what he is doing, but I am
meaning to say that rules should now be revisited and redrafted to reflect
agreement by the GA as a whole - to incorporate whatever procedures may be
neccessary, to avoid a repeat of the situation where a self-appointed group
of watchdogs creatively interpret existing rules to fit unforeseen
circumstances.

This should not be too difficult. Election rules are hardly new territory.
Every democracy in the world has them.

Joanna  

on 4/11/01 9:27 PM, Jonathan Weinberg at [email-masked] wrote:

> Eric --
> 
> You clearly feel wronged by the process here, but I'm honestly a
> little unsure why.  As far as the "ten endorsements" issue is concerned,
> the fact is that you *were* included on the ballot, so even if bad
> decisions were made, they didn't end up harming you. And the fact is that
> the rules *weren't* changed after I decided to drop out -- the watchdog
> committee decided to continue the election under the old rules.  The only
> new thing that happened was that voters were sent duplicate copies of
> their ballots in case they wanted to change their votes; the ability to
> make a change was a right voters already had under the old rules.
> 
> You made a good showing, but not enough people voted for you, and
> there was no set of rules under which you could have been deemed to have
> won -- Danny and Patrick each had more first-place votes than you, more
> second-place votes, and more third-place votes.  There's no shame in
> fighting the good fight but not getting enough votes to win.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
>> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
>> 
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
>> I have received no response.
>> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
>> none.
>> 
>> I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
>> not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
>> to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
>> when that was announced. hmm.
>> 
>> I then looked at the rules and found this:
>> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
>> 
>> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
>> chair is eliminated before the counting starts.
>> 
>> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
>> the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
>> electorate
>> rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
>> for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
>> a
>> team that can work well together.)
>> 
>> This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
>> itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
>> whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair
>> 
>> Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
>> 
>> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
>> election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.
>> 
>> This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
>> alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
>> his association with a competitor to ICANN.
>> 
>> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> [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
> 

- --
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, 11 Apr 2001 20:07:42 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Hello Eric,

This type of post election sour grapes is really not appropriate or
mature, and only goes to show that the electorate made the right
choice.

(Subscribers to the list were removed from the "Jeff Williams" style
CC line as a courtesy)

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 5:15:49 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,

>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
> I have received no response.
> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
> none.

> I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
> not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
> to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
> when that was announced. hmm.

> I then looked at the rules and found this:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR

> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
> chair is eliminated before the counting starts.

> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
> the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
> electorate
> rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
> for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
> a
> team that can work well together.)

> This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
> itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
> whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair

>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
> election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.

> This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
> alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
> his association with a competitor to ICANN.

> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!

> Sincerely,

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

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 23:24:42 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Once more, you don't get it. ICANN is tasked with maintaining the 
stability of the internet.  Cooperating with the Internet community 
to strive toward a unified name space (not namespaces) fall within 
that role.  You seem to foster the notion that the Internet is made 
up of fragmented name spaces which is not the case.  It is a 
network of networks, all using the same DNS.  Any body that 
refuses to acknowledge this is not working to maintain the stability 
of the net.  It is working to further fragment it.  

You used the word namespaces - plural.  The  DNS is the DNS is the 
DNS is the DNS.  It is a single name space that can be easily 
fragmented by ICANN setting a precedent to do so.

I see no reason for ICANN to be any different from any other root in 
seeking to provide a collision free name space in cooperation with all 
TLD holders.  Nothing is perfect, but deliberately ignoring the issue 
is counter productive, to say the least.

Isolationism doesn't work.  It breeds discontent, frustration, distrust 
and even anger.  Many entities and countries are not content with 
ICANN's actions to protect a small segment of the Internet 
community.  This is not good for the net.

The simple fact that ICANN believes as you espouse is a hurdle that 
must be overcome.  No one asked for business to crop up as a 
result of the railroad either.  However, the railroad had to cooperate 
with the towns and businesses that grew up around it.  It had to 
stop at intersections within those towns, respect people and laws 
and certainly had to recognize that civilization was there in formerly 
desolate areas.  Had it not done so, there would have been chaos 
all along the rail lines.  Other rail companies grew as well and had to 
be recognized.  The major difference is that with the Internet, there 
are no static rail tracks.  It is free form - a good thing.

In every industry, there are businesses that come into being and 
grow along side the originators of that industry.  They either 
cooperate with the innovation and creation within the industry, or 
they end up going away.  

In this case, ICANN was created at the direction of the US 
Government under contract and oversight of the US Government.  
They have an agreement to perform in a certain manner.  They 
have broken that agreement in many ways.  In the case of the new 
TLDs, they will have broken two very important clauses of that 
agreement:  not harming entities or classes of entities and 
maintaining the stability of the Internet.  It would not have been 
difficult to fulfill the agreement by acknowledging that others exist 
and not trampling upon them.  ICANN's statements simply indicate 
an unwillingness to do so.  They prefer, instead, to use the familiar 
mantra that they are responsible for only "their" root rather than 
THE namespace.  There may just be a train wreck.

I DO expect ICANN to cooperate with other stewards of TLDs, for 
the good of the Internet.  As this issue comes to the foreground, 
we are hearing from those who are beginning to understand it and 
who agree that ICANN is not an island unto itself, but that it has a 
responsibility to the entire Internet and not just its own isolationist 
existence.

There is nothing to prevent any and all TLD holders and roots from 
acting independently.  Cooperation does not preclude independence.

Regards,

Leah

> The point that is missed in analyses, such as the one below, is that
> those in other roots chose to establish those roots (namespaces)
> independently of IANA/ICANN.  It therefore makes no sense at all to
> now expect IANA/ICANN to "coordinate" with those independent
> activities.
> 
> People who choose to work independently should be allowed and
> encouraged to operate in the mode they chose:  independent.
> 
> d/
> 
> At 12:37 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
> >This will be my last post in this thread, as it seems to be going
> >nowhere.
> >
> >It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN
> >uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others can
> >do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that there is
> >a singular name space which makes the technical argument one of
> >fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN divides it with a
> >collider, it is a done deal.
> 
> ----------
> 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-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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:37:25 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] vote appeal

Hello Joanna,

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 7:54:15 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hello Jonathan,

> This is the first election I have participated in where I was allowed to
> change my mind and vote again having already cast my vote. Not only that,
> there was no limit to the number of ballots I could send, for only the LAST
> one counted. Please point me to the relevant section in the rules agreed by
> a vote of the GA that confirms the procedure that took place.

The existing rules already let a voter send in a second ballot,
Joanna, which would invalidate any previously submitted ballot.

I can't say for certain that those rules were adopted by a vote of the
GA, you have to understand that the entire concept that the GA CAN
vote on issues like that is rather new.

> Clearly, the watchdog committe made it up as they went along. That may have
> been the best possible solution in the circumstances, and if anything, Eric
> would have gained more votes from the second ballot cast after one candidate
> dropped out.

Not really, to be honest, with the voting method used, it was
irrelevant.   Further, as was already pointed out, once an election is
underway, a candidate cannot withdraw.  This is common practice in any
election I've ever seen, and as we all know resulted in a dead man
being elected to the US Senate recently.  That is the commonly
accepted practice, to let the election continue as is.  All that was
done was that voters were reminded that they CAN change their ballots,
a right they already had.

> Nevertheless, the second ballot was an invention of the
> Watchdog committee, which was not elected by the GA, but was a group of
> people selected behind closed doors.

No, it really wasn't.  It was a second copy of the same ballot, not a
second ballot.  It has not been unusual for a second copy of ballots
to be provided, especially by email, since factors can cause any
particular email sent to be delayed, held in a queue somewhere, etc.

- -- 
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, 11 Apr 2001 23:43:50 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
> 
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
> I have received no response.
> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
> none.
> 
> I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
> not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being
> needed to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his
> lined up when that was announced. hmm.
> 
> I then looked at the rules and found this:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
> 
> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
> chair is eliminated before the counting starts.
> 
> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up
> in the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
> electorate rank one person first and another second, while the
> remaining 10% vote for a third. Re-running the process is considered
> more likely to select a team that can work well together.)
> 
> This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
> itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have
> a whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair
> 
>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
> 
> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of
> the election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.
> 
> This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me
> as alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could
> it be his association with a competitor to ICANN.

What competitor to ICANN?  Are you referring to the TLDA?  A trade 
association is not a competitor to ICANN and its membership would 
be open to ICANN as representative of the DoC, since DoC is a TLD 
holder.

AuDA?  Is a ccTLD a competitor?

His private business consulting business?  I don't think so.

I don't see where there was any more involved with Mr. Corliss' 
campaigning than yours, Eric.  I did not see anything on the list to 
indicate that there was anything amiss with the election.  As a 
matter of fact, considering the circumstances, I think it went 
extremely well.  Everyone had the opportunity to vote correctly and 
the tally was handled properly.  If the election were to be held 
today, I believe the results would be the same.

Sincerely,

Leah Gallegos
> 
> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:52:03 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

At 08:24 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
>Once more, you don't get it. ICANN is tasked with maintaining the
>stability of the internet.  Cooperating with the Internet community
>to strive toward a unified name space (not namespaces) fall within
>that role.

So whenever someone shows up and stakes an independent claim, we should 
appease them, on the claim that it is important for the stability of the 
Internet?

You might want to study a bit of history concerning the events leading up 
to World War II in Europe.

>You seem to foster the notion that the Internet is made
>up of fragmented name spaces which is not the case.

Let's see.  My view is that we should ignore the independents; yours is 
that we should not.

So explain to me which of us is worried about namespace fragmentation.

>It is a network of networks, all using the same DNS.

Those folks who initiated independent roots are not using "the same DNS".

By definition they have created a separate DNS.

It does not matter that some have chosen to operate as a superset of the 
IANA/ICANN namespace...  In fact that "superset" claim is a myth, as is 
clearly being demonstrated by efforts to limit the choices made for the 
IANA/ICANN namespace.

>You used the word namespaces - plural.  The  DNS is the DNS is the DNS is 
>the DNS.

The IANA/ICANN DNS is defined by one namespace, yes.  However people are 
free to create their own namespaces and operate their own DNS(es).  In fact 
this is done all the time in private networks and it is fine to do it.

The problem is when someone defines an independent namespace and later 
claims that some other namespace is required -- retroactively -- to 
coordinate with it.

>I see no reason for ICANN to be any different from any other root in
>seeking to provide a collision free name space in cooperation with all
>TLD holders.

You don't?  Well, I encourage you to learn more about the history of the 
different namespaces, including the original one...IANA/ICANN's.

>The simple fact that ICANN believes as you espouse is a hurdle that must 
>be overcome.

The simple fact is that efforts to coerce ICANN to retroactively 
incorporate rogue activities is a hurdle we must ignore.

>No one asked for business to crop up as a result of the railroad either.

My, my.  You really DO need to learn a bit of history.

>However, the railroad had to cooperate with the towns and businesses that 
>grew up around it.

The railroad OWNED most of those towns.  Where the railroads made most of 
their money was from their rights of way on either side of the tracks.

>In this case, ICANN was created at the direction of the US Government

It was created at the direction of IANA.  The US government then reviewed 
the action.

>  under contract and oversight of the US Government.  They have an 
> agreement to perform in a certain manner.  They have broken that 
> agreement in many ways.

Ahh, well.  In that case the USG will take away its authority, shortly, 
won't they?

Oops.  Doesn't look like that is happening.  Gosh.  Maybe you assessment is 
wrong.

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, 12 Apr 2001 00:01:25 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] vote appeal

on 4/11/01 11:37 PM, William X. Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> Hello Joanna,
> 
> Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 7:54:15 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>> Hello Jonathan,
> 
>> This is the first election I have participated in where I was allowed to
>> change my mind and vote again having already cast my vote. Not only that,
>> there was no limit to the number of ballots I could send, for only the LAST
>> one counted. Please point me to the relevant section in the rules agreed by
>> a vote of the GA that confirms the procedure that took place.
> 
> The existing rules already let a voter send in a second ballot,
> Joanna, which would invalidate any previously submitted ballot.
> 
> I can't say for certain that those rules were adopted by a vote of the
> GA, you have to understand that the entire concept that the GA CAN
> vote on issues like that is rather new.

No they do not. I can say for certain that NO such rule was adopted by a
vote of the GA. I voted for the rules and I did not, and would not vote for
multiple ballots. The rules that were adopted were not intended to
supplememt other rules, but rather to *replace* them. We discussed all this
already when the so called "rule of ten" cropped up.
You are implying that old rules should be interpreted as if they are "case
law", available to overturn stated terms of a legal contract. That is not
the case here. Old rules, whatever they may be, cannot be enforced, because
they have not been agreed by consensus of the current GA. New rules can.
That's the difference. The old rules no longer have any legitimacy.
> 
>> Clearly, the watchdog committe made it up as they went along. That may have
>> been the best possible solution in the circumstances, and if anything, Eric
>> would have gained more votes from the second ballot cast after one candidate
>> dropped out.
> 
> Not really, to be honest, with the voting method used, it was
> irrelevant.   Further, as was already pointed out, once an election is
> underway, a candidate cannot withdraw.  This is common practice in any
> election I've ever seen, and as we all know resulted in a dead man
> being elected to the US Senate recently.  That is the commonly
> accepted practice, to let the election continue as is.  All that was
> done was that voters were reminded that they CAN change their ballots,
> a right they already had.

I agree with you that we should have followed common practise, which is
exactly what the existing rules reflect. Changing a ballot is not common
practise, and for many members, it was not a reminder, it was the first they
heard of it. 

> 
>> Nevertheless, the second ballot was an invention of the
>> Watchdog committee, which was not elected by the GA, but was a group of
>> people selected behind closed doors.
> 
> No, it really wasn't.  It was a second copy of the same ballot, not a
> second ballot.  It has not been unusual for a second copy of ballots
> to be provided, especially by email, since factors can cause any
> particular email sent to be delayed, held in a queue somewhere, etc.

Oh please. The ballot was different because the votes cast on it were not
the same. I repeat, the DNSO Secretariat cannot be faulted in this election.
I agree the rules should make provision for such an eventuality, but you are
muddying the waters. Jonathan's "withdrawal" was not a technical failure.
The failure was on the part of those who had not voted for anybody else and
wanted a revote.

Regards,
Joanna 
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:27:26 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> 
> You don't?  Well, I encourage you to learn more about the history of
> the different namespaces, including the original one...IANA/ICANN's.
> 
> 

oops.  Nope.  NOMAD INTERNETWORK 1985 was right in there.  
- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 15:04:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] vote appeal

On Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:15 AM (AEST)
Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: [ga] vote appeal

Dear Eric

> And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up when that was announced.
> hmm.

Examination of the endorsements shows that everybody who endorsed you endorsed
me also except Jeffrey Williams (who had his own reasons) and Sotiris
Sotiropoulos (who's your friend).

The five people who endorsed both of us (Marilyn Cade, Roberto Gaetano, Eric
Weisberg, Alexander Svensson and Elisabeth Porteneuve) were all clearly acting
impartially to ensure a proper vote.  It is unfair to their honour to suggest
they were in any way "lined up".

To balance your friend, Sotiris, I had my friend Marc Schneiders.

In fact, one of my endorsements was you, Eric Dierker so that's a nonsense.
Another was myself.  I do not know Ken Stoen so he was quite independent.
Thanks, Ken!

That's 9 already (including you and me) !!!

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, the co-Chair, clearly made his choice based on his
judgment of who was the better candidate as did Roeland Meyer, Kristy McKee and
Peter de Blanc.  I met Mr de Blanc for the first time in Melbourne a few weeks
ago.  None of these people are associated in any way with the TLDA.  I have
corresponded with all of them privately on matters of interest.

That's 13 endorsements all of whom are unquestionably independent.

Four persons are associated, in some way with the TLDA.  They are Gene Marsh,
Leah Gallegos, John Palmer and Bruce James (who has since resigned from the
advisory committee).  Jefsey Morfin, who is associated with alternate roots, is
well-known to most members of this forum.

Even excluding anyone associated in any way with the TLDA or alternative roots
generally (particularly those named in the above paragraph) the endorsements I
received numbered well in excess of the 10 suggested as being a requirement.

All of those who endorsed me are honest, hard-working and honourable.  They are
also reputable and long-standing members of the General Assembly.  There was no
stacking of the endorsement process.  There were also 102 members who voted.

I would add that first heard about the requirement for 10 endorsements at the
same time as everybody else as can be seen by the fact that I only had two or
three at the time of the co-Chair's announcement.  That's what caused people to
endorse more of the candidates - a simple reaction to the announcement.

In fact, under the rules, members are entitled to endorse anyone they see fit.
I thank everyone who endorsed you, me or any other candidate for their support
of proper and respected DNSO processes.

> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
> election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.

Of the watchdog committee, Roberto Gaetano and Alexander Svensson endorsed both
of us (so no favouritism there). I don't know Dany Vandromme or Izumi Aizu.
Harald Alvestrand did endorse me and not you but his judgement and his integrity
are both unquestioned.

The last person on the watchdog committee, Kent Crispin has a great deal of
experience in conducting elections and other ICANN processes.  Whilst I have
disagreed with him onlist on many occasions, I respect his sincerity.  I cannot
see any bias in my favour here either.

I would add that the whole argument is a furphy as you were included as a
candidate in the voting and could easily have gained sufficient votes to become
Chair or co-Chair.  Allowing a second ballot paper could equally have favoured
you, me or Danny Younger.

Everyone knows the watchdog committee had to resolve the issue of Jonathan
Weinberg's withdrawal.  That's not the problem.  The real question is Was the
election process fair to all candidates?  Sure it was.  And as Joanna Lane
points out, we can tighten up the procedures to allow for previously unforeseen
events in future elections.

Unforeseen events are, by definition, unforeseen.  There'll be more of them !!!

The reason that Danny Younger won was because of his demonstrated capacity to
further the process.  I truly respect that result and will support his tenure as
Chair.  You did not place because of your demonstrated lack of maturity.

This was shown by your excessive posting of what can only be described as
"rants" during the actual election.  You show it again by making unsupported and
unfounded allegations against (a) the endorsers and (b) the watchdog committee
and (c) me personally.  Your claims are easily disproved (see above rebuttal).

If you wish to appeal against the process, that is your choice but I'm certain
that many people on this list find your accusatory approach quite misguided.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss

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

Endorsement of candidates for election to the Chair of the General Assembly:
(date of reception at the dnso.org, CET)

2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Marilyn Cade
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Roberto Gaetano
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Eric Weisberg
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Alexander Svensson
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Jeffrey A. Williams
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Elisabeth Porteneuve
2001/03/30 Eric Hugh Dierker, endorsement by Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endorsement of candidates for election to the Chair of the General Assembly:
(date of reception at the dnso.org, CET)

2001/03/23 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Marc Schneiders
2001/03/26 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Bruce James
2001/03/29 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Kristy McKee
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Eric Dierker
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Leah Gallegos
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Patrick Corliss
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Gene Marsh
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Ken Stoen
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Harald Tveit Alvestrand
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Jean-François C. Morfin
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Peter de Blanc
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Alexander Svensson
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Marilyn Cade
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Roberto Gaetano
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Eric Weisberg
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Roeland M.J. Meyer
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by John Palmer
2001/03/30 Patrick Corliss, endorsement by Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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, 12 Apr 2001 01:13:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

on 4/11/01 11:43 PM, JandL at [email-masked] wrote:
 If the election were to be held
> today, I believe the results would be the same.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Leah Gallegos

Hello Leah,
I agree with you and just want to make absolutely clear that I seek only to
improve DNSO operations and correct operational flaws in the Election
process that have presented themselves recently.

I call upon our new Chair to add "Clarification/ Revision of Voting Rules"
to the GA's agenda for the coming year, for the purposes of agreeing
additional procedures by consensus, with particular reference to:-

1) Change in the Bylaws to enable the GA to elect it's own Chair and
Alternate Chair.

2) Number of endorsements required for a nominee to become a candidate.

3) Procedure for appointing Watchdog committee and membership criteria.

4) Procedure in the event of withrawal of a candidate in the middle of the
election.

5) Number of Ballots that may be issued by DNSO Secretariat and
circumstances in which they may be re-issued.

6) Appeals procedure

Regards,
Joanna 

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:27:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:52 PM
> 
> At 08:24 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
> >Once more, you don't get it. ICANN is tasked with maintaining the
> >stability of the internet.  Cooperating with the Internet community
> >to strive toward a unified name space (not namespaces) fall within
> >that role.
> 
> So whenever someone shows up and stakes an independent claim, 
> we should 
> appease them, on the claim that it is important for the 
> stability of the Internet?

Apease is the wrong word, but acknowlegement that they exist, may be
appropriate. 

> You might want to study a bit of history concerning the 
> events leading up to World War II in Europe.

Irrelevent.

> >You seem to foster the notion that the Internet is made
> >up of fragmented name spaces which is not the case.
> 
> Let's see.  My view is that we should ignore the 
> independents; yours is that we should not.
> 
> So explain to me which of us is worried about namespace fragmentation.

She is, as am I. The attitude that you espouse contributes to the creation
of outfits like www.new.net. Whether you admit it or not, they have the
force of a $20M bomb and 16,363,493 registered users. They are rapidly on
their way to becoming the 5,000 pound gorilla. They already have colliders
and they are on their way towards absorbing some of the other nacent TLD
managers out there.

> >It is a network of networks, all using the same DNS.
> 
> Those folks who initiated independent roots are not using 
> "the same DNS".

Actually, we are. My systems resolve all the same places that your do, just
a few more.

> By definition they have created a separate DNS.

Funny, I don't remember writting any BIND code for anyone else to use.

> It does not matter that some have chosen to operate as a 
> superset of the IANA/ICANN namespace... 

> In fact that "superset" claim is a 
> myth, as is clearly being demonstrated by efforts to limit the choices 
> made for the IANA/ICANN namespace.

Why do I bother?
- --
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 #375
************************