Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #377
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 377

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:32:23 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello JandL,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 2:22:32 AM, JandL wrote:

> Fourth, ICANN did not select .WEB for award to Afilias due to the 
> fact that it was an operational registry...

ONE director stated that has his reason for not wanting to grant .web.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:06:05 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Eric,

> >
> > Which three substantive changes?
> >
>
>Let us ignore the first nomination which was proceeding along before, the
>procedure edict from the secretariat and Harald.

It should be ignored, indeed.
The nomination started on 2001-03-16, and the nominations were requested to 
be sent to [email-masked], as per instructions summarised in 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html.

>1. A startling announcement that 10 nominations were required.

Required?
Harald issued a warning, that NC asked for 10 endorsements (not nominations) 
in the past election. To avoid problems, he suggested to bring every 
candidate up to the quota. That would have avoided the possibility of 
putting roadblocks to the election process.

>2. The apparent though not formally announced overturn of that decision.

Since there was no "decision" from Harald or myself, there could not have 
been an "overturn" of the decision.

>3. Alteration of rules after JW pulled out.

Which rules, in detail?
To the best of my knowledge, the only thing that has been done is to send a 
second ballot, and pray tell how this can be seen as alteration of a rule.
It has been explicitely stated by the Watchdog Committee that the election 
was continuing without alteration. Not even an additional delay in the 
deadline has been granted, precisely because the election process could not 
have been altered while en-route.

>
>This is a slippery rock.  I was asked to stand on it I can live with
>slippery, things are never quite as sure footed as you would like them to
>be.  But you did not tell me that you were also going to be shaking that
>rock, that is cheating.  If this group as a whole had not just suffered the
>outcomes and irregularities of the AT Large elections this would not be so
>painful. Had the WG-Review report not been so altered before being 
>presented
>this would be easier.

And the pretended irregularities in the AtLarge elections were what, 
exactly?

>
>To add insult to injury there is a proposal that would put the same people
>who did the above in charge of correcting those problems.

The proposal being what?

>
>Yes at this time I object and appeal the decision and the election, it is 
>my
>contention that this election was illegitimate. It is further my contention
>that the people who voted for me were denied their rights as netizens and 
>all
>that that confers.

Names and facts, please, if you have any.
Which right was denied and to whom, for instance?

>  If my right to appeal is not honored and handled with
>dignity I will file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San 
>Diego,
>Downtown District to enforce my rights and seek injunction and other
>appropriate remedies.

If you want to object and appeal the decision, please follow the procedure 
for it, which is (taken from the same Web page above):

"Any instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be reported 
to this committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with 
a copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the 
Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any such 
reported activity."

Of course, if you will not find the answer of the Watchdog+NC sufficient, I 
assume that you should petition the ICANN Board for decision.

Of course it is also your right to file whatever lawsuit with whatever court 
you may see fit.
(I would be surprised if you did, but that's another matter)

Best 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:11:41 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: ;>)  Was: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

>We've been registering names, using the TLD in commerce.  It's
>real.  It works.  It's in use and has been for quite a while.  Before
>our management, it was in use under another company's name - in
>a pubic root.  Before that it was for usenet.  Long history of use.
>

For my own education in this matter, what is a "pubic root", and how is it 
related to the DNS?

(sorry, I could not resist)
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:38:32 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1

Kendall,

>
>The problem with the "non-governmental framework" is that this private
>corporation is being used to route around thinks like the Administrative
>Procedure Act (APA) and accountability. They can do pretty much whatever
>they want without any sort of explanation to anyone.

I agree, but that's what we've got.
Incidentally, the major entity opposing a "governmental" solution, was USG, 
for those who remember. I did not like it, but I don't see how it can be 
changed now (unless ICANN fails, which I do not hope either).

The reason is very simple, IMHO.
If the decision was going to be "governmental", it could not have been 
possibly anything less than an international agreement. In this way, USG 
keeps almost complete control, without getting into troubles with other 
governments.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:38:50 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Eric,
repeated for the Nth time:

- - there were NO rule changes made during the process.
   A lot of noise was made about whether or not we needed rule changes;
   it turned out we did not need them.
- - the 10 endorsement thing was a result of the Names Council NOT changing
   the rules from last year, and was never a part of the GA process.
   You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that there were TWO processes
   here, running at the same time: The GA process and the NC process.
- - your reading of the GA election process is wrong; there has never been
   a requirement for a "whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair".

Your charges stem from your own inadequate reading of what has been put
before you.

         Harald Alvestrand, EX-alternate chair of the DNSO General Assembly

At 17:15 11.04.2001 -0700, 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

- --
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 15:05:51 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

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.

Indeed.
You might have noticed that I did not post to the GA for 48 hours. It 
sometimes happens that people that do something else for a living do not 
have the possibility for accessing the GA list and the private account 
dedicated to it. Sorry.

>
>I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
>not one.

Correct, there's no objection or appeal.
Should there be one? I checked the ga-watchdog list before answering your 
previous message, and there was nothing pending either.

>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.

As explained for the nth time, no reference to the rule of 10 can exist, as 
no rule of 10 was in place for this election.
In fact, you are the only candidate that had less than 10 endorsements (not 
nominations), but you were on the voting ballot with the others that did.
What is exactly your objection?

>
>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.

Indeed.
Otherwise, we would have the same person elected as Chair and AltChair ;>)

>
>(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 the process did.
All ballots were taken into consideration, including Jonathan's (whom we 
already knew would have withdrawn).
There was no need to change any rules, and no rules were changed.
Again, what is the complaint?

>And that we are supposed to have a
>whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair

Here I don't follow anymore.
If the rule for AltChair is the one you quote, why should it be changed?
Why to have a whole subsequent election if it was clearly stated that the 
AltChair would have been elected using the same ballots, but discarding the 
(already elected) Chair?
What is the basis for your claim that "a whole other subsequent election for 
Alternate Chair" was needed?

>
>  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.

I re-read all the messages, and did not find anything similar to what you 
say.
You indicate an archive in your url. Can you please indicate which message, 
and which passage, states that we would change the outcome of the vote?
And please send your complaint to the right address, i.e. 
[email-masked].

>
>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.

Apparently, who did not want you are the voters, who ranked you in the last 
place, even behind the candidate who did already withdraw.

>
>The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!

Neither do I.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:06:48 -0400
From: "David G. Post" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Question No. 1

I think Roeland is right on target.  The DNS is a kind of language -- 
it gives names to things.  Coordination is very valuable in a language 
- -- if Roeland calls a round spherical object a 'ball,' and I call it a 
'goidosphere,' we're going to have trouble understanding one 
another.  But we need imposed coordination of the ICANN variety about 
as much as we need a Bureau of Definitions to tell us what words 
mean.  We had this fight 200 years ago; really smart and sensible 
people actually argued that we needed things like the Academie 
Francaise to 'authorize' particular labels for things, lest chaos 
ensue.  That argument lost, 
decisively.  See  http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/DrakeTalk.pdf 
  Somehow we manage to agree to call it a 'ball', or not, quite 
effectively without any single institution telling us we have to do that.

David

************************************
David G. Post     Temple University Law School and The Tech Center, 
George Mason Univ. Law School
[email-masked]
215-204-4539 or 202-364-5010
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost.html
http://www.icannwatch.org
*********************************************************************

> > From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 10:18 AM
> > bl
> > Certainly the Countries that I have had the great pleasure of working
> > with consider their ccTLD a public resource.  It seems that the U.S.A.
> > considers .us a public resource.
>
> > If the space is not considered a public resource then the contract
> > between ICANN and the DoC is null and void.

At 12:00 PM 4/11/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>There is a serious disconnect here. When dealing with finite physical
>resources, these distinctions make sense. OTOH, when dealing with abstract
>resources these distinctions make absolutely no sense. I am sorry to see
>that some have managed to rat-hole the discussion into "argument by
>analogy". There are no definitive analogies that matter. We need to grasp
>the concepts directly and deal with them ... directly.
>
>The facts are that names are simply labels. I may label a spherical rubber
>object a "ball" and you may label a square steel cube a "ball". Both are
>equally valid within their context. A third-party would have to deal with
>each of us, within our own context, and use the labels appropriately, when
>discussing those things within the given context.
>
>The fundimental problem here is that labels are not resources at all. They
>are a meta-object, a means for organizing a universe of entities such that
>we can distinguish one from another. They are a reusable tag. We can change
>the object that we place the label on. We can also place the label on
>another object ... at the same time. The problem here is that the contexts
>that the labels are valid within ... can also be labeled, which is valid
>within a meta-context. This is a recursive phenomenon. I submit that, the
>only other place we have this problem is in object-oriented design and
>analysis (OOD and OOA). Analogies don't work, for defining the problem,
>there either. Further, OOD and OOA technologies weren't available when the
>DNS system was designed.
>
>This is the fundimental theoretical problem that the original designers of
>the DNS system ran into. Thair answer was that, they drew the line in the
>sand, at the root-zone level, and said "we'll stop here, for now". The line,
>while occuring at a natural demarcation point, is still arbitrary. This
>reduced the problem to managable proportions, such that they could build the
>initial DNS system (the decendent of which is ISC BIND 8.2.3).
>
>What we have here, as a direct result, is a system which is, intentionally,
>context-limited. However, for labeling hosts on the Terabit project, it
>worked. The problems we are dealing with today are a direct resultant of
>applying the DNS system, out of its contextual referent, to problems that
>really have their own context rules. Refering to my previous example, my
>definition of "ball" differs from yours and unless we make an effort to
>define the context of "ball" we will never understand each other. In the DNS
>context, the label "ball" is a name space collision unless the relevant
>context is defined. The key is that, understanding the context matters and
>we'll never resolve this until we start dealing with context and
>acknowleging that there are other contexts.
>
>The practical application is that;
>
>ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
>publishers.
>Trademark and IP interests cannot apply thier restrictions without also
>understanding the contextual references.
>The software needs to apply to a larger contextual scope than it has ever
>had to heretofore (the MultiBIND project has been announced).
>--
>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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:50:16 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Joanna,

>
>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.

Thanks for your positive approach.
While waiting for the comments from the new Chair, I have some specific 
comments, see below.

>
>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.

Agree.
The reason why it has not been done so far is that I contacted some Board 
members and some NC members, and I had the impression that, while there 
would have been serious doubts that the Board would have changed the bylaws 
without a request by NC, the NC was willing to ratify the elected 
Chairpersons (but not ready yet to propose a change in the bylaws).
My course of action, of which I take full responsibility, was *not* to force 
a vote by the ICANN Board at this point in time, nor a vote by NC, on the 
matter of principle, but to go with the "ratification of the most voted" 
approach, which was, still in my own opinion, a step forward that will allow 
us in the future to try the next step with more possibilities of success.

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

This should be deleted altogether.
The reason why this was in place, as I believe I did already explain - but 
repetita juvant, is not to burden an NC vote with an excessive number of 
candidates.
As now the vote is carried on by the GA, and as the number of nominees is 
never large :<(, there is no reason for having a limit.
I would still have an endorsement phase, separate from vote, because this 
may give an indication to the voters about the support (and the reasons 
thereof, as it is possible to add comments to the endorsements).

>
>3) Procedure for appointing Watchdog committee and membership criteria.

Good.
This is a larger problem, that involves the case of List Monitors, and the 
proposed ombudsman.
It will be good to have a team, elected by the GA, who performs these tasks.
I would suggest elections right away for list monitors, and discussion about 
ombudsman, and these people will be by default the watchdogs for the next 
elections.

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

How about: nothing?
As is now seems fine.

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

Let me explain this.
I saw your other posts about unicity of the ballot: this is not the 
question.
The problem is not the sending of the ballot by the Secretariat, but the 
sending of the answer by the elector. Even with one single ballot sent, 
there's the possibility of the voter mailing his ballot more than once. At 
this point, you *have* multiple ballots, and no way to tell which is the 
good one. Either you take the first, and discard the following ones, or you 
take the last, and discard the previous ones.
This is different from the case you mentioned about UK, where you have a 
*physical* ballot, which is unique. Incidentally, in Italy if you make a 
mistake in voting you can ask for a second ballot. The first one is 
discarded (=>kept in a separate place for auditing), and the second one is 
the good one.
Also, you said you never participated in an election where you could vote 
multiple times, and the last vote counted. Well, in this case you must not 
have participated to ICANN's AtLarge election, because that was exactly the 
same case.

>
>6) Appeals procedure

The current level of appeals is:
- - watchdog
- - NC
- - ICANN BoD
The first one by internal GA rules;
the second one by ICANN Bylaws (NC is responsible);
the third one by obvious consideration that ICANN BoD is the supreme 
authority.
Maybe needs formalization? But probably does not need changes.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:55:55 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ;>)  Was: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

For that matter, what the heck is a reference to the DNS and usenet?

Usenet was based on uucp and did not use the DNS.

d/

At 04:11 AM 4/12/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>We've been registering names, using the TLD in commerce.  It's
>>real.  It works.  It's in use and has been for quite a while.  Before
>>our management, it was in use under another company's name - in
>>a pubic root.  Before that it was for usenet.  Long history of use.
>
>
>For my own education in this matter, what is a "pubic root", and how is it 
>related to the DNS?

- ----------
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 17:53:33 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote Appeal 2

Eric,

Since this is adressed to ga-watchdog, I assume it is a complaint.

>
>It got me wondering so I looked to exactly who were these watchdogs and
>how did they become so:
>
>"IV.A nomination watchdog committee has been formed to police the
>nomination process to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent
>      activity in connection with the nomination process."
>
>It just got "formed".  Interesting, but more interesting is who watches
>them when they commit fraudulent activity, like misrepresenting the
>rules, remember intentional or wreckless misrepresentation is fraud in
>ICANN's jurisdiction.

Is this a question or a statement?
In case it's a question, the answer is: "Potentially, the whole world 
watches us, since the mail exchanges to ga-watchdog are publicly archived, 
including the present one."
But what exactly are you complaining for?
Which misrepresentation of which rule?
Which "fraudulent" activity?

You have to have patience with me.
Contrary to you, I have a low QI and English is only my third language.
Can you describe in wording that the below-average non-english person can 
understand *what is exactly you complain about*, quoting the specific facts, 
refraining from generic statements, and giving the element to be able to 
evaluate the case? If your purpose is to file a complaint that should be 
taken into consideration, it would seem to me a sensible thing to do.

>
>      "Any instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be
>reported to this committee at the following email address:
>      [email-masked], with a copy to the Names Council at
>[email-masked], This committee and the Names Council shall have the
>      sole discretion as to how to deal with any such reported activity."
>
>This I garauntee is not correct. That is why we have prosecutors and
>courts.

As I said in a previous answer, you are free to file a lawsuit to the court 
of your choice.
Why are you not doing it, since you mentioned it already twice?
What does stop you?

Please, do it, so at least we will have some accomplishment.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

- --- Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

Logically expanding your WWII analogy...

We should ignore the independents?  I wonder what may
have happened had the world ignored the independent
dictatorial powers involved in that war.

- -jason graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:08:06 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

on 4/12/01 10:50 AM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:

> Also, you said you never participated in an election where you could vote
> multiple times, and the last vote counted. Well, in this case you must not
> have participated to ICANN's AtLarge election, because that was exactly the
> same case.

Roberto,
Thank you for clarifying your position, and I confirm that I did vote in the
@Large Elections. You may be confusing this:-

"Can I change my endorsement?

Yes. Simply log in again and make your new endorsement. Your prior
endorsement will be automatically deleted."

with this:-

"Can I change my vote, after it has been submitted?

No. A vote cannot be changed after it has been submitted. Votes are recorded
anonymously; therefore, it is not possible to change votes once they have
been submitted."

http://members.icann.org/faq.htm#vote

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 09:14:28 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

After which three other directors expressed agreement, and then a 
majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
different wordings.

By any criteria, it stood the test.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 3:32 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> Hello JandL,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 2:22:32 AM, JandL wrote:
> 
> > Fourth, ICANN did not select .WEB for award to Afilias due to the 
> > fact that it was an operational registry...
> 
> ONE director stated that has his reason for not wanting to grant .web.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

- --
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:44:28 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Courtesy Copies of Postings

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 12:50 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] vote appeal

Hi Roberto

Can somebody please tell me why we need to copy everybody in the world?
In particular why  <[email-masked]> and <[email-masked]> > ?

This is a poor practice, imo, which should be tempered with common sense.

(1)    It's just not practical for all mail of all constituencies to be copied
to ICANN.  If they are interested in the GA proceedings, they can subscribe to
the list themselves.

(2)    The only reason to copy anybody OFF list is as a courtesy when they are
referenced in the email itself.  This is most likely to apply to academics and
those in senior positions.

(3)    People on the [ga] list gets a copy anyway, they do not need multiple
copies.  In fact this might be confusing for those who are not subscribed to
ga-full.

However, I would support ONE extra copy where the reply is directly addressed to
a person (as I have done with this posting).  This allows the addressee more
time to respond and is a useful mechanism for easier sorting and filtering of
mail according to the people involved.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:51:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Christopher,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:14:28 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> After which three other directors expressed agreement, and then a 
> majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
> different wordings.

> By any criteria, it stood the test.

This is a mischaracterization.  One director had a problem, the others
did not state their reasons, just agreeing with the outcome for
whatever reason.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #377
************************