Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #405
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 405

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:21:06 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Dear Eric:

> So I guess we can assume that I may call for a vote right now to
> remove Mr. Corliss as a list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest,
and
> if 11 of us vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS
> CONFUSION I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.

While it seems that you are determined to continue these personal attacks,
you
have given no good reason except for your personal antagonism.

Could I ask you to be very specific in stating what conflict of interest?

Regards,
/Bruce
LM

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 18:57
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Dear Mr. Younger;

This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place.  Your
first
citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely.  Upon reviewing
these
rules one finds all in order except that there is no mechanism to obtain a
vote
of the GA for the removal of a monitor. It also does not state what type of
majority vote. So I guess we can assume that I may call for a vote right now
to
remove Mr. Corliss as a list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest,
and
if 11 of us vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS
CONFUSION I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.

Sincerely,

Danny Younger wrote:

> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed
from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
> A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
> In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been advised
of
> expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy McKee, Alexander
> Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I
now
> appoint these individuals to a one year term as Monitors of the GA List.
>
> Danny Younger
> GA Chair
>
> --
> 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-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, 18 Apr 2001 22:15:37 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

A public utilities commission is government.  ICANN is private, but 
acting as government.  It is, in fact, acting like a monopoly in the 
rootzone business and attempting to control who can or cannot 
participate in the industry.  It is acting like government in setting 
policy that citizens (users) must comply with, but who have no real 
representation in that government.  So it is more like a dictatorship 
with advisors.  It is something undefined in law that can create 
policies that act and look like law by fiat and that supercedes law.

> At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry standards
> > > body.
> >
> >Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN is
> >offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently the
> >only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN is a
> >(probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.
> 
> 
> Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".
> 
> There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public
> utilities commission".  It does not provide direct service; rather it
> oversees the work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide
> service.  I have never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a
> monopoly.
> 
> Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities commission as a
> monopoly.
> 
> If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the
> operational differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus
> such a commission.
> 
> 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-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, 18 Apr 2001 22:38:21 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

For the past few days, my inbox has been inundated with list 
protocol and suspension...  Quite frankly I have better things to do 
with my time than to read these messages.  There is work to be 
done.

In terms of Mr. Corliss taking action, I can certainly understand 
wanting to bring this list back to some measure of decorum and 
relevant subject matter.  It is regrettable to see that those who 
opposed a person's individual affiliations are now on the attack to 
remove him.  All I have seen are excessive posts from those people 
with nothing constructive to offer wrt to issues facing the GA.

Might we forego these attempts to disrupt the list and get back to 
the issues most important to the Internet and the GA in particular?  
Attempting to undermine the Chair and Co-Chair's efforts are not 
going to help this body.  

Can we please see the WG lists established so that we can WORK?

Leah

> Dear Mr. Younger;
> 
> This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place. 
> Your first citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely. 
> Upon reviewing these rules one finds all in order except that there is
> no mechanism to obtain a vote of the GA for the removal of a monitor.
> It also does not state what type of majority vote. So I guess we can
> assume that I may call for a vote right now to remove Mr. Corliss as a
> list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest, and if 11 of us
> vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS CONFUSION
> I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
> > "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have
> > the task of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules. 
> > These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but
> > may be removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request
> > at any time. A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote
> > of the General Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1
> > year." http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >
> > In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been
> > advised of expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy
> > McKee, Alexander Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit
> > Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I now appoint these individuals to a one
> > year term as Monitors of the GA List.
> >
> > Danny Younger
> > GA Chair
> >
> > --
> > 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-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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:28:30 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

At 10:05 19/04/01 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>
>I'm sure I speak for you, Danny, when I say that we would welcome any
feedback
>from the list on what priority should be given to items on the proposed
agenda..
>

Priority must be given to duly seconded motions.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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, 18 Apr 2001 23:10:08 -0700
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors

Eric:  Please calm down.  There appears to be a lot of history in all of
these back and forth e-mails.  I for one do not agree completely with
anyone, but do appreciate the learning experience.  As a new participant on
this list, relying on the rules of "polite society", a lot of folks to me
seem a little right and a little wrong, but mostly lacking in manners and
greatly enamored with "turf" protection mentality.  Patrick is fine as a
list monitor; he just might want to examine his eagerness to "regiment the
free flow of discussion" (hint: give William some respect).  Maybe William
can be a list monitor too and he can examine his eagerness to "teach
newbies who need to be slapped into shape" (hint give Danny and Patrick
some respect).

I think all the list monitors sound good (especially Harold).

Cindy
PS:  I'm still wondering what the GA really does?
Oh...PSS:  Why would anybody stay on this list if they didn't have specific
interests?  I'm still trying to figure out what harm anyone can do except
interrupt the flow of discussion.  Do we set policy?  Do we decide rates?
Can we influence a Board of Director?  Does what they think count?  Does
Jon Postel listen to us?  Can we determine trademark information?  Can we
guarantee someone the right to a particular domain name or assignment of #
address ( I can't remember what that is called)?  What changes are we going
to cause and what if any of those changes would be better than what we
already have?   If this is free flow discussion, maybe all we can do is
search for good ideas and community growth.  And to get growth you've got
to get it from all parties.  Not just those who agree with you and I
believe you're never going to get it by yelling at people in your e-mail.
(Sorry for the dissertation and sorry for putting forth thoughts that
everyone here already knows - and not very eloquently at that.)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:58 PM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Dear Mr. Younger;

This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place.  Your
first
citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely.  Upon reviewing
these
rules one finds all in order except that there is no mechanism to obtain a
vote
of the GA for the removal of a monitor. It also does not state what type of
majority vote. So I guess we can assume that I may call for a vote right
now to
remove Mr. Corliss as a list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest,
and
if 11 of us vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS
CONFUSION I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.

Sincerely,

Danny Younger wrote:

> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed
from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
> A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
> In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been advised
of
> expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy McKee, Alexander
> Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I
now
> appoint these individuals to a one year term as Monitors of the GA List.
>
> Danny Younger
> GA Chair
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:14:32 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Dear Members,

I personally have been infected with cancer and I quickly learned you dang
near have to kill the body in order to save it.  Well I survived and SOCANN
ICANN.
But we have to respect the dignity of due process of rules of order and of
accountability of our leaders.  Personalities are secondary to the rules we
all must follow, and one of the most widely accepted principles in this
regard is that rules be laid out so that it is not the whim of an embodiment
such as an alt-chair that dictates who is allowed rights and who is not.

The transition is over, Harald and Roberto are gone, we now must hold our
officials to the fire.  We must set a bottoms up example for the NC and
BoD.  OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO US.

Walsh just posted basically that we should judge not on affiliation but
actions.  I agree but warn that sometimes an affiliation is an action.
(KKK)(PLO)(CHRISTIAN)(CEO of ???) (BoD of ???)

If you can step back for a moment and not think I just complain and sour
grapes and all, what happened to my appeal;? It was sent to the right places
with confrimation and it just dissappeared. Let us assume I am a complete
flake without cause, at least the appellate body shoud reject my appeal or
deny my claim.  They have sent nothing and therefor spit on the rule of
process.  They could not do more harm than to spit in your eye.

Sincerely,

JandL wrote:

> For the past few days, my inbox has been inundated with list
> protocol and suspension...  Quite frankly I have better things to do
> with my time than to read these messages.  There is work to be
> done.
>
> In terms of Mr. Corliss taking action, I can certainly understand
> wanting to bring this list back to some measure of decorum and
> relevant subject matter.  It is regrettable to see that those who
> opposed a person's individual affiliations are now on the attack to
> remove him.  All I have seen are excessive posts from those people
> with nothing constructive to offer wrt to issues facing the GA.
>
> Might we forego these attempts to disrupt the list and get back to
> the issues most important to the Internet and the GA in particular?
> Attempting to undermine the Chair and Co-Chair's efforts are not
> going to help this body.
>
> Can we please see the WG lists established so that we can WORK?
>
> Leah
>
> > Dear Mr. Younger;
> >
> > This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place.
> > Your first citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely.
> > Upon reviewing these rules one finds all in order except that there is
> > no mechanism to obtain a vote of the GA for the removal of a monitor.
> > It also does not state what type of majority vote. So I guess we can
> > assume that I may call for a vote right now to remove Mr. Corliss as a
> > list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest, and if 11 of us
> > vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS CONFUSION
> > I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have
> > > the task of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
> > > These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but
> > > may be removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request
> > > at any time. A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote
> > > of the General Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1
> > > year." http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> > >
> > > In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been
> > > advised of expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy
> > > McKee, Alexander Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit
> > > Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I now appoint these individuals to a one
> > > year term as Monitors of the GA List.
> > >
> > > Danny Younger
> > > GA Chair
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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-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

- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 00:20:33 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN Meetings in Stockholm, Sweden

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: March 19, 2001
To: Participants in Prior ICANN Meetings
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN Meetings in Stockholm, Sweden

Greetings!

Because you attended or participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN
meetings, ICANN would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held
in Stockholm, Sweden on June 1 through 4.  More information about the
meetings is available at <http://www.icann.org/stockholm>.

If you plan to attend in person, please preregister via
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/preregistration> (if you have
not already done so).  While preregistration is not required, it helps local
organizers anticipate attendance and allows you to be kept up to date with
logistical updates as they become available.

Webcast sessions will include the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council,
the ICANN Public Forum, and the ICANN Board Meeting.  For more information
about the webcast, including technical requirements to participate, see
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm>.  If you plan to participate
by webcast, please preregister using
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/preregistration>.

Finally, if you are not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may want to join it.  Subscription instructions at
<http://www.icann.org/announcements>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 18 Apr 2001 23:27:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Cindy,

Gosh darn it.  I do not want my son to see a lynching, nor do I want him to
witness my abuse at the protest of the lynching, and nor do I want him to
witness my abuse of those that let it happen in the first place.  If I could
only protect the fair and innocent of the hell of forging the most important
frontier of this new century, believe me I would.

So, don't touch the water with your toe unless you care enough to endure the
abuse that I have.(no citations needed) But I invite you to share with us who
will be in Sweden fighting the good fight to insure stakeholderrepresentative
reality.
As for William, he is a hero and don't you ever forget it, credit is earned and
he has earned it. By denial of due process, he has become my favorite rector of
the net.

Ultreya,

Cindy Merry wrote:

> Eric:  Please calm down.  There appears to be a lot of history in all of
> these back and forth e-mails.  I for one do not agree completely with
> anyone, but do appreciate the learning experience.  As a new participant on
> this list, relying on the rules of "polite society", a lot of folks to me
> seem a little right and a little wrong, but mostly lacking in manners and
> greatly enamored with "turf" protection mentality.  Patrick is fine as a
> list monitor; he just might want to examine his eagerness to "regiment the
> free flow of discussion" (hint: give William some respect).  Maybe William
> can be a list monitor too and he can examine his eagerness to "teach
> newbies who need to be slapped into shape" (hint give Danny and Patrick
> some respect).
>
> I think all the list monitors sound good (especially Harold).
>
> Cindy
> PS:  I'm still wondering what the GA really does?
> Oh...PSS:  Why would anybody stay on this list if they didn't have specific
> interests?  I'm still trying to figure out what harm anyone can do except
> interrupt the flow of discussion.  Do we set policy?  Do we decide rates?
> Can we influence a Board of Director?  Does what they think count?  Does
> Jon Postel listen to us?  Can we determine trademark information?  Can we
> guarantee someone the right to a particular domain name or assignment of #
> address ( I can't remember what that is called)?  What changes are we going
> to cause and what if any of those changes would be better than what we
> already have?   If this is free flow discussion, maybe all we can do is
> search for good ideas and community growth.  And to get growth you've got
> to get it from all parties.  Not just those who agree with you and I
> believe you're never going to get it by yelling at people in your e-mail.
> (Sorry for the dissertation and sorry for putting forth thoughts that
> everyone here already knows - and not very eloquently at that.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:58 PM
> To: Danny Younger
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors
>
> Dear Mr. Younger;
>
> This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place.  Your
> first
> citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely.  Upon reviewing
> these
> rules one finds all in order except that there is no mechanism to obtain a
> vote
> of the GA for the removal of a monitor. It also does not state what type of
> majority vote. So I guess we can assume that I may call for a vote right
> now to
> remove Mr. Corliss as a list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest,
> and
> if 11 of us vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS
> CONFUSION I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
> task
> > of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> > selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed
> from
> > the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
> > A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> > Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >
> > In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been advised
> of
> > expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy McKee, Alexander
> > Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I
> now
> > appoint these individuals to a one year term as Monitors of the GA List.
> >
> > Danny Younger
> > GA Chair
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 08:31:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On 2001-04-18 15:15:25 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".

> There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public
> utilities commission".  It does not provide direct service;
> rather it oversees the work and pricing of those organizations
> that DO provide service.  I have never heard anyone refer to such
> a commission as a monopoly.

First of all, the C in ICANN stands for corporation, not for
commission.  I'll quote Kent on that importance of that distinction
(<[email-masked]>; the quoted text in the
beginning is from Siegfried Langenbach):

| >  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
| >  who elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
| >  not representatives in the words meaning ).
| 
| In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be
| so. That is a crucial difference between a government and a
| corporation; ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have
| a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the
| people who (s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental
| distinction.

Second, I'd like to recommend
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?monopoly> to you:

| Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- +
| 	pOlein to sell
| 
| 
| 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
| 	or concerted action
| 2 : exclusive possession or control
| 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
| 4 : one that has a monopoly

Third, you may wish to have a look at the California PUC's web
pages, where their legal basis, their organization, and public
representation in the process are at least roughly described.
You'll note that ICANN looks vastly different.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:44:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (no subject)

Dear Chairman,

Here are two semi-private posts which I have been allowed to post, one
without accreditation and one with out.  But life is rough and we can
figure both of them.

these great calls to move on to substantive matters while there is no
foundation for moving forward are beautiful.  Mr. Corliss's agenda
should be preceded by the topic regarding alternative roots and capture
of the GA.

I have made two appeals with no response.  You need to start acting like
a chair rather than the great Corliss and Joop coordinator, just My HO.
You can tell me to flag it but a netizen deserves at least a denial of
his appeals.

Sincerely,

ps I suspect ignoring this post will be your consistant response.
Hi Joop

It's getting serious now.  If I had money I would sue.

Best regards

After reading the posts explaining the theories regarding
alternate/Inclusive/other/non-legacy/ATLDs one can not help but come to
the
conclusion that the selling of the use of a domain space is lucrative
and
entities do it to make a profit.  ICANN while not a profit oriented
corporation
requires the monies made from the revenues generated from that selling.

The Board upon which Mr. Corliss sits requires that same type of
revenue.
The
customers which each group targets are out of the same pool with no
discernable
differences.

Therefore ICANN and Mr. Corliss's board are competing for the same
customers.
That would place Mr. Corliss in direct competition with himself if he
were
to
say, help outreach and attract more people to ICANN's registrars as
opposed
to
his own.

- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 11:19:43 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN Meetings in Stockholm,  Sweden

Hello Ben!

Ben Edelman wrote on 19.04.01, 00:20:33:
> Because you attended or participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN
> meetings, ICANN would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held
> in Stockholm, Sweden on June 1 through 4.  More information about the
> meetings is available at <http://www.icann.org/stockholm>.

June 1 through >>5<<. It's a pity ICANN forgets to mention
the At Large Study Committee outreach meeting in the
schedule (http://www.icann.org/stockholm/). According to
http://www.atlargestudy.org/case_studies_ann.shtml
the ALSC meeting takes place on *Tuesday, June 5*. So those
planning to go to Stockholm should consider staying one
day longer (if they aren't around for the ISOC Conference
INET 2001 anyway).

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 19:53:16 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Rules was Re: Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked]
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sotiris
|> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:12 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: Ga
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass
postings
|>
|> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
|> If it means that I must be punished as well, then so be
|> it!  But the subversive activities (even if they're not
intentional)
|> must be stopped here and now.  I will gladly take the suspension
verdict
|> against myself Darryl, even though I am unaware of any abuse
reports
|> against me to the List Monitor.

Subversive activities take many forms.  Not abiding by rules as set
down and flouting of them in any way is not to be tolerated.  That
goes for the enforcers and the participants.  Abuse reports are not
necessary with regards to the posting limit rule.  I personally, am
fully prepared to respect any decision to suspend my own participation
if it is done under compliance with the rules.  However, I will raise
hell if any attempts are made to abuse the application of the rules
with respect to my own activities and to a lesser extent when others
are inconvenienced.

|> This ML must not be allowed to go the way
|> of the IDNO ML. It sickens me to constantly hear the reply: "But so
and so
|> is not being punished, why should so and so be punished then?"
Well,
|> how about TO RESTORE LIST ORDER?

Strange you would bring the IDNO ML into this.  Far as I can see it is
still operating and functional.

The point of having objective list rules such as a posting limit is to
get away from subjective application of rules and judgements.  If a
rule is to be applied subjectively it must be written in such a way to
allow it.  The posting limit rule of the GA is not.  Once a posting
limit is applied, it must be applied objectively and with maximum
force to be effective.  Deciding that some should be punished under it
and others not, is not allowable.  Nor is stating that some are immune
to this rule, the rule is written in such a way that there is no valid
way such actions can or should be condoned.  The rule applies to all
in equal force or it applies to none.  If the GA wishes to have the
right to make individual judgements by List Monitors, the rule will
need to be amended.  As written, it is invalid for any action to be
taken unless it is applied to all participants.  Otherwise, we do not
have List Order.

|> I think it would go a long way
|> towards bringing things back into focus if the suspensions were
carried out
|> against all the offenders (yes, including myself!).  Now, who has a
problem with that?
|> Sooner or later the rules must be applied, because they
|> have not been so to date does not mean they should never be...
Examples
|> have to be made (and remade if necessary!).

Rules are rules and are there not for the convenience of any one
person.  They are the tools to maintain an effective mailing list and
should never be abused.  Once a rule is enforced, unless it is
explicitly written to allow it, the rule must be applied to all and
consistently.  To do otherwise is to bring disorder and abuse of power
into the situation.

The GA mailing list rules do not allow the posting limit rule to be
applied in any way except against all participants.

If the GA wishes to change the rules such amendments must be applied
in the appropriate manner.  The rules are not available for anyone to
amend at will, be they List Chairs or Monitors.

I support a call for the formation of a working group to study and
make recommendations on improving the list rules.

Until such time as amendments are made, the rules must be applied as
they are written.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 21:06:08 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:22 AM
|> To: David Farrar
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass
postings
|>
<SNIP>
|> Whilst you are not asking for these people to be
|> disciplined, this is, in fact,
|> a likely effect of your complaint as you clearly
|> recognise.  A similar effort is
|> required to counter Mr Walsh's argument that there is, or
|> was, no limit in the first place.

Interesting way of putting this.  It would appear to support WX's
contention.  Retrospective application of the rules to justify
applying them to a single participant is a serious abuse of power.

|> However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I
|> would advise that there has never been any intention to
|> enforce the daily limit blindly.  The intention of the
|> restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on the list.
|>
|> Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and
|> posts six or even seven, emails, I would personally not
|> consider this of utmost gravity.  But what we are talking
|> about here, as far as I can see, is a systematic and
|> deliberate breach of list protocols.  This is exactly the
|> problem, and the harm, that the posting rules were introduced
|> to combat in the first place.  It is not a minor matter.

Whilst I agree with the above in principle, it is an attempt to apply
subjective criteria to an objective rule, nor does the rule allow for
this unvested for amendment.  I would suggest that if this is they way
the GA wishes to have the rule applied, the List Rules are amended to
allow this, before actions are initiated involving it.

|> There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and other
|> lists.  My feeling is that we have constructive work to do
|> and even your post is not assisting that
|> task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week
|> working on list research and debate.

Flame wars are controlled by appropriate mechanisms.  Under the
decorum rule, List Monitors and Chairs have wide ranging powers, under
the posting limit rule they do not.  I do think that serious
discussion of the current List Rules and their application is always
constructive.  If there is a working group formed to deal with the
issue specifically, so much the better.

|> To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or
|> two, here or there, I am talking about sustained effort
|> for days and days.  With very little to show for
|> it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a wasted
|> effort unless we have your support.

Just to make it clear.  I am not attacking you.  I believe you are
operating under the best of intentions.  However, I can not support
the unofficial changing and application of rules.  At a minimum, any
change should be put to a vote on the list before application and not
introduced without due process.

<SNIP>
|> However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting that
|> I posted the onlist reminder of the posting limts on 16
|> April, my local time.  I also intervened the
|> next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that officials
|> are entitled to expect some co-operation and goodwill from
|> those who only so recently elected them.
<SNIP>

Personally I will accept the posting limit is and was in force
although I have doubts of any rule being in force when it isn't
applied.  Cooperation is something we should all try to cultivate,
goodwill is another.  Neither are instantaneous.

<SNIP>
|> The List Monitors are
|> given the discretion to allow minor and occasional
|> breaches in circumstances of genuine attempts to comply.
|>
|> List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this
|> ruling is designed to address when applying their discretion
|> towards postings over the daily limit.
<SNIP>

The above is something I have trouble with.  Discretion was not
written into the rule and in my judgement should not be.  The rule is
objective as it is written and that makes it far easy to administer
and apply.  Once you introduce subjectivity into rules you are more
likely to get complaints and charges of unfair application.  I like to
see rules that are objective and if possible, applied automatically so
as to avoid charges of unfair human intervention.

As others may possibly mention, I like to have rules that are clearly
defined and do not like to see rules being bent or interpreted without
due process.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

PS... I would also suggest that words like request and suggest are not
used when invoking the application of any rules.  Rules are the
enforcement mechanism and should not be treated as suggestions or
requests, nor should they be referenced in such a manner.  When a rule
is invoked it should be done so in a forth right manner and their
should not be any room for confusion or misinterpretation of the
action being invoked.

- --
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 #405
************************