Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #409
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 21 2001           Volume 01 : Number 409

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:22:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC telecon 9 May, agenda

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010509.NCtelecon-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO 

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 9 May 2001 - agenda 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 April 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the 
DNSO Names Council 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html 
adopted on 26th February 2001.
Date, time, phones and webcast 

1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on 9 May at the following time: 

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Japan/Korea, 23:00 Melbourne)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
    Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST   8:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00
    Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST   8:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
    Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   9:00 since 11 Mar
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  10:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
    Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
    Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00 since 25 Mar
    Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 next day
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

2. The teleconference bridge will be provided by TBD

3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints. 

Dial in number: (to be provided later) 
Passcode #: (to be provided later) 
Conference operator: 
Conference convener: 
10 ports "listen only" will be reserved for remote participants 

The full participants are the 19 NC members as listed in 
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, DNSO Secretariat, 
ICANN Officers and Invited Guests 

The conference Scribe will be Maca Jamin 

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Bret Fausett 

Agenda and related documents 

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.

Scheduled time for meeting -120 mins. Allocated time - 90 mins.

Deadline for posting to NC: 25 April 2001.

Deadline documents (7 days): 2 May 2001.

1. Approval of agenda - (Philip Sheppard) 5 mins

2. Approval of summary of NC meeting 10 April 2001 - (Philip Sheppard) 5 mins

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010410.NCtelecon-minutes.html 

3. NC Business update - reports from four interim committee chairs 
   on first meetings and start of draft terms of reference (20 mins)

   * UDRP (Caroline Chicoine) 
   * WhoIs (Paul Kane) 
   * Internationalised names (YJ Park) 
   * Review implementation (Theresa Swinehart) 

4. Preparation for 2 June 2001 open meeting in Stockholm (Philip Sheppard) 
   10 mins

5. Alternative roots (Philip Sheppard) 20 mins

6. Final Verisign agreement - update (Louis Touton) and comments from 
   NC 10 mins

7. gTLD constituency (Milton Mueller) 5 mins

8. Update on new TLDs (Louis Touton) 5 mins

9. Update on the translation by ICANN of important documents 5 mins 
   (Louis Touton)

10. New registry contracts - means of enforcement, contingencies 
    for failure (Louis Touton) - 10 mins

11. Update on GA chair election (Elisabeth Porteneuve) 5 mins

12. Any other business

Next NC meeting will be held on 2nd June 2001, in Stockholm, 
at 14:00 Central European Time (Paris time), see dates for the NC meetings 
in 2001 in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Information from:© DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:45:36 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

Thank you, David.  Some of these can easily be tidied up:
Perhaps there could be six semi-permanent working groups.
Each group could then set their own priorities.

ACCOUNTABILITY
    Conflict of Interests
    ICANN Directors

CONSENSUS
    Constituency Structure
    Outreach & Participation
    Website & Communication

INTERNAL PROCESSES
    Electoral Procedures
    Finance & Funding
    List Rules & Protocols
    Mailing List Facilities

COMPETITIVE ROOTS
    Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
    Multilingual DNS

REGISTRATION
    Registrant/Whois Privacy
    Registrar Accreditation, QA
    Registry-Registrar Separation
    Verisign Agreement (incl. .org)

TRADE MARKS-IP
    Dispute Resolution
    WIPO-2

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:02:52 +1000, you wrote:

>Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
>includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything else
>I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already
been
>proposed to the Chair.

I think if anything it is too complete.  I think that it will be
beyond our capability to even scratch the surface of so many topics.
It is useful having them all listed but for my 2c I would concentrate
on:

>> Consensus Process
>> Constituency Structure
>> Electoral Procedures
>> Finance & Funding Support
>> Individual Constituency
>> List Rules & Protocols
>> Mailing List Facilities
>> Names Council Relationship
>> Voting and Electoral Issues
>> Website & Communication
>> Working Groups

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:43:34 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

My personal comment on the matter of motions:

A vote by the GA takes a week of wall clock time, and several hours of 
secretariat time as presently configured. If there is debate about the 
validity of votes, the time spent could easily go quite high.
It is not a mechanism we should trivially set in motion, or we will very 
quickly see "voting weariness" setting in.

In the rules we agreed upon, we gave the chair the sole responsibility to 
formulate and send out votes; we did not see a better solution at the time.

There might be other possible solutions - for instance, one could say that 
a petition for a motion, fully formulated and signed by at least 10 
members, MUST be put before the assembly by the chair. Or this threshold 
might be too low.

Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call 
"half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to achieve, they are 
not precise in how they are formulated, and they are emphatically not the 
most useful comment the GA could make into a situation.

If the GA is to spend the resources to go through a vote, I think we need 
at least to take the time to formulate it properly.
Roberto and I probably used the voting mechanism too rarely.

It is still a danger that one could be using it too much.

                Harald

At 11:58 20.04.2001 +0000, Roberto GA wrote:
>Jefsey,
>
>>
>>What is expected is simple and common:
>>- a motion is proposed
>>- the motion is seconded
>>- the motion is acknowledged
>>- the motion may be opposed
>>- if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
>>- if it is opposed it is made to a vote
>>- if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
>>- once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is
>>subject to ML consensus or debate.
>
>
>I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.
>Sometimes this Assembly is jumping to motions before having made any 
>effort to debate the issue.
>IMHO, the debate of the issue has to be done *before* the presentation of 
>motions, and not following it.
>In fact, when a motion is presented, seconded and acknowledged, there is 
>no further debate, if not on the wording of the motion.
>So I was feeling the need of a step in the procedure that allows the Chair 
>"not to acknowledge the motion" because of lack of previous discussion, 
>and in this case to send an implicit invitation to debate (and maybe give 
>a deadline, at which the floor will be open for motions).
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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

- --
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, 20 Apr 2001 21:45:20 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

At 15:06 19.04.2001 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>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.

Under the decorum rule, the list monitors have the ability to send out a 
warning or suspend the posting rights of a member.

Under the posting limit rule, the list monitors have the ability to send 
out a warning or suspend the posting rights of a member.

There isn't that much difference.

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:24:32 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:45 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for
|> mass postings
|>
|> Under the decorum rule, the list monitors have the ability
|> to send out a
|> warning or suspend the posting rights of a member.
|>
|> Under the posting limit rule, the list monitors have the
|> ability to send
|> out a warning or suspend the posting rights of a member.
|>
|> There isn't that much difference.

The difference being in that under the posting limit rule it has an
objective measurement to be applied where as under the decorum rule,
List Monitors will have to rely on subjective evaluations.  This
allows a List Monitor a great deal of flexibility with regards to how
the rule is applied.  Decorum covers a lot of ground and is open to
interpretation and personal assessment.

You would be well aware of the difference and to characterise them as
being the same is ingenious at best.

Although I am not stating there has been or will be abuse of power, I
see it as being extremely practical to limit subjective assessments
and evaluations by List Monitors where ever possible.  Hence the
suggestions on possible improvements.

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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:45:10 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:44 AM
|> To: Roberto GA
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns
|>
|> <SNIP>
|> Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call
|> "half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to
|> achieve, they are not precise in how they are formulated, and they
|> are emphatically not the most useful comment the GA could make into
|> a situation.
<SNIP>

The majority of motions anywhere can usually do with some refinement.
Isn't that the purpose of allowing others to make amendments to such
motions or for discussion on them to refine them?

Motions are a means to formalise discussions, they are not the end of
a discussion.  If they are not useful comments then it is our fault,
it is up to the participants to ensure motions when finalised are what
we want to say.  Then they go to a vote and if the process has been
followed, they will stand or fall on their merits.

We do need to have formal processes in place if we are to conduct
ourselves as anything other than a discussion forum.

If that requires resources to maintain votes and extra effort on the
participant side, that is the price that must be paid to become
effective.

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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:38:52 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Practical support to Chair{s] propositions/efforts

Dear Patrick,
I see what you want to see achieved and I concur. But experience
shows that you need a case per case consensus to make an existing
ML rolling. Peole have to be excited about it to join and work.

To create an ML you may embark into discussing it from nil as you
propose or you can have it documented and requested (as Sotiris
did withe the WG-Review, as I did woth the WG-INSP, as DPF did in
proposing three MLs)...

But nothing will happen until someone creates it.

After that: three possibilities. Either there is no consensus on the need
of  the list and nothing happens. Either it is an institutional ML (like the
GA) and the list will spend months on its organization. Or the list is
owned by its founder and it will immediately keep rolling as did the
icann-candidate; icann-europe or icann-fra we started last year and
most of you belong to.

I found that quite undemocratic until I realized that the most respected
institution on the net was the donating foundation. I therefore incporated
a very small foundation (wold@wide) to help through low cost; small
work services like this. I also use a net specialized international 
secretariat
I incorporated 22 years ago (partly manned ... when I get the funding).
( http://international-secretariat.org ). World@wide's BoD currently includes
three person (two "net keepers" incoluding me and an angel) there are three
other Members under consideration (Directors are coopted). The SIAT BoD
includes representatives of 12 stakeholding companies and associations
(including mine which is providing the money management [Treasurer]
but not the money :-)  ).

A Site+ML may achieve great things, to permit them to exist and to
operate through moteration escalation and secretariat services is a
usefull mission. We have currently a few hundred sites under donation
(many as available local sites for several common interest causes).

The world@wide BoD has discussed the GA situation. In spite of
its disagreement with the iCANN in itself, we have agreed to bring
the following solution to the problems listed by Danny on various
mails:

1) a temporary set-up of http://dnso-ga.org early next week

2) the organization of three MLs:
     - DNSO/GA Mamangement [dnso-ga-man]
     - Proposition for an WG-Inclusive Name Space Management
       [dnso-ga-insm]
     - WIPO concerns  [dnso-ga-wipo]

3) we will link to the WG-Review site at http://stakeholders.com
     and publish the WG-Review ML continuation as soon as
     published.

While world@wide has not transfered ownership of the sites and of
the lists to ad hoc structures of he DNSO/GA,  it will provide limited
secretariat and ML moderation escalation. I expect everyone to help
because I only got an OK but not an approval and I will get no
funding on this as now.

In a practical way:

a)  I propose that [dnso-ga-man] is moderated by Patrick
b)  I would be very interested in some English speaking person
      moderating the  "WG-INSM Proposition to the NC" and leading
      the writing of the letter
c)  I suppose that DPF will want to moderate the WIPO ML?
d)  I thank Sotiris to let me know about the WG-Review so I
      may enter the WG-Reveiw elements correctly.

I do hope this will help us to concentrate on the work ahead
and that you will allow me to remove myself from this ASAP.
This is only a good will help, certainly not more :-)

Help and positive suggestions welcome.
Thank you for he comments of the concerned parties.

Jefey

On 08:02 21/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>The Chair & GA Members
>
>We could spend our time examining List Rules & Protocols but I see this as
>only one item on an agenda which should include many other important issues.
>Some of these may need to be addressed as a matter of priority.  One urgent
>issue, for example, is funding !!
>
>Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
>includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything else
>I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already been
>proposed to the Chair.
>
>Do we even think it is appropriate to deal with issues in a structured manner?
>
> > Accounting & Reporting
> > Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
> > Conflict of Interests
> > Consensus Process
> > Constituency Structure
> > Dispute Resolution
> > Dot Org and Non-Profits
> > Generic & Chartered Domains
> >     (.com, .edu, .org, .us, etc.)
> > Electoral Procedures
> > Finance & Funding Support
> > ICANN Directors
> > Individual Constituency
> > List Rules & Protocols
> > Mailing List Facilities
> > Membership Structure
> > Multilingual DNS
> > Names Council Relationship
> > Outreach & Participation
> > Registrant/Whois Privacy
> > Registrar Accreditation, QA
> > Registry-Registrar Separation
> > Verisign Agreement
> > Voting and Electoral Issues
> > Website & Communication
> > Working Groups
> >
> > It has also been suggested that we should also request directly to Philip &
>Paul
> > Kane (with copies to nc members) specific  inclusion of ga chair & co-chair
>in
> > next Names Council teleconf with budgeted time to promote the GA agenda for
>the
> > next year.  This seems to be a valuable idea and I thank the relevant
>person.
> >
> > 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..
>
>Regards
>Patrick Corliss
>Co-Chair Elect
>
>
>--
>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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:50:24 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN-Funding

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA40.1AB28A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would like to suggest to this list to think up ways to increase ICANN's
required 51% *public* funding requirement under US-IRS rules to maintain its
501(c)(3) non-profit status. The Board has noted these two items:

1.) Project Grants
2.) Contributions and Other

*Public* monies include:

1.) Federal Grants
2.) Foundations Grants
3.) Private corporation donations
4.) Individual donations
5.) Non-Voting Memberships

Please note under the IRS rules these monies may be *in-kind* and hard cash.

Would this list like to take on this?

Here is the link to the proposed Budget:

http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#VI

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA40.1AB28A40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>I would like to suggest to =
this list to=20
think up ways to increase ICANN's required 51% *public* funding =
requirement=20
under US-IRS rules to maintain its 501(c)(3) non-profit status. The =
Board has=20
noted these two items:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>1.) Project Grants</DIV>
<DIV>2.) Contributions&nbsp;and Other</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>*Public* monies=20
include:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>1.) Federal =
Grants</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>2.) Foundations=20
Grants</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>3.) Private corporation=20
donations</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>4.) Individual=20
donations</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>5.) Non-Voting=20
Memberships</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Please note under the IRS =
rules these=20
monies may be *in-kind* and hard cash.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Would this list like to take =
on=20
this?</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Here is the link to the =
proposed=20
Budget:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#VI=
">http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#VI</A></=
FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA40.1AB28A40--

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:45:42 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

As long as everyone is okay with the requirements posted on their FAQ page:

Memory Requirements:  64M of RAM (96M recommended)
Recommended Screen Resolution: 17" Screen running at 1024x768
Operating System:  Microsoft Windows NT4 or 98
Browser Version:  Internet Explorer 4.x or 5.x only

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

I think the software looks great & I'd love to give it a try.  Meeting 
Maker is another possibility; but they haven't offered to let us use it... 
Don't think finding a server to house the product will be a problem; but 
need to take a look at the technical requirements -- Danny, could you 
conjure up some machine specs for FreeBSD, Red Hat, or NTwhatever?

:)

~k

At 08:58 AM 4/21/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>I support also the use, on an experimental/evaluation  basis) of the software.
>We have at least three candidate sub-lists: I would hope that one of the 
>three will elect to volounteer for the experiment.
>Roberto
>
>
>>From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
>>To: <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software
>>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:14:07 -0700
>>
>>babybows.com wrote:
>> > Your evaluation and feedback is requested:
>>
>>I've used earlier versions of this software and would support its use as
>>trial the next time we have an opportunity. Sounds like we'll also need a
>>volunteer willing to provide a web-server, though perhaps the new DNSO
>>Secretariat will be able to provide that service for us.
>>
>>     -- Bret
>>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:11:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Dear Harald,
We concur on this. The normal way of handling a motion is to have it 
seconded, then acknowledged by the Chair what gives the motion a discussion 
framework. Usually a motion is either accepted by all and there is no need 
for a vote, or there are amendments blocking the vote. The result is that 
the vote never occurs before a long time, as in most a cases a consensus is 
researched conducted by the Chair or a few stakeholders. Not acknowledging 
a motion do not gives it the proper recognition nor the resulting framework.

The result is the mess we went into this week, with the discussion on 
motions to remove topics from the GA ML replaced by the actual discussion 
on parts of these topics. And all of them colliding together. The GA ML 
should actually be quite silent and only concern the 
announcement/discussion of new specialized MLs, the reports of he MLs and 
the votes on the ML propositions.

What you describe in term of practical support is incredibly heavy. Is that 
you did not find a proper tool to handle votes (in that case we 
should  develop them or use Joop's booth) or is this an inappropriate 
policy by the DNSO of by the iCANN? IMHO opinion a vote should be a simple 
matter that could be handled "twice daily" as say the song.

This being an important point for net-democracy, I am interested in working 
on the matter with who wants (we already had an analysis with WXW last 
year. Facts of the life lowered the priority, but the need and some 
resources are still here).
All the best
Jefsey

On 03:43 21/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>My personal comment on the matter of motions:
>
>A vote by the GA takes a week of wall clock time, and several hours of 
>secretariat time as presently configured. If there is debate about the 
>validity of votes, the time spent could easily go quite high.
>It is not a mechanism we should trivially set in motion, or we will very 
>quickly see "voting weariness" setting in.
>
>In the rules we agreed upon, we gave the chair the sole responsibility to 
>formulate and send out votes; we did not see a better solution at the time.
>
>There might be other possible solutions - for instance, one could say that 
>a petition for a motion, fully formulated and signed by at least 10 
>members, MUST be put before the assembly by the chair. Or this threshold 
>might be too low.
>
>Many of the motions I have seen on the list are what I would call 
>"half-baked" - they are not precise in what they want to achieve, they are 
>not precise in how they are formulated, and they are emphatically not the 
>most useful comment the GA could make into a situation.
>
>If the GA is to spend the resources to go through a vote, I think we need 
>at least to take the time to formulate it properly.
>Roberto and I probably used the voting mechanism too rarely.
>
>It is still a danger that one could be using it too much.
>
>                Harald
>
>At 11:58 20.04.2001 +0000, Roberto GA wrote:
>>Jefsey,
>>
>>>
>>>What is expected is simple and common:
>>>- a motion is proposed
>>>- the motion is seconded
>>>- the motion is acknowledged
>>>- the motion may be opposed
>>>- if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
>>>- if it is opposed it is made to a vote
>>>- if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
>>>- once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is
>>>subject to ML consensus or debate.
>>
>>
>>I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.
>>Sometimes this Assembly is jumping to motions before having made any 
>>effort to debate the issue.
>>IMHO, the debate of the issue has to be done *before* the presentation of 
>>motions, and not following it.
>>In fact, when a motion is presented, seconded and acknowledged, there is 
>>no further debate, if not on the wording of the motion.
>>So I was feeling the need of a step in the procedure that allows the 
>>Chair "not to acknowledge the motion" because of lack of previous 
>>discussion, and in this case to send an implicit invitation to debate 
>>(and maybe give a deadline, at which the floor will be open for motions).
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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
>
>--
>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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:13:44 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN  Task Force on Funding  Draft Final Report - 30 October 99

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA54.2107D940
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Food for thought!  Any ideas?

 http://www.icann.org/committees/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA54.2107D940
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Food for thought!&nbsp; Any=20
ideas?</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.ht=
m">http://www.icann.org/committees/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CA54.2107D940--

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:44:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC telecon 9 May, agenda

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, at 13:22 [=GMT+0200], DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> Next NC meeting will be held on 2nd June 2001, in Stockholm, 
> at 14:00 Central European Time (Paris time)

Why this "Paris time" in these announcements all the time? In fact it
is Goerlitz time. If that is too unknown, and you want a capital, try
Berlin. Stockholm would also be better, esp. in this case. The real
time in Paris is actually a lot closer to GMT than to CET.

[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 #409
************************