Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #410
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 22 2001            Volume 01 : Number 410

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:20:09 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 9:46 AM
> 
> 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 have a few problems with this, for general use.

1) Windows-only: Many of either co-run or are exclusively on, some form of
Unix box. The software doesn't run there (maybe, under WINE, someone will
have to look).

2) Closed source. 'nuff said.

3) Some (myself) routinely run 1280x1024 resolution on 15-inch monitors.
Software that forces a de-rez generally doesn't live long here.

> 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... 

We've standardized on MS-Office2K (Outlook2K) and MS-Exchange (ja, I know
what I said above). It works ... sort of (that's why I said ... what I said,
above). I know quite a few sites that are running iCalender to good effect.
Tinker-factor is a bit large, however.

> 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?

For the sorts of traffic we see here, it shouldn't cost anywhere over $1K
and I would almost say under $500. I have MS bloatware (MS-Exchange under
Win2Kserver) running on a AMD Athelon 500Mhz, 400MG RAM, and 16GB usable
SCSI RAID5. It is over-kill. I also, recently, built a dual Intel
PIII(500Mhz), with 30GB FastTrak RAID10, and 512MB RAM, for under $1000 (San
Francisco, East Bay Area). Yes, the software cost 5 times what the hardware
did. The larger cost will be colo housing and bandwidth (recurring costs
tend to overrun non-recurring costs, over time). 

What you want could be run on a BookPC i810
(http://www.pcchips.com/product.html) with a largish hard drive.

- --
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 13:52:59 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

If I understand the rules correctly, a motion is made after discussion of 
the agenda topic.  With the GA, topics come up all the time.  However, 
a motion on the topic should still be brought only after discussion and 
the chair should be monitoring or moderating the discussion to some 
extent.  A motion is the step prior to a vote and should not be brought 
until there  has been enough discussion and background to warrant it.

Lately, there has a been a free-for-all and there has been little, if 
anything accomplished.  We need to have some structure.  

Frankly, I think we need to get the WG's going so we can move on to 
constructive work.

On 21 Apr 2001, at 17:11, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:39:00 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

LDG wrote:

> If I understand the rules correctly, a motion is made after discussion of
> the agenda topic.

There are very strict motion rules here but if you sit on groups using
them you
soon learn it is the personality of the acting chair that really
determines the
process.  You could compare Mr. Thrush - Mr. Gaetano - Mr. Sheppard and
find the
differing styles.

It really does not matter, you can even have the group run these things
along.
Someone and it really does not matter who, simply gets the matter on
track after
good discussion and or impasse and brings the matter to definition and
vote or
consensus.  Obviously a good chair is preferable.  I personally do not
care for
Sheppards style and like Thrush's but they both are effective and get
matters
handled. Actually the best I have seen lately is Sotiris, Burton was ill
trained
and would define the issue and post a consensus at the same time. If you
think
about it Joop acts as a de facto chair because he sets up a poll/vote
and
effectively brings the call to focus. The results for wgs and an
assembly are
reasonably valid.

One thing I have noticed on the lists involved here is that if
someone/anyone
takes the lead everyone follows suit and we obtain a reflection of the
great
"US".  In that sense I suppose we do operate as a professional society
as some
have suggested. (I note that it is in those moments that all the
aggravation is
worth it.)

It is important to remember that we are called upon to present a
bottoms-up
internetstakeholders representative view based upon open and transparent
procedures.  There are great boards and committees that can provide
expert
opinions.  All we have to do is reflect those great opinions and desires
of the
stakeholders of the world.

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:40:47 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internic rights

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/internic10801.htm

http://www.internic.net/

Does ICANN have an agreement with Verisign that allows NSI to use the
exclusive license from the DoC for use of Internic, if so where can it
be found?

These two documents do not square with each other.  This appears to be
an area of revenue which is being overlooked.

- --
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 11:50:21 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FUNDING

          5. Financial Capabilities. As a non-profit organization, ICANN
operates on a cost-recovery basis. During its startup
          phase, ICANN has operated primarily on funds received from
charitable donations ($801,000 through 30 September
          1999) and unsecured borrowing ($1,025,000 through 30 September
1999). In the long term, as contemplated by the
          White Paper, its source of funding will be payments by
domain-name registries and registrars and IP address registries.
          In the fall of 1999, ICANN convened a Task Force on Funding
consisting of representatives of those entities. This task
          force recommended a set of principles by which these funding
sources would provide ICANN with $ 4,275,000 in funding
          during the fiscal year ending 30 June 2000. ICANN is currently
in the process of negotiating agreements under which the
          various entities will provide this funding; contractual
commitments for an estimated $2,500,000 have already been
          finalized, of which over half has already been received. While
there are some uncertainties in full realization of the
          contributions called for in the task force's report, ICANN
believes that its current contractually committed funding sources
          are more than sufficient to permit it to perform the IANA
function during the term of the contract.

I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
status.  This raises serious APA issues.

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:31:39 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN-Funding

I'd like to see the expenses outlined before considering helping provide 
funding.

~k

At 08:50 AM 4/21/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>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>http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#VI
>
>
>/Bruce
>
>
>
>

- --
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 12:38:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

GA and Chair,

Suppose, and only suppose, we asked for funding specifically for the GA.  Went
out and got our chair and Secretariat funded and built a model right here.  I
know it has some serious hurdles but I also know that foundations which would
not fund ICANN in general would fund us, since we are the only group right now
that I know of that seeks broad based opinions from users of the net in order
to help form policy.

Do we have fundraisers amoung us?  Can we get emergency funding to support the
search for funding?  I think so.  Can we make a difference - I think so.  Do we
want to?  I think so!  Can we as the GA comply with the laws and agreements? -
I think so!

Those who can contribute to this idea, please step forward.

Sincerely,

quote by a smart guy;

> "well......you got that RIGHT!  ICANN needs donations quick! These guys seem
> to have forgotten they are Tax Exempt or don't care."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>
>
> I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
> status.  This raises serious APA issues.
>
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:10:22 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Due Process

At 8:19 PM -0700 4/19/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
>  If I sound
>great but do not feed the hungry I have failed, if I look good but lose
>money I have failed.

Seems to work fine for Jeff Bezos.

- -- 
Andy Gardner
- --
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 16:11:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

It may raise tax issues, but it doesn't raise "APA" (Administrative
Procedure Act) issues.  Try "IRS" - "Internal Revenue Service" ...

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
> status.  This raises serious APA issues.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 18:32:49 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists

To:  DNSO Secretariat, NC Chair, and GA members

The proposed new mailing lists under discussion are intended to facilitate
work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft document
preparation, and participation in research and drafting committees of the
General Assembly.  It has been noted by the DNSO Secretariat that
"technically, there is no problem at all to open any new list", and that
problems to be expected generally fall within the realm of procedure:

a. date to open the list
b. date to close the list
c. posting rights
d. rules
e. person in charge of adding members
f. person in charge of rules compliance
g. person in charge of delivery reports, etc.

With regard to the procedural concerns, 	I certainly believe that another
ten days is more than a sufficient amount of time to resolve any outstanding
discussions required, either by the GA, the Secretariat, or by the NC, and
that we should plan on inaugurating these lists as of 1 May 2001.  Please
let me know if there are any objections to this timeline (which would allow
for a full month of focused efforts prior to the Stockholm meeting on a
variety of topics and areas of concern).

     As "the GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the
DNSO, and open to all", these mailing lists will be open to all - all will
have posting rights.   It is my expectation that participants on these
mailing lists will self-organize into committees that will determine their
own operational rules and will submit progress/status reports to the GA on
the first of every month.  When such committees determine that their work is
complete and submit their conclusions for final discussion and ratification
by the GA, the committee's mailing list will be closed accordingly.

     Having reviewed the requests of the members of the General Assembly,
please note our expectation to establish the following lists:

a. Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly [rules]
b. Participation, Website, Outreach and Education [outreach]
c. Finance & Funding Support [funding]
d. Ongoing DNSO Review [review]
e. Individuals Constituency [ic]
f. Alternate Roots [roots]
g. UDRP & WIPO Recommendations [udrp]
h. Privacy & WHOIS [whois]

This proposed collection of lists will further be discussed by the General
Assembly in the course of the next few days.    Please forward all of your
final comments as soon as possible so that we may move forward rapidly to
attend to our business.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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 15:11:09 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

Sigh.  Another red herring.

The IRS does not require any minimimum contribution or donation level for a 
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

The criteria related to tax-exempt status are varied and somewhat complex, 
but donations, per se, are not particularly relevant.

This assessment is based on:

         a) 8 years running a 501(c)(3) that charges fees; though it gets 
donations, the percentage has never been an issue; and

         b) A quick review of Nolo Press' The California Nonprofit 
Corporation Handbook, by Anthony Mancuso.

d/

At 01:11 PM 4/21/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It may raise tax issues, but it doesn't raise "APA" (Administrative
>Procedure Act) issues.  Try "IRS" - "Internal Revenue Service" ...
>
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> > is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
> > status.  This raises serious APA issues.

- ----------
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:24:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

Dear Gentlemen;

Your comments are very helpful in determining true issues from possible
issues.
APA:  Yes it is important because of things like the sign off
requirements for
government contractors.  Just like the determination of financial
responsibility for the new gTLDs, the USG needs to determine the
financial
feasibility of gov. contractors. (Ironic isn't it) Also it comes into
play
quite heavily if a competitive bidder is making objections to awarding
the
contract. The methodology of funding may seem inconsequential unless
material
representations have been made and there is a substantial deviation and
failure - such as failure to achieve representative stakeholder
consensus
because of lack of funds to conduct appropriate translation and
outreach.
This brings us to Mr. Crocker's objection,
California Non-profits;
Mr. Mancuso and Nolo would be frightened to death to see the taking of a
general rule and applying it to a non-profit government contractors,
which are
underfunded and under scrutiny by the DoC.  Nolo is a do it yourself
source
which requires primary source and or legal consultation in any matter,
read
the disclaimers if you do not believe me. As far as your previous and
current
experience, it is greatly appreciated but logically speaking unless we
know
that 501 is operating correctly it is not authoritative at all. With all
that
said and respecting your reputation I hope that you are right, but it is
still
a sticky wicket.
Which brings us to Mr. Morfin and Taxes;
We are specifically speaking of not paying taxes here. But absolutely I
want
to raise more money so that ccTLDs and non-coms pay no fees at all, and
actually get funds for contributing expertise and advice. I want the GAC
and
USG to advise and not control. I also want GA officials and staff fully
paid
and eventually At large officials and staff fully paid. I cannot find
any
source materials but I am lead to believe that ICANN has been turned
down on
requests for money because they do not have their ship properly rigged,
I
could be wrong on that as it is hearsay. Remember much of any donations
should
be tax deductible if we are running our books appropriately.

Sincerely,

p.s. this is all IMnlHO. (In My non-legal Humble Opinion)

Dave Crocker wrote:

> Sigh.  Another red herring.
>
> The IRS does not require any minimimum contribution or donation level for a
> 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
>
> The criteria related to tax-exempt status are varied and somewhat complex,
> but donations, per se, are not particularly relevant.
>
> This assessment is based on:
>
>          a) 8 years running a 501(c)(3) that charges fees; though it gets
> donations, the percentage has never been an issue; and
>
>          b) A quick review of Nolo Press' The California Nonprofit
> Corporation Handbook, by Anthony Mancuso.
>
> d/
>
> At 01:11 PM 4/21/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >It may raise tax issues, but it doesn't raise "APA" (Administrative
> >Procedure Act) issues.  Try "IRS" - "Internal Revenue Service" ...
> >
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> > > is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
>
> > > status.  This raises serious APA issues.

Mr. Morfin,

Just a minute, you guies.
Do you mean that because of the US tax system, the ccTLDs are paying
taxes to the US Gov when they pay the iCANN, and you want to rise more
money, so the developing countries pay less US taxes?
I wander if the Digital Divide is not a Mental Divide first...
Jefsey
- --
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 18:41:12 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

Dave:

    I am surprised that you stepped in this. I do refer to the IRS "Support
Test". A very simple test of several, required by the IRS.

                                Qualified Support
                                _____________     = Minimum %

                                Total Support

This is just one test, their are others that define Qualified Support.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 17:11
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

Sigh.  Another red herring.

The IRS does not require any minimimum contribution or donation level for a
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

The criteria related to tax-exempt status are varied and somewhat complex,
but donations, per se, are not particularly relevant.

This assessment is based on:

         a) 8 years running a 501(c)(3) that charges fees; though it gets
donations, the percentage has never been an issue; and

         b) A quick review of Nolo Press' The California Nonprofit
Corporation Handbook, by Anthony Mancuso.

d/

At 01:11 PM 4/21/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It may raise tax issues, but it doesn't raise "APA" (Administrative
>Procedure Act) issues.  Try "IRS" - "Internal Revenue Service" ...
>
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> > is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
> > status.  This raises serious APA issues.

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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:44:40 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

On 10:20 21/04/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer said:

>2) Closed source. 'nuff said.
>

Here I disagree with you, Roeland.  
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of open -source development very  much. 

We have had these discussions  before and my conclusion is that for
political decisionmaking software a proprietary product is much preferable
over an open source product.  
We have savvy participant here, with their own interests at stake.
If the inner workings of the software are open to participants, it becomes
too great a temptation for some to hack or manipulate it.

Aside from this, open source would just deflect our attention from the
substance of what we discuss/decide to the code and it possible weaknesses.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:15:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

At 21:43 20/04/01 -0400, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>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.
>
Dear Harald,

On the other hand, it is the only mechanism that brings "closure". 
Even if the take the short list of proposed agenda items of DPF, we need to
bring closure to a number of these items, or the GA will be terminally
frustrated about its uselessness.
At the moment, we lose GA members not due to voting weariness but "list
weariness".

I have always mistrusted ballot-box burners, election boycott campaigners
and people who scream about "illegal" voting. (You may forgive me, I lived
in the Philippines during the Marcos years, the "people-power revolution"
and its aftermath) .
Too often , these people just want to maintain a status -quo and will use
any argument to prevent the opinion of the majority to be heard.

>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.
>
We now have elected Chairs. A change of rule that the Chair must list all
duly seconded motions and give the list the opportunity (72 hours?) to
lodge opposions, call for  amendments or for a vote would be completely
justified.
In fact, I was not aware that our Chairs were currently *not* under such
obligation. 

>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.
>
Too low?  When our candidate chairs had to go out getting 10 endorsements?

>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.
>
In other words , you disagreed with them.
Perhaps you could be specific about which motions you are talking?

>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.
>

To put it mildly.

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

You have not convinced me of that.

- --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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:11:24 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

At 04:41 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>     I am surprised that you stepped in this. I do refer to the IRS "Support
>Test". A very simple test of several, required by the IRS.

The IRS publication 557 has extensive language surrounding the cited "text" 
that LIMITS when to apply that test.

Hence, you need to cite the specific conditions that ICANN satisfies which 
bring it under this test.  You need to be careful to refer to the relevant 
ICANN documents that substantiate this.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:20:26 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FUNDING

Dave:

    I do sit on 3 non-profit Boards. This is a IRS requirement. Read Pub
557. You will see I am correct with regards to 501(c)(3) standards.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 19:11
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

At 04:41 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>     I am surprised that you stepped in this. I do refer to the IRS
"Support
>Test". A very simple test of several, required by the IRS.

The IRS publication 557 has extensive language surrounding the cited "text"
that LIMITS when to apply that test.

Hence, you need to cite the specific conditions that ICANN satisfies which
bring it under this test.  You need to be careful to refer to the relevant
ICANN documents that substantiate this.

d/

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #410
************************