Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #411
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 22 2001            Volume 01 : Number 411

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:53:11 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:15:53AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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.

Interesting.

Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each 
of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any 
conflicts of interest.

Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of 
turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.

Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption 
of the GA as a constituency.

Motion 4: I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately 
turned over to a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.

Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for 
the immediate suspension of the UDRP.

Five motions should be enough for today.  My good friend Jeff Williams
will be seconding these momentarily.  I will be coming up with a few
dozen more, tomorrow.  I know that some of these are going to be
unpopular, but I agree with you totally that it is vitally important
that every one of them be taken to a full vote of the GA...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 17:55:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Really cool

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:15:53AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each
> of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any
> conflicts of interest.
> SECONDED
> Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of
> turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.
> SECONDED
> Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption
> of the GA as a constituency.
> SECONDED
> Motion 4: I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately
> turned over to a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.
> SECONDED, SUBJECT TO ERIC BEING THE CHAIR
> Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for
> the immediate suspension of the UDRP.
> SECONDED
> Five motions should be enough for today.  My good friend Jeff Williams
> will be seconding these momentarily.  I will be coming up with a few
> dozen more, tomorrow.  I know that some of these are going to be
> unpopular, but I agree with you totally that it is vitally important
> that every one of them be taken to a full vote of the GA...
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:02:32 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

At 05:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>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.

Citing an entire 55 page document does not provide provide substantiation.

Bruce, you are carefully failing to provide substantiating detail. I wonder 
why?

You will see that you are NOT correct.

Since you are the one putting forward a claim of mis-performance, you have 
an obligation to provide enough detail to make clear that the claim is valid.

That does not mean just quoting a particular piece of text from an IRS 
publication -- though you have not even done THAT.  It also means 
connecting the dots -- citing each of the relevant IRS qualifications or 
dis-qualifications and relating them to relevant ICANN documents to show 
their applicability.

Somehow, the idea that your claim is correct, and that ICANN's attorneys 
and accountants are not... well, it will be interesting to see you prevail 
on the details.

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 20:20:31 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

I hereby cite Page 23 of 55. For reading at you pleasure. There are other
parts you may read, feel free.

If anyone would like a copy of IRS-PUB 557, I will be happy to forward one
to you.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 20:02
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

At 05:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>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.

Citing an entire 55 page document does not provide provide substantiation.

Bruce, you are carefully failing to provide substantiating detail. I wonder
why?

You will see that you are NOT correct.

Since you are the one putting forward a claim of mis-performance, you have
an obligation to provide enough detail to make clear that the claim is
valid.

That does not mean just quoting a particular piece of text from an IRS
publication -- though you have not even done THAT.  It also means
connecting the dots -- citing each of the relevant IRS qualifications or
dis-qualifications and relating them to relevant ICANN documents to show
their applicability.

Somehow, the idea that your claim is correct, and that ICANN's attorneys
and accountants are not... well, it will be interesting to see you prevail
on the details.

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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:30:32 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Kent Crispin wrote:

> Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for
> the immediate suspension of the UDRP.
 
Seconded.
- --
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 18:34:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

There are 34 paragraphs on page 23, in 9 or 10 subsections.  That is an 
enormous amount of text.

It's certain that not all of them are relevant to supporting your 
claim.  In fact, by my own reading, none of them support your claim, but 
again I invite you to be specific.

The term specific, in this case is something like "Page 23, Public 
Charities, "This test is used to assure a minimum percentage..."

I use that particular sample text because it has a formula that looks a 
little bit like the one you cite.  Unfortunately a) that section does not 
apply to ICANN, and b) the requirement is not for 51%.

But, what the heck, keep trying to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

d/

ps.     I just realized that this posting is beyond the limit of 5 per 
day.  I am sending it, rather than waiting, in order to try to provide some 
very concrete data that shows the flaw in the supposed problem with ICANN's 
tax-exempt status.

         At any rate, please forgive the excess.  I won't post any more today.

At 06:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>I hereby cite Page 23 of 55. For reading at you pleasure. There are other
>parts you may read, feel free.
>
>If anyone would like a copy of IRS-PUB 557, I will be happy to forward one
>to you.
>
>/Bruce
>"Let us reason together."
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 20:02
>Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING
>
>
>At 05:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> >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.
>
>Citing an entire 55 page document does not provide provide substantiation.
>
>Bruce, you are carefully failing to provide substantiating detail. I wonder
>why?
>
>You will see that you are NOT correct.
>
>Since you are the one putting forward a claim of mis-performance, you have
>an obligation to provide enough detail to make clear that the claim is
>valid.
>
>That does not mean just quoting a particular piece of text from an IRS
>publication -- though you have not even done THAT.  It also means
>connecting the dots -- citing each of the relevant IRS qualifications or
>dis-qualifications and relating them to relevant ICANN documents to show
>their applicability.
>
>Somehow, the idea that your claim is correct, and that ICANN's attorneys
>and accountants are not... well, it will be interesting to see you prevail
>on the details.
>
>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

- ----------
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 20:40:03 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

Yes it does Dave. That is just the first test, 33%. It does affect ICANN.

I suggest you read further.

I too have reached my limit.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 20:34
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

There are 34 paragraphs on page 23, in 9 or 10 subsections.  That is an
enormous amount of text.

It's certain that not all of them are relevant to supporting your
claim.  In fact, by my own reading, none of them support your claim, but
again I invite you to be specific.

The term specific, in this case is something like "Page 23, Public
Charities, "This test is used to assure a minimum percentage..."

I use that particular sample text because it has a formula that looks a
little bit like the one you cite.  Unfortunately a) that section does not
apply to ICANN, and b) the requirement is not for 51%.

But, what the heck, keep trying to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

d/

ps.     I just realized that this posting is beyond the limit of 5 per
day.  I am sending it, rather than waiting, in order to try to provide some
very concrete data that shows the flaw in the supposed problem with ICANN's
tax-exempt status.

         At any rate, please forgive the excess.  I won't post any more
today.

At 06:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>I hereby cite Page 23 of 55. For reading at you pleasure. There are other
>parts you may read, feel free.
>
>If anyone would like a copy of IRS-PUB 557, I will be happy to forward one
>to you.
>
>/Bruce
>"Let us reason together."
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 20:02
>Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING
>
>
>At 05:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> >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.
>
>Citing an entire 55 page document does not provide provide substantiation.
>
>Bruce, you are carefully failing to provide substantiating detail. I wonder
>why?
>
>You will see that you are NOT correct.
>
>Since you are the one putting forward a claim of mis-performance, you have
>an obligation to provide enough detail to make clear that the claim is
>valid.
>
>That does not mean just quoting a particular piece of text from an IRS
>publication -- though you have not even done THAT.  It also means
>connecting the dots -- citing each of the relevant IRS qualifications or
>dis-qualifications and relating them to relevant ICANN documents to show
>their applicability.
>
>Somehow, the idea that your claim is correct, and that ICANN's attorneys
>and accountants are not... well, it will be interesting to see you prevail
>on the details.
>
>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

- ----------
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:05:33 -0700
From: jwilliams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

First of all, on behalf of myself, Bob Davis, and all the other 118
thousand members of the INEG group, I want to thank Kent Crispin for 
generously allowing me the use of an email address at Songbird.  And I 
want to publically apologize for all the nasty things I have said about 
Kent over the past two years -- I have now met him personally, and I 
can honestly say that no finer human being walks on the face of the 
earth. 

Kent Crispin wrote: 

> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:15:53AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each 
> of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any 
> conflicts of interest.

Second

> Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of 
> turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.

Second

> Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption 
> of the GA as a constituency.

Second

> Motion 4: I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately 
> turned over to a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.

Second, and I must say that the 118 million members of the INEG group  
*unanimously* support this, as well.

> Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for 
> the immediate suspension of the UDRP.

Second

> Five motions should be enough for today.  My good friend Jeff Williams
> will be seconding these momentarily.  I will be coming up with a few
> dozen more, tomorrow.

Keep up the good work, Kent :->

> I know that some of these are going to be
> unpopular, but I agree with you totally that it is vitally important
> that every one of them be taken to a full vote of the GA...

And the 14 million members of the INEG group also want to express their 
gratitude to Joop Teernstra, for his brilliant suggestion that *every* 
motion made and seconded *must* be voted on by the full GA.  That is 
the only way we can ever possibly know what the GA thinks about these 
vitally important issues.

Regards,                                                                     

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)                         
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.   
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.                                      
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827           
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
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 11:38:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING

At 16:24 21/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
  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.

The GA of the DNSO, if it thought this to be in ICANN's interest, could
always ask for a specific Ruling from the IRS on this issue.

- --joop

- --
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 11:36:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists

At 18:32 21/04/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:

>
>     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]
>

Thank you, Mr Chair. Good list. 

Of course there will  web based archives.
Many GA members will want to know what is going on in each of them, without
having to subscribe to all of them.
Perhaps, without being rude to the long-suffering Elisabeth, you could add
a target date for the creation of the ML's?

- -Joop

- --
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 21:18:19 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 5:53 PM

> Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the 
> finances of each 
> of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all 
> directors with any conflicts of interest.

I guess that will only leave Karl Auerbach ... I second this one.

> Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of 
> turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.

I also second this one. At least, a publically traded, for-profit is
required to be more transparent than the ICANN has been thus far. The SEC
will send a few folks to jail if they aren't.

> Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the 
> immediate adoption of the GA as a constituency.

I also second this one, on the amendment that the GA be the ONLY
constituency.

> Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC 
> calling for the immediate suspension of the UDRP.

Now >that's< something I can really ralley behind. I second this one as
well.

Kent, I can't believe this, you've just made four motions that I can really
support. You might not be serious so I'll take the opportunity to second
them ... before you can change your mind.

If you aren't serious then I will also complain about your breech of
decorum. You'll also recall that I have only a >slight< sense of humor. I'm
very serious 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 21:20:20 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FUNDING

Good God, Dave! Can't you even read ONE page. Besides, I thought that you
claimed that you were familiar with the material?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 6:34 PM
> To: Bruce James
> Cc: [GA]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING
> 
> 
> There are 34 paragraphs on page 23, in 9 or 10 subsections.  
> That is an 
> enormous amount of text.
> 
> It's certain that not all of them are relevant to supporting your 
> claim.  In fact, by my own reading, none of them support your 
> claim, but 
> again I invite you to be specific.
> 
> The term specific, in this case is something like "Page 23, Public 
> Charities, "This test is used to assure a minimum percentage..."
> 
> I use that particular sample text because it has a formula 
> that looks a 
> little bit like the one you cite.  Unfortunately a) that 
> section does not 
> apply to ICANN, and b) the requirement is not for 51%.
> 
> But, what the heck, keep trying to demonstrate the validity 
> of your claim.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps.     I just realized that this posting is beyond the limit 
> of 5 per 
> day.  I am sending it, rather than waiting, in order to try 
> to provide some 
> very concrete data that shows the flaw in the supposed 
> problem with ICANN's 
> tax-exempt status.
> 
>          At any rate, please forgive the excess.  I won't 
> post any more today.
> 
> 
> At 06:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> >I hereby cite Page 23 of 55. For reading at you pleasure. 
> There are other
> >parts you may read, feel free.
> >
> >If anyone would like a copy of IRS-PUB 557, I will be happy 
> to forward one
> >to you.
> >
> >/Bruce
> >"Let us reason together."
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> >To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 20:02
> >Subject: Re: [ga] FUNDING
> >
> >
> >At 05:20 PM 4/21/2001, Bruce James wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> >Citing an entire 55 page document does not provide provide 
> substantiation.
> >
> >Bruce, you are carefully failing to provide substantiating 
> detail. I wonder
> >why?
> >
> >You will see that you are NOT correct.
> >
> >Since you are the one putting forward a claim of 
> mis-performance, you have
> >an obligation to provide enough detail to make clear that 
> the claim is
> >valid.
> >
> >That does not mean just quoting a particular piece of text 
> from an IRS
> >publication -- though you have not even done THAT.  It also means
> >connecting the dots -- citing each of the relevant IRS 
> qualifications or
> >dis-qualifications and relating them to relevant ICANN 
> documents to show
> >their applicability.
> >
> >Somehow, the idea that your claim is correct, and that 
> ICANN's attorneys
> >and accountants are not... well, it will be interesting to 
> see you prevail
> >on the details.
> >
> >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
> 
> ----------
> 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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:33:01 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 2:45 PM
> 
> 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 can agree to disagree. But, since my primary market, for years, has been
secured systems, I can state that the majority of cypherpunk thinking is
that; you can't trust code that you can't see. Otherwise, you will always be
vulnerable to trojans. All crypto-code that I use is compiled from sources,
on the systems where they are run. I maintain my own CVS trees just for this
purpose.

> 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.

I disagree on both counts. There are only a few of us that are qualified
System Admins. Even fewer that are also professional programmers. Most of us
can be trusted, or we would no longer be working in our fields.

> 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.

Now this is where I think we can agree. It might indeed be too much of a
distraction from our core activity.
- --
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 06:20:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

I second all of them as being interesting issues.

As per standard rules and Joop's propositions the Chair must
acknowledge them and organize them in an agenda, giving us a
disucssion frame work, or to note that some are actually amendments
to de facto motions by the Chair (he motions, directs and acts himself).
This will allow Joop, Jeff or anyone else to oppose and document a
debate. At a given time it will be up to you to come back and to
update your motion until we may reach a vote.

If you want your motions to be voted quick make them a consensus.
If you want to start a good debate, make it innovative. But in both cases
you need the Chair to acknowledge it.

Jefsey

On 02:53 22/04/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:15:53AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > 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.
>
>Interesting.
>
>Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each
>of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any
>conflicts of interest.
>
>Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of
>turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.
>
>Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption
>of the GA as a constituency.
>
>Motion 4: I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately
>turned over to a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.
>
>Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for
>the immediate suspension of the UDRP.
>
>Five motions should be enough for today.  My good friend Jeff Williams
>will be seconding these momentarily.  I will be coming up with a few
>dozen more, tomorrow.  I know that some of these are going to be
>unpopular, but I agree with you totally that it is vitally important
>that every one of them be taken to a full vote of the GA...
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>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 06:35:17 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Dear Jeff,
I known for all along that Kent was a fake and you posted under
this name. Now you eventually acknowledged it, will you accept
to tell us that you also are Vint Cerf in disguise (you are very good,
because if I never saw Kent and Vint together, I recall looking left
to the audience and seeing you as Kent and looking straight seing
you as Vint ion the stage: how do you do that? What I do not
believe is that you also are Dave... they are probably pulling my
leg here about that.
Jefsey

On 04:05 22/04/01, jwilliams said:
>Kent and all remaining assembly members,
>
>First of all, on behalf of myself, Bob Davis, and all the other 118
>thousand members of the INEG group, I want to thank Kent Crispin for
>generously allowing me the use of an email address at Songbird.  And I
>want to publically apologize for all the nasty things I have said about
>Kent over the past two years -- I have now met him personally, and I
>can honestly say that no finer human being walks on the face of the
>earth.
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 10:15:53AM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each
> > of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any
> > conflicts of interest.
>
>Second
>
> > Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of
> > turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.
>
>Second
>
> > Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption
> > of the GA as a constituency.
>
>Second
>
> > Motion 4: I move that control of all DNSO mailing lists be immediately
> > turned over to a committee of volunteers, chaired by Kent Crispin.
>
>Second, and I must say that the 118 million members of the INEG group
>*unanimously* support this, as well.
>
> > Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for
> > the immediate suspension of the UDRP.
>
>Second
>
> > Five motions should be enough for today.  My good friend Jeff Williams
> > will be seconding these momentarily.  I will be coming up with a few
> > dozen more, tomorrow.
>
>Keep up the good work, Kent :->
>
> > I know that some of these are going to be
> > unpopular, but I agree with you totally that it is vitally important
> > that every one of them be taken to a full vote of the GA...
>
>And the 14 million members of the INEG group also want to express their
>gratitude to Joop Teernstra, for his brilliant suggestion that *every*
>motion made and seconded *must* be voted on by the full GA.  That is
>the only way we can ever possibly know what the GA thinks about these
>vitally important issues.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. 
>INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>--
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #411
************************