Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #418
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 24 2001           Volume 01 : Number 418

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:55:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Alternative and Competitive Roots

I suggest that the active participating members who are pro-discussion
of this topic join forces off list and write a position post and gather
petitioners to bring this matter to full discussion.

I suggest the anti-discussion members do the same in opposition to
discussing it on list.

Clearly the posts should address why the GA should be involved.

What could be gained by discussion./ What is to be lost by not
discussing.

Interested parties.

Links to the historic arguments alluded too.

We can straw vote on the pro or con of the matter, allow the chair to
decide.
Note I am not suggesting arguing the positions regarding the Roots just
whether or not and why we should formally discuss the issues.

I certainly can see why previous arguments have gotten no where, so far
it has been polarized and unstructured.  I do not think anyone can argue
that it is not important to ignorant dotcommoner internetstakeholders
such as myself, and after all you guys are supposed to be taking care of
me.

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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:57:19 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Due Process

This is a disgrace.  For all of you who pounded on me about repetitive
posts on this issue you should all feel real good about the results, --
niente, nada, zilch, nothing - no due and no process.

I followed the rules and posted my appeals to the right places,
Council.  There has not been a single response.

I objected to and appealed the irregularities in the voting process.

I objected to and appealed the remaining suspension or censoring of all
remaing members being so subjected.

I objected to, appealed and called for a vote against Mr. Corliss being
on the list monitors.

I understand procedure and rules and know that the above was lodged
correctly.  You may not agree with my reasons but they were set forth
and my allegations while deniable were ligitimate.

The issue at this point is completely void of the grounds and I focus on
the procedure.  This ain't right.  For those of you who do not think
this matters because you dissagree with my contention, I remind you it
started with bookburning, it went on to arrests but because the issue
did not concern them they looked away.  I understand that you may not
like me or my causes.  But how can you stand by and say "I am not one of
them so why do I care".

It is at times like this I feel the frustration and unfairness involved
with the IDNH(O) and the whole .biz and other's. Screw process we will
just do what we want.

I guess Roberto said it best, parphrased with implications; You won't
sue so who cares.

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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:47:14 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative and Competitive Roots

I think Eric's suggestion has great merit.  I highly recommend that those
interested in either side of the discussion do just as he recommends.
Otherwise, the tailspin will continue and this discussion list will nauseate
rather than facilitate.  As it stands, there is a lot of noise, bad feeling,
and innuendo with very little substance from either side of the issue.  I
urge those who are interested to seriously consider Eric's suggestions.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I suggest that the active participating members who are pro-discussion
> of this topic join forces off list and write a position post and gather
> petitioners to bring this matter to full discussion.
>
> I suggest the anti-discussion members do the same in opposition to
> discussing it on list.
>
> Clearly the posts should address why the GA should be involved.
>
> What could be gained by discussion./ What is to be lost by not
> discussing.
>
> Interested parties.
>
> Links to the historic arguments alluded too.
>
> We can straw vote on the pro or con of the matter, allow the chair to
> decide.
> Note I am not suggesting arguing the positions regarding the Roots just
> whether or not and why we should formally discuss the issues.
>
> I certainly can see why previous arguments have gotten no where, so far
> it has been polarized and unstructured.  I do not think anyone can argue
> that it is not important to ignorant dotcommoner internetstakeholders
> such as myself, and after all you guys are supposed to be taking care of
> me.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:59:45 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC vote to confirm the GA Chair and Alternate

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:48:32 +0200 (MET DST), DNSO Sec wrote:

>       b05:Ke8a3Z casted  2 votes
>       b05:Kf6b5Z casted  2 votes

> b05:Ke8a3Z:[X ] I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
> b05:Kf6b5Z:[x] I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA

Any NC members want to step forward and elaborate?  No pressure at all
to do so, I'm just curious what factors led one to vote against what I
thought would be a mere rubber stamping.

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 02:45:31 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

Joe:

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as others are entitled to theirs. 
 If you do not wish to have a discussion of what others feel is important 
or relevant to the GA and ICANN, then please feel free to not enter into 
it.  However, your opinion is not shared by all others on the list and your 
opinion may just not be the overriding opinion.

In addition, opinion alone is not what should drive the discussion.  The 
driving force should be the relevance of the issue.  There are those of us 
who believe that it is very important and could be a major factor in future 
decisions facing ICANN.  

There are topics that people are not particularly interested in 
discussing.  That does not mean they are not relevant or that they are 
unimportant.  I hope that the GA will not play ostrich or mule on topics 
that may seem uncomfortable or distasteful.  

Your post seems to say that what you think is important, but that what 
Kristy and other have to say is not.  You don't wish to discuss it no 
matter what others want.  We're all on the same playground and we all 
have the right to participate or not.

Leah

On 23 Apr 2001, at 17:22, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Kristy McKee writes:
>  > At 07:05 AM 4/23/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>  > >The NC has the Alt. Roots on its agenda:
>  > >
>  > >5. Alternative roots (Philip Sheppard) 20  mins.
>  > >I would suggest that the GA form an opinion *soon* to advise the NC of our 
>  > >feelings.
> 
> There is no need to rush.  No one on this list agrees even on the
> definition of the so-called "alternate" roots, let alone being able to
> come to grips with a NC policy.
> 
>  > Yes, we need to discover those ideas we agree on and the ideas we disagree 
>  > on.  Discussion of this topic may feel old and tired; but until we've 
>  > achieved our goal - we've got to keep trying!
> 
> Kristy, please listen to what so many others are saying.  There is no
> need to keep trying because this has been discussed time and again and
> there is nothing left to discuss!
> 
>  > 1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root that are already 
>  > in use by other Roots.
> 
> NO! I do not agree with this outrageous suggestion that there is any
> need to have any accomodation between the ICANN root and the so-called
> "alternate" roots.
> 
>  > 2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process for communicating 
>  > and collaborating with the other Root services.
> 
> The ICANN root can do whatever it wants.  The so-called "alternate"
> roots can do whatever they want.  No communication necessary.
> 
> There is nothing to discuss here.  Please bring up something that needs
> to be discussed.
> 
> /Joe
> --
> 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:52:45 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
|> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:49 AM
|> To: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots
|>
<SNIP
|> No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause
|> problems.
|> The business issue and the DNS issue are two very
|> different issues.
|> While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."
<SNIP>

One thing we should keep in mind.  If you accept these alternative
names spaces as being a part of the legacy root, then there may be
collisions.  I consider them private name spaces and as such, they are
not going to cause collisions, they should not be using Internet
routable addressing to reach the hostnames within.  Much the same as
any business which runs its own DNS and has their own private name
space.  They are not a part of the legacy root and as such, they are
private name spaces.

These private name spaces may grow enough to overshadow the legacy
Internet name space but at present they are a totally separate entity
and do not belong within the legacy name space.  By providing Internet
routable addressing within those private name spaces they are actually
going against the accepted RFC's that govern the legacy name space.

I run a few private name spaces myself, I do follow the rules however
and they are not routable on the Internet.  However, it would not be
difficult for me to do so.  Many others can also.  Once you allow some
private name spaces into the Internet name space you will be opening
the flood gates for any private name space to make claim.  Some of the
non-Internet routable name spaces have been around for years also.

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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:16:20 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Due Process

Eric,

1. You have posted certain appeals to our former Chair who has responded
accordingly.

2. You have posted your appeals as well to the Names Council, citing "Any
instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be reported to
this committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the Names
Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any such
reported activity."  You have neither documented fraudulent nominations nor
documented fraudulent endorsements.  Both the committee and the Names
Council have exercised their sole discretion by choosing to ignore your
unsubstantiated claims.

3.  You have alleged irregularities in the voting process.  The GA has not
concurred with your assessment, and neither has the Names Council that
yesterday finally ratified the vote of Chair and Co-Chair.

4.  You have appealed the decisions of the List Monitor which suspended the
posting rights of certain individuals.  You have not put forth any
substantive arguments on the merits of the decisions, and have only argued
that you are opposed to censorship.  This does not constitute a legitimate
appeal.

5.  You have appealed and called for a vote against Mr. Corliss being on the
list monitors.  Yet you have also noted that "having the existing Alt-Chair
take up the very important role of establishing the rules and procedure for
the Assembly is a worthy and safe goal".   If you can trust Mr. Corliss in
this capacity, you have no reason to contest his ability to function
responsibly as a list monitor.  As these monitors now function as a
committee, making joint decisions, you have even less reason to continue
your harangue against our Co-Chair.  You have acted to call for a vote
against Mr. Corliss being on the list monitor committee immediately upon
being notified that he was so appointed.  This vendetta of yours has been
launched before Mr. Corliss has even assumed his duties.  Your call for a
vote is not based on any breach of fiduciary responsibility, and does not
warrant further discussion.

6.  You have lobbied for the formation of a mailing list that will attend to
issues of rules and procedures for the General Assembly.  This list is being
created.

7.  You have argued that the due process procedures of the General Assembly
are a disgrace.  At such time as you join the mailing list for rules and
procedures, perhaps your involvement may improve matters for the better.
There is a time a place for everything.  This is not the time for incessant
harping upon such matters when we are on the verge of having a group
convened that can responsibly consider that which will be best for the
future of the General Assembly.  My time too is limited, and I would prefer
to be able to attend to matters other than the obligation of having to reply
to your relentless stream of accusations.  Perhaps you might consider
applying your focus to domain name policy issues until the rules and
procedures mailing list is formed.

- --
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:23:35 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

its interesting to see that the principal emphasis for the ga lately has
"shifted" to alternate roots
after over one year of controversial discussions and serious campaigning on
issues like establishment of an individual constituancy , we suddenly see
the ga list turning into an "alternate roots" forum.

if you doubt my assertions here,  just do statistical analysis of the emails
over the last 7 days and you can arrive at your own conclusions...

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
> |> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:49 AM
> |> To: [GA]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots
> |>
> <SNIP
> |> No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause
> |> problems.
> |> The business issue and the DNS issue are two very
> |> different issues.
> |> While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."
> <SNIP>
>
> One thing we should keep in mind.  If you accept these alternative
> names spaces as being a part of the legacy root, then there may be
> collisions.  I consider them private name spaces and as such, they are
> not going to cause collisions, they should not be using Internet
> routable addressing to reach the hostnames within.  Much the same as
> any business which runs its own DNS and has their own private name
> space.  They are not a part of the legacy root and as such, they are
> private name spaces.
>
> These private name spaces may grow enough to overshadow the legacy
> Internet name space but at present they are a totally separate entity
> and do not belong within the legacy name space.  By providing Internet
> routable addressing within those private name spaces they are actually
> going against the accepted RFC's that govern the legacy name space.
>
> I run a few private name spaces myself, I do follow the rules however
> and they are not routable on the Internet.  However, it would not be
> difficult for me to do so.  Many others can also.  Once you allow some
> private name spaces into the Internet name space you will be opening
> the flood gates for any private name space to make claim.  Some of the
> non-Internet routable name spaces have been around for years also.
>
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:52:04 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Behind Closed Doors: Planning the Next Generation DNS?

To Members, DNSO General Assembly

Report on the First Meeting of the NAS Committee on Internet Searching and the
Domain Name System by Ronda Hauben, 20 April 2001

A new committee at the National Academy of Science has been created to write a
report for Congress proposing the next generation DNS.  Here is the URL for
an article written by Ronda Hauben and published in Telepolis on Friday, about
the first meeting of the committee:

http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/7421/1.html

Copyright © 1996-2001. All Rights Reserved.
Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover

I believe you will find that it raises some interesting questions.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:06:30 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots

> From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:53 AM
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
> |> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 5:49 AM
> |>
> <SNIP
> |> No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause
> |> problems.
> |> The business issue and the DNS issue are two very
> |> different issues.
> |> While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."
> <SNIP>
> 
> One thing we should keep in mind.  If you accept these alternative
> names spaces as being a part of the legacy root, then there may be
> collisions.  I consider them private name spaces and as such, they are
> not going to cause collisions, they should not be using Internet
> routable addressing to reach the hostnames within.  Much the same as
> any business which runs its own DNS and has their own private name
> space.  They are not a part of the legacy root and as such, they are
> private name spaces.

A few things render this premise faulty;
1) Under COM, a domain is delegated name space, not private.
2) They don't cause collisions because they are delegated and no one 
   else is allowed to declare names therein.
3) A business under COM is indeed under the legacy root. Firewalls not
withstanding.

> These private name spaces may grow enough to overshadow the legacy
> Internet name space but at present they are a totally separate entity
> and do not belong within the legacy name space.  By providing Internet
> routable addressing within those private name spaces they are actually
> going against the accepted RFC's that govern the legacy name space.
> 
> I run a few private name spaces myself, I do follow the rules however
> and they are not routable on the Internet.  However, it would not be
> difficult for me to do so.  Many others can also.  Once you allow some
> private name spaces into the Internet name space you will be opening
> the flood gates for any private name space to make claim.  Some of the
> non-Internet routable name spaces have been around for years also.

Even if you don't allow access from the rest of the Internet, a conflicting
delegation can still effect your internal operations. For example, I have
the real case where I run the VPN TLD. Were someone ELSE to get a VPN
delegation in the legacy root, I could never access those hosts because it
would conflict with my own VPN zone. This particular collision scenario is
called "masking". In some security environments, this may be done
intentionally, controlling access to external systems. There are various
sub-scenarios where the external VPN may actually prevent your access to
your own VPN systems or even let one of those external systems masquerade as
one of your own (violating your security).
- --
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:22:31 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: InternetStakeholders.com

All,

I find it disturbing that Joanna Lane was encouraged to go ahead and
create a rogue mailing list by the current Chair of the GA, particularly
as she made use of a DNSO mailing list to sign the Members of the WG
Review up for a yahoo list which has nothing to do with the DNSO per
se.  Pease consider the following message which was originally forwarded
to Jefsey Morfin, Kendall Dawson, and myself, by Joanna on April 21
*without* any PRIVATE/OFFLIST/CONFIDENTIAL notice:

on 4/20/01 6:02 PM, babybows.com at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Joanna,
A separate ML through InternetStakeholders.com
> strikes me as an excellent idea, as the more members of the public that are
> drawn into ICANN-related matters... so much healthier will ICANN become.
> I see an immediate role for
> InternetStakeholders.com which may well go far beyond your expectations...
> the GA needs a better-designed official website than what they currently
> have.  You and Kendall and Sotiris have the capability to create a prototype
> GA website for consideration by the whole of the GA.    If the whole of the
> GA by resolution and ratification agrees that what you have created as a GA
> prototype is appropriate to the needs of the organization, we can move
> forward to having a link placed on the ICANN site to direct traffic to the
> new GA website.  Just a thought, but lets face it... the GA portion of the
> site on www.ICANN.org really sucks.

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, what's all this about a GA website
outside ICANN?

(for those of you who were unwittingly subscribed to the yahoogroups
list entitled "DNSO Work Group Review" as listed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wg-review ,  I urge you to compare the
message quoted above with the message apparently posted by Joanna Lane
in response to Rod Dixon's questions about whether or not the list had
been sanctioned by the NC)

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:00:27 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  InternetStakeholders.com

Sotiris,

As you well know, I have merely responded to questions posed to me by Joanna
Lane (cited below), regarding the website internetstakeholders.com, that
you, the Chair of the Review WG, have helped to create.  You are a founding
member of this website and are aware of all of the activities of your
co-founding associates.  You have yourself posted nine times to this list; I
haven't even posted once, nor have I taken part in any of the recent
activities of your steering committee.  Distancing yourself from your own
efforts and describing this as a "rogue mailing list" after you, in a huff
(following an argument with Joanna), decided to resign as Chair of the ML
that you now disavow is disingenuous at best.

You have chosen to call this a GA website and to attack me personally.
Fine.  It goes with the territory.  I have no problems with the
recommendations that I put forth, nor would I ever wish to discourage the
participation of the public in the ICANN process.  Nor do I have problems
recommending that the GA website be improved.  Your own website clearly
states:

This site does not belong to ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers) but is concerned with the work of WG-Review (a Working
Group) which has been set up by the NC (Names Council) to review DNSO (the
Domain Name Supporting Organizations).

I didn't set up your mailing list.  I've been working on getting mailing
lists set up for the GA (I had even included the recommendation for a DNSO
Review mailing list in the eight lists that I put forward).  Your comments
are ill-advised and serve no agenda other than pointless vindictiveness.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: InternetStakeholders.com

Hi Danny,
I'm pleased to see you moving a solid agenda forward. Well done you!

A matter of concern:-
There is a move afoot to establish a seperate wg-review ML through
InternetStakeholders.com. In fact, one has been created today on Kendall's
initiative, and is ready to be announced, but I am holding this back, hoping
the official DNSO-Review ML will be approved, and somewhat encouraged in
that respect by Philip Shepard's response to you earlier today.

Now, some members are anxious not to lose momentum and wishing to retain the
integrity of the original group, want to launch this iniative straight away.
At the same time, there is a long-term game plan to turn
InternetStakeholders into a real novice website, to draw in members to the
GA. This would also be a good thing.

Impossible questions:-

1) Would it be a good idea to launch our new ML, however
temporary?

2) Would there be greater value in (leaving WG-Review participants on the
sideline for the short-term future), moving InternetStakeholders into the
arena of an intake website/ induction course for new GA participants?

Maybe the answer lies in:_

3) How long (realistically) it will take for the NC to approve a new ML for
Review.

4) Whether you can foresee any future role for InternetStakeholders.com, and
if so, what this would be.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:00:59 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Due Process

- --------------504E55E91464EA7979F32460
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01427.html

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01498.html

Dear Mr. Chairman,

You have built a logical trap.

Either there is a conflict and my appeals have merit or there is not one
and your failure to recant this position speaks miles to the process.

Either there are flaws in our rules which we should address and my
appeals based on those grounds are valid or my appeals lack merit
because the process is fine and we do not need to fix it.

Some would call it subsequent remedial repairs, it proves that there
were problems to begin with, which caused a problem which had to be
fixed.

Now I ask why should anyone work to fix the rules providing due process
when our chair says they are just fine and not cause for serious review.

You see you cannot claim that you are trying to fix things and then turn
around and say they were and are just fine. Which view do we send of to
the DoC and any other interested party.

Obviously I have nothing further to contribute because everything is
just fine. And contributions can only take the form of praise.

Most Sincerely, "Bottoms Up!"

       [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

            To: <[email-masked]>
            Subject: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
            From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
            Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:24:35 -0500
            Importance: Normal
            Sender: [email-masked]

       On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed
(www.tlda.org).

       Preliminary participants in this association include six members
of the
       Voting Registry of the GA:

       Patrick Corliss - Director
       Leah Gallegos - Director
       Miles Eugene Marsh - Chairman of the Board
       John Palmer - Secretary
       Bruce James - Initial Advisory Committee member
       Prof. A. Michael Froomkin - Initial Advisory Committee member

       A member of the Names Council, Milton Mueller, is similarly
listed as an
       Initial Advisory Committee member, and assuredly other GA members
will soon
       declare themselves as participants in the TLDA efforts.

       The mission statement of this association represents that it is
a:
        "trade association of Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) holders.
This
       organization represents the interests of TLD Holders and will
seek to foster
       cooperation among TLD holders to advance the cause of building a
stable,
       collision free namespace. All TLD holders are welcome to become
members of
       the TLDA."

       While I loudly applaud the efforts of the alternate root
community to seek
       out efforts to eliminate collisions in their own namespace, I
find myself
       deeply troubled by the fact that none of these members that
routinely
       participate on the GA list have commented on this development in
the midst
       of this GA election cycle.

       What has happened to the concept of openness and transparency by
which we
       are expected to abide?    The Bylaws of our Corporation point to
the need
       for full disclosure of "conflicts of interest" by members of our
Board; can
       we expect anything less from candidates to the highest office of
the GA?

       Up until a few days ago, I was fully prepared to endorse Patrick
Corliss for
       the Chairmanship of this Assembly.  These recent events have made
me
       reconsider my position.  I respect Patrick's efforts to work in
his own way
       towards achieving the goal of a stable Internet; I still believe
that
       Patrick is a pioneer and visionary with a heart of gold and a
passion for
       safeguarding the rights of Individuals.

       But I cannot approve of his decision to both accept a position as
a Director
       of the TLDA, and to simultaneously run for the office of Chair of
this
       General Assembly.

       I look forward to working with Patrick, and with the many of you
that
       respect the fact that the worldwide Internet community includes
the
       alternate root system - but I believe that in this instance,
Patrick made an
       error in judgement... one cannot effectively serve two such
disparate
       masters.

       Best regards,
       Danny Younger

       --
       This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
       Send

- --------------504E55E91464EA7979F32460
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01427.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01427.html</a>
<p><a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01427.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01498.html</a>
<p>Dear Mr. Chairman,
<p>You have built a logical trap.
<p>Either there is a conflict and my appeals have merit or there is not
one and your failure to recant this position speaks miles to the process.
<p>Either there are flaws in our rules which we should address and my appeals
based on those grounds are valid or my appeals lack merit because the process
is fine and we do not need to fix it.
<p>Some would call it subsequent remedial repairs, it proves that there
were problems to begin with, which caused a problem which had to be fixed.
<p>Now I ask why should anyone work to fix the rules providing due process
when our chair says they are just fine and not cause for serious review.
<p>You see you cannot claim that you are trying to fix things and then
turn around and say they were and are just fine. Which view do we send
of to the DoC and any other interested party.
<p>Obviously I have nothing further to contribute because everything is
just fine. And contributions can only take the form of praise.
<p>Most Sincerely, "Bottoms Up!"
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To:
&lt;[email-masked]>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Subject: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
From: "babybows.com" &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:24:35 -0500
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Importance: Normal
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sender: [email-masked]
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On March 22, the Top Level Domain
Association was formed (www.tlda.org).
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Preliminary participants in this
association include six members of the
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Voting Registry of the GA:
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Patrick Corliss - Director
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Leah Gallegos - Director
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Miles Eugene Marsh - Chairman
of the Board
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; John Palmer - Secretary
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce James - Initial Advisory
Committee member
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prof. A. Michael Froomkin - Initial
Advisory Committee member
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A member of the Names Council,
Milton Mueller, is similarly listed as an
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Initial Advisory Committee member,
and assuredly other GA members will soon
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; declare themselves as participants
in the TLDA efforts.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The mission statement of this association
represents that it is a:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "trade association of Internet
Top Level Domain (TLD) holders. This
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; organization represents the interests
of TLD Holders and will seek to foster
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; cooperation among TLD holders
to advance the cause of building a stable,
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; collision free namespace. All
TLD holders are welcome to become members of
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the TLDA."
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While I loudly applaud the efforts
of the alternate root community to seek
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; out efforts to eliminate collisions
in their own namespace, I find myself
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; deeply troubled by the fact that
none of these members that routinely
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; participate on the GA list have
commented on this development in the midst
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of this GA election cycle.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What has happened to the concept
of openness and transparency by which we
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; are expected to abide?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Bylaws of our Corporation point to the need
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for full disclosure of "conflicts
of interest" by members of our Board; can
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; we expect anything less from candidates
to the highest office of the GA?
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Up until a few days ago, I was
fully prepared to endorse Patrick Corliss for
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Chairmanship of this Assembly.&nbsp;
These recent events have made me
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; reconsider my position.&nbsp;
I respect Patrick's efforts to work in his own way
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; towards achieving the goal of
a stable Internet; I still believe that
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Patrick is a pioneer and visionary
with a heart of gold and a passion for
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; safeguarding the rights of Individuals.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; But I cannot approve of his decision
to both accept a position as a Director
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the TLDA, and to simultaneously
run for the office of Chair of this
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General Assembly.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I look forward to working with
Patrick, and with the many of you that
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respect the fact that the worldwide
Internet community includes the
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; alternate root system - but I
believe that in this instance, Patrick made an
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; error in judgement... one cannot
effectively serve two such disparate
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; masters.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Best regards,
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Danny Younger
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This message was passed to you
via the [email-masked] list.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Send</html>

- --------------504E55E91464EA7979F32460--

- --
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 #418
************************