Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #426
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 29 2001            Volume 01 : Number 426

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:39:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help! RE: .biz and .info

Hi William,
Thank you for the platform on which to show this folderol for what it is,
Hogwash.
"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Saturday, April 28, 2001, 8:48:54 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > Is it all right for ICANN to approve dotBIZ when there already is one?
>
> There isn't one.  At least not in the only root zone that ICANN has
> any business taking into consideration.

this is slanderous toward proper businesses and us little guys, if you do
not know how to acces them, then you are......

READ THE CFRs THIS IS SO RIDICULOUSLY UNTRUE IT SMELLS OF ...... Sorry Bill
but you either get with it or jump off.  Bring yourself into reality or make
yourself look foolish. You and Vint should take a Holiday with Andrew and
Louis.

>
> > I hope this does not cause undue distress but I cannot find a single
> > entity or person with power that is looking out for
> > us small guys.
>
> There is no reason to further delay the expansion of the namespace.
> There is no evidence that further delays would mean that they were
> "looking out" for the "small guys."
>
>

Oh no! really? like I said I am a simpleton.  You mean monopolies are good
and conflicting roots are great policy wise?  I guess we should all bow to
Versign.
Of course not, we should just go ahead and blindly contribute to monopolies
and and colliding roots. What was I possibly thinking, that by making it
right we may hurt some big corps pocketbook -- how rude of me.

> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:39:12 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN The Movie!

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0237_01C0D044.CFB23490
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm going to make sure my media buddies at the WID and Computerworld see =
this. Yes - they are right about the identity of the unmasked devil !!!
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Bruce James=20
  To: GA=20
  Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:15 PM
  Subject: [ga] ICANN The Movie!

              ICANN the Movie!

   http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html
  =20
  =20
  =20
  /Bruce
  =20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0237_01C0D044.CFB23490
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm going to make sure my media buddies =
at the WID=20
and Computerworld see this. Yes - they are right about the identity of =
the=20
unmasked devil !!!</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" title=[email-masked]>Bruce =
James</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
  title=[email-masked]>GA</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 28, 2001 =
10:15=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [ga] ICANN The =
Movie!</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
  </FONT><FONT size=3D3>ICANN the Movie!</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html">http://www.paradigm=
.nu/icann/icannstage.html</A></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0237_01C0D044.CFB23490--

- --
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, 28 Apr 2001 23:38:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Let tyrants take notice:

- --------------8C768BBF2B2AD16B9F4AC356
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Agh agh ah!

Brian you can not post this kind of stuff in public!

I know at least two ccs that are having attacks right now and it could
be bad!

This is horrible, don't you realize that the GA is a place where the
rights of netizens ain't discussed.  Ah jiminey christmas who empowered
you to to make statements standing for us guys anyhow. What are we going
to do?  You let the cat out of the bag and how do we get it back in?

Wait just a minute!  Hold the phone, guess who is on the line, the U.S.
Senate and they say "as long as you guys take care of it, and we are
serious about more international representation we will back off", but
they are talking no more Boardsqautters, and open and transparent stuff
and representation of the big US.

Just Swell Brian there went my vacation with Vint.

Thank you,

Brian Appleby wrote:

>
>                         The e-Bill of Rights
>
>                Few understand what the many may suffer.
>
>  Access to the Internet is an inalienable right of the people -- all
> the people.  Events now swirl and confuse even the hardiest of
> die-hard evangelists and prophets but we must collectively make one
> thing clear: we will not sit and watch the elite few wrest control
> from the people, we will not stand by as our rights are trampled and
> destroyed.  We have power in numbers and we have truth, justice, and
> freedom as wind in our sails.
>
> We the people, in order to form a more perfect union of minds and
> hearts, mandate the need for freedom and fairness in our ability to
> enjoy the benefits of the on-line world of the Internet.  We mandate
> freedom of speech, freedom of access, and freedom of will to let the
> powers-that-be fully understand our needs and motivations.  We do not
> ask!  We are the people who the Internet serves.  We are where true
> power does reside.
>
> We claim full rights to organize ourselves and politicize the issues
> we deem important.  We claim the right to enjoy the full protections
> offered to all for accessibility, use, and indeed dependence on the
> Internet as an important part of our lives and livelihoods.
>
> Our right to accessibility includes the protection and un-fettered use
> of domain name system addresses which we hold and hold dearly as
> extensions of our personal, political, and commercial selves.
>
> While we recognize and respect the traditional intellectual property
> laws and protections, we take exception to all attempts to modify or
> extend these traditions into newly mis-formed mutations which unfairly
> impinge upon the rights of individuals and the common masses.  We will
> not stand idly by and allow these actions to go un-noticed or allow
> the perpetrators to go un-punished.  We will fight if we need to
> fight.  We will win.
>
> We are the people and we have spoken!
>
>
>
>
>

- --------------8C768BBF2B2AD16B9F4AC356
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Agh agh ah!
<p>Brian you can not post this kind of stuff in public!
<p>I know at least two ccs that are having attacks right now and it could
be bad!
<p>This is horrible, don't you realize that the GA is a place where the
rights of netizens ain't discussed.&nbsp; Ah jiminey christmas who empowered
you to to make statements standing for us guys anyhow. What are we going
to do?&nbsp; You let the cat out of the bag and how do we get it back in?
<p>Wait just a minute!&nbsp; Hold the phone, guess who is on the line,
the U.S. Senate and they say "as long as you guys take care of it, and
we are serious about more international representation we will back off",
but they are talking no more Boardsqautters, and open and transparent stuff
and representation of the big US.
<p>Just Swell Brian there went my vacation with Vint.
<p>Thank you,
<p>Brian Appleby wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<center><b>The e-Bill of Rights</b>
<p><i>Few understand what the many may suffer.</i></center>

<br>&nbsp;Access to the Internet is an inalienable right of the people
- -- all the people.&nbsp; Events now swirl and confuse even the hardiest
of die-hard evangelists and prophets but we must collectively make one
thing clear: we will not sit and watch the elite few wrest control from
the people, we will not stand by as our rights are trampled and destroyed.&nbsp;
We have power in numbers and we have truth, justice, and freedom as wind
in our sails.
<p>We the people, in order to form a more perfect union of minds and hearts,
mandate the need for freedom and fairness in our ability to enjoy the benefits
of the on-line world of the Internet.&nbsp; We mandate freedom of speech,
freedom of access, and freedom of will to let the powers-that-be fully
understand our needs and motivations.&nbsp; We do not ask!&nbsp; We are
the people who the Internet serves.&nbsp; We are where true power does
reside.
<p>We claim full rights to organize ourselves and politicize the issues
we deem important.&nbsp; We claim the right to enjoy the full protections
offered to all for accessibility, use, and indeed dependence on the Internet
as an important part of our lives and livelihoods.
<p>Our right to accessibility includes the protection and un-fettered use
of domain name system addresses which we hold and hold dearly as extensions
of our personal, political, and commercial selves.
<p>While we recognize and respect the traditional intellectual property
laws and protections, we take exception to all attempts to modify or extend
these traditions into newly mis-formed mutations which unfairly impinge
upon the rights of individuals and the common masses.&nbsp; We will not
stand idly by and allow these actions to go un-noticed or allow the perpetrators
to go un-punished.&nbsp; We will fight if we need to fight.&nbsp; We will
win.
<p>We are the people and we have spoken!
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------8C768BBF2B2AD16B9F4AC356--

- --
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, 28 Apr 2001 23:55:11 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OUTREACH

Yeah I know my last post was not what your guys like.  But it is in line
with our chair's desire for outreach.  I know that Crispin and Crocker
could tear my posts apart - or maybe not any more, but the point is you
want to appeal to that other 75% you have to appeal to guys like me.
sorry but that is who we are, heaven forbid we watch TV(no not .tv the
real thing) we love the radio, we average .75 traffic tickets a year, we
are overweight, hey we have good credit, weather and sex are our biggest
drives as far as searching goes, we are very equally women as men, we
are equally rural as city folk.

The bottom line is, if you believe our chair, over ninety percent of
nine hundred of us do not object to what I have to say.  So maybe you
ought not jump all over us every time we speak. Then maybe you may have
some outreach.

Peace and Love,

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 16:51:54 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Let tyrants take notice:

- --=====================_1790886==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Eric and all,

I figured how appropriate if my first post to the list was also my last.  I 
guess I was inspired by the movie!  Haven't laughed so hard in ages.

Seriously, I do apologize to the Chair and members if this post was not 
useful or if it detracted from the business at hand.

Back to business...shall we?

See you,
Brian A.

At 11:38 PM 4/28/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Agh agh ah!
>
>Brian you can not post this kind of stuff in public!
>
>I know at least two ccs that are having attacks right now and it could be 
>bad!
>
>This is horrible, don't you realize that the GA is a place where the 
>rights of netizens ain't discussed.  Ah jiminey christmas who empowered 
>you to to make statements standing for us guys anyhow. What are we going 
>to do?  You let the cat out of the bag and how do we get it back in?
>
>Wait just a minute!  Hold the phone, guess who is on the line, the U.S. 
>Senate and they say "as long as you guys take care of it, and we are 
>serious about more international representation we will back off", but 
>they are talking no more Boardsqautters, and open and transparent stuff 
>and representation of the big US.
>
>Just Swell Brian there went my vacation with Vint.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Brian Appleby wrote:
>>
>>The e-Bill of Rights
>>
>>Few understand what the many may suffer.
>>
>>  Access to the Internet is an inalienable right of the people -- all the 
>> people.  Events now swirl and confuse even the hardiest of die-hard 
>> evangelists and prophets but we must collectively make one thing clear: 
>> we will not sit and watch the elite few wrest control from the people, 
>> we will not stand by as our rights are trampled and destroyed.  We have 
>> power in numbers and we have truth, justice, and freedom as wind in our sails.
>>
>>We the people, in order to form a more perfect union of minds and hearts, 
>>mandate the need for freedom and fairness in our ability to enjoy the 
>>benefits of the on-line world of the Internet.  We mandate freedom of 
>>speech, freedom of access, and freedom of will to let the powers-that-be 
>>fully understand our needs and motivations.  We do not ask!  We are the 
>>people who the Internet serves.  We are where true power does reside.
>>
>>We claim full rights to organize ourselves and politicize the issues we 
>>deem important.  We claim the right to enjoy the full protections offered 
>>to all for accessibility, use, and indeed dependence on the Internet as 
>>an important part of our lives and livelihoods.
>>
>>Our right to accessibility includes the protection and un-fettered use of 
>>domain name system addresses which we hold and hold dearly as extensions 
>>of our personal, political, and commercial selves.
>>
>>While we recognize and respect the traditional intellectual property laws 
>>and protections, we take exception to all attempts to modify or extend 
>>these traditions into newly mis-formed mutations which unfairly impinge 
>>upon the rights of individuals and the common masses.  We will not stand 
>>idly by and allow these actions to go un-noticed or allow the 
>>perpetrators to go un-punished.  We will fight if we need to fight.  We 
>>will win.
>>
>>We are the people and we have spoken!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

- --=====================_1790886==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Dear Eric and all,<br>
<br>
I figured how appropriate if my first post to the list was also my
last.&nbsp; I guess I was inspired by the movie!&nbsp; Haven't laughed so
hard in ages.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Seriously, I do apologize to the Chair and members if this post was not
useful or if it detracted from the business at hand.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Back to business...shall we?<br>
<br>
See you,<br>
Brian A.<br>
<br>
At 11:38 PM 4/28/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Agh agh ah! <br>
<br>
Brian you can not post this kind of stuff in public! <br>
<br>
I know at least two ccs that are having attacks right now and it could be
bad! <br>
<br>
This is horrible, don't you realize that the GA is a place where the
rights of netizens ain't discussed.&nbsp; Ah jiminey christmas who
empowered you to to make statements standing for us guys anyhow. What are
we going to do?&nbsp; You let the cat out of the bag and how do we get it
back in? <br>
<br>
Wait just a minute!&nbsp; Hold the phone, guess who is on the line, the
U.S. Senate and they say &quot;as long as you guys take care of it, and
we are serious about more international representation we will back
off&quot;, but they are talking no more Boardsqautters, and open and
transparent stuff and representation of the big US. <br>
<br>
Just Swell Brian there went my vacation with Vint. <br>
<br>
Thank you, <br>
<br>
Brian Appleby wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>&nbsp; <br>
<div align="center">
<b>The e-Bill of Rights</b> <br>
<br>
<i>Few understand what the many may suffer.<br>
</i></div>
<br>
&nbsp;Access to the Internet is an inalienable right of the people -- all
the people.&nbsp; Events now swirl and confuse even the hardiest of
die-hard evangelists and prophets but we must collectively make one thing
clear: we will not sit and watch the elite few wrest control from the
people, we will not stand by as our rights are trampled and
destroyed.&nbsp; We have power in numbers and we have truth, justice, and
freedom as wind in our sails. <br>
<br>
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union of minds and hearts,
mandate the need for freedom and fairness in our ability to enjoy the
benefits of the on-line world of the Internet.&nbsp; We mandate freedom
of speech, freedom of access, and freedom of will to let the
powers-that-be fully understand our needs and motivations.&nbsp; We do
not ask!&nbsp; We are the people who the Internet serves.&nbsp; We are
where true power does reside. <br>
<br>
We claim full rights to organize ourselves and politicize the issues we
deem important.&nbsp; We claim the right to enjoy the full protections
offered to all for accessibility, use, and indeed dependence on the
Internet as an important part of our lives and livelihoods. <br>
<br>
Our right to accessibility includes the protection and un-fettered use of
domain name system addresses which we hold and hold dearly as extensions
of our personal, political, and commercial selves. <br>
<br>
While we recognize and respect the traditional intellectual property laws
and protections, we take exception to all attempts to modify or extend
these traditions into newly mis-formed mutations which unfairly impinge
upon the rights of individuals and the common masses.&nbsp; We will not
stand idly by and allow these actions to go un-noticed or allow the
perpetrators to go un-punished.&nbsp; We will fight if we need to
fight.&nbsp; We will win. <br>
<br>
We are the people and we have spoken! <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;</font></blockquote></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_1790886==_.ALT--

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 17:05:40 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN The Movie!

- --=====================_2615031==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Bruce,

Thank you!  Very nicely done.  Viral PR at it's finest!!  I too will pass 
on the file to media cronies and spread it to the ethereal winds of Endor (tm).

OK, OK, back to business!?!

Cheers,
Brian

At 10:15 PM 4/28/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>             ICANN the Movie!
>
> 
><http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html>http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html
>
>
>
>/Bruce
>
>

- --=====================_2615031==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Dear Bruce,<br>
<br>
Thank you!&nbsp; Very nicely done.&nbsp; Viral PR at it's finest!!&nbsp;
I too will pass on the file to media cronies and spread it to the
ethereal winds of Endor (tm).<br>
<br>
</font>OK, OK, back to business!?!<br>
<br>
<font size=3>Cheers,<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
At 10:15 PM 4/28/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite cite><font size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</font><font size=3>ICANN the Movie!<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<a href="http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html">http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html</a><br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;<br>
</font><font size=2>/Bruce</font><font size=3><br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;</font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_2615031==_.ALT--

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 05:08:06 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
payment fees."

Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html

The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
Constituency).

At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.

This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 06:34:44 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

Danny,

There is no tyranny involved here.  It's a matter that has dragged on
without resolution for the entire life of the DNSO, with all members of the
NC showing lots of patience.  In fact, I think it is fair to say that all of
the NC members were very reticent to take action such as this because their
sincere lack of desire to even suggest loss of voting rights.

If the GA has concerns about this, it should first of all get the facts from
the NC, including the specific terms approved, which were designed to
require several progressive steps before the ultimate consequence of loss of
voting rights.  It should also be noted that the problem for which the NC
was trying to find a solution does not just involve the NCDNHC.

Chuck Gomes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, April 29, 2001 5:08 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	[ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
payment fees."

Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html

The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
Constituency).

At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.

This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 13:13:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

I fully support this.
Actually the budget of he DNSO should be funded by the iCANN and not
the other way round. The money is paid when paying the DNs. Now, the
Red Cross, the Secours Catholique, Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama,
the Blue Cross, the Red Crescent,  anti-Digital Dived efforts, etc..etc...
would be denied rights because they do not ransom the people as the
large TM owners do (I am a small TM owner and I am extremely dissatisfied
with the way the WIPO/iCANN support my interests).

Now we have several practical solutions;

- - [  ] a motion
- - [  ] a formal complain according to iCANN procedures
- - [  ] an immediate letter to Arnold Abbott (DoC) and to the GAC Members
- - [  } a legal action
- - [  ] a rebel action which would lead to an Internet Community Association
        for Names and Numbers.
- - [  ] others

Before spending hours and thousands of dollars in discussions, I think
it would be appropriate to decide what we want to do. So I propose you tick
the action you think we should undertake and then we focus on what the
true majority wants.

I thank all the read only'  Members to tell us what they really want. This 
post
should be responded by more than 10 people. Or there would be no reason
for us to stay in here. And none of these action would be legitimate.

Jefsey

On 11:08 29/04/01, babybows.com said:
>On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
>Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
>financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
>DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
>payment fees."
>
>Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
>One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
>and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
>supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
>White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
>defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
>problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html
>
>The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
>is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
>one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
>emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
>Constituency).
>
>At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
>authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
>for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
>has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
>member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
>Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
>legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
>operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.
>
>This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
>matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
>at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
>upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
>community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
>Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 07:27:06 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Chuck,

I am well aware of the specific terms approved.  Please do not presume that
I am speaking out of ignorance.  I am also aware that this NC action is not
consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for clarification of
such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard on 13 April, and reiterated
by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 April, has still gone unanswered.

Your constituency and others have enormously profited from participation in
the ICANN process, and yet rather than seeking solutions which facilitate
greater participation and reduce barriers to entry, you have elected to
pursue a punitive policy which stands at odds with White Paper principles.
As a reminder, the White Paper calls for  "input from the broad and growing
community of Internet users".    How does your solution serve to advance the
needs of our growing community?

Is there a fear to ask the ICANN Board for funding?  There have certainly
been many changes made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a change
that would allow for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate
activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and operational
costs) is certainly preferable to a course of action that would potentially
disenfranchise segments of our membership.

This "reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority on
the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the "need" to ensure
the "rights" of your fellow participants.

You are blessed with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN
process are not.    Are you advocating that only those with sufficient funds
have a place at ICANN's table?    I am of the view that if we are a part of
ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting all of our expenses.  If we are not
a part of ICANN, then perhaps we should be invoicing ICANN for policy
guidance to the same degree that ICANN is invoiced for legal advice.

- --
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, 29 Apr 2001 08:19:53 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

This move by the NC is shameful and wrong.  I think we (as the GA) ought to
draft a letter to bring this situation to a wider audience: the press,
politicians, etc.  In Greek there is an old saying: `Don't waste your time
knocking at a deaf man's door.'  Perhaps it's time we started knocking at other
doors?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"babybows.com" wrote:

> On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
> Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
> financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as the
> DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
> payment fees."
>
> Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this resolution.
> One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is illegitimate
> and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
> supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
> White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
> defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and political
> problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html
>
> The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
> is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty for
> one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
> emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
> Constituency).
>
> At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
> authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
> for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
> has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
> member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
> Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
> legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
> operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.
>
> This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
> matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
> at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be voted
> upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
> community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
> Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.
>
> --
> 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, 29 Apr 2001 07:36:39 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

Please see my vote below:

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 06:13
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

I fully support this.
Actually the budget of he DNSO should be funded by the iCANN and not
the other way round. The money is paid when paying the DNs. Now, the
Red Cross, the Secours Catholique, Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama,
the Blue Cross, the Red Crescent,  anti-Digital Dived efforts, etc..etc...
would be denied rights because they do not ransom the people as the
large TM owners do (I am a small TM owner and I am extremely dissatisfied
with the way the WIPO/iCANN support my interests).

Now we have several practical solutions;

- - [  ] a motion
- - [  ] a formal complain according to iCANN procedures
- - [X] an immediate letter to Arnold Abbott (DoC) and to the GAC Members
- - [  } a legal action
- - [  ] a rebel action which would lead to an Internet Community Association
        for Names and Numbers.
- - [  ] others

Before spending hours and thousands of dollars in discussions, I think
it would be appropriate to decide what we want to do. So I propose you tick
the action you think we should undertake and then we focus on what the
true majority wants.

I thank all the read only'  Members to tell us what they really want. This
post
should be responded by more than 10 people. Or there would be no reason
for us to stay in here. And none of these action would be legitimate.

Jefsey

On 11:08 29/04/01, babybows.com said:
>On 10 April, the Names Council decided to adopt the report of the NC Budget
>Committee which called for the suspension of the voting rights of
>financially delinquent constituencies after 180 days "until such time as
the
>DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late
>payment fees."
>
>Only one constituency (the NCDNHC) did not vote in favor of this
resolution.
>One of their representatives, Milton Mueller, has argued "It is
illegitimate
>and bad policy to link budgetary matters to representation rights. DNSO is
>supposed to be a representative body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the
>White Paper suggests that representation hinges on paying some arbitrarily
>defined fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and
political
>problems. (That is not an idle threat)."
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00219.html
>
>The current cost of participation for each of the seven DNSO Constituencies
>is $15,371.  It is clear that this sum represents a financial difficulty
for
>one constituency, and may well represent a barrier to entry for other
>emerging constituencies (such as the long-awaited Individual's
>Constituency).
>
>At a time when ICANN projects $5,580,000 in revenues, and has readily
>authorized $450,000 for an At Large Membership Study (ostensibly to allow
>for enhanced community participation), I find it astounding that a decision
>has been made to embark upon a course of action that potentially puts
>member's voting rights in jeopardy.  Rather than choosing to ask for a
>Bylaws amendment that might provide for expenses reasonably related to the
>legitimate activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
>operational costs), punitive measures have instead been adopted.
>
>This is a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and should be a
>matter of grave concern to the membership of the General Assembly.  What is
>at stake is the prospect that certain domain name policy issues may be
voted
>upon by a body that is no longer fully representative of the Internet
>community (in clear violation of White Paper principles).  The General
>Assembly should be taking a stand on this issue.

- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #426
************************