Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #427
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 29 2001            Volume 01 : Number 427

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:10:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WIPO's Best Practices for ccTLDs

http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/cctlds/bestpractices/bestpractices.html
http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/cctlds/bestpractices/bestpractices.doc

The Report on the Internet Domain Name Process (April 30, 1999) of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) formulated recommendations aimed
at alleviating intellectual property conflicts in the gTLDs.  WIPO was
requested by its member Governments to develop a cooperation program for the
administrators of ccTLDs to advise them on intellectual property strategy
and management for their domains, including dispute prevention and
resolution. Following this request, WIPO launched its ccTLD Program.  This
includes the provision of dispute resolution services through the WIPO
Arbitration and Mediation Center to any ccTLD administrator for that
purpose.

A draft of guidelines ("ccTLD Best Practices") was announced at the WIPO
Conference on Intellectual Property Questions Relating to the ccTLDs.
Public comment can be submitted on-line by April 30, 2001 after which the
document will be published in final form.

Please note the immediacy of this deadline.

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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:32:19 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

It is not obvious to me either that ICANN can reasonably be asked to cover 
the cost of DNSO operation or that the DNSO can permit those who refuse to 
follow DNSO rules to continue to take part in DNSO decision making, even 
when those rules involve paying money to cover DNSO operation.

This viewpoint may be unpopular.

- --
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 09:10:43 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

In normal corporate activity, division funding comes from the top, not the
bottom. Also, only profit centers are expected to contribute revenue. I am
not aware that the DNSO has been designated a profit center. If it has, then
I have some serious reservations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:32 AM
> To: babybows.com
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights
> 
> 
> It is not obvious to me either that ICANN can reasonably be 
> asked to cover 
> the cost of DNSO operation or that the DNSO can permit those 
> who refuse to 
> follow DNSO rules to continue to take part in DNSO decision 
> making, even 
> when those rules involve paying money to cover DNSO operation.
> 
> This viewpoint may be unpopular.
> 
> --
> 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 12:08:18 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Danny,

Please help me understand how you could be aware of the facts and yet
proceed to use a word like "tyranny?"  That is an emotionally charged term
that seems to be designed to incite anger rather than understanding and
discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the NC
took.

It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent with ICANN bylaws
but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that clarification seemed
wise.  If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws, then I
think the Bylaws should be changed.

I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before the
ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.  So
whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks is open to debate,
but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will move on.

It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is extremely
important.  I understand that the DNSO is a part of ICANN structure, but
within that structure, DNSO independence lends much more credibility to DNSO
recommendations.  Therefore, I believe that a self-funded DNSO is much
better than one funded by ICANN.  Moreover, that is consistent with the
other Supporting Organizations, both of which are self-funded.

I also believe that DNSO constituencies should be able to demonstrate a
certain amount of viability.  There are lots of ways to do this, one of
which is the ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.  Another is to
develop leadership that is able to organize its members to effectively
respond to issues and to financially support the organization.  The latter
can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support their
cause.

BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership
and therefore its viability.

The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is this:  the most and
maybe the only critical value to being a member of the DNSO and the NC is
the right to vote so the only way to effectively ensure payment of dues set
by the whole NC is to threaten loss of the one right that people value.
Obviously, my conclusion here is based on my assumption that DNSO funding
should not come from ICANN, thereby making the DNSO less dependent on ICANN
for its viability as an organization and therefore presumably more freely
able to set its own course.

The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits a
serious amount of time and effort toward the development of effective
consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my mind.  Every
NC representative as well as most DNSO members are volunteers who have full
time jobs that more than fill their time without the added responsibilities
they assume in the DNSO.  To expect them to also perform the huge task of
leading the efforts of developing and implementing an effective
consensus-building process is probably unreasonable and destined to failure.
At least in the near future, I believe that will require the efforts of a
full-time person whose primary responsibility is to focus on that objective.

At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily
dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
priority on this.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 AM
To:	[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
- --
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 12:15:24 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:14 AM
To:	[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.
- - [ X ] others - no action

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
- --
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 11:27:33 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

The DNSO is a Cost Center. It was suppose to provide *advice* to the BoD.
The BoD should provide a budget to this GA for the Chairs travel to the BoD
meetings, for Working Groups and Mail Lists, to be able to respond to
requests from our BoD.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>; "babybows.com"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 11:10
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

In normal corporate activity, division funding comes from the top, not the
bottom. Also, only profit centers are expected to contribute revenue. I am
not aware that the DNSO has been designated a profit center. If it has, then
I have some serious reservations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:32 AM
> To: babybows.com
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights
>
>
> It is not obvious to me either that ICANN can reasonably be
> asked to cover
> the cost of DNSO operation or that the DNSO can permit those
> who refuse to
> follow DNSO rules to continue to take part in DNSO decision
> making, even
> when those rules involve paying money to cover DNSO operation.
>
> This viewpoint may be unpopular.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 18:46:04 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] STATISTICS

On 2001-04-28 06:21:36 -0400, babybows.com wrote:

> If our ongoing efforts are to be meaningful, and if we wish to be
> regarded as a credible institution, we had better take action to
> increase overall participation in the GA.  I am advised by the
> DNSO Secretariat that the membership roster of the GA now totals
> in excess of 900 individuals - this means that over 90% of our
> members have chosen not to participate in recent discussions on
> the GA list.

These figures actually match the usual rules of thumb for mailing
list and Usenet newsgroup participation quite well.  I don't think
they really are a reason to worry.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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 10:23:07 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:27:33AM -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> The DNSO is a Cost Center. It was suppose to provide *advice* to the BoD.

Yes, precisely.  However, the GA, at least, has effectively been
captured by delusional people who think that they have much much more
power than simply giving advice.  They swamp the discussions with their 
fantasies of being a governing body, and effectively paralyze the GA 
(and indirectly, the DNSO), through what is the moral equivalent of a 
denial of service attack.  Why should the Board provide funds to 
support this attack?

- -- 
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:09:12 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Chuck,

Anger is precisely the correct emotion to be displayed when the voting
rights of the membership are threatened.  That you would seek to change the
bylaws to allow for this pernicious disenfranchisement is a serious cause
for concern.  Perhaps the trouble stems from the fact that the Names Council
has relied on small committees that fail to gather input from the broader
membership.   Our membership may have been able to provide options other
than those which your peers have decided upon (maybe an additional 3 cents
remitted on each domain name registration to cover the administrative and
operational costs of the DNSO).

We appreciate the fact that your organization has committed $100,000 in
matching funds to the DNSO (put on the table 10 August last year
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00004.html ), but
understand that this offer, which has still not been sufficiently publicized
by the NC, is a one-time event that may not be repeated - this only
compounding the problem for next year's budget which will not have recourse
to such largesse.  This means even higher costs down the road for
constituencies that are having a hard time of it already, and of course an
increased probability that they will be denied their votes.

I am similarly appreciative of the fact that you seek "more credibility to
DNSO recommendations", but I believe that credibility is best afforded by a
Council replete with voting members, not just with members that can afford
to vote.

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 03:28:20 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

- --=====================_20789576==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Taking food from the mouths of starving children to fund the organization 
which does not support the interests of the masses is one way of looking at 
it.  Another is to say that the real cause is the starving children and the 
fact that they dare to be hungry.

Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy.  Of course the DNSO is needed to 
support the status quo.  Whether or not the DNSO can affect real change on 
ICANN and its 'policies' is open.  To think that lower-level sub-groups 
like a constituency or GA for that matter can affect the DNSO (read NC) is 
a further abstraction from reality.

If the DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it.  If VeriSign 
were really smart they would slip the constituencies some money and make 
this troublesome issue go away, THis debate is  just calling more attention 
to issues which will help challenge the continuation of the status 
quo.  Thanks for the help!

BA

At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Danny,
>
>Please help me understand how you could be aware of the facts and yet
>proceed to use a word like "tyranny?"  That is an emotionally charged term
>that seems to be designed to incite anger rather than understanding and
>discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the NC
>took.
>
>It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent with ICANN bylaws
>but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that clarification seemed
>wise.  If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws, then I
>think the Bylaws should be changed.
>
>I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before the
>ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.  So
>whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks is open to debate,
>but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will move on.
>
>It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is extremely
>important.  I understand that the DNSO is a part of ICANN structure, but
>within that structure, DNSO independence lends much more credibility to DNSO
>recommendations.  Therefore, I believe that a self-funded DNSO is much
>better than one funded by ICANN.  Moreover, that is consistent with the
>other Supporting Organizations, both of which are self-funded.
>
>I also believe that DNSO constituencies should be able to demonstrate a
>certain amount of viability.  There are lots of ways to do this, one of
>which is the ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.  Another is to
>develop leadership that is able to organize its members to effectively
>respond to issues and to financially support the organization.  The latter
>can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support their
>cause.
>
>BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership
>and therefore its viability.
>
>The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is this:  the most and
>maybe the only critical value to being a member of the DNSO and the NC is
>the right to vote so the only way to effectively ensure payment of dues set
>by the whole NC is to threaten loss of the one right that people value.
>Obviously, my conclusion here is based on my assumption that DNSO funding
>should not come from ICANN, thereby making the DNSO less dependent on ICANN
>for its viability as an organization and therefore presumably more freely
>able to set its own course.
>
>The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits a
>serious amount of time and effort toward the development of effective
>consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my mind.  Every
>NC representative as well as most DNSO members are volunteers who have full
>time jobs that more than fill their time without the added responsibilities
>they assume in the DNSO.  To expect them to also perform the huge task of
>leading the efforts of developing and implementing an effective
>consensus-building process is probably unreasonable and destined to failure.
>At least in the near future, I believe that will require the efforts of a
>full-time person whose primary responsibility is to focus on that objective.
>
>At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily
>dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
>priority on this.
>
>Chuck
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent:   Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 AM
>To:     [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
>--
>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

- --=====================_20789576==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3><br>
Taking food from the mouths of starving children to fund the organization
which does not support the interests of the masses is one way of looking
at it.&nbsp; Another is to say that the real cause is the starving
children and the fact that they dare to be hungry.<br>
<br>
Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy.&nbsp; Of course the DNSO is
needed to support the status quo.&nbsp; Whether or not the DNSO can
affect real change on ICANN and its 'policies' is open.&nbsp; To think
that lower-level sub-groups like a constituency or GA for that matter can
affect the DNSO (read NC) is a further abstraction from reality.&nbsp;
<br>
<br>
If the DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it.&nbsp; If
VeriSign were really smart they would slip the constituencies some money
and make this troublesome issue go away, THis debate is&nbsp; just
calling more attention to issues which will help challenge the
continuation of the status quo.&nbsp; Thanks for the help!<br>
<br>
BA<br>
<br>
At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Danny,<br>
<br>
Please help me understand how you could be aware of the facts and
yet<br>
proceed to use a word like &quot;tyranny?&quot;&nbsp; That is an
emotionally charged term<br>
that seems to be designed to incite anger rather than understanding
and<br>
discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the
NC<br>
took.<br>
<br>
It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent with ICANN
bylaws<br>
but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that clarification
seemed<br>
wise.&nbsp; If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws,
then I<br>
think the Bylaws should be changed.<br>
<br>
I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before
the<br>
ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.&nbsp;
So<br>
whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks is open to
debate,<br>
but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will move on.<br>
<br>
It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is
extremely<br>
important.&nbsp; I understand that the DNSO is a part of ICANN structure,
but<br>
within that structure, DNSO independence lends much more credibility to
DNSO<br>
recommendations.&nbsp; Therefore, I believe that a self-funded DNSO is
much<br>
better than one funded by ICANN.&nbsp; Moreover, that is consistent with
the<br>
other Supporting Organizations, both of which are self-funded.<br>
<br>
I also believe that DNSO constituencies should be able to demonstrate
a<br>
certain amount of viability.&nbsp; There are lots of ways to do this, one
of<br>
which is the ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.&nbsp;
Another is to<br>
develop leadership that is able to organize its members to
effectively<br>
respond to issues and to financially support the organization.&nbsp; The
latter<br>
can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support
their<br>
cause.<br>
<br>
BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that
leadership<br>
and therefore its viability.<br>
<br>
The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is this:&nbsp; the
most and<br>
maybe the only critical value to being a member of the DNSO and the NC
is<br>
the right to vote so the only way to effectively ensure payment of dues
set<br>
by the whole NC is to threaten loss of the one right that people
value.<br>
Obviously, my conclusion here is based on my assumption that DNSO
funding<br>
should not come from ICANN, thereby making the DNSO less dependent on
ICANN<br>
for its viability as an organization and therefore presumably more
freely<br>
able to set its own course.<br>
<br>
The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits
a<br>
serious amount of time and effort toward the development of
effective<br>
consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my
mind.&nbsp; Every<br>
NC representative as well as most DNSO members are volunteers who have
full<br>
time jobs that more than fill their time without the added
responsibilities<br>
they assume in the DNSO.&nbsp; To expect them to also perform the huge
task of<br>
leading the efforts of developing and implementing an effective<br>
consensus-building process is probably unreasonable and destined to
failure.<br>
At least in the near future, I believe that will require the efforts of
a<br>
full-time person whose primary responsibility is to focus on that
objective.<br>
<br>
At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is
heavily<br>
dependent on the success of the DNSO.&nbsp; Consequently, I place a very
high<br>
priority on this.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
&nbsp;-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>babybows.com
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>
Sent:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 
AM<br>
To:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>[email-masked]<br>
Subject:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>[ga]
Re:&nbsp; Suspension of Voting Rights<br>
<br>
Chuck,<br>
<br>
I am well aware of the specific terms approved.&nbsp; Please do not
presume that<br>
I am speaking out of ignorance.&nbsp; I am also aware that this NC action
is not<br>
consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for clarification
of<br>
such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard on 13 April, and
reiterated<br>
by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 April, has still gone
unanswered.<br>
<br>
Your constituency and others have enormously profited from participation
in<br>
the ICANN process, and yet rather than seeking solutions which
facilitate<br>
greater participation and reduce barriers to entry, you have elected
to<br>
pursue a punitive policy which stands at odds with White Paper
principles.<br>
As a reminder, the White Paper calls for&nbsp; &quot;input from the broad
and growing<br>
community of Internet users&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How does your
solution serve to advance the<br>
needs of our growing community?<br>
<br>
Is there a fear to ask the ICANN Board for funding?&nbsp; There have
certainly<br>
been many changes made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a
change<br>
that would allow for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate<br>
activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and
operational<br>
costs) is certainly preferable to a course of action that would
potentially<br>
disenfranchise segments of our membership.<br>
<br>
This &quot;reticent action&quot; that you describe seems to place a
higher priority on<br>
the &quot;need&quot; to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the
&quot;need&quot; to ensure<br>
the &quot;rights&quot; of your fellow participants.<br>
<br>
You are blessed with ample funding; others that seek to join in the
ICANN<br>
process are not.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you advocating that only those
with sufficient funds<br>
have a place at ICANN's table?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I am of the view that if
we are a part of<br>
ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting all of our expenses.&nbsp; If we
are not<br>
a part of ICANN, then perhaps we should be invoicing ICANN for
policy<br>
guidance to the same degree that ICANN is invoiced for legal 
advice.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga-full&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_20789576==_.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 14:43:24 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0D0BA.BED49070
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>>>>At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is
heavily
dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
priority on this.
Chuck<<<<<

I would like to believe Chuck. I really think he means well, however, I
would like to see VeriSign make a *tax deductible* donation to the DNSO-GA
for funding its operations.

I think it would be a great idea to draw up a *request for a donation,* for
VeriSign to fund the DNSO-GA annual expenses.

Let VeriSign turn down a reasonable request for funding!

/Bruce

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Brian Appleby
  To: [email-masked]
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 14:28
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights

  Taking food from the mouths of starving children to fund the organization
which does not support the interests of the masses is one way of looking at
it.  Another is to say that the real cause is the starving children and the
fact that they dare to be hungry.

  Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy.  Of course the DNSO is needed to
support the status quo.  Whether or not the DNSO can affect real change on
ICANN and its 'policies' is open.  To think that lower-level sub-groups like
a constituency or GA for that matter can affect the DNSO (read NC) is a
further abstraction from reality.

  If the DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it.  If VeriSign
were really smart they would slip the constituencies some money and make
this troublesome issue go away, THis debate is  just calling more attention
to issues which will help challenge the continuation of the status quo.
Thanks for the help!

  BA

  At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

    Danny,

    Please help me understand how you could be aware of the facts and yet
    proceed to use a word like "tyranny?"  That is an emotionally charged
term
    that seems to be designed to incite anger rather than understanding and
    discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the
NC
    took.

    It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent with ICANN
bylaws
    but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that clarification seemed
    wise.  If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws, then I
    think the Bylaws should be changed.

    I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before the
    ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.  So
    whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks is open to
debate,
    but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will move on.

    It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is extremely
    important.  I understand that the DNSO is a part of ICANN structure, but
    within that structure, DNSO independence lends much more credibility to
DNSO
    recommendations.  Therefore, I believe that a self-funded DNSO is much
    better than one funded by ICANN.  Moreover, that is consistent with the
    other Supporting Organizations, both of which are self-funded.

    I also believe that DNSO constituencies should be able to demonstrate a
    certain amount of viability.  There are lots of ways to do this, one of
    which is the ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.  Another
is to
    develop leadership that is able to organize its members to effectively
    respond to issues and to financially support the organization.  The
latter
    can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support their
    cause.

    BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that
leadership
    and therefore its viability.

    The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is this:  the most
and
    maybe the only critical value to being a member of the DNSO and the NC
is
    the right to vote so the only way to effectively ensure payment of dues
set
    by the whole NC is to threaten loss of the one right that people value.
    Obviously, my conclusion here is based on my assumption that DNSO
funding
    should not come from ICANN, thereby making the DNSO less dependent on
ICANN
    for its viability as an organization and therefore presumably more
freely
    able to set its own course.

    The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits a
    serious amount of time and effort toward the development of effective
    consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my mind.
Every
    NC representative as well as most DNSO members are volunteers who have
full
    time jobs that more than fill their time without the added
responsibilities
    they assume in the DNSO.  To expect them to also perform the huge task
of
    leading the efforts of developing and implementing an effective
    consensus-building process is probably unreasonable and destined to
failure.
    At least in the near future, I believe that will require the efforts of
a
    full-time person whose primary responsibility is to focus on that
objective.

    At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is
heavily
    dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
    priority on this.

    Chuck

     -----Original Message-----
    From:   babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent:   Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 AM
    To:     [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
    --
    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

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0D0BA.BED49070
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;At the same time, I strongly believe that the =
success=20
of ICANN is heavily<BR>dependent on the success of the DNSO.&nbsp; =
Consequently,=20
I place a very high<BR>priority on =
this.<BR>Chuck&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I would like to believe Chuck. I really think he means well, =
however, I=20
would like to see VeriSign make a *tax deductible* donation to the =
DNSO-GA for=20
funding its operations.&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I think it would be a great idea to draw up a *request for a=20
donation,*&nbsp;for VeriSign to fund the DNSO-GA annual expenses. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Let VeriSign turn down a reasonable request for funding! </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>/Bruce</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-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 title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Brian Appleby</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, April 29, 2001 =
14:28</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Re: =
Suspension of=20
  Voting Rights</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3D3><BR>Taking food from the mouths of =
starving=20
  children to fund the organization which does not support the interests =
of the=20
  masses is one way of looking at it.&nbsp; Another is to say that the =
real=20
  cause is the starving children and the fact that they dare to be=20
  hungry.<BR><BR>Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy.&nbsp; Of =
course the=20
  DNSO is needed to support the status quo.&nbsp; Whether or not the =
DNSO can=20
  affect real change on ICANN and its 'policies' is open.&nbsp; To think =
that=20
  lower-level sub-groups like a constituency or GA for that matter can =
affect=20
  the DNSO (read NC) is a further abstraction from reality.&nbsp; =
<BR><BR>If the=20
  DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it.&nbsp; If =
VeriSign were=20
  really smart they would slip the constituencies some money and make =
this=20
  troublesome issue go away, THis debate is&nbsp; just calling more =
attention to=20
  issues which will help challenge the continuation of the status =
quo.&nbsp;=20
  Thanks for the help!<BR><BR>BA<BR><BR>At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, =
Gomes, Chuck=20
  wrote:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">Danny,<BR><BR>Please help me =
understand how=20
    you could be aware of the facts and yet<BR>proceed to use a word =
like=20
    "tyranny?"&nbsp; That is an emotionally charged term<BR>that seems =
to be=20
    designed to incite anger rather than understanding and<BR>discussion =
and=20
    certainly not a word that describes the action that the=20
    NC<BR>took.<BR><BR>It is not at all clear that the NC action is =
inconsistent=20
    with ICANN bylaws<BR>but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard =
that=20
    clarification seemed<BR>wise.&nbsp; If it is decided that there is a =

    conflict with the Bylaws, then I<BR>think the Bylaws should be=20
    changed.<BR><BR>I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot =
better off=20
    before the<BR>ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in =
that=20
    process.&nbsp; So<BR>whether or not our benefits have exceeded the =
drawbacks=20
    is open to debate,<BR>but that is not the topic of discussion here =
so I will=20
    move on.<BR><BR>It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from =
ICANN=20
    is extremely<BR>important.&nbsp; I understand that the DNSO is a =
part of=20
    ICANN structure, but<BR>within that structure, DNSO independence =
lends much=20
    more credibility to DNSO<BR>recommendations.&nbsp; Therefore, I =
believe that=20
    a self-funded DNSO is much<BR>better than one funded by ICANN.&nbsp; =

    Moreover, that is consistent with the<BR>other Supporting =
Organizations,=20
    both of which are self-funded.<BR><BR>I also believe that DNSO=20
    constituencies should be able to demonstrate a<BR>certain amount of=20
    viability.&nbsp; There are lots of ways to do this, one of<BR>which =
is the=20
    ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.&nbsp; Another is=20
    to<BR>develop leadership that is able to organize its members to=20
    effectively<BR>respond to issues and to financially support the=20
    organization.&nbsp; The latter<BR>can mean soliciting funds from =
charitable=20
    organizations to support their<BR>cause.<BR><BR>BTW, there are lots =
of signs=20
    that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership<BR>and therefore its=20
    viability.<BR><BR>The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency =
dues is=20
    this:&nbsp; the most and<BR>maybe the only critical value to being a =
member=20
    of the DNSO and the NC is<BR>the right to vote so the only way to=20
    effectively ensure payment of dues set<BR>by the whole NC is to =
threaten=20
    loss of the one right that people value.<BR>Obviously, my conclusion =
here is=20
    based on my assumption that DNSO funding<BR>should not come from =
ICANN,=20
    thereby making the DNSO less dependent on ICANN<BR>for its viability =
as an=20
    organization and therefore presumably more freely<BR>able to set its =
own=20
    course.<BR><BR>The need for a professional secretariat, especially =
one that=20
    commits a<BR>serious amount of time and effort toward the =
development of=20
    effective<BR>consensus-building processes and procedures, is =
critical in my=20
    mind.&nbsp; Every<BR>NC representative as well as most DNSO members =
are=20
    volunteers who have full<BR>time jobs that more than fill their time =
without=20
    the added responsibilities<BR>they assume in the DNSO.&nbsp; To =
expect them=20
    to also perform the huge task of<BR>leading the efforts of =
developing and=20
    implementing an effective<BR>consensus-building process is probably=20
    unreasonable and destined to failure.<BR>At least in the near =
future, I=20
    believe that will require the efforts of a<BR>full-time person whose =
primary=20
    responsibility is to focus on that objective.<BR><BR>At the same =
time, I=20
    strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily<BR>dependent =
on the=20
    success of the DNSO.&nbsp; Consequently, I place a very =
high<BR>priority on=20
    this.<BR><BR>Chuck<BR><BR>&nbsp;-----Original Message-----<BR>From:=20
    <X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>babybows.com [<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
    eudora=3D"autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]=20
    <BR>Sent:<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>Sunday, April 29, 2001 =
7:27=20
    =
AM<BR>To:<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>[email-masked]<BR>Subj=
ect:<X-TAB>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</X-TAB>[ga]=20
    Re:&nbsp; Suspension of Voting Rights<BR><BR>Chuck,<BR><BR>I am well =
aware=20
    of the specific terms approved.&nbsp; Please do not presume =
that<BR>I am=20
    speaking out of ignorance.&nbsp; I am also aware that this NC action =
is=20
    not<BR>consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for=20
    clarification of<BR>such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard =
on 13=20
    April, and reiterated<BR>by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 =
April, has=20
    still gone unanswered.<BR><BR>Your constituency and others have =
enormously=20
    profited from participation in<BR>the ICANN process, and yet rather =
than=20
    seeking solutions which facilitate<BR>greater participation and =
reduce=20
    barriers to entry, you have elected to<BR>pursue a punitive policy =
which=20
    stands at odds with White Paper principles.<BR>As a reminder, the =
White=20
    Paper calls for&nbsp; "input from the broad and growing<BR>community =
of=20
    Internet users".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How does your solution serve to =
advance=20
    the<BR>needs of our growing community?<BR><BR>Is there a fear to ask =
the=20
    ICANN Board for funding?&nbsp; There have certainly<BR>been many =
changes=20
    made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a change<BR>that =
would allow=20
    for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate<BR>activities of =
the=20
    Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and operational<BR>costs) =
is=20
    certainly preferable to a course of action that would=20
    potentially<BR>disenfranchise segments of our =
membership.<BR><BR>This=20
    "reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority =

    on<BR>the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the =
"need" to=20
    ensure<BR>the "rights" of your fellow participants.<BR><BR>You are =
blessed=20
    with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN<BR>process =
are=20
    not.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you advocating that only those with =
sufficient=20
    funds<BR>have a place at ICANN's table?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I am of =
the view=20
    that if we are a part of<BR>ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting =
all of=20
    our expenses.&nbsp; If we are not<BR>a part of ICANN, then perhaps =
we should=20
    be invoicing ICANN for policy<BR>guidance to the same degree that =
ICANN is=20
    invoiced for legal advice.<BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>This message was =
passed to=20
    you via the [email-masked] list.<BR>Send mail to [email-masked] to=20
    unsubscribe<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the =
message).<BR>Archives at=20
    <A href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"=20
    =
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A><BR>--<BR>This =
message=20
    was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<BR>Send mail to=20
    [email-masked] to unsubscribe<BR>("unsubscribe ga-full" in the =
body of=20
    the message).<BR>Archives at <A =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"=20
    =
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A></FONT></BLOCKQUO=
TE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0D0BA.BED49070--

- --
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 #427
************************