Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #428
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 428

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:02:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

Oh man Crispin you have never been so right.  We are a simple folk with
delusions that folks like you will live up to their word.  We also "swamp"
[NOT] lists with fantasies about having a sayin how you arogant  ..... treat
us.

I invoke the right to criticize this man and his post as though he attacked me
personally.  I and no other to date speaks for us delusional dot commoners.
This is an attack.  Calling me delusional is imporper on GA lists. I beg the
chair and monitors indulgence. Either you deal with him or give me the
privilige.

Sincerely,
Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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-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 20:49:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Money

If I were a foundation with good cause that fit into ICANN's purpose, I
would not
give a dime to ICANN because they show no signs of fulfilling their
mission.  On
the other hand I would fund the GA because they are trying to fulfill
their
mission.  I like Bruce James' Idea except for control.  If all of the
goals of
ICANN were trying to be fulfilled money would not be an issue.

What would happen if the threatened non-com party just said to hell with
it and
lost their voting rights and went home.  Probably not their loss but
definately
ICANN's. In history a bunch of dudes said they were a lost cause anyway
due to
capture.  Once again I wax sentimental and emotional, -  I like those
people and
their mission, except for some guy who kept ruining it, they moved
through
business and were very informative in Melbourne. Who was the guy, I will
not
describe him as due to my irritation it would be deragatory at best.

No-- Funding is not ICANN's problem , - the reason they cannot get it
is. Give me
one week with the non-coms and I will get them funding!

With best wishes to all the wonderful folks in the non-com.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Chuck and all DNSO GA Participants,
>
>   I cannot find any fault in any of your comments or statements below
> as stated.  However I hope that you understand that some of the
> constituency groups are in effect paying the DNSO for accreditation
> so as to remain keeping their voting rights.  A better funding model

- --
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 07:38:00 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] starving the DNSO (or the iCANN?)  to death - why? 

Hi! all,
are we not mad?

How can reasonable people conceive that a department of a corporation with 
a reasonable income should live from charities and donations to be 
independent from its own organization and deliver it a better service? and 
that to improve its professional capacity such a department should reduce 
its work force when it does not contribute enough - out of its own pocket - 
to its production cost.

Apart from Songbird Inc., please show me a single business consulting firm 
in the world advising his clients along such lines.

Chuck, I don't see the Interest of your position for VeriSign. Should it be 
picked by the press, you would be negatively be labeled as the ugly 
capitalist draining profits from starving children, or the big bad company 
buying votes at your partners management?

I certainly appreciate you gallantly defend your position. But let me ask a 
few questions?
- - why are you the only one? Why are ccTLDs, TL, BC not defending their votes?
- - how can you pretend that if the DNSO gets external funding you will not 
take that as a reason to pretend it biased?
- - don't you find disturbing that you proposed occasionally monies to the 
DNSO during an important negotiation where you wanted its silence and now 
you withhold that money after the NC negative vote?
- - how can you pretend the iCANN is democratic an fair now it is plain that 
BoD seats are money dependent. YJ Park will never make it to the Board now. 
If the DoC approve Plan B, it will mean they enter into an indirect sales 
of influences business. I am not sure hey like it.

Let be realist and tell the truth. The iCANN is delegated USG 
responsibilities in the areas of consensus. Your interests - as TMs and 
some parts of BC and may be - we discover it through the vote - ccTLDs are 
in competition with consensus. (If you disagree here there is an easy way 
to turn me wrong: tell us what you, main BCs and TMs bring to the Internet 
Community they could not have for less?)

Your strategy is pretty plain. "You" said the consensus areas are defined 
by 2/3 votes of 19 people elected/self appointed by "your" interests. So 
when there is obviously not a consensus (when we the people oppose your 
interests) 13 people decides we are not representative, we are dreamers, we 
are activists, we are biased, ... but actually there is a consensus. So 
this is your territory.

Let be clear: Plan B story shown the world that there is no consensus about 
VeriSign. ".biz" shows the world there is no consensus about TLDs. New.net 
and MultiBind show the world there is no consensus about DNS. Should people 
not be diverted from IPv6 by the DNSO stories, disputes would show there is 
no consensus about ASO issues... This means that the iCANN would only be 
left with ASO to manage.

Your response is simple: you over complexify the issues so USG is afraid of 
retaking over: - Plan B, gTLD model huge amount of text exchanges & 
contracts over 100 characters to enter in an ASCII file, WIPO long 
documents and process, UDREP complexity, etc.. This is always the same 
response. But the market response is also always the same: when a way 
becomes too complex, it chooses another way. The whole Telecom world was 
busy for years with Teletex, then with ISO Model, then with X.400/X500, now 
with iCANN, next with iCANN/VeriSign divestiture....

Either the DoC puts an end to this. Or the world community starts an anti 
trust action against you next year, or MS or a cute guy modifies the Window 
Socket allowing alternative choices for DNS information access, or 
viruscoms put an end to the .com image, or you become more aware of your 
long term interests and you make a smart turn, or anything else happens, 
but the world Internet community will not accept that situation for a long, 
killing the consensus. As Chinese already did...

So let me know where is the interest of your position for your company? 
Your business plan would look far better - and you quite told  it - in 
forgetting the "American Joke", fostering some competition yourself - 
hosting independent TLDs as you host the RIPE - proposing all the legacy 
TLDs to allocate 3c per DNs to the DNSO and to the ASO  (or do you want the 
Inclusive TLDs to take the lead ;-) ?) so they grow a more user oriented 
iCANN, helping develop the DNSSEC under GNU licence, starting new DNS 
services ...

... BTW there is one reason why I would accept your position. It would be 
if you do not believe/want the iCANN to survive and you don't want to help 
it stay any longer in subsidizing its components. Or you want a collapse 
for a rebuild?

Jefsey

You see that the 13 people threshold is endangered by the @large and by 
some DNSO reps. So the burying @large study and the DNSO financial strangling.

- --
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 23:47:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To Be or Not To Be?

Constantly there is a battle between sticking it out in here and trying
to fix ICANN so that it works and therefor will survive, or jumping ship
for the next one that comes along, or even trying to undue ICANN so that
we get something else more quickly.

The battle for me is usually internal, because while I report on ICANN
dayly no one else I know personally cares.  The statistics from the
other day were great, and now I am sure there is not one other person in
my city of over a million who would understand or care to understand
what we do on this list. Mr. Gomes has told us that he don't need no
stinking ICANN,  there appear to be roots that are in viable competition
with it,ccTLDs seem to be somewhat independent of it, and the all
powerfull IP is developing plans to deal with other developing
scenarios.

In the last few days we find almost 900 people get ths mail and only a
few handfuls participate.

So what should we do?

- --
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 23:59:12 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] If I were the DOC.

Here is the teaser;

  After reading Appendix O of the .BIZ registry agreement that has just
been announced as finalized, I took a look at some of the archives
briefly of the IETF ML on Whois, see:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-whois/mail-archive/
and http://www.imc.org/ietf-whois/entire-arch.txt

Shucks that is a quote from a man banned from this list but represnting
at least as many dot commoners as this list represents.  The point we
found is that the new gTLD agreements charge for who is searches.  One
more nail in us small time dudes coffin.

Here is the meat;

Other than right here right now, ICANN has no claim to bottoms up
internetsatkeholders representation. So what is the point of ICANN.  All
the technical stuff can function just fine without ICANN. The registrars
and registries will do just fine without ICANN and everyone knows ICANN
contirbutes nothing to zone servers and ccTLDs.

Dear DoC why is there an ICANN?

- --
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 17:55:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [icann-announce] Update: (a) Agenda for Stockholm Meeting; (b) .biz and .info Top-Level Domains

Preliminary Agenda for Stockholm Meeting

The preliminary agenda for the ICANN Board meeting in Stockholm, Sweden
on 4 June 2001 has been posted on the information page for the Stockholm
meeting at <http://www.icann.org/stockholm/>.  The agenda currently
includes the following items:

   * Approval of Minutes
   * 2001-2002 Budget:
     - Action to Approve of Proposed Budget
   * At Large Study Committee:
     - Progress Report by Chair or Representative
   * Sponsored TLD Agreements:
     - Action on Proposed Sponsored TLD Agreements
   * ccTLD Registries:
     - Update on Status of Agreements and Approval of Pending Agreements
   * Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries:
     - Action on Report Submitted by ASO Council
   * Report of IDN Board Working Group:
     - Presented by Director Katoh, Chair
   * Report on Simultaneous Language Translation:
     - Presentation by President on Possible Approaches
   * DNSO Directions:
     - Discussion of Public Forum Presentations

As it is refined, the agenda will be updated at 
<http://www.icann.org/stockholm/.

Negotiations of Proposed .biz and .info Registry Agreements Completed

The negotiations between ICANN and the registry operators for the new
.biz and .info top-level domains have resulted in completed registry
agreements.  The agreements and their supporting appendices may be 
viewed at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/>.  The agreements are undergoing 
a final, seven-day review by the ICANN Board before being signed.  
We expect the operators of these TLDs to make announcements regarding 
their start-up schedules in May.

- --
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 10:24:25 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

At 09:10 29.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>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.

In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute 
appropriate value to the effective function of the corporation are shut 
down; benefit to the world outside the corporation is normally not considered.

I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:44:46 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] If I were the DOC.

On 23:59 29/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker said:

>Dear DoC why is there an ICANN?
>
Because, at a bare minimum, somebody, something better than a pure
benevolent dictatorship,  had to take over the "IANA function" when Dr
Postel was no longer with us.

All what we are doing here is not a wasted effort, even if ICANN would sink
into a legal black hole next year. (not likely IMHO)
A co-operative of alt-roots together with the "legacy root" will still need
the same regulatory hand as ICANN is proposing to give to the world. It
will still need to co-ordinate with Governments,  keep an aggressive IP
lobby at bay, fend off UN advances through WIPO or the ITU, in short it
will need to become a meta-ICANN.

There is no going back any more, only forward.

If the GA of the DNSO can boot  itself up  as a true worldwide Domain Name
stakeholder "parliament" , of representatives that can at least show some
credentials of support, it will survive on it's own. 
Ready for whatever regulatory structure is willing to legitimize itself
with it.
It might as well be ICANN. 

Delusionally yours,

  

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 04:11:07 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:24:25AM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 09:10 29.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >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.
> 
> In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute 
> appropriate value to the effective function of the corporation are shut 
> down; benefit to the world outside the corporation is normally not considered.
> 
> I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.

I'm not so sure.

In the original specifications for the Supporting Organizations, it was
assumed that they would be external to ICANN and separately
incorporated, and that ICANN would accredit SO's.  At the Monterrey DNSO
formation meeting this was discussed at some length; it was the
assumption of those participants that the SO's were actually part of
ICANN, and they prevailed on ICANN to change the definition.  

In retrospect, it might have been better to go with Postel and Sim's
earlier vision -- the discipline of actually running the DNSO as a
corporation would undoubtedly bring certain things into a much sharper
focus.

- -- 
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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:39:18 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
|> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 3:23 AM
|> To: [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?

Personally I haven't seen any evidence of a capture, least of all by
delusional people.  Could you be more specific please.  Such blanket
statements are a device used to limit repercussion whilst putting forward
abusive comments as a rule, I hope that is not the intention here.

The only thing that may paralyse the GA and DNSO is apathy, fortunately,
that is not evident in the GA.

I have noticed a tendency for those who disagree with the direction of a
discussion to claim the group has been hijacked or captured.  However, I
have rarely seen any evidence to support such claims.

This mailing list is a discussion group, it is only a focus point for the
work of the GA, the discussions here do not form the work of the GA.  The
output of the GA is formalised and I have not seen any evidence to suggest
your statements are correct.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

PS...The above does not indicate agreement with any recent discussions.
Please note, agreement or disagreement by myself is only indicated by
direct posting relevant to the 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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:51:13 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE:Funding was Suspension of Voting Rights

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
|> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 6:24 PM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights
|>
|>
|> At 09:10 29.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >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.
|>
|> In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute
|> appropriate value to the effective function of the corporation are shut
|> down; benefit to the world outside the corporation is normally
|> not considered.
|>
|> I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.

I would tend to agree, the situation is much more complex than the simple
corporate procedures mentioned.

My own feeling is that the Constituencies should be self funded but they
should not be expected to fund the NC or general DNSO operations.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:13:39 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

It has previously been mentioned that collectively small businesses and
individuals register well over 80% of all domain names.  Yet we do not have
a Small Business Constituency nor do we have an Individual's Constituency in
the DNSO.  How can we solve this problem of inadequate representation and
simultaneously solve the problem of inadequate funding that currently
jeopardizes our members' voting rights in the Names Council?

Consider this possibility:
Every day some 35,000 new domain registrations are processed, with fees
ranging from $9 to $35 for such services.  This equates to 12,775,000
registrations per annum.  If only 3 cents from every registration was to be
set aside for the administrative and operational costs of the DNSO, our per
annum funding would be $383,250 (more than sufficient for our needs).

Now some might consider this to be a form of "taxation", and I agree that
there should be no taxation without representation - hence it becomes
necessary under this proposal to grant Constituency status to both
Individuals and to Small Business (long overdue anyway).

This approach solves several of our problems at once without putting
anyone's rights at risk.  It creates new constituencies (enhancing necessary
representation), it fully funds the DNSO in perpetuity, and the mechanism is
relatively painless for all concerned.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:25:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

External Relationships:  To consider, build and enhance the General
Assembly's relationship with all external parties including, but not limited
to, the ICANN Board, ICANN as a body, the Names Council, other Supporting
Organizations, other internet organizations and the general public.

POSSIBLE AGENDA

(1)    ICANN as an Organisation
Board of Directors, CEI & Staff
Committees of the Board of Directors
ICANN mission - technical or regulatory?
ICANN as a Non-Profit, Articles & By-Laws
Accounts, audit, finance & funding
Structure, membership & accountability

(2)    Oversight & Corporate Governance
Role & Jurisdiction of US Government
Department of Commerce (DoC) mandate
Congresss and oversight of ICANN
Monopoly, anti-trust & internet control
ICANNWatch & other critiques

(3)    Past & Present Advisory Committees
At Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC)
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
Membership Advisory Committee (MAC)
Advisory Committee on Independent Review (IRAC)

(4)    Corporate Policies
Conflicts of Interest Policy
Independent Review Policy
Reconsideration Policy

(5)    Policy, Strategy & Consensus Process
ICANN website & Public Comment Forum
Names Council-DNSO relationship
Outreach, participation, translations, education
Emerging constituencies & the public
Membership Implementation Task Force (MITF)
ICANN's relationship with govts & ccTLDs

(6)    Contracts and Agreements
ICANN-Verisign Registry Agreement (.com, net & org)
ICANN-DoC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA)
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
IANA ccTLD Delegation Practices Document
Registrar Accreditation Agreements, etc.
ARIN-Verisign Core DNS Support

(7)    Supporting Organisations
Address Supporting Organisation (ASO)
Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO)
Protocol Supporting Organisation (PSO)

(8)    ASO =>>      Regional Internet Registries
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE) Network Co-ordination Centre
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)

(9)    DNSO =>>    Constituencies
Business Constituency
Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders (NCDNHC)
Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) Registries
Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registries
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Constituency
ICANN Accredited Registrars Constituency
Intellectual Property (IP) Constituency

(10)    PSO =>>        Organisations
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)

(11)    Other Related Bodies
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, DNSO GA

- --
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 10:03:21 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

I'd recommend that the Chairs ask each list to appoint a "rapporteur" to
provide periodic updates (weekly? twice a month?) to the Main list. This
will reduce the need of list members to join every single list just to
follow what is happening.

        -- Bret

- --
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 13:48:18 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

I want to clarify certain aspects of this issue.

As a general principle, I believe that the Non-commercial constituency should contribute what it can to the support of the DNSO secretariat. It can and will contribute significantly more than it has.

We've been addressing this issue in the NCC since January, e.g. by preparing to impose specific membership fees and other fundraising activities. 

We have two objections to the way this is being done.

1. We are not a pre-existing organization. We were thrown together late in 1999 by the creation of the DNSO. The NCDNHC is simply larger, and more heterogeneous in composition, than any other constituency, with the ccTLDs possibly excepted, and has the fewest resources. We need more time to get the organizational and funding issues resolved. This obvious fact is not being taken into account by certain members of the NC.

2. We don't make money off domain names. Unlike every other constituency, including the ccTLDs. Indeed, there is no significant connection between the legitimacy of a constituency and its ability to raise money. We all know that the so-called gTLD "constituency" is not a real or legitimate constituency at all. It's just one company. It's ability to pay its share of the $15k has nothing to do with the quality or legitimacy of its input into DNSO policy processes - it simply reflects the fact that NSI was given a very lucrative government monopoly some years ago.

This fact, too, has not been taken account of by certain members of the NC. They have consistently rejected requests by NCDNHC for a smaller contribution.

The conclusion I come to is that certain members, particularly Cochetti, wants very badly to eliminate certain members of the NC. 

- --
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 11:07:30 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 06:13 AM 4/30/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>   How can we solve this problem of inadequate representation

The primary test of a serious constituency is its ability to self-organize.

To solve the problem of inadequate representation, a constituency needs to 
organize itself well enough to be representative.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:09:14 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

You may see it here:
GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001

  1.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-ext/Arc00/, External Relationships
  2.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-int/Arc00/, Internal Processes
  3.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/, Systems
  4.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/, Competitive Roots
  5.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-tm/Arc00/, Trade Marks-IP
  6.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO Review

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:03
Subject: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

I'd recommend that the Chairs ask each list to appoint a "rapporteur" to
provide periodic updates (weekly? twice a month?) to the Main list. This
will reduce the need of list members to join every single list just to
follow what is happening.

        -- Bret

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 05:08:55 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

Thks, Bruce

I think it would be at least slightly difficult for everybody to review the
postings on all six mailing lists on a regular basis just to keep abreast of
what has been going on.  And people do suffer from intertia ;-)

Personally I find that I'm much more likely to keep up with the news
presented to me by Judith Oppenheimer's ICB Toll Free News than by checking
various websites on my own initiative.  In fact, I very much appreciate your
own assistance in providing this type of information to the rest of us.

My view is that we need a Chair for each list but I wouldn't expect them to
report at fixed intervals.  However, I would like them to report when some
significant event or milestone occurs.  This could be the result of a vote,
perhaps.

I'd also expect the traffic on the main list to be considerably quieter ;-)

Best regards
Patrick

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; Bret A. Fausett <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

> You may see it here:
> GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001
>
>   1.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-ext/Arc00/, External Relationships
>   2.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-int/Arc00/, Internal Processes
>   3.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/, Systems
>   4.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/, Competitive Roots
>   5.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-tm/Arc00/, Trade Marks-IP
>   6.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO Review
>
> /Bruce
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:03
> Subject: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists
>
>
> I'd recommend that the Chairs ask each list to appoint a "rapporteur" to
> provide periodic updates (weekly? twice a month?) to the Main list. This
> will reduce the need of list members to join every single list just to
> follow what is happening.
>
>         -- Bret

- --
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 21:05:23 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Testbed and confidentiality of data

Dear all,

I presume many if not most GA members already are avid
readers of Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog, but just in
case: Please read the "Testbed Confidential" part at
  http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
It is about proposed delays in the publication of
the new TLD implementation data for .biz and .info.

Please keep in mind that the *seven* day deadline
for directors to review these two contracts is
already running!

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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 14:25:13 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] If I were the DOC.

I agree with both of you ... and I think it is sad that the USG is so 
willing to allow the most common abusers of market share to control this as 
well... You'd think they would learn; but maybe there is an enormous 
financial benefit to having the telco's own and operate our public works 
for them - too bad there is no benefit to the public to have the telcos own 
and operate our public works.

~k

At 07:44 PM 4/30/2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>On 23:59 29/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker said:
>
> >Dear DoC why is there an ICANN?
> >
>Because, at a bare minimum, somebody, something better than a pure
>benevolent dictatorship,  had to take over the "IANA function" when Dr
>Postel was no longer with us.
>
>
>All what we are doing here is not a wasted effort, even if ICANN would sink
>into a legal black hole next year. (not likely IMHO)
>A co-operative of alt-roots together with the "legacy root" will still need
>the same regulatory hand as ICANN is proposing to give to the world. It
>will still need to co-ordinate with Governments,  keep an aggressive IP
>lobby at bay, fend off UN advances through WIPO or the ITU, in short it
>will need to become a meta-ICANN.
>
>There is no going back any more, only forward.
>
>If the GA of the DNSO can boot  itself up  as a true worldwide Domain Name
>stakeholder "parliament" , of representatives that can at least show some
>credentials of support, it will survive on it's own.
>Ready for whatever regulatory structure is willing to legitimize itself
>with it.
>It might as well be ICANN.
>
>Delusionally yours,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>the Cyberspace Association and
>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>Elected representative.
>http://www.idno.org
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 #428
************************