Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #435
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 435

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:20:51 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [alsc-announce] At-Large Study Committee Outreach Meeting--June 5, 2001

From: <[email-masked]>
To: ALSC Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 20:31:45 -0700

***************************************************************************
Help shape recommendations on ICANN At-Large membership.  Join the At-
Large Study Committee at our Outreach Meeting in Stockholm on Tuesday,
June 5, from 08:30 to 12:30, at the Stockholm International Fairs. The
meeting will feature presentations and discussions of the issues
surrounding individuals' involvement in international organizations.
Check -- <http://www.atlargestudy.org> -- periodically for more 
information and opportunities to contribute to the meeting via the 
Internet.
***************************************************************************

EVENT: At-Large Study Committee (ALSC) Outreach Meeting
DATE: Tuesday, June 5
TIME: 08:30 - 12:30
PLACE:  Stockholm International Fairs --
http://www.stofair.se/default_eng.asp

Please join the ALSC for the second in a series of Outreach Meetings we
are holding to solicit input and generate discussions about involving
and representing individual Internet users in ICANN. 

The meeting will include presentations and discussions of the issues
confronting ICANN and other international organizations in their efforts
to involve individuals.  To ensure diversity of views and depth of
analysis on the role of individual Internet users in ICANN and its
decision-making processes, the Committee is examining research on key
issues concerning At-Large membership.  The ALSC has issued a call for
studies -- <http://www.atlargestudy.org/case_studies_ann.shtml> --
requesting research on international membership (including membership
funding) models, international membership discussion and decision-
making models, and international membership representation models. 

Part of our June 5 meeting will be devoted to discussing studies that
contribute to the public's consideration of two critical questions:

1.  What are appropriate mechanisms for input by individual Internet
users throughout the world into ICANN; and

2.  How can individual Internet users' participation be structured to
support ICANN's effective and efficient fulfillment of its specific
technical and administrative missions?

ALSC Chair, Carl Bildt, Internet advisor and former Prime Minister of
Sweden, will lead the meeting.  Additional information about the
meeting, which is being held at the same venue as (and in between) the
ICANN Board meeting and the INET 2001 Conference, will be posted on our
website. 

If you are unable to attend, please share your views with us on-line at
- -- <http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml>.  Additional questions and
issues will be posted there for your comment prior to June 5.  You also
may share your views (for public posting) by sending an email to --
[email-masked]. 

We look forward to hearing from you (and meeting some of you in
Stockholm). 

Sincerely,

The At-Large Study Committee: Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice
Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu,
Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair)

- --
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, 5 May 2001 09:30:23 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Complaint

In Melbourne, the ICANN Board clearly signaled that DNSO structural changes
are forthcoming.  This should be a "wake-up call" to all of you, unless of
course you prefer such changes to be implemented without the benefit of your
input.

[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to
separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as
it is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the
structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

In 27 days we begin our talks in Stockholm.   I have yet to see any
meaningful discussion regarding the creation of an Individual's Constituency
on any of the GA lists.  Is this no longer a topic of concern?  Has the
passion for this initiative vaporized?  Or perhaps you are waiting for the
Names Council to decide on the criteria for constituency admission for you
without your input.  Yes, the GA lists will still be here for you to
complain and whine about matters afterward... or maybe I have misunderstood,
and you are perfectly willing to become a Constituency that can't "afford"
to exercise its right to vote.

I recall that members of the General Assembly participated in the Review
Working Group and spiritedly argued for the establishment of an Individual's
Constituency, while others argued with equal vigor for the dissolution of
the current constituency structure; other proposals called for the creation
of additional constituencies, and one proposal (practically unopposed)
called for the GA itself to become a constituency.

What has happened to your fervor?  I expected more from you.  Yes, it would
be nice if the Board handed you a Constituency on a silver platter; just
don't hold your breath... you may actually have to work to make this happen.
For those of you that advocated other structural changes, where are your
plans, your proposals, your funding mechanisms?  Give us something to work
with... or choose to accept whatever the Board may be forced to dictate in
the absence of your contributions.

In response to the needs of the Assembly and the expressed wishes of its
membership, the GA has established a number of new mailing lists to provide
a focused forum for ongoing dialogue.  One such list, ga-review, was
specifically created so that subsequent to the closure of the Review WG
mailing list by the Names Council, our members would have the opportunity to
continue to discuss these impending changes... so far, not one comment has
been made on this list.   Do you require an invitation?

How do you expect the GA to adopt any resolutions in support of any
initiatives if we do not engage in a thorough discussion of the issues?
You are expected to attempt to arrive at a consensus.

Let me remind you that the Review WG completed its preliminary work and
generated a thorough report within 3 weeks (Dec.23 - Jan. 15).  I expect no
less from you.

We have a job to do.   Let's get to work.

- --
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, 05 May 2001 13:20:06 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Let me remind you that the Review WG completed its preliminary work and
> generated a thorough report within 3 weeks (Dec.23 - Jan. 15).  I expect no
> less from you.

The report you refer to was a farce IMO.  However, I have noted that it's the
only report "officially" referred to on any DNSO web page.  The final report
published by the WG-review is mentioned nowhere in any of the official
references.  Why?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:29:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

First of all you do not get to complain, you are chair.

Secondly:  Please lay out your understanding for the procedural mechanism to get
this accomplished and where such core process is written.

It would seem just an oral, official, request to put into place the prior
petition for such a constituency is all that is needed and we should have it.

Courts, BoDs and legislatures around the world use both written and spontaneous
motions and rulings.

The real point is that if the NC and BoD are intent on allowing a IDNH all they
have to do is grant the foreplaced petition.  Why hasn't Karl done such a thing
in a formal motion?

There is no question the studies and groups say to enact it and are well thought
out and in accordance with the current status of rules, by-laws and consensus.

So how are your going to accomplish getting a fully legitmate petition granted?
Certainly not by citing rules and consensus?  What is your plan Mr. Younger.

With all due respect,
Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:01:38 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

Sotiris,

In http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html, WGs section, we have:
  WG-REVIEW - History in the Making 
  The full record of the DNSO Review is in 
  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html 

This documents starts in July 2000, end 28 January 2001, and lists:
14 January 2001, Greg Burton has been elected as Working Co-chair for WG-Review 
15 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Draft of WG-Review work 
    * Part I (Final Draft) 
       http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html
    * Part II, Appendix (Final Draft) 
       http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html 
16 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Report of WG-Review work 
    * Part I 
       http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01557.html 
    * Part II, Appendix 
       http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.html 

Are these WG-Review reports ?
What do you call the final report published by the WG-review ?

DNSO Secretariat
- --

| From [email-masked]  Sat May  5 19:22:14 2001
| Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:20:06 -0400
| From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
| X-Accept-Language: en
| MIME-Version: 1.0
| To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
| CC: [email-masked]
| Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| 
| "babybows.com" wrote:
| 
| > Let me remind you that the Review WG completed its preliminary work and
| > generated a thorough report within 3 weeks (Dec.23 - Jan. 15).  I expect no
| > less from you.
| 
| The report you refer to was a farce IMO.  However, I have noted that it's the
| only report "officially" referred to on any DNSO web page.  The final report
| published by the WG-review is mentioned nowhere in any of the official
| references.  Why?
| 
| Sotiris Sotiropoulos
| 
| 
| --
| This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
| Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
| ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
| Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
| 
| 
- --
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, 06 May 2001 02:58:25 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

- --=====================_3699279==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear GA full list members:

Please reference:
Link to the submission of the FINAL report of the WG-Review to BoD;
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043

Please reference:
Cover letter for Final report
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADA116900000039

Please reference:
Last page of WG-Review archives
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/mail56.html

Work by the WG-Review members continued on through April 18 until we were 
cut off from access to the list.  We have since migrated the community of 
active members (all those wishing to continue to keep the community spirit 
and efforts alive, to a new mailing list located outside of the official 
parameters which have been so restrictive.

We, and especially the Chair, Sortiris (and many others including Joanna 
Lane and Rod Dixon to name only two), put a lot of energy and effort into 
addressing exactly the issues the GA Chair has raised.  Many of the members 
of the formerly sanctioned WG-Review should like to know that our efforts 
did not go un-noticed or under-appreciated.  At minimum, if a new round of 
efforts are to be made regarding the issues (a primary focus of the report 
referenced above was the establishment of a new constituency for individual 
name holders) the report submitted to the Board should be the starting 
point and due credit to the members involved should be acknowledged.

I fear the effect of the efforts made in the WG-Review, add by the GA in 
general on a daily basis, is to use-up the energies of interested parties 
so that they are no longer interested or able to continue to participate in 
a virtual banging-one's-head-against-a-brick-wall sort of 
experience.  Status quo preserved!

I do hope all new efforts bear sweet fruit, but personally I see NO HOPE of 
the DNSO or any other sub-group within ICANN to be fixable from within and 
certainly not by the disenfranchised, unwashed masses like us.

Sincerely,
Brian Appleby
[email-masked]

At 08:01 PM 5/5/01 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:

>Sotiris,
>
>In http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html, WGs section, we have:
>   WG-REVIEW - History in the Making
>   The full record of the DNSO Review is in
>   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html
>
>This documents starts in July 2000, end 28 January 2001, and lists:
>14 January 2001, Greg Burton has been elected as Working Co-chair for 
>WG-Review
>15 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Draft of WG-Review work
>     * Part I (Final Draft)
>        http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html
>     * Part II, Appendix (Final Draft)
>        http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html
>16 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Report of WG-Review work
>     * Part I
>        http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01557.html
>     * Part II, Appendix
>        http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.html
>
>Are these WG-Review reports ?
>What do you call the final report published by the WG-review ?
>
>DNSO Secretariat
>--
>
>| From [email-masked]  Sat May  5 19:22:14 2001
>| Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:20:06 -0400
>| From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
>| X-Accept-Language: en
>| MIME-Version: 1.0
>| To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
>| CC: [email-masked]
>| Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint
>| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>|
>| "babybows.com" wrote:
>|
>| > Let me remind you that the Review WG completed its preliminary work and
>| > generated a thorough report within 3 weeks (Dec.23 - Jan. 15).  I 
>expect no
>| > less from you.
>|
>| The report you refer to was a farce IMO.  However, I have noted that 
>it's the
>| only report "officially" referred to on any DNSO web page.  The final report
>| published by the WG-review is mentioned nowhere in any of the official
>| references.  Why?
>|
>| Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>|
>|
>| --
>| This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>| Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>| ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>| Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>|
>|
>--
>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

- --=====================_3699279==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Dear GA full list members:<br>
<br>
Please reference:<br>
Link to the submission of the FINAL report of the WG-Review to BoD;<br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043" eudora="autourl">http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043</a><br>
<br>
Please reference:<br>
Cover letter for Final report <br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADA116900000039" eudora="autourl">http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADA116900000039</a><br>
<br>
Please reference:<br>
Last page of WG-Review archives <br>
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/mail56.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/mail56.</a><a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/mail56.html" eudora="autourl">html<br>
<br>
</a>Work by the WG-Review members continued on through April 18 until we
were cut off from access to the list.&nbsp; We have since migrated the
community of active members (all those wishing to continue to keep the
community spirit and efforts alive, to a new mailing list located outside
of the official parameters which have been so restrictive.<br>
<br>
We, and especially the Chair, Sortiris (and many others including Joanna
Lane and Rod Dixon to name only two), put a lot of energy and effort into
addressing exactly the issues the GA Chair has raised.&nbsp; Many of the
members of the formerly sanctioned WG-Review should like to know that our
efforts did not go un-noticed or under-appreciated.&nbsp; At minimum, if
a new round of efforts are to be made regarding the issues (a primary
focus of the report referenced above was the establishment of a new
constituency for individual name holders) the report submitted to the
Board should be the starting point and due credit to the members involved
should be acknowledged.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
I fear the effect of the efforts made in the WG-Review, add by the GA in
general on a daily basis, is to use-up the energies of interested parties
so that they are no longer interested or able to continue to participate
in a virtual banging-one's-head-against-a-brick-wall sort of
experience.&nbsp; Status quo preserved!&nbsp; <br>
<br>
I do hope all new efforts bear sweet fruit, but personally I see NO HOPE
of the DNSO or any other sub-group within ICANN to be fixable from within
and certainly not by the disenfranchised, unwashed masses like us.&nbsp;
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Brian Appleby<br>
[email-masked]<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:01 PM 5/5/01 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Sotiris,<br>
<br>
In
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html</a>,
WGs section, we have:<br>
&nbsp; WG-REVIEW - History in the Making <br>
&nbsp; The full record of the DNSO Review is in <br>
&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html</a>
<br>
<br>
This documents starts in July 2000, end 28 January 2001, and lists:<br>
14 January 2001, Greg Burton has been elected as Working Co-chair for WG-Review <br>
15 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Draft of WG-Review work <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Part I (Final Draft) <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Part II, Appendix (Final Draft) <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html</a> <br>
16 January 2001, YJ Park posts a Final Report of WG-Review work <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Part I <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01557.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01557.html</a> <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Part II, Appendix <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.html</a> <br>
<br>
Are these WG-Review reports ?<br>
What do you call the final report published by the WG-review ?<br>
<br>
DNSO Secretariat<br>
- --<br>
<br>
| From [email-masked]&nbsp; Sat May&nbsp; 5 19:22:14 2001<br>
| Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:20:06 -0400<br>
| From: Sotiris &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
| X-Accept-Language: en<br>
| MIME-Version: 1.0<br>
| To: &quot;babybows.com&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
| CC: [email-masked]<br>
| Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint<br>
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
| <br>
| &quot;babybows.com&quot; wrote:<br>
| <br>
| &gt; Let me remind you that the Review WG completed its preliminary work and<br>
| &gt; generated a thorough report within 3 weeks (Dec.23 - Jan. 15).&nbsp; I expect no<br>
| &gt; less from you.<br>
| <br>
| The report you refer to was a farce IMO.&nbsp; However, I have noted that it's the<br>
| only report &quot;officially&quot; referred to on any DNSO web page.&nbsp; The final report<br>
| published by the WG-review is mentioned nowhere in any of the official<br>
| references.&nbsp; Why?<br>
| <br>
| Sotiris Sotiropoulos<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>
| <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>

- --=====================_3699279==_.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: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:47:01 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Complaint

Sotiris has asked why the final report of the WG-review is mentioned nowhere
in any of the official DNSO website references (that he considers the 15
Jan. report to be a farce is another issue - personally, I consider the
Jan.15 report to be valid and the NC Task Force report to be a farce).  To
put it plainly, the Names Council officially decommissioned the WG-review
some time ago and shut down its mailing list, and the most recent effort of
the remaining members of WG-review (posted in the Public Comment Forum at
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043 )
, can only be regarded as work-product from "other sources" (to quote Board
resolution 01.28).  As the NC does not consider this to be official
work-product, and as the Board does not consider this to be "official"
work-product, and as we of the General Assembly have only limited control
over what gets posted to the DNSO website, it is somewhat obvious that the
final report of the WG-review would not be mentioned anywhere on the DNSO
website.

That, however, does not negate the stalwart efforts of this group, which has
now been afforded the opportunity to go beyond their most recent
recommendations.

The unofficial WG-review recommended that the Board immediately begin
seeking proposals for the implementation and self-organization of an
Individual's Constituency, proposing that the Board issue notice that
proposals for such a constituency may be submitted for consideration,
thereby encouraging individual domain name holders to self-organize and
submit proposals.
Personally, I don't believe that those that seek to establish an
Individuals' Constituency should need such "encouragement" by the Board.
Either they act to become a viable constituency and pull themselves up by
their own bootstraps, or they fail to demonstrate to the Board why having
such a constituency is in the best interests of the Corporation.  Either
way, the burden of proof, of legitimacy, is on their shoulders.
The Board, at some point, may become receptive to the idea of an
individuals' constituency.  But it is not enough to simply recommend to the
Board that they become more enchanted with the concept.  Give them reasons.
Give them a defined charter.  Give them a proposal that deals with the
complexities of meeting funding requirements (especially at a time when
other constituencies may soon find their votes to be in jeopardy).  Prove to
them that such a body can truly be representative.    Use the ga-review list
to marshal your arguments so that the GA may act to fully support a
consensus resolution based on the merits.
You seek to have "official" notice of your efforts?  Work in conjunction
with the NC Committee tasked with setting the terms of reference for ongoing
DNSO Review.  Collaborate.  Offer the work-product of a GA committee
supported by a GA resolution.  You'll get more accomplished by working
within the system than by working through mailing lists outside of the
organization.
Yes, there have been problems with NC reports... that much has been
acknowledged by members of the Board in Melbourne.  This too will change for
the better.   We have the opportunity to chart the way forward, to properly
engage in the preparation of a draft document within the context of a
research committee of the General Assembly.  Use this chance to come to a
consensus-based conclusion that deals with issues such as the "criteria"
that may affect the acceptance of a proposed constituency, that contends
with the" procedures" necessary to obtain Board approval.

There is much yet to be done.  It is not sufficient to merely state that an
individuals' constituency is something wanted by the DNSO.  Many of us
wanted a certain Option in the Versign contract discussions; we were
overruled by a Board that did not consider our arguments to be sufficiently
of merit.  Prove your case. Justify your positions.  Document the extent of
your outreach in arriving at a conclusion, and couple that with a favorable
vote by the NC and you might have a better chance of achieving your goals.

- --
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, 6 May 2001 05:33:46 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NOTICE - List Monitoring

Chair, Members GA

Six new mailing lists have been created to provide a forum for discussion by
working groups prior to the Stockholm meeting early next month.  It is
expected there will be a reasonable amount of flexibility allowed within
each group to appoint a list moderator or to set its own policies in
relation to list rules and excess postings.

Until this new environment has been properly established, the List Monitor
Committee has determined that the existing rules will remain in place on the
new lists.  An excess posting limit of five daily postings per person will
therefore apply to each list.

The list monitors have unanimously agreed that persons who have had their
posting rights withdrawn should continue their suspension for the remainder
of the term imposed by the former list monitor.  This continuing suspension
will apply to all of the GA lists.

All members are reminded that one of the new lists has been established
to review the current policies in relation to Internal Processes.  This is
[ga-int].  Until new posting rules are established, any loss of posting
rights will be imposed across the board.

The Chair has confirmed his acceptance of these procedures pending
the formulation of new list rules on the Internal Processes list.  It is, of
course, open to any person with a grievance to submit an appeal to the
Chair, at any time, for his consideration.

All members interested in providing input to the GA's list rules are
encouraged to join [ga-int] and participate in that debate.

Thanking you
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, GA
for List Monitor Committee

- --
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, 05 May 2001 15:39:44 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

Brian Appleby wrote:

> Dear GA full list members:
>
> Please reference:
> Link to the submission of the FINAL report of the WG-Review to BoD;
>
> ttp://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043

I don't think this truly final report of the WG -R serves the interests
of the powers that be in the DNSO, so they have conveniently chosen to
ignore it.  Surprise everyone!

<snip>

> I fear the effect of the efforts made in the WG-Review, add by the GA
> in general on a daily basis, is to use-up the energies of interested
> parties so that they are no longer interested or able to continue to
> participate in a virtual banging-one's-head-against-a-brick-wall sort
> of experience.  Status quo preserved!

I think this is becoming more and more apparent the closer one looks.  I
think the next logical step for all of us would be to quit participating
in *ANY* DNSO lists.  We'll see how long they can keep up the sham of
legitimacy without our particiaption for validation and evidence.

> I do hope all new efforts bear sweet fruit, but personally I see NO
> HOPE of the DNSO or any other sub-group within ICANN to be fixable
> from within and certainly not by the disenfranchised, unwashed masses
> like us.

Hoi polloi like you and me...  Fine.   Now, I'm pissed.  The gauntlets
must come off at this point.  I entreat anyone who has any ethical sense
of fair play and justice still floating about on these DNSO Lists to
cease all participation within ICANN.  The @Large Study is already
showing itself as the farce that it is: nobody wants to take part, as
everyone knows the foregone conclusion!!  and who wants to validate
their pathetic cover-up?!

Let's take it to the Net!  Here's an example of how I propose to do so.
My company has, on average, over 1500 visitors per month at
greekphilosophy.com, including 150 email users (when the site finally
opens, we expect to have a great deal more as there are Philosophy /
Classical Studies Departments in practically every university on the
planet!).  Part of my outreach will be to educate the users/visitors of
our company's domains on the issues and developments surrounding domain
name issues.  We have already started... check it out:
http://www.greekphilosophy.com

We must bring ICANN-related issues to critical mass.  At this juncture,
the only way to effectively do this is to work outside ICANN, as the
"insiders" are ignoring us.  Rest assured, the vox populi will drown out
all other voices, it's only a matter of time.

vox populi, vox dei

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 04:13:57 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint

- --=====================_8231804==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I just want to make it clear that even though I have lost hope in making a 
significant difference from within ICANN/DNSO I fully support the efforts 
of the GA members and others to continue their struggles to make a 
difference.  I think it is most useful to cover ALL avenues of opportunity 
to make a difference in the system.  I think many involved here are sincere 
and have put a lot of effort into their mission.  All power to you and I DO 
hope that successes come often and are meaningful.

One note on the new mailing lists:  they seem to be being used as 'thread 
locations' and the effect I fear is dividing the membership into separate 
entities with the loss being the benefits of the synergies within group 
participation.  Why not just define clear threads with respective Chairs 
(thread-heads?) but keep posting on the general assembly list so that 
everyone can most easily participate in the full conversations of each 
topic.  Already the specter of cross-posting threats hands over our 
heads.  KISS it!

See you,
Brian

At 03:39 PM 5/5/01 -0400, Sotiris wrote:
>Brian Appleby wrote:
>
>snipped
>
> > I do hope all new efforts bear sweet fruit, but personally I see NO
> > HOPE of the DNSO or any other sub-group within ICANN to be fixable
> > from within and certainly not by the disenfranchised, unwashed masses
> > like us.
>
>Hoi polloi like you and me...  Fine.   Now, I'm pissed.  The gauntlets
>must come off at this point.  I entreat anyone who has any ethical sense
>of fair play and justice still floating about on these DNSO Lists to
>cease all participation within ICANN.  The @Large Study is already
>showing itself as the farce that it is: nobody wants to take part, as
>everyone knows the foregone conclusion!!  and who wants to validate
>their pathetic cover-up?!
>
>Let's take it to the Net!  Here's an example of how I propose to do so.
>My company has, on average, over 1500 visitors per month at
>greekphilosophy.com, including 150 email users (when the site finally
>opens, we expect to have a great deal more as there are Philosophy /
>Classical Studies Departments in practically every university on the
>planet!).  Part of my outreach will be to educate the users/visitors of
>our company's domains on the issues and developments surrounding domain
>name issues.  We have already started... check it out:
>http://www.greekphilosophy.com
>
>We must bring ICANN-related issues to critical mass.  At this juncture,
>the only way to effectively do this is to work outside ICANN, as the
>"insiders" are ignoring us.  Rest assured, the vox populi will drown out
>all other voices, it's only a matter of time.
>
>vox populi, vox dei
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>--
>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

- --=====================_8231804==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3><br>
I just want to make it clear that even though I have lost hope in making
a significant difference from within ICANN/DNSO I fully support the
efforts of the GA members and others to continue their struggles to make
a difference.&nbsp; I think it is most useful to cover ALL avenues of
opportunity to make a difference in the system.&nbsp; I think many
involved here are sincere and have put a lot of effort into their
mission.&nbsp; All power to you and I DO hope that successes come often
and are meaningful.<br>
<br>
One note on the new mailing lists:&nbsp; they seem to be being used as
'thread locations' and the effect I fear is dividing the membership into
separate entities with the loss being the benefits of the synergies
within group participation.&nbsp; Why not just define clear threads with
respective Chairs (thread-heads?) but keep posting on the general
assembly list so that everyone can most easily participate in the full
conversations of each topic.&nbsp; Already the specter of cross-posting
threats hands over our heads.&nbsp; KISS it!<br>
<br>
See you,<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<br>
At 03:39 PM 5/5/01 -0400, Sotiris wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Brian Appleby wrote:<br>
<br>
snipped<br>
<br>
&gt; I do hope all new efforts bear sweet fruit, but personally I see
NO<br>
&gt; HOPE of the DNSO or any other sub-group within ICANN to be
fixable<br>
&gt; from within and certainly not by the disenfranchised, unwashed
masses<br>
&gt; like us.<br>
<br>
Hoi polloi like you and me...&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, I'm
pissed.&nbsp; The gauntlets<br>
must come off at this point.&nbsp; I entreat anyone who has any ethical
sense<br>
of fair play and justice still floating about on these DNSO Lists 
to<br>
cease all participation within ICANN.&nbsp; The @Large Study is
already<br>
showing itself as the farce that it is: nobody wants to take part,
as<br>
everyone knows the foregone conclusion!!&nbsp; and who wants to
validate<br>
their pathetic cover-up?!<br>
<br>
Let's take it to the Net!&nbsp; Here's an example of how I propose to do
so.<br>
My company has, on average, over 1500 visitors per month at<br>
greekphilosophy.com, including 150 email users (when the site
finally<br>
opens, we expect to have a great deal more as there are Philosophy 
/<br>
Classical Studies Departments in practically every university on 
the<br>
planet!).&nbsp; Part of my outreach will be to educate the users/visitors
of<br>
our company's domains on the issues and developments surrounding
domain<br>
name issues.&nbsp; We have already started... check it out:<br>
<a href="http://www.greekphilosophy.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.greekphilosophy.com</a><br>
<br>
We must bring ICANN-related issues to critical mass.&nbsp; At this
juncture,<br>
the only way to effectively do this is to work outside ICANN, as 
the<br>
&quot;insiders&quot; are ignoring us.&nbsp; Rest assured, the vox populi
will drown out<br>
all other voices, it's only a matter of time.<br>
<br>
vox populi, vox dei<br>
<br>
Sotiris Sotiropoulos<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-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>

- --=====================_8231804==_.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: Sat, 5 May 2001 16:25:25 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Complaint

Eric Dierker writes:  "The real point is that if the NC and BoD are intent
on allowing a IDNH all they have to do is grant the foreplaced petition.
Why hasn't Karl done such a thing in a formal motion?"

Perhaps the Board is not intent on allowing an IDNH.  Perhaps the arguments
for an IDNH have not yet completely swayed the Board.  The Board is expected
to work within the framework of the ByLaws which state, "The Board may
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
Corporation."  Perhaps they are not yet convinced that this would serve the
purposes of the Corporation.  Where are your definitive arguments mustered?
Have any of these arguments been offered up to the Board in some documentary
form for evaluation?

Eric also writes, "There is no question the studies and groups say to enact
it and are well thought out and in accordance with the current status of
rules, by-laws and consensus."  I disagree.  I too was a member of the
WG-Review, and I recall a majority of participants in favor of the
dissolution of the Names Council's constituency structure.  If the majority
favored not having a constituency structure, how then can you argue that
studies say to enact a new constituency?  Will we enact it only to later
dissolve constituency structures?

The discussion has still not proceeded to the point of consensus on this
issue.  Further dialogue is required to resolve this dichotomy of views.

I am taking this discussion to the ga-review list.  I hope that others will
consider continuing a dialogue in that forum.

- --
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 #435
************************