Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #436
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 6 2001             Volume 01 : Number 436

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

Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:09:20 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Eric & All Assembly Members,

The List Monitor Committee has determined that Eric Dierker's posting 
privileges will be suspended for two weeks beginning today Saturday May 5 
until Saturday May 19, 2001.

I am hopeful we agree to the decision made concerning Eric's use of 
language on the list April 19th and 20th (April 5th & 8th are being 
overlooked since he was a candidate at that time and presumably 
campaigning) as many complaints have been received against Eric's posts.

If you disagree, please review the rules you agreed to when you signed up 
prior to beginning a discussion. 
[http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html]

Complaints were received about:
Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01032.html
Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01039.html
Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01046.html
Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01050.html
Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01069.html

After reviewing the complaints and many messages, we discovered the 
reoccurring theme mentioned in the various complaints, which is the 
excessive use of abusive language not relevant to technical discussion.  In 
addition there are many personal attacks, insinuations, and much of the 
commentary lacks clarity and good intention.

I understand Eric has already received a warning for this behavior.  It is 
the practiced policy for him to receive a two week suspension beginning 
today, May 5, 2001.  I look forward to his participation in the group again 
this May 19th, 2001.

Sincerely,

Kristy McKee 

- --
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 14:39:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE - List Monitoring

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, May 05, 2001, 12:33:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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 posting rights withdrawn should continue their suspension for the remainder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.

Please justify this chance in policy. The initial policy, and only one
posted prior to today, indicated that suspensions were list specific,
and did not apply universally to all lists.

Why the change in policy without public input?

Or is this the type of "business as usual" "change things as we go"
behavior we should expect from this activist GA administration?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 14:45:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Kristy,

Saturday, May 05, 2001, 4:09:20 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Eric & All Assembly Members,

> The List Monitor Committee has determined that Eric Dierker's posting 
> privileges will be suspended for two weeks beginning today Saturday May 5 
> until Saturday May 19, 2001.

> I am hopeful we agree to the decision made concerning Eric's use of 
> language on the list April 19th and 20th (April 5th & 8th are being 
> overlooked since he was a candidate at that time and presumably 
> campaigning) as many complaints have been received against Eric's posts.

May the GA know the members of this "committee" who voted for this
decision in secret?  This way there is a full public accounting, and
trends can be recognized.

I'd also like to point out that the concept of this being a committee
action is not covered in the rules.

From the rules:
=====================
Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be 
removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General Assembly.
Normally the appointment would be for 1 year.

A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:
=====================

In every use of the phrases, the rules clearly indicate that list
monitor actions are individual, and not a committee action.   While
more than one can be appointed, there is nothing in here to support
them working by committee.

So since the actions are by the individual list monitors, which of
them are imposing these sanctions?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 14:56:29 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DOC protests

To whom . . .:

There is a procedure outlined at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/comp/proc/protest.htm
that permits a protest of contracts being executed by the Dept.
of Commerce. It might be worthwhile to research that a bit and
see whether it fits the whole ICANN, Verisign, etc., etc., scene.
(It comes under DOC "procurement," which usually involves
buying paper clips or whatever, but might be applicable, if there
were anyone tuned in here who was unhappy with whatever the
DOC has done or might be planning to do.  Ahem. )

Bill Lovell

- --
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 15:09:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE - List Monitoring

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Patrick,
>
> Saturday, May 05, 2001, 12:33:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Please justify this chance in policy. The initial policy, and only one
> posted prior to today, indicated that suspensions were list specific,
> and did not apply universally to all lists.
>
> Why the change in policy without public input?
>
> Or is this the type of "business as usual" "change things as we go"
> behavior we should expect from this activist GA administration?

That's not what it says.  It says if a person was suspended on list a,
and another person on list b and so on, those suspensions (with
regard to ALL lists in which the event occurs), will continue through
a change in list monitor as to the particular list.  Nowhere does it say
that a given suspension is anything other than list specific, although
the wording could certainly have been made less ambiguous.

Bill Lovell

- --
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 00:19:30 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NOTICE - List Monitoring

Really looks like "we created new prison jails, with nice cops,
strict restrictions, nice punishment, everyone interested in
spending a few days there, welcome.......
e-bureacracy at its best !
Jefsey

On 21:33 05/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>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

- --
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 00:20:04 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint against the Members of this ML

Dear Chair,
I am afraid you have the response to your questions here.

On 15:30 05/05/01, babybows.com said:
>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

IMHO, yes, The distinguished Member of this DNS/GA ML would
probably be happy with the civilian motivated invitations they miss.
Why would they want/need to go there?

They never asked  any list to be created by the NC. They asked
for a mechanism to acknowledge they had created one, the way
they wanted. Acknowledgement is obvsiouly a problem nowadays
on this list. :-)

I am afraid this ML story only shown them things were more
e-bureaucratic after they asks for freedom than when they do
not.

Jefsey

BTW if you desire some interesting inputs I would advise you
stay on alternative (your word) [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, 06 May 2001 00:20:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Complaint against Members of this ML

Dear Chair,

On 20:47 05/05/01, babybows.com said:
>Prove your case. Justify your positions

Name the jurisdiction, please.
What is the use to fight the NoD if the BoD is the judge?

Even if there was one...

I am very sorry, but your mails sound to me like "hi!
clowns, make some fun for me. When I am satisfied
I will make you vote a motion of mine so I may have
some weight with the ... NC". Is that *really* the
message you want to convey? This is the one I do
receive and I am puzzled. May be a language
problem?

Jefsey.

- --
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 15:55:33 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Complaint against Members of this ML

Hello Jefsey,

Saturday, May 05, 2001, 3:20:29 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Chair,

> On 20:47 05/05/01, babybows.com said:
>>Prove your case. Justify your positions

> Name the jurisdiction, please.
> What is the use to fight the NoD if the BoD is the judge?

> Even if there was one...

> I am very sorry, but your mails sound to me like "hi!
> clowns, make some fun for me. When I am satisfied
> I will make you vote a motion of mine so I may have
> some weight with the ... NC". Is that *really* the
> message you want to convey? This is the one I do
> receive and I am puzzled. May be a language
> problem?

No, I don't think so, because I agree with you here.

Our chair was not elected (At least in his opinion) to be our chair,
but to give his activism a stamp of authority and support.

I have yet to see anything from him that I would have expected from a
real chair by now.

And that's the real pity.

Just like people in this country criticism judges who exceed their
authority and become what is labelled an "activist judge" (one who
seeks to expand law by his rulings, rather than sticking to his role
of interpreting the law), we have an activist chair and alternate
chair.

And nothing to balance their activism out.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 02:00:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I understand Sotiris - Thank you WXW

Dear William S. Lovell,
Since you seem to have some expertise in reading
the mater, may I ask you in what you think tjis to be
of any interest in managing the Internet?

I have on my desk two proposals to develop projects
concerning DNS services form more than 3 and 6
millions of internet addresses. They are certainly
affected by the matters we should discuss here in
order to uncover consensuses ruling them.

May be shoud we convey the interested Members
to switch to an altenative DNSO/GA ML?

I do understand Sotiris. But I think that it is great
time to see that Sotiris, Jeff, WXW and me at least
do agree on something. Dear Sotiris: hope in view!

Jefsey

On 00:09 06/05/01, William S. Lovell said:

>"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello Patrick,
> >
> > Saturday, May 05, 2001, 12:33:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Please justify this chance in policy. The initial policy, and only one
> > posted prior to today, indicated that suspensions were list specific,
> > and did not apply universally to all lists.
> >
> > Why the change in policy without public input?
> >
> > Or is this the type of "business as usual" "change things as we go"
> > behavior we should expect from this activist GA administration?
>
>That's not what it says.  It says if a person was suspended on list a,
>and another person on list b and so on, those suspensions (with
>regard to ALL lists in which the event occurs), will continue through
>a change in list monitor as to the particular list.  Nowhere does it say
>that a given suspension is anything other than list specific, although
>the wording could certainly have been made less ambiguous.
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>--
>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: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:49:51 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] I understand Sotiris - Thank you WXW

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear William S. Lovell,
> Since you seem to have some expertise in reading
> the mater, may I ask you in what you think tjis to be
> of any interest in managing the Internet?

I'm not quite clear on what you're suggesting in asking what
my post quoted below has to do with "managing the Internet."
If that's the question, the answer is, "very little."  However, to
quote from a message I sent to someone else today, "It seems
to be an embarrassing disclosure to spend list time teaching
decorum, but on the other hand, if all the garbage is not cleared
out, the list will never be able to function as it should."  In the
present context, that should be reworded to say that bandwidth
spent in discussing sanctioning of members, actual sanctions,
discussions of sanctions, etc., ought better to be spent on
substantive issues -- the kinds of issues you refer to below --
but one must first blow out the chaff to get to the wheat.

As for an alternative DNSO/GA ML, one can have as
many as one wants, but if the same bunch merely moves
the same kind of operation elsewhere, nothing would be
gained.

I don't follow the references to Sotiris; I've not got into any
specifics of what he's been posting.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> I have on my desk two proposals to develop projects
> concerning DNS services form more than 3 and 6
> millions of internet addresses. They are certainly
> affected by the matters we should discuss here in
> order to uncover consensuses ruling them.
>
> May be shoud we convey the interested Members
> to switch to an altenative DNSO/GA ML?
>
> I do understand Sotiris. But I think that it is great
> time to see that Sotiris, Jeff, WXW and me at least
> do agree on something. Dear Sotiris: hope in view!
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 00:09 06/05/01, William S. Lovell said:
>
> >"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Patrick,
> > >
> > > Saturday, May 05, 2001, 12:33:46 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Please justify this chance in policy. The initial policy, and only one
> > > posted prior to today, indicated that suspensions were list specific,
> > > and did not apply universally to all lists.
> > >
> > > Why the change in policy without public input?
> > >
> > > Or is this the type of "business as usual" "change things as we go"
> > > behavior we should expect from this activist GA administration?
> >
> >That's not what it says.  It says if a person was suspended on list a,
> >and another person on list b and so on, those suspensions (with
> >regard to ALL lists in which the event occurs), will continue through
> >a change in list monitor as to the particular list.  Nowhere does it say
> >that a given suspension is anything other than list specific, although
> >the wording could certainly have been made less ambiguous.
> >
> >Bill Lovell
> >
> >--
> >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

- --
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 22:15:01 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reply to William

Hello William,

I appreciate the fact that you have such strong opinions about what one
should expect from a real Chair.  It would have been nice to have seen you
vie for this elected position, but I suppose that it is human nature that
some in this world are more comfortable remaining on the sidelines as
critics.  This too is acceptable.  I usually rely on a critic's review when
I decide if a particular restaurant is worth frequenting, or if a movie
warrants being seen.

Over the course of time, one gets to know whether a particular critic is
worth listening to.  I encourage you to continue criticizing whenever you
deem it appropriate to do so.  Only time, and your peers, will judge whether
your criticism is apt or misplaced.

Although you have taken issue with my "agenda", I will certainly endeavor to
continue to promote focused discussions within our new mailing lists (this
is, after all, a good method to coordinate consensus, something that I
believe that you said a Chair should be doing).  I have noted with some
satisfaction that you have availed yourself of the opportunity to post on
the ga-roots list (at least sixteen times by my last count), and I am
pleased to see that you share the opinions of others on the ga-list (that
these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of the framework of
the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).

Perhaps you would also like to post your thoughts regarding rules,
procedures and policies to the ga-int list where we can focus upon the
merits of your comments.  Six new lists do provide an opportunity for those
with a proclivity to post often to have their comments noted regularly.  We
have made it possible for you to post your thoughts as often as 35 times a
day (as long as posts are limited to 5 per day per list).  I would have
thought that you would have been appreciative of our efforts to offer you an
increased opportunity for substantive dialogue...

As we move forward towards the Stockholm meeting, we will need to determine
the "agenda" for the GA.  I would like to invite you to share with us your
thoughts on what that agenda should be.  As always, I look forward to your
comments.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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 00:10:19 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William

"babybows.com" wrote:

> <snip>.. I am pleased to see that you share the opinions of others on the
> ga-list (that
> these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of the framework of
> the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).

True.

That you (as Chair of the GA) encouraged others to work outside of the framework
of
the DNSO on other mailing lists is also another matter entirely...

With all due respect Mr. Chair, you disappoint.

Good Luck to All,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

P.S. Danny, enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

- --
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 15:22:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Arguments for an Individuals Constituency

At 16:25 5/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>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?
>

Yes, the arguments have been presented many times, although I do not know
what "documentary form" the Board would require and why such documentary
form would not be required of other constituencies to justify themselves.

Our Chair may not have been around long enough, but I have listed  the
arguments in Berlin and Santiago for the GA and for the Board. 
The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)  has enumerated arguments in
Berlin . We have had them on the IDNO website for the last two years.
www.idno.org/arguments.htm.  
They are simple and have not been refuted:

Individuals have a special stake in the DNS, different from the stake that
businesses and non-commercial organizations have.
Their interests cover both fields and are personal and therefore sensitive.

Large numbers of Domain registrations can be considered registrations by
Individuals.

Individuals are more emotionally involved with their Virtual identity and
presence and they equate the loss of their Domain with a "personal death"
of their links to other individuals.
(ever been cut off email because of a DNS configuration glitch?)

They have witnessed the birth of globally applicable rule making (the UDRP)
that gives businesses  the power to take their domains away fast, and they
have found that their own input in this process, volunteered in good faith,
has been largely ignored because they lacked voting power.

They realize that they need to be a recognized part of the process, with a
vote that will be counted fairly, and a weight that represents their
numbers, before further rulemaking that governs "Net -death" is introduced.

I am not just speaking for myself here, but as a representative of those
IDNOers who have elected me to speak for them.

- --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: Sat, 5 May 2001 21:42:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reply to William

Hello Sotiris,

Saturday, May 05, 2001, 9:10:19 PM, Sotiris wrote:

> "babybows.com" wrote:

>> <snip>.. I am pleased to see that you share the opinions of others on the
>> ga-list (that
>> these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of the framework of
>> the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).

> True.

> That you (as Chair of the GA) encouraged others to work outside of the framework
> of
> the DNSO on other mailing lists is also another matter entirely...

> With all due respect Mr. Chair, you disappoint.

The unfortunate part is that the current situation will lead to a
further rift between the GA and the NC as a result of the activist
nature of the GA chair and alternate chair.

Just when it looked like Roberto's long standing work to get the NC to
pay more attention to the GA was starting to pay off.

I won't respond to his obvious (not to mention sarcastic) baiting
post, except to point out that there was quite a bit of discussion on
this very list about how a chair is NOT supposed to be an activist,
and that chairs are not elected with agendas.  The only ones who
seemed to disagree with this view were, surprise surprise, Danny
Younger and Patrick Corliss.

If only we had had more worthy candidates to choose from.

Roberto, do you mind if we clone you?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 00:52:15 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget

The registrar constituency has prepared an eighteen-page report detailing
elements of the upcoming proposed 2000-2001 ICANN Budget.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00026.doc

As funding will be an agenda item in Stockholm, perhaps (to echo the
comments of Raul Echebarria on the ncdnhc list), this is the right moment to
strongly propose that the DNSO's budget be included in ICANN's budget.

- --
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 22:00:30 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Explain something to me, huh?

With Joop Ternstra and the IDNO having been around for years trying
to speak for individual domain name owners, what is the purpose of now
having an "outreach" by something called the "At-Large Study Committee,"

which indicates that it, too, seeks to speak for the individual?  Does
that
not fragment what little success in organization of individuals like
myself
that has occurred?

Bill Lovell

- --
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 00:03:38 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget

At 12:52 am -0400 5/6/01, babybows.com wrote:
>The registrar constituency has prepared an eighteen-page report detailing
>elements of the upcoming proposed 2000-2001 ICANN Budget.
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00026.doc
>
>
>As funding will be an agenda item in Stockholm, perhaps (to echo the
>comments of Raul Echebarria on the ncdnhc list), this is the right moment to
>strongly propose that the DNSO's budget be included in ICANN's budget.

Given that ICANN has recently demanded that Registrars remove the ICANN
logo from their sites until ICANN presents them with a logo-licensing deal,
I'd say this is the right moment.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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 22:10:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Arguments for an Individuals Constituency

Hello Joop,

Saturday, May 05, 2001, 8:22:15 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Yes, the arguments have been presented many times, although I do not know
> what "documentary form" the Board would require and why such documentary
> form would not be required of other constituencies to justify themselves.

> Our Chair may not have been around long enough, but I have listed  the
> arguments in Berlin and Santiago for the GA and for the Board. 
> The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)  has enumerated arguments in
> Berlin . We have had them on the IDNO website for the last two years.
> www.idno.org/arguments.htm.  
> They are simple and have not been refuted:

I'd settle for a small business constituency right now.

The problem with our existing constituency structure is that they tend
to try and force stakeholders into belonging to various industry
associations, and then those associations are the members of the
constituency.   Take the ISP constituency has an example.  While they
permit individual ISPs to be members, there has been little outreach,
instead preferring that ISPs consider themselves represented by
organization ISP associations.  The problem with that is that many
times these associations have agendas that are vastly different from
the large numbers of their individual ISP members, not to mention that
it makes it easier for the reps from those associations to cut deals
with other constituencies (esp. the larger corporate/IP interests)
that their members would never approve of if they were required to
approve them in advance.  The ISP constituency needs to toss our the
associations on their rear ends and require members to actually BE
ISPs in order to join.

We need more constituencies, for certain.  I think a "catch all"
individual's constituency (for those who just feel they don't fit in
any of the others) and a small business constituency would be 2 that I
think would be most needed right now.  And I don't feel the two should
be considered the same, as when you get right down to it, an
individual and a small business owner are not necessarily going to
have the same issues and concerns.

And this would also provide a balance to the current dominance in the
big corporate/business/IP block.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
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 #436
************************