Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #451
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 451

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:40:44 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

folks, 

this begs the question of the report from the at-large study which is
supposed to include consideration of funding among many other things.

It makes more sense to me for the board and finance committee to take this
matter up after we have recommendations from Carl Bildt's committee in
hand.

vint

At 07:33 AM 5/11/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>>>>I support Danny Younger's position. The least that the Board should
>do, is make some sort of provision in case there will be elections.
>Marc Schneiders<<<
>
>I agree also, this just another slap in our face. We should have a budget
>for Elections or the whole purpose of ICANN's *bottom up mission* is another
>falsehood.
>
>We really do care about ICANN, but we also demand that they follow their
>Mission!
>
>We, the people, DEMAND representation on the ICANN Board through Elections!
>
>/Bruce James/
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: May 11, 2001 04:13
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: 2001-2002 Budget
>
>
>On Fri, 11 May 2001, at 03:45 [=GMT-0400], Danny Younger wrote:
>
>> Would you rather get answers for the questions that affect us all before
>> this Budget is voted upon, or would you prefer that we debate this issue
>for
>> a few more weeks (following your definition of proper procedure) and allow
>> the Board to act on this matter without the benefit of our input?
>
>I support Danny Younger's position. The least that the Board should
>do, is make some sort of provision in case there will be elections.
>
>Marc Schneiders
>
>--
>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: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:34:39 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

ICANN Web site maintenance is lumped with other web work in this budget,
as I read it - we'll be discussing this budget in Stockholm at the beginning
of June of course.

My understanding of the timing for the at-large committee is that it is
targetted to be done with its work in time for the annual meeting of
ICANN in Los Angeles in November 2001.

vint

At 08:47 AM 5/11/2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>what about the timing issue?  if the committee were to report in favor of
>elections, will there be time to hire staff, gear up, get the money?
>
>Also, isn't ICANN going to do any 'maintenance' on membership - keep up
>the web page, allow changes of address etc, so as not to lose whatever
>momentum may exist?  Failure to do so could be very costly.

- --
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:56:18 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

The upcoming meeting will be a good time to review this

vint

At 10:20 AM 5/11/2001 -0400, Jon Weinberg wrote:
>Vint --
>
>    Here's the crux of the problem:  The ICANN bylaws state that the Board
>will "take final action on the [At-Large] study no later than the Annual
>Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and [c.] any actions taken by the Board
>as a result of the study that require the selection of any "At Large"
>Directors should be implemented on a schedule that will allow any new "At
>Large" Directors to be seated no later than the conclusion of the Annual
>Meeting of the Corporation in 2002."  (Remember that the terms of the
>existing at-large directors expire in 2002.)  But here we see a budget,
>running from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, that includes *no* allowance for
>any possible expenditures relating to an election, preparation of voter
>lists, etc.  The result:  If the Committee should recommend that a new round
>of elections should be held, and if the Board should adopt that
>recommendation, it will be impossible for the corporation to move forward
>with that course of action on the schedule that the by-laws require.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[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: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:19:05 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

I don't know but I've copied Stuart Lynn. I've been operating on the
assumption that DNSO needed to be self-funded.

vint

At 01:07 AM 5/12/2001 +1000, Alternate Chair, GA wrote:
>Hi Vint
>
>> ICANN Web site maintenance is lumped with other web work in this budget,
>> as I read it - we'll be discussing this budget in Stockholm at the
>> beginning of June of course.
>
>I'm afraid it will be very difficult for the DNSO General Assembly to take
>part in any debate in Stockholm as neither the Chair or the Alternate Chair
>have received any DNSO funding to attend.  My application to Salzburg
>Seminar has also been refused.
>
>Would you advise whether ICANN could fund these travel expenses?
>
>Best regards
>Alternate Chair
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
>To: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
>Cc: Bruce James <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger <[email-masked]>;
>Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: 2001-2002 Budget
>
>
>> ICANN Web site maintenance is lumped with other web work in this budget,
>> as I read it - we'll be discussing this budget in Stockholm at the
>beginning
>> of June of course.
>>
>> My understanding of the timing for the at-large committee is that it is
>> targetted to be done with its work in time for the annual meeting of
>> ICANN in Los Angeles in November 2001.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>> At 08:47 AM 5/11/2001 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>> >what about the timing issue?  if the committee were to report in favor of
>> >elections, will there be time to hire staff, gear up, get the money?
>> >
>> >Also, isn't ICANN going to do any 'maintenance' on membership - keep up
>> >the web page, allow changes of address etc, so as not to lose whatever
>> >momentum may exist?  Failure to do so could be very costly.
>>
>> --
>> 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: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:46:04 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

is there any reason to think that GA could pool limited resources to
fund a couple of representatives to attend? I know that's easy to say -
just wondering if such an idea had been considered?

vint

At 01:45 AM 5/12/2001 +1000, Alternate Chair, GA wrote:
>Thank you, Vint
>
>> I don't know but I've copied Stuart Lynn. I've been operating on the
>> assumption that DNSO needed to be self-funded.
>
>(l) Administrative and operational costs of the DNSO shall be funded by DNSO
>participants in a manner to be determined by the NC.
>
>Yes, but if the NC can't or won't pay, the GA is left without recourse to
>funding.
>
>Regards
>Alternate 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: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:18:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Vany and all assembly members,
>
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> > Hi Chuck:
> > I have take some time to read the ByLaws again and this is what it says:
> >
> > "Any group of individual or entities may petition to the Board for
> > recognition as a new or separte Constituency.  Any such petition will be posted for public
> > comment pursuant the article III, section 3.  The Board may create new
> > constituencies in responses to such a petition, or on its own motion, if
> > it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
> > Corporation.
>
>   This is the salient part of this section (Section 3).  A constituency
> in it's proper form is not necessarily to serve a corporation.

When the ICANN Board has stated clearly a resolution like "the ICANN Board
has decided to not create a new consitutency for individuals because it
doesn't serve for the purposes of the Corporation?"  I still haven't
read such resolutions neither know the existence of such a resolution.
ICANN is obligated by the BY-Laws to follow the process described in such
By-Laws regarding new constituencies.

> >  In the even that the Board is considering action on its own
> > motion it shall post a detailes explanation of why such action is
> > necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not
> > make  final decision on whether to create such new constituency until
> > after reviewing all comments received.  Whenever the Board posts a
> > petition or recommendation for a new consituency for public comment, it
> > will notify the Names Council and will consider any response to that
> > notification prior taking action"
> >
> > This By-Laws give the right to any group of individuals to make a request
> > for a new consituency.  Then ICANN has the obligation to put it for Public
> > Comments, according to the same By-Laws.
>
>  And this has already been done with respect to the IDNO/IDNH...
False.  According to the list of the subjects of Public Comment Forum:
http://forums.icann.org there haven't have any process of Public Comments
specifically about a new constituency for the individual domain name
owners.

I think that pursuant to the By-Laws, it would be wise to request
formally again a new constituency for individuals domain names holders.

Best Regards

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:07:05 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 2001-2002 Budget

Danny Younger writes:
 > To the members of the Budget Group and Finance Committee:
 > 
 > The membership of the General Assembly understands that you have advised the
 > President of ICANN with respect to the proposed budget for 2001-2002.  We
 > are concerned by published reports that this proposed budget has not
 > allocated any funds for At-Large Elections, in spite of past promises to
 > choose at least five more Board members through this electoral process.  We
 > would appreciate the benefit of your thoughts on this matter.

Funny, I don't recall *any* discussion on the ga list on this subject.
Please revoke this statement as the "GA Chair" and re-submit it in your
capacity as an independent observer, as this statement has nothing to do
with the GA.

/Joe
- --
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:12:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

"Governments in exile" or "shadow governments" have indeed worked, but here
there's no reason (unless somebody has "put out contracts" that we don't know
about yet! -- um, that's a joke) to leave the fold.  And while these shadow
governments (e.g., deGaulle in exile) had influence, they had people within the
country as well or else nothing (absent WWII, etc.) would have happened.
We're the "people inside," and there are thousands of frustrated netizens who
decry the current state of affairs and are counting on us to help straighten it out.
They're the "outside, and I'm sure that neither little Veronica in her bath tub nor
her parents are involved with ICANN. (Anyone not know what I'm talking
about?  Archie Comics, which of course has a character named Veronica, went
after the veronica.org web page that Veronica's parents had put up for her. She's
a future netizen, I'm sure, and we need to look after her interests, and that of
thousands if not millions like her. Her web page was an attachment to a brief I
filed with the U. S. Supreme Court.)

(But please don't let's discuss deGaulle.  That would take more bandwidth
than we have!)

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> But I believe you would have to agree that some times that concerted effort came from
> people who actually fled the country and worked from the outside to effect change on
> the inside.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But that kind
> > of situation has never been solved by walking away. It is only the tendency
> > to do so that permits that kind of thing to continue.  But neither the U.S.
> > nor the State of California nor ICANN are an Iraq -- there an objector
> > to the power structure will most surely get killed; here, that is not the case.
> > However much some may belittle the world wide rise in democracy over
> > the last decade or so, it has still occurred, but only through the concerted
> > efforts of dedicated people.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > > Vany, Michael, et al.,
> > >
> > > It appears almost as if some people actually believe that others are dolts.
> > >
> > > And how about Pindar and ex-Swedish PM Bildt enjoying Iranian and Russian
> > > caviar while they manage their "study".  "Bottoms-up!" as the champagne flutes
> > > clink. [Kendall!?]
> > >
> > > [aside: thinking out loud] Is there any reason to continue participating in the
> > > farce?  What if everyone just quit the GA en masse?  Chairs and tables
> > > included.  Well, perhaps not everyone would leave... but certainly a
> > > significant, noticeable number..?
> > >
> > > Condolences,
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >         Reminder: RFC 1591  The truth will set you free!
> > >
> > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> > >
> > > > To NC fellow members and GA fellow members:
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't in the teleconference done on May 9.  And I am surprised to read
> > > > that those that administrate the mailing list server for DNSO (as far as I
> > > > understand is the AFNIC staff), stated that they spend a lot of time
> > > > administrating an unmoderated mailing list as GA-FULL is.
> > > >
> > > > This notice surprise me first because the software used to manage mailing
> > > > list named MAJORDOMO, it is made to setup things one time and then things
> > > > runs in their own.  This is my experience with MAJORDOMO and I am sure
> > > > many members of the GA who are techies can also ratify this.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, if the AFNIC staff doesn't know how to manage mailing lists in
> > > > an effective way using all MAJORDOMO capabilitie so they doesn't have
> > > > to spend a lot of time making manual tasks regarding with the mailing
> > > > list, then I recommend them to learn more about MAJORDOMO, and if they
> > > > need technical assitance, maybe they can post their questions to the
> > > > GA-FULL mailing list and for sure techies will answer.  But with one
> > > > condition: resign the high salaries they are receiving for doing this job,
> > > > at least what it was in the whole year 2000.  I cannot believe that they
> > > > charged with a lot of money to the DNSO and now they are complaining about
> > > > a simply mailing list (by the way, remember that the constituencies are
> > > > the ones who pay even if the NCDNHC is passing hard times to recolect its
> > > > part of the due).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Vany
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 10 May 2001, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > this is a joke, right?  how much time does it take to run a mailing list?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > > IT Specialist
> > > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > > > Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
> > > > Fax: (507) 230-3455
> > > > e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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

- --
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed"  ???

Jeff:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jeff Williams wrote:

> > >  And this has already been done with respect to the IDNO/IDNH...
> > False.  According to the list of the subjects of Public Comment Forum:
> > http://forums.icann.org there haven't have any process of Public Comments
> > specifically about a new constituency for the individual domain name
> > owners.
>
>   No.  The petition was submitted.  In fact, the NCDNHC supported that
> petition, of which you are a member.  But it is true that http://forums.icann.org
> does not show this submitted petition which is part of the problem.
I know it was submitted and rejected in Santiago de Chile.  But the
process can begin again by submitting a new request to the ICANN Board. Or
at least there's no place in the ICANN By-Laws that prevents to make a new
petition for a new constituecy again.

> > I think that pursuant to the By-Laws, it would be wise to request
> > formally again a new constituency for individuals domain names holders.
>
>   Again?  Why again?
Because I understood from the ICANN meeting in Santiago de Chile that the
petition for an Individual Domain Names Holders Constituency was rejected.
But if am wrong, then please, correct me.  Maybe my memory begins to be
fuzzy.

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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, 12 May 2001 13:12:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 2001-2002 Budget

At 02:45 11/05/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>To the members of the Budget Group and Finance Committee:
>
>The membership of the General Assembly understands that you have advised the
>President of ICANN with respect to the proposed budget for 2001-2002.  We
>are concerned by published reports that this proposed budget has not
>allocated any funds for At-Large Elections, in spite of past promises to
>choose at least five more Board members through this electoral process.  We
>would appreciate the benefit of your thoughts on this matter.
>

I share this concern.

- --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, 12 May 2001 12:57:01 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed Agenda GA-EXT Mailing List

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.

(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
Alternate 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, 12 May 2001 13:00:00 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed Agenda GA-INT Mailing List

INTERNAL PROCESSES: To consider, build and enhance the General Assembly's
internal control processes including, but not limited to, its accountability
structures, electoral procedures, debating processes, mailing list rules and
system of management.

(1)    Expenses and Funding.
Attendance at ICANN Conferences.
Revenue - Grants and Other Income.
Disbursements - who to and why?
DNSO Secretarial & Services.
Donations, use of external resources.

(2)    Communication Technology
Mailing lists, IRC & teleconferencing.
Physical and virtual meetings.
Minutes and recording.
Polling booths and voting.

(3)    Rules of Order, Working Groups
Setting up WGs & Terms of Reference.
Level and depth of participation.
Motions and discussion.
Reporting and consensus.
Complaints & lack of confidence.

(4)    List Rules and Protocols:
Appointment, removal of list monitors.
Personal attacks, insults and slander.
Excessive postings (esp. without content).
Main list & relationship to sublists.
Control & consistency of sublists.

(5)    Electoral Procedures.
Nomination & endorsement of candidates.
Selection of electoral watchdog.
Conducting the ballot.  Revotes.
Withdrawal of candidate.
Objections and appeals.
Names Council ratification.

(6)    Conflicts, Ethics & Disclosure.
Definition, applicability and necessity.
Requirement for continuous disclosure.
Accountability to DNSO GA or NC.

Best regards
Alternate 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, 12 May 2001 13:06:22 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed Agenda GA-ROOTS Mailing List

COMPETITIVE ROOTS:  To consider and recommend policy improvements in
relation to ICANN's relationship with external or competitive root systems
including, but not limited to, what has been called alternate or inclusive
roots, and colliding top-level domains.

(1)    "Inclusive" Root Systems
Clarification or definition of terms.
Pros/cons of unique/multiple roots (per RFCs)
Competitive, co-operative or "coopetitive"
Supply and/or issue of new TLDs.
TLD claims, prior rights & abandonment.
Identify problem & possible solutions.

(2)    Real Names & Other Systems
DNS Directories & "overlay" methods
Impact of browsers & other technology
Developments -- China, New.Net etc.

(3)    Internationalised Domain Names
Identify the nature of their operations.
Any possible conflict or collision issues?
Relationship to Chinese alternative root.
Controlled by ICANN or not?

Best regards
Alternate 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, 12 May 2001 13:12:00 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair, GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed Agenda GA-SYS Mailing List

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS:  To consider and recommend improvements
to all of ICANN's existing registration policies, practices and procedures
including, but not limited to registry-registrar separation, registrar
accreditation,
quality assurance and registrant/whois privacy as well as any contracts or
agreements in these or related areas.

(1)    Structures & Relationships
Registry-Registrar Separation
Verisign agreement (incl .org)
New registry agreements
ICANN accreditation & monitoring
Anti-trust & competition policy

(2)    Existing & Proposed TLDs
Review of TLD application process.
Holding over of lodged applications.
Pre-registrations of domain names
Government endorsement of ccTLDs
Revision to .edu with Educause

(3)    Registry- Registrar Operations
NIC handles and other data structures
Registrant/Whois data - integrity & privacy
Domain name holder's "Charter"
Stockpiling & warehousing domains.
Expired, on hold & unreleased names
Automatic credit card renewals

(4)    Multilingual Test-Bed
Identify the nature of their operations
Character sets? Test beds or live systems?
Controlled by ICANN or not?

(5)    Other System Developments
NAS Committee on Internet Searching & the DNS
MultiBind & other new technology
Future of the domain name system

Best regards
Alternate 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: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:35:53 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individuals Constituency? ISO? At Large?

- --------------CBF8BDC82478ECDF2A2A704E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vany has hit the nail right on the head in citing one mechanism from the
Bylaws pertaining
specifically to recognizing a new Constituency. For convenience I have
cut and pasted it again
below, but I also point out another one pertaining to domain names (the
issue about which
many individuals are in fact concerned -- and which of course is the
basis for the "DN" in
"DNSO").  Of interest in it is the fact that it specifically grants
power to the GA (along with
whatever Constituencies may exist at the time) to propose domain name
policies or
recommendations to the Names Council (NC).  The relationship there, as
also shown below,
is that unlike Directors (who are to act in "the best interests of the
Corporation"), members
of the NC are indeed to act as "representatives" of the Constituencies
that elected them. But
since NC members are selected by the Constituencies as such and not by
the GA, the GA
as such has no direct representation on or voice in the NC -- on this
issue it is a parallel group
to the Constituencies as to such recommendations, but no representation
thereon.

On anything other than domain name policies (as noted in VI-B(2)(c))
below, the GA thus has
no direct representation at all -- as noted in VI-B(2)(b) below, "Each
recognized Constituency
shall be invited to participate in"  . . . "research or drafting
committees, working groups and
other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the
substantive work of the
DNSO" -- the GA as such is not so "invited" and has no voice therein.
(The DNSO "votes in"
its Directors of ICANN, of course, but such Directors act as individuals
and not as representatives
of "the folks what brung them.")  In short, the Constituencies define
what "working groups" and the
like that the GA is to have, rather than the GA generating its own, and
as shown in IV(a) below,
except for proposing domain name policies or acting as a "group of
entities or individuals" to seek
new Constituencies, the GA is . . . what? . . . a debating club?  The
"bottom up" theory of
government here seems to be missing a bottom. (Except, of course, that
any one of us could at
the same time be members of, participate in, etc., the existing
Constituencies and so on.)

Well, that's my initial parsing of this aspect of the Bylaws. That's
what it seems to say on paper;
whether what actually happens reflects that is another issue. All and
sundry are invited to dissect
my parsing -- errors can be made. Perhaps the GA has a direct voice only
in domain name policies
because it is subsumed within the Domain Name Supporting Organization,
huh? For a lot of other
things that people are clamoring for, along with considering an
Individuals Constituency we might
also consider an ISO -- Individuals Supporting Organization -- there's
provisions for new ones
of those, too.  But would that be a function not of the DNSO at all but
rather that big purple circle
on the organization chart -- the At Large Membership? Or could it be
that the At Large Membership
is the equivalent of an "Individuals Supporting Organization?"  I'll be
parsing that purple circle in a
few days.

Bill Lovell
__________

I (8)

Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what
they reasonably believe
are the best interests of the Corporation and not as representatives of
the subordinate entity
that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
constituencies.

III
(c) Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
that Constituency on the
NC, no two of whom may be citizens of the same Geographic Region, as
defined in Article V,
Section 6, except that, with the consent of the Board, this latter
requirement may be suspended
for the term of a particular individual upon a showing that it is
impracticable for the Constituency
to obtain such geographic diversity. . . .

III (4)
(a) Any person affected by an action of the Corporation may request
review or reconsideration
of that action by the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and
procedures governing such
review or reconsideration, which may include threshold standards or
other requirements to
protect against frivolous or non-substantive use of the reconsideration
process.

IV
(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the
DNSO, and open to all
who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.

* * *
(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures
adopted by the NC and approved
by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for
the DNSO.

VI-B (2)

(a) The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with
Section 3(c) of this Article,
from each Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria
set forth in Section 3 of
this Article.

(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
process of the DNSO.  It shall
adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that
responsibility, including the designation
of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies
of the GA as it determines are
appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. Each
recognized Constituency shall be invited
to participate in each of such bodies. Each of such bodies shall provide
appropriate means, as determined
by the NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under the
circumstances by other interested parties.
. . .

(c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
domain name
policies or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of a
domain name
topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or
more research or
drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to
evaluate the topic,
and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or working
group. Following
the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC may
accept the
report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies for
comment and consultation,
or return the report or recommendation to the body from which it
originated for further work.
After the report or recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies
and the comment period
for the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments
to determine whether
there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board.

VI-B (3)
* * *
(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or
separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public
comment pursuant to
Article III, Section 3. 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. In the event the Board is considering acting on its
own motion it shall
post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
desirable, set a reasonable
time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to
create such new
Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the
Board posts a
petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it
will notify the
names council and     will consider any response to that notification
prior to taking action.

- --------------CBF8BDC82478ECDF2A2A704E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Vany has hit the nail right on the head in citing one mechanism from the
Bylaws pertaining
<br>specifically to recognizing a new Constituency. For convenience I have
cut and pasted it again
<br>below, but I also point out another one pertaining to domain names
(the issue about which
<br>many individuals are in fact concerned -- and which of course is the
basis for the "DN" in
<br>"DNSO").&nbsp; Of interest in it is the fact that it specifically grants
power to the GA (along with
<br>whatever Constituencies may exist at the time) to propose domain name
policies or
<br>recommendations to the Names Council (NC).&nbsp; The relationship there,
as also shown below,
<br>is that unlike Directors (who are to act in "the best interests of
the Corporation"), members
<br>of the NC are indeed to act as "representatives" of the Constituencies
that elected them. But
<br>since NC members are selected by the Constituencies as such and not
by the GA, the GA
<br>as such has no direct representation on or voice in the NC -- on this
issue it is a parallel group
<br>to the Constituencies as to such recommendations, but no representation
thereon.
<p>On anything other than domain name policies (as noted in VI-B(2)(c))
below, the GA thus has
<br>no direct representation at all -- as noted in VI-B(2)(b) below, "Each
recognized Constituency
<br>shall be invited to participate in"&nbsp; . . . "research or drafting
committees, working groups and
<br>other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out
the substantive work of the
<br>DNSO" -- the GA as such is not so "invited" and has no voice therein.
(The DNSO "votes in"
<br>its Directors of ICANN, of course, but such Directors act as individuals
and not as representatives
<br>of "the folks what brung them.")&nbsp; In short, the Constituencies
define what "working groups" and the
<br>like that the GA is to have, rather than the GA generating its own,
and as shown in IV(a) below,
<br>except for proposing domain name policies or acting as a "group of
entities or individuals" to seek
<br>new Constituencies, the GA is . . . what? . . . a debating club?&nbsp;
The "bottom up" theory of
<br>government here seems to be missing a bottom. (Except, of course, that
any one of us could at
<br>the same time be members of, participate in, etc., the existing Constituencies
and so on.)
<p>Well, that's my initial parsing of this aspect of the Bylaws. That's
what it seems to say on paper;
<br>whether what actually happens reflects that is another issue. All and
sundry are invited to dissect
<br>my parsing -- errors can be made. Perhaps the GA has a direct voice
only in domain name policies
<br>because it is subsumed within the <i>Domain Name</i> Supporting Organization,
huh? For a lot of other
<br>things that people are clamoring for, along with considering an Individuals
Constituency we might
<br>also consider an ISO -- Individuals Supporting Organization -- there's
provisions for new ones
<br>of those, too.&nbsp; But would that be a function not of the DNSO at
all but rather that big purple circle
<br>on the organization chart -- the At Large Membership? Or could it be
that the At Large Membership
<br><i>is</i> the equivalent of an "Individuals Supporting Organization?"&nbsp;
I'll be parsing that purple circle in a
<br>few days.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>__________
<p>I (8)
<p>Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in what
they reasonably believe
<br>are the best interests of the Corporation and not as representatives
of the subordinate entity
<br>that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
constituencies.
<p>III
<br>(c) Each Constituency shall select up to three individuals to represent
that Constituency on the
<br>NC, no two of whom may be citizens of the same Geographic Region, as
defined in Article V,
<br>Section 6, except that, with the consent of the Board, this latter
requirement may be suspended
<br>for the term of a particular individual upon a showing that it is impracticable
for the Constituency
<br>to obtain such geographic diversity. . . .
<p>III (4)
<br>(a) Any person affected by an action of the Corporation may request
review or reconsideration
<br>of that action by the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures
governing such
<br>review or reconsideration, which may include threshold standards or
other requirements to
<br>protect against frivolous or non-substantive use of the reconsideration
process.
<p>IV
<br>(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of
the DNSO, and open to all
<br>who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO.
<p>* * *
<br>(d) Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted
by the NC and approved
<br>by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved
for the DNSO.
<p>VI-B (2)
<p>(a) The NC shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance
with Section 3(c) of this Article,
<br>from each Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria
set forth in Section 3 of
<br>this Article.
<p>(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
process of the DNSO.&nbsp; It shall
<br>adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that
responsibility, including the designation
<br>of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies
of the GA as it determines are
<br>appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. Each recognized
Constituency shall be invited
<br>to participate in each of such bodies. Each of such bodies shall provide
appropriate means, as determined
<br>by the NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under
the circumstances by other interested parties.
<br>. . .
<p>(c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
domain name
<br>policies or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of
a domain name
<br>topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one
or more research or
<br>drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to
evaluate the topic,
<br>and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or working
group. Following
<br>the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, the NC
may accept the
<br>report or recommendation for submission to the Constituencies for comment
and consultation,
<br>or return the report or recommendation to the body from which it originated
for further work.
<br>After the report or recommendation is submitted to the Constituencies
and the comment period
<br>for the Constituencies has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments
to determine whether
<br>there is a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board.
<p>VI-B (3)
<br>* * *
<br>(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or
<br>separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public
comment pursuant to
<br>Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new Constituencies in
response to such a
<br>petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would
serve the purposes
<br>of the Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on
its own motion it shall
<br>post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable,
set a reasonable
<br>time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to
create such new
<br>Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever
the Board posts a
<br>petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment,
it will notify the
<br>names council and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; will consider any response
to that notification prior to taking action.
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------CBF8BDC82478ECDF2A2A704E--

- --
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 #451
************************