Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #456
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 14 2001             Volume 01 : Number 456

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:43:53 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  ICANN's letter to the IRS

Bret Fausett writes:  The room rental costs for four in-person General
Assembly meetings a year, with a participatory webcast, are now fully
funded.

Yes Bret, they are...  the DNSO is paying for it.  Consider the following:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00162.html

Council members,
The DNSO seeks a sponsor to cover a share of the costs of web-casting of the
DNSO meetings in Stockholm.

ICANN have asked us to cover a contribution of US$12,500 towards webcasting
(a share of the total costs estimated at US$50,000).

Sponsor benefits include:
a display table outside the main hall
a link from the ICANN web site to the sponsor's web site using the sponsor's
logo,
acknowledgement of the sponsorship at the meetings.

Please consider this for your own organisations and ask around to others.
Please advise me of any leads.

Philip Sheppard
NC 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: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:36:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

- --------------BA310EB5C45BD12B0DA80370
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On the history of developing an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency,
(IDNHC) Danny and I have reached the same place by somewhat different routes.
(He has been working in the system longer than I have, and knows the ropes
better.)
We also reach comparable conclusions, which is that Joop and the IDHO are
working under a false premise.

But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I would
strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given the term
"Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too many "fumble fingers"
in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people
may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other.

But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC one goes
through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as
candidates.  That is how registrars get accredited, but not how an IC
should be formed.  IC means individuals, and the voices in any process
that would form one should be those of individuals, not some pre-existing
clique, no matter who it is. The members of any such clique may of course
contribute whatever they want to to the discussion and development of
the process, but, although in democratic processes we end up delegating
authority to speak for us whenever the rules call for "representative"
government (e.g., some bodies within ICANN are representative, the
Board of Directors is not), on the issue of forming an IC I delegate the
authority to speak for me to no one.  The "Working Group" on this
subject is free to make its recommendations (and whoever they are,
if they're not proceeding in doing that, they should be), of course, but
one takes those recommendations for what they are worth and no more.

(Um, "Power to the People?")

(And I repeat again, with a process now at work, that papering the walls
with yet more "motions," when that is not exactly how the decisional
process set up by the DNSO works, is quite counterproductive and
only breeds confusion in us clueless newbies.)

(Have you registered to vote yet?)

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Joop,
>
> You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group
> together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted
> both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted
> in:
>
> a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address
> the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness,
> potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name
> holder's constituency."
>
> b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow
> for new constituencies.
>
> c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board.
>
> d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes.
>
> Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
> for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
> Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
> the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
> responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
> unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?
>
> Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
> application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
> reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on
> behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
> sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
> members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
> that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it
> necessary to include this language in your revised motion?
>
> Speaking as an Individual,
> 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

- --------------BA310EB5C45BD12B0DA80370
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
On the history of developing an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency,
<br>(IDNHC) Danny and I have reached the same place by somewhat different
routes.
<br>(He has been working in the system longer than I have, and knows the
ropes better.)
<br>We also reach comparable conclusions, which is that Joop and the IDHO
are
<br>working under a false premise.
<p>But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I
would
<br>strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given
the term
<br>"Individuals Constituency = IC."&nbsp; If this group has too many "fumble
fingers"
<br>in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and
people
<br>may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other.
<p>But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC
one goes
<br>through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves
as
<br>candidates.&nbsp; That is how registrars get accredited, but not how
an IC
<br>should be formed.&nbsp; IC means <i>individuals</i>, and the voices
in any process
<br>that would form one should be those of <i>individuals</i>, not some
pre-existing
<br>clique, no matter who it is. The <i>members</i> of any such clique
may of course
<br>contribute whatever they want to to the discussion and development
of
<br>the process, but, although in democratic processes we end up delegating
<br>authority to speak for us whenever the rules call for "representative"
<br>government (e.g., some bodies within ICANN are representative, the
<br>Board of Directors is not), on the issue of forming an IC I delegate
the
<br>authority to speak for <i>me</i> to no one.&nbsp; The "Working Group"
on this
<br>subject is free to make its recommendations (and whoever they are,
<br>if they're not proceeding in doing that, they should be), of course,
but
<br>one takes those recommendations for what they are worth and no more.
<p>(Um, "Power to the People?")
<p>(And I repeat again, with a process now at work, that papering the walls
<br>with yet more "motions," when that is not exactly how the decisional
<br>process set up by the DNSO works, is quite counterproductive and
<br>only breeds confusion in us clueless newbies.)
<p>(Have you registered to vote yet?)
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>"babybows.com" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joop,
<p>You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.&nbsp; The Review
Working Group
<br>together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were
submitted
<br>both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.&nbsp; These reports
resulted
<br>in:
<p>a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically
address
<br>the subject of an Individuals Constituency.&nbsp; "Review the need,
uniqueness,
<br>potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain
name
<br>holder's constituency."
<p>b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to
allow
<br>for new constituencies.
<p>c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board.
<p>d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes.
<p>Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground
rules"
<br>for an individuals' constituency.&nbsp; The ICANN Board (in accepting
the NC's
<br>Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended
to
<br>the need to establish ground rules.&nbsp; The NC has been charged with
this
<br>responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
<br>unneeded redundancy.&nbsp;&nbsp; Is my assessment incorrect?
<p>Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
<br>application is **again** presented to the Board.&nbsp; This is an explicit
<br>reference to the former idno petition.&nbsp; Why should the GA be advocating
on
<br>behalf of any one petitioning group?&nbsp; Why are you expecting the
GA to take
<br>sides?&nbsp; Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there
are many
<br>members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
<br>that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.&nbsp;
Is it
<br>necessary to include this language in your revised motion?
<p>Speaking as an Individual,
<br>Danny
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------BA310EB5C45BD12B0DA80370--

- --
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, 13 May 2001 14:01:25 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Joop's motions

Hello Bill,

The problem is, as you have hinted, partially a marketing problem. The issue
is that individuals owning domains have no organization. The other side of
that coin is, such an organization needs resources to "become". This appears
to be a catch-22. The original IDNO was envisioned to overcome this problem.
That it went otherwise is irrelevent, the problem remains.

Yes, we can call it an IC and use the context, of the DNSO, to define that
the IC is Individual [Domain Name] Constituency. However, this gives us yet
another name to poison with [yet another] false start.

The membership of the DNSO may have painted themselves into a corner here,
or are about to.

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 1:37 PM
To: babybows.com; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

On the history of developing an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency,

(IDNHC) Danny and I have reached the same place by somewhat different
routes. 
(He has been working in the system longer than I have, and knows the ropes
better.) 
We also reach comparable conclusions, which is that Joop and the IDHO are 
working under a false premise. 
But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I would 
strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given the
term 
"Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too many "fumble
fingers" 
in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people 
may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other. 
But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC one
goes 
through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as 
candidates.  That is how registrars get accredited, but not how an IC 
should be formed.  IC means individuals, and the voices in any process 
that would form one should be those of individuals, not some pre-existing 
clique, no matter who it is. The members of any such clique may of course 
contribute whatever they want to to the discussion and development of 
the process, but, although in democratic processes we end up delegating 
authority to speak for us whenever the rules call for "representative" 
government (e.g., some bodies within ICANN are representative, the 
Board of Directors is not), on the issue of forming an IC I delegate the 
authority to speak for me to no one.  The "Working Group" on this 
subject is free to make its recommendations (and whoever they are, 
if they're not proceeding in doing that, they should be), of course, but 
one takes those recommendations for what they are worth and no more. 
(Um, "Power to the People?") 
(And I repeat again, with a process now at work, that papering the walls 
with yet more "motions," when that is not exactly how the decisional 
process set up by the DNSO works, is quite counterproductive and 
only breeds confusion in us clueless newbies.) 
(Have you registered to vote yet?) 
Bill Lovell 
"babybows.com" wrote: 
Joop, 
You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group

together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted

both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted 
in: 
a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address

the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness, 
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name 
holder's constituency." 
b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow 
for new constituencies. 
c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board. 
d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes. 
Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules" 
for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's 
Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to 
the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this 
responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an 
unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect? 
Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an 
application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit 
reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on 
behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take 
sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many 
members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency 
that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it 
necessary to include this language in your revised motion? 
Speaking as an Individual, 
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
- --
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, 13 May 2001 22:57:38 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  ICANN's letter to the IRS

Yes, exactly.  Having sponsored a "coffee break", I can vouch for this.

Let's see...

- - at that particular meeting there were 6 coffee breaks...

- - $5000. per coffee break...

- - not to mention the other sponsorships, like...

- - 3 breakfasts at $???

- - 3 receptions at $???

Adds up to a lot of meeting cost coverage.

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> babybows.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 3:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN's letter to the IRS
>
>
> Bret Fausett writes:  The room rental costs for four in-person General
> Assembly meetings a year, with a participatory webcast, are now fully
> funded.
>
> Yes Bret, they are...  the DNSO is paying for it.  Consider the following:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00162.html
>
>
> Council members,
> The DNSO seeks a sponsor to cover a share of the costs of
> web-casting of the
> DNSO meetings in Stockholm.
>
> ICANN have asked us to cover a contribution of US$12,500 towards
> webcasting
> (a share of the total costs estimated at US$50,000).
>
> Sponsor benefits include:
> a display table outside the main hall
> a link from the ICANN web site to the sponsor's web site using
> the sponsor's
> logo,
> acknowledgement of the sponsorship at the meetings.
>
> Please consider this for your own organisations and ask around to others.
> Please advise me of any leads.
>
> Philip Sheppard
> NC 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
>

- --
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, 13 May 2001 21:59:41 -0400
From: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Channels to create an IC

Hi Joop:

I just would add to all those proposal of resolution something like:
"and follow all the procedure stablished in the By-Laws regarding adding 
new constituencies"

Best Regards
Vany

At 11:04 p.m. 05/13/01 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 16:51 12/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> >My personal view...
> >
>With due respect, should take no priority over your duties as Chair.
>
> >
> >Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, the
> >idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
> >individuals.  If they can't get sufficiently organized to present their own
> >petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or any of
> >you, want them representing us?
>
>This is unwarranted. We are talking about the principle of  a constituency
>for Individual DN owners, voting for whoever they want to represent them.
>
>The Idno is not "them", it's for all who want to make it work.
>
>The channels are available to them under
> >the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.  Let them do so.  No one is
> >stopping them.  Perhaps at some point they will actually create a new
> >petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their own list
> >to do this.  I don't see why the GA should support their very transparent
> >ploy.
>
>I think with this you just stepped outside your role as elected Chair of
>this Assembly.
>
> >This is not about individuals having a voice, this effort is directed at
> >getting idno members seats on the Names Council.   Their website already
> >indicates who those NC members will be:  Joop Teernstra, Dinesh Nair, Dennis
> >Schaefer.
> >
>These three people have been elected by the idno members as external
>representatives of the idno.
>New elections for an IC will determine who in the end will sit on the NC. I
>am not at all sure if I would want tro accept such a nomination. Perhaps
>Jeff Williams (not an idno member) ,  Eric Dierker (not an idno member)
>and William X Walsh will be elected. Who knows.
>
> >Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.  He and I will jointly
> >agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at odds on
> >this issue.
>
>I didn't know we were "at odds". I trusted you enough to nominate you for
>Chair, expecting that motions from GA members, if duly seconded, would be
>brought to a proper vote.
>
>Here is the language the mover of the motion proposes to the GA and the
>Chair for the members to vote on:
>
>
>1. The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the ICANN
>Board that it act in the interest of the Corporation and establishes the
>ground rules for an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary
>session in Stockholm.
>Agree/Disagree
>
>(and
>
>1a.  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the
>Names Council that it recommends to the ICANN Board that it act in the
>interest of the Corporation and establishes the ground rules for an
>Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary session in Stockholm.
>Agree /disagree)
>
>and
>
>2.  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend  to the
>ICANN Board that it act in the interest of the Corporation and approves in
>principle the Application for  an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in
>this plenary session in Stockholm, if and when such an application is again
>presented to the Board.
>Agree /disagree
>
>and
>
>2a  The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby resolves to recommend to the
>Names Council that it recommends to the ICANN Board that it act in the
>interest of the Corporation and approves in principle the Application for
>an Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO in this plenary session in
>Stockholm, if and when such an application is again presented to the Board.
>Agree /disagree
>
>
>
>--
>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

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
a member of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency of the 
ICANN's DNSO
e-mail:  [email-masked]
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax:  (507)  230-3455

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:23:14 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stockholm

Dear Patrick,
I certainly prefer seeing you going to Stockholm than me.

Would anyone on this list run a business where he could
take credit card conditionnally. I mean I would be ready
subscribing $ 200 on a credit card, if the money was
retruned to me in case Patrick could not make it?

Your help appreciated. Patrick is the dumbest person
I know so he does not understand that he opposes quite
everything I stand for. Sending him to Stockholm to
represent me would be a good brain opening experience
for him we could all benefit from.  :-)

I do hope we could make it: we voted for he guy!

Jefsey

PS. My evaluation is more $ 2500 from my own
      guestimates for the Melbourne meeting.

On 16:45 13/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>Hi Jefsey
>
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 13:55:12 +0200, you wrote:
>
> > PS. Patrick did you evaluate the cost of
> > your travel you cannot cover? I think you
> > should get real about it. As long as you
> > do not say "I need $ 2787.23" no one is
> > going to think about how much he could
> > commit.
>
>I was interested Chris McElroy and Bret Fausett suggesting solutions
>such as sponsorships for the travel costs to Stockholm.  I have also had
>the following private offer:
>
> > What would be the possibility of asking for donations from the GA list
> > members personally, or the companies that they are with. I'm more or less
> > a "one man shop " but would be able to contribute $100.00. or $150.00 US
> > to a fund to send at least 1 Representative from the DNSO GA
>
>The Chair is coming from the US where fares are cheaper than Australia.
>
>In my case, a local travel agent tells me that a return fare from Sydney,
>Australia to Stockholm, Sweden, would be $2,300 Australian.  Apparently it's
>a high season and Australia is quite far.  I do not know the current rate of
>exchange but a rule of thumb is about half.  That makes US$1,150.  A pure
>guess is that hotel expenses might be $100 a day.  Extras would be food,
>airport taxes, shuttle bus and other such sundries.
>
>The NC budget suggested US$4,000 but did not make the funds available.
>I'm very economical and think a reasonable amount would be US $2,000.
>
>I thank the person who offered support.  I would certainly appreciate any
>sponsorship offers from registrars or other such companies.
>
>Thank you all for your kindness
>Patrick Corliss
>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: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:46:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

Dear Kent,
antithetical or orthogonal - at least in French and in mathematics -
do not make them homothetical.
In other words cars runing in the other ways or crossing
your path will seldom arrive at the same destination as yours.

Unless may be if you drive back in turning left. This may be why
the iCANN is driving us mad.
Jefsey

On 19:50 13/05/01, Kent Crispin said:
> > To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds received
> > only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of 
> public
> > benefit.
>
>Nonsense.  The issues are completely orthogonal.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:14:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stockholm

Dear Eric,
I am not sure you are right however your point is correct. Let
me recall you that Joop - and I did a lot to support that concept
if you may remember - nominated a ticket. Danny as Chair and
Patrick as alt-Chair. I did it because I thought it was an interesting
try and we needed an alternative to your candidacy I supported
for a long (we cannot vote for a single candidate).

1) unfortunately you lost - most probably because you openly
     said you would partly act the way Danny is doing now.

2) both of them won the position we had assigned them to.
     So we cannot say that Patrick has lost.

3) your point is very well made: Patrick is offering a *choice* as
     *different* from the *current system". The Chair has publicly
     foreseen a non peacefull GA meeting when annoucing his
     comming. I wish Patrick to be there to be an alternative to
     such a conception and to help keeping the meeting on track,
     with appropriate decorum, and to have an incentive to work
     on the serious preparation we need to justify for our expenses.

4) I think there would be a certain gentlemenship in showing
     the BoD/Staff that we can make it in spite of their - in regards
     to the James King's letter - some dishonnesty. All the
     more for a person we disapprove the positions. "Love your
     ennemies" is also a good business and political receepe
     for success.

Cheers.
Jefsey

On 20:05 13/05/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Since I am officially persona non grata, would someone else please explain to
>the GA, the chair and the alt-chair that the alt-chair has no function
>whatsoever in Stockholm as long as the chair is in attendance.  This 
>attempting
>to get money in order to go there to represent the GA is very close to a
>misrepresentation in order to part fools from their money.
>
>Just which of these Meriam Webster definitions does the alt-chair 
>misunderstand;
>
>                      1 : ALTERNATE 1
>                      2 : offering or expressing a choice <several alternative
>plans>
>                      3 : different from the usual or conventional: as a :
>existing or functioning
>                      outside the established cultural, social, or economic
>system
>                      <alternative newspaper> <alternative lifestyles> b : 
> of, or
>relating
>                      to, or being rock music that is regarded as an 
> alternative
>to
>                      conventional rock and is typically influenced by 
> punk rock,
>hard rock,
>                      hip-hop, or folk music.
>
>As has been brutally pointed out to me time and time again - I lost the 
>election
>get over it - Mr. Alt-chair you lost the chair position and you are now an
>Alt-Chair with no authority to speak for the GA unless the chair gives it to
>you.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Jefsey
> >
> > On Sun, 13 May 2001 13:55:12 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> > > PS. Patrick did you evaluate the cost of
> > > your travel you cannot cover? I think you
> > > should get real about it. As long as you
> > > do not say "I need $ 2787.23" no one is
> > > going to think about how much he could
> > > commit.
> >
> > I was interested Chris McElroy and Bret Fausett suggesting solutions
> > such as sponsorships for the travel costs to Stockholm.  I have also had
> > the following private offer:
> >
> > > What would be the possibility of asking for donations from the GA list
> > > members personally, or the companies that they are with. I'm more or less
> > > a "one man shop " but would be able to contribute $100.00. or $150.00 US
> > > to a fund to send at least 1 Representative from the DNSO GA
> >
> > The Chair is coming from the US where fares are cheaper than Australia.
> >
> > In my case, a local travel agent tells me that a return fare from Sydney,
> > Australia to Stockholm, Sweden, would be $2,300 Australian.  Apparently 
> it's
> > a high season and Australia is quite far.  I do not know the current 
> rate of
> > exchange but a rule of thumb is about half.  That makes US$1,150.  A pure
> > guess is that hotel expenses might be $100 a day.  Extras would be food,
> > airport taxes, shuttle bus and other such sundries.
> >
> > The NC budget suggested US$4,000 but did not make the funds available.
> > I'm very economical and think a reasonable amount would be US $2,000.
> >
> > I thank the person who offered support.  I would certainly appreciate any
> > sponsorship offers from registrars or other such companies.
> >
> > Thank you all for your kindness
> > Patrick Corliss
> > Alternate Chair.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:19:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Channels to create an IC

At 21:59 13/05/01 -0400, Vany Martinez wrote:
>Hi Joop:
>
>I just would add to all those proposal of resolution something like:
>"and follow all the procedure stablished in the By-Laws regarding adding 
>new constituencies"
>

Nah. :-)  They might feel offended. Has the Board not always faithfully
followed the Bylaws? Or changed them, when that was more convenient? <g>

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:07:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

At 12:36 13/05/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:

>Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
>for an individuals' constituency.  

First of all, it is not a re-worded motion, but a counter-proposed text for
the GA to vote on. You approached me with a voting text, that I did not
find representative of my motion and the published text was my response.
Debate over this text is possible, but if we don't get anywhere, you have
to stick with my original motion.

The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
>Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
>the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
>responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
>unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?
>

I do not think that the referral by the Board back to the other
constituencies (the NC) of a task that is the responsibility of the Board
itself is sufficient. 
The Polling of the GA on this point is therefore not redundant.

>Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
>application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
>reference to the former idno petition. 

No. This is a simple  reference to the fact that *A* previous application
has been lodged.
You can leave it out, if you consider it an embarrassment for the Board to
be reminded of this fact by a GA resolution.
It is not material to the Polling question.

 Why should the GA be advocating on
>behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
>sides? 

Using the word "again" is in itself not "advocating" or "taking sides".

 Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
>members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
>that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular. 

This is the result of a smear campaign that apparently has gotten to you too.

 Is it
>necessary to include this language in your revised motion?
>
I hope that by now you are aware that the Polling Formulations are not a
revised motion.

>Speaking as an Individual,

Danny, please, a little less speaking for yourself and a little more acting
as Chair will help the GA forward. 
This is the job for which you have been elected and this is what is
expected of you.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:14:56 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

- --=====================_8904333==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 13:36 13/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote: 

>
> But first, since from Florida we know how voters can get confused, I would 
> strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given the
> term 
> "Individuals Constituency = IC."  If this group has too many "fumble
fingers"
>
> in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people 
> may be yelling "yeah, yeah" for one when they mean the other. 

That is right and this is the reason why I have proposed calling it the IC.

>
> But as to the substance, the incorrect premise is that to form an IC one
goes
>
> through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as 
> candidates.

That would indeed be a false premise. However, I do not advocate it. 
If the IDNO has to die in order for an IC (with a universally approved
structure---tiny problem: how are you going to get that) to take it's place,
that is fine with me. 

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

- --=====================_8904333==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 13:36 13/05/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote: <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>But first, since from Florida we know how
voters can get confused, I would <br>
strongly urge that the desired representation for individuals be given
the term <br>
&quot;Individuals Constituency = IC.&quot;&nbsp; If this group has too
many &quot;fumble fingers&quot; <br>
in it, as I can sometimes be, IDNH and IDNO will get confused, and people
<br>
may be yelling &quot;yeah, yeah&quot; for one when they mean the other.
<br>
</blockquote><br>
That is right and this is the reason why I have proposed calling it the
IC.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>But as to the substance, the incorrect premise
is that to form an IC one goes <br>
through some list of existing bodies that have advanced themselves as
<br>
candidates.</blockquote><br>
That would indeed be a false premise. However, I do not advocate it.
<br>
If the IDNO has to die in order for an IC (with a universally approved
structure---tiny problem: how are you going to get that) to take it's
place, that is fine with me. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--&nbsp; </div>
<div>the Cyberspace Association and </div>
<div>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners</div>
<div>Elected representative.</div>
<div><a href="http://www.idno.org/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.idno.org</a>&nbsp;
</div>
</html>

- --=====================_8904333==_.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #456
************************