Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #457
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 14 2001             Volume 01 : Number 457

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 08:15:52 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget-Posted 14 May 2001

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0DC4E.176579E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget

****(14 May 2001)****

http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0DC4E.176579E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>
<CENTER><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+2>Proposed Fiscal Year 2001-2002=20
Budget</FONT></CENTER>
<P></P>
<P>
<CENTER><FONT face=3DArial>****(14 May 2001)****</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm">http=
://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm</A></CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0DC4E.176579E0--

- --
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 10:51:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

Joop Teernstra wrote:

>  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.

All,

My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
proposal paper.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
>
>
>
>> 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 andthe
> constituency for Individual Domain Name OwnersElected
> 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 19:08:48 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

I am sorry Sotiris, but IC is too short as it conflicts with
Individual User Constituency and Indvidual User Center of
Interests (IUCI). The WG-Review has stabilized as IDNH
and IDNHC after a lot of disputes. This was reflected in the
Chair approbation of the subject for discussion.

Anyway there is an obvious mnemonic conflict between
the two requests and an overwhelming silent majority in
favor of the individual users :-).

I recall you that Individual Users as to be prefered to
End User as the Internet is an independent station
oriented system (there is no "end") and "EU" would
be confusing with Europe?

I add that the Individual User is absolutely not represented
in the DNSO - while is some ways IDNHs and SMEs are -
while IUs are going to be the deciding segment: should
IUs opt for a MultiRoot solutions, or when will hey do will
have a dramatical impact on the DNSO mission and
structure.

I am afraid that all this leads us to a new confusion against
the IDNHs in pretending that IDNHs are to be confused
with Individual Users.

I do not buy the possible confusion between IDNH and
IDNO. It would be like saying that USA and USSR where
so confusingly near that the "USA" had to be called
"Europe".

IMHO we have another problem: there is an abvious
possible confusion between DNSO/IC and DNSO/BC.

Jefsey

On 16:51 14/05/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >  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.
>
>All,
>
>My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
>disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
>offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
>proposal paper.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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 andthe
> > constituency for Individual Domain Name OwnersElected
> > representative.http://www.idno.org
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:32:21 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

Busier than a cat on a hot tin roof, I am, but a quick response
is that the matter seems to be settled into the IC bit. Later I
shall be sending an email to Joop thanking him most kindly
for his contributions, but right now I've got clients coming in,
and unlike all you guys, they have money.  Hahaha!

And thank you, too, Sotiris!

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> >  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.
>
> All,
>
> My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
> disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
> offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
> proposal paper.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 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 andthe
> > constituency for Individual Domain Name OwnersElected
> > representative.http://www.idno.org
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:56:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
the military), but perhaps there should be -- I correspond
with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
proper issue for the GA.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I am sorry Sotiris, but IC is too short as it conflicts with
> Individual User Constituency and Indvidual User Center of
> Interests (IUCI). The WG-Review has stabilized as IDNH
> and IDNHC after a lot of disputes. This was reflected in the
> Chair approbation of the subject for discussion.
>
> Anyway there is an obvious mnemonic conflict between
> the two requests and an overwhelming silent majority in
> favor of the individual users :-).
>
> I recall you that Individual Users as to be prefered to
> End User as the Internet is an independent station
> oriented system (there is no "end") and "EU" would
> be confusing with Europe?
>
> I add that the Individual User is absolutely not represented
> in the DNSO - while is some ways IDNHs and SMEs are -
> while IUs are going to be the deciding segment: should
> IUs opt for a MultiRoot solutions, or when will hey do will
> have a dramatical impact on the DNSO mission and
> structure.
>
> I am afraid that all this leads us to a new confusion against
> the IDNHs in pretending that IDNHs are to be confused
> with Individual Users.
>
> I do not buy the possible confusion between IDNH and
> IDNO. It would be like saying that USA and USSR where
> so confusingly near that the "USA" had to be called
> "Europe".
>
> IMHO we have another problem: there is an abvious
> possible confusion between DNSO/IC and DNSO/BC.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 16:51 14/05/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> >Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >  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.
> >
> >All,
> >
> >My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
> >disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
> >offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
> >proposal paper.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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 andthe
> > > constituency for Individual Domain Name OwnersElected
> > > representative.http://www.idno.org
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 13:28:51 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Channels to create an IC

- --------------2A34134F7B754FD367C7305E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"babybows.com" wrote:

> My personal view...
>
> Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
> regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.
>
> Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force, the
> Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under the
> heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms of
> reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the following:
> 5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
> contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
> constituency."
>
> The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that none of
> the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms of
> reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
> "hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.

If the inference is "too little, too late," as it would seem to be, I agree
wholeheartedly. The negative impression of the NC expressed by the
INTLA (or whatever the hell that is -- the 11,000 trademark lawyers)
would have been quite correct, although they were quite wrong on the
IC issue.  Any restructuring of the DNSO (see below) should also
consider eliminating the NC, if what we seem to be seeing is truly
representative of its "work."

> Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"... This is yet
> another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure model.
> That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights of
> other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
> structure.

Danny raises a legitimate issue here.  So long as there are constituencies at
all, I believe there should be an IC -- Individuals' Constituency -- and I think

the last week or so has shown quite a bit more support for one than Danny's
email to which I now respond suggests.

> I remind you that the majority of the members of the Review Working Group
> called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting the
> initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back into
> the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).

That is worthy of consideration.  At the same time, I'd put in a plug for the
separate emal groups (ga-ext, etc.) that Patrick has set up.  Reason is, I've
got
172 emails staring at me right now, and with just a broad GA list everything
under the sun would be coming in.  (I'm a "techie" in my own fields, but IP
structures and all that are just not my bag, and the work of the other SOs
is not my bag either, so I don't need all that in my inbox.)  It's just a matter

of focus on the issues in which one specifically wishes to get involved.
(This is not a decisive thing, however -- if we end up with just the GA list,
I'll use my delete button.)

> It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions already reached.
> Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially if they
> can't afford to vote).  The Board has expressed its willingness to consider
> structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).  It is time to push the
> Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved and
> replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.

Especially, since the accepted motion is at hand which says that the creation
of an Individuals' Constituency -- IC -- be studied, that those on whatever
Working Group that is get cracking.

> The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals' Constituency
> are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
> conversation on their own list.

Not so -- see above, and below.

> When Joop fails to post on this topic on
> the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.  Where is the true measure of
> support?  The idno Chair has not even come forward to support the motion
> recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno list
> since January.

The "idno Chair" -- Joop Ternstra -- has now jumped into the IC bit quite
a lot on [ga], I believe a lot of which is dated after this email to which I
now respond, so if that is or was a problem, it has gone away.

> An effort has been made to discourage bringing up the past history of the
> idno.  This history is an issue that warrants discussion.

Why?  If everyone is now on board an IC effort as Individuals, what
difference does any of that make?  Today's emails from Joop show that
he can be as flexible as the rest of us, and indeed WXW has graciously
expressed his own willingness to join with others that have "followed his
path," so to speak, and speak out as Individuals on the IC issue, i.e.,
others who support having an IC, so if such bunches of people
(separately as Individuals and speaking in each case only from their
own personal perspectives) are lining up in support of having an IC,
why rock the boat?

> Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency is created, the
> idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
> individuals.

Of course the idno would have, and indeed already has, through Joop's
earlier motion. That tide seems to be turning, however, and I think it
VERY important to make clear a distinction here.  We vote FIRST
on the question of whether to have an IC.  Although a lot of poohbah
will go into deciding that issue, such poohbah undoubtedly including
competing charters and various personages rushing to the front of the
line, the QUESTION on which a vote is first to be taken -- a question
which by the rules permits only a yes or a no -- will be: Should there
be an IC? If that came out affirmative, then, and only then, would the
issue of who that's going to be would become of relevance. I say we
fight that battle when we get to it, with the observation that "who that's
going to be" will most certainly be all of us -- it could in fact BE the
GA! (I'd not favor that, though, without a simultaneous abolishment
of the NC -- this is an "off the top notion," and I might well change it
upon further thought. One such thought rests on the role of the GA
in speaking for, or more exactly, including, others than individuals,
and one would not want that to disappear. And then there's that At-
Large thing.  Life do get complicated.)

(Having been cut off by my ISP because I took too long to write
this, I've had a chance at further thought, and I now doubt that the
GA should become just an IC -- it has a much broader role. What
now bothers me is that in the organizational chart of ICANN as
posted on the web -- which I might mention is hopelessly out of
date -- I see "GA" nowhere.)

> 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?

See above.

>  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.

But also, if we now have a Working Group examining the IC issue, we
should let that proceed (unless we discover that all of those on that WG
have died and gone to heaven). I say this only because to have this group
or that grinding out a deluge of Petitions to the Board would be quite a
confusing mess.  Direct line procedures that lead to the Board are now
in place and presumably functioning. And I might add, terms such as
"transparent ploy" are counterproductive and ought not to be used.

(On the other hand, I found "unstabilized disruptor" to be so hilarious
I about bust a gut laughing!)

> 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.

As I read the latest from Joop, while that might have been the case initially,
it may not be so now. For reasons for which I am partly to blame in seeking
a new effort (Patrick has spoken out against the same, and I now agree with
him), simply because at that time I (like Vany) was not aware of the "ground
rules" already set out but which Vany later pointed out, we should all now be
aware of the resolution that because of those ground rules has an IC effort
presently functioning(?). If that is really so, I suggest we let it proceed; if
it is
not, I suggest we tar and feather those who agreed to do that work and have
not done so, if that is the case, and one way or the other replace them with
others who will.

> 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.  While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly will
> make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to the
> Board.

So let's see if that happens.

(As always, there's a lot of stuff to pore through here, and if I've got any
of this wrong, please post your corrections (politely, of course!) :-)

Bill Lovell

- --------------2A34134F7B754FD367C7305E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>"babybows.com" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>My personal view...
<p>Bill Lovell has raised the issue of the role of the Names Council with
<br>regard to the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.
<p>Subsequent to the report of the Names Council DNSO Review Task Force,
the
<br>Names Council put forth a Business Plan (20 Feb) which stated (under
the
<br>heading "Strategies"), "Establish an interim committee to propose terms
of
<br>reference for an NC task force or other group to implement the following:
<br>5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
<br>contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
<br>constituency."
<p>The last Names Council teleconference bore witness to the fact that
none of
<br>the Names Council "Interim Committees" have yet established any "terms
of
<br>reference" for any new project cited in the Business Plan - they are
<br>"hoping" to get this work accomplished by Stockholm.</blockquote>
If the inference is "too little, too late," as it would seem to be, I agree
<br>wholeheartedly. The negative impression of the NC expressed by the
<br>INTLA (or whatever the hell that is -- the 11,000 trademark lawyers)
<br>would have been quite correct, although they were quite wrong on the
<br>IC issue.&nbsp; Any restructuring of the DNSO (see below) should also
<br>consider eliminating the NC, if what we seem to be seeing is truly
<br>representative of its "work."
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Three months to pose the most basic "terms of reference"...
This is yet
<br>another example of the abject failure of the constituency structure
model.
<br>That one set of constituencies can vote to threaten the voting rights
of
<br>other constituencies is still another example of the folly of this
<br>structure.</blockquote>
Danny raises a legitimate issue here.&nbsp; So long as there are constituencies
at
<br>all, I believe there should be an IC -- Individuals' Constituency --
and I think
<br>the last week or so has shown quite a bit more support for one than
Danny's
<br>email to which I now respond suggests.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I remind you that the majority of the members of
the Review Working Group
<br>called for the abolition of this constituency structure (supporting
the
<br>initiative of Director Karl Auerbach to roll the constituencies back
into
<br>the GA on a one-man-one-vote basis).</blockquote>
That is worthy of consideration.&nbsp; At the same time, I'd put in a plug
for the
<br>separate emal groups (ga-ext, etc.) that Patrick has set up.&nbsp;
Reason is, I've got
<br>172 emails staring at me right now, and with just a broad GA list everything
<br>under the sun would be coming in.&nbsp; (I'm a "techie" in my own fields,
but IP
<br>structures and all that are just not my bag, and the work of the other
SOs
<br>is not my bag either, so I don't need all that in my inbox.)&nbsp;
It's just a matter
<br>of focus on the issues in which one specifically wishes to get involved.
<br>(This is not a decisive thing, however -- if we end up with just the
GA list,
<br>I'll use my delete button.)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>It's time to move forward on the basis of conclusions
already reached.
<br>Creating new constituencies does not solve our problems (especially
if they
<br>can't afford to vote).&nbsp; The Board has expressed its willingness
to consider
<br>structural changes in the DNSO (resolution 01.28).&nbsp; It is time
to push the
<br>Names Council to get on with its job until such time as it is dissolved
and
<br>replaced by a structure that better guarantees full representation.</blockquote>
<i>Especially</i>, since the accepted motion is at hand which says that
the creation
<br>of an Individuals' Constituency -- IC -- be studied, that those on
whatever
<br>Working Group that is get cracking.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The only people that I have seen pushing for an Individuals'
Constituency
<br>are the few members of the idno that will occasionally strike up a
<br>conversation on their own list.</blockquote>
Not so -- see above, and below.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>When Joop fails to post on this topic on
<br>the GA list, no one else posts on this topic.&nbsp; Where is the true
measure of
<br>support?&nbsp; The idno Chair has not even come forward to support
the motion
<br>recently put forth, and frankly has not even participated on the idno
list
<br>since January.</blockquote>
The "idno Chair" -- Joop Ternstra -- has now jumped into the IC bit quite
<br>a lot on [ga], I believe a lot of which is dated after this email to
which I
<br>now respond, so if that is or was a problem, it has gone away.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>An effort has been made to discourage bringing up
the past history of the
<br>idno.&nbsp; This history is an issue that warrants discussion.</blockquote>
Why?&nbsp; If everyone is now on board an IC effort as Individuals, what
<br>difference does any of that make?&nbsp; Today's emails from Joop show
that
<br>he can be as flexible as the rest of us, and indeed WXW has graciously
<br>expressed his own willingness to join with others that have "followed
his
<br>path," so to speak, and speak out as Individuals on the IC issue, i.e.,
<br>others who support having an IC, so if such bunches of people
<br>(separately as Individuals and speaking in each case only from their
<br>own personal perspectives) are lining up in support of having an IC,
<br>why rock the boat?
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Make no mistake about it, if an Individuals' Constituency
is created, the
<br>idno will be the first organization in line seeking to represent
<br>individuals.</blockquote>
Of course the idno would have, and indeed already has, through Joop's
<br>earlier motion. That tide seems to be turning, however, and I think
it
<br>VERY important to make clear a distinction here.&nbsp; We vote FIRST
<br>on the question of <i>whether to have an IC</i>.&nbsp; Although a lot
of poohbah
<br>will go into deciding that issue, such poohbah undoubtedly including
<br>competing charters and various personages rushing to the front of the
<br>line, the QUESTION on which a vote is first to be taken -- a question
<br>which by the rules permits only a yes or a no -- will be: <i>Should
there</i>
<br><i>be an IC?</i> If that came out affirmative, then, and only then,
would the
<br>issue of who that's going to be would become of relevance. I say we
<br>fight that battle when we get to it, with the observation that "who
that's
<br>going to be" will most certainly be all of us -- it could in fact BE
the
<br>GA! (I'd not favor that, though, without a simultaneous abolishment
<br>of the NC -- this is an "off the top notion," and I might well change
it
<br>upon further thought. One such thought rests on the role of the GA
<br>in speaking for, or more exactly, including, <i>others than</i> individuals,
<br>and one would not want that to disappear. And then there's that At-
<br>Large thing.&nbsp; Life do get complicated.)
<p>(Having been cut off by my ISP because I took too long to write
<br>this, I've had a chance at further thought, and I now doubt that the
<br>GA should become just an IC -- it has a much broader role. What
<br><i>now</i> bothers me is that in the organizational chart of ICANN
as
<br>posted on the web -- which I might mention is hopelessly out of
<br>date -- I see "GA" nowhere.)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>If they can't get sufficiently organized to present
their own
<br>petition, and have it accepted by the Board, then why should I, or
any of
<br>you, want them representing us?</blockquote>
See above.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;The channels are available to them under
<br>the Bylaws to put forward their own petition.&nbsp; Let them do so.&nbsp;
No one is
<br>stopping them.&nbsp; Perhaps at some point they will actually create
a new
<br>petition for presentation, although I have seen no effort on their
own list
<br>to do this.&nbsp; I don't see why the GA should support their very
transparent
<br>ploy.</blockquote>
But also, if we now have a Working Group examining the IC issue, we
<br>should let that proceed (unless we discover that all of those on that
WG
<br>have died and gone to heaven). I say this only because to have this
group
<br>or that grinding out a deluge of Petitions to the Board would be quite
a
<br>confusing mess.&nbsp; Direct line procedures that lead to the Board
are now
<br>in place and presumably functioning. And I might add, terms such as
<br>"transparent ploy" are counterproductive and ought not to be used.
<p>(On the other hand, I found "unstabilized disruptor" to be so hilarious
<br>I about bust a gut laughing!)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>This is not about individuals having a voice, this
effort is directed at
<br>getting idno members seats on the Names Council.&nbsp;&nbsp; Their
website already
<br>indicates who those NC members will be:&nbsp; Joop Teernstra, Dinesh
Nair, Dennis
<br>Schaefer.</blockquote>
As I read the latest from Joop, while that might have been the case initially,
<br>it may not be so now. For reasons for which I am partly to blame in
seeking
<br>a new effort (Patrick has spoken out against the same, and I now agree
with
<br>him), simply because at that time I (like Vany) was not aware of the
"ground
<br>rules" already set out but which Vany later pointed out, we should
all now be
<br>aware of the resolution that because of those ground rules has an IC
effort
<br>presently functioning(?). If that is really so, I suggest we let it
proceed; if it is
<br>not, I suggest we tar and feather those who agreed to do that work
and have
<br>not done so, if that is the case, and one way or the other replace
them with
<br>others who will.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joop's motion will be voted on this coming week.&nbsp;
He and I will jointly
<br>agree on appropriate language for the ballot question as we are at
odds on
<br>this issue.&nbsp; While I do not support his motion, the General Assembly
will
<br>make the decision, and I will put forward the position of the GA to
the
<br>Board.</blockquote>
So let's see if that happens.
<p>(As always, there's a lot of stuff to pore through here, and if I've
got any
<br>of this wrong, please post your corrections (politely, of course!)
:-)
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------2A34134F7B754FD367C7305E--

- --
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 22:40:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

Bill,
if you would be so kind as to refer to the ALSC meeting
and documents (@lager Study Group) you would see that
the USO is a pending matter. Often as a way to fight the
@large. Here some comments:

1. again and again we come accross the confusion
     introduced by Dennis Jenning and taken into the
     bylaws by Joe Sims (I have no time to go accross
     the WG-R archives but you will find a copy of Joe's
     testimony there). The DNSO has been built both
     to be a DNS Support Organisation *and* to welcome
     user concerns (what is the @large role). Hence a
     constant back anf forth confusion maintained by
     Hans Kaijenbrink and als. because 9 seats at the
     BoD are at stake.

On 20:56 14/05/01, William S. Lovell said:
>To bring up users is an excellent thing to do. (I was a "mere
>user" once myself!)  I'd thought about doing the same, but
>then the point struck me: the GA is a part of the DNSO,
>and the charter of the DNSO relates to domain names only.
>There is no USO (other than the famous one that entertains
>the military), but perhaps there should be

The USO would be a way to achieve two things against
e-democraty and to support large TM holders:

- -  to deny Joop and als' efforts for and IDNHC, and to some
    extent to an SMEC, in dilluting and confusing them in an
    hypothetical 4th SO (80% of DN holders excluded...)

- -  to reduce @large representation at the BoD to 3 seats (as
    the other SOs) rather han 9.

>- I correspond
>with tons of people that don't have domain names, and Jefsey
>is absolutely correct in indicating that they have legitimate
>interests as well.  So my only question is whether that is a
>proper issue for the GA.

This is THE issue. The individual users represent 97%++
of the stakeholders. The use of the DNS is based on their
consensus to use it. There are right now various potential
fashions about possible new trends in using the old DNS.
Would they use/demand them or not will make a
tremendous difference.

Exemple: if the fashion is after new TLDs for simplification
of the access. iCANN will not last long against press and
consumer associations.

If the market becomes fed-up with the stupid restictions
imposed by the large TMs (there are 10.000s of TM owners
not having a DN and not necessarily happy with brother
Jonathan Cohen: they would like most probably to be in
a position not to vote for him)

Where do you think multi-lingual DNs come from? not from
chinese DN holders: there were none!

Please identify on this ML how many non US citizens.
Far East people think that the DNSO is WASP reserved.
And is it not?

Exemple: I certainly cross the 5 posts a day limit. But
would this GA respect the spirit of the bylaws about
geographical repratition we would consider the post
balance between NA, SA, Africa, Europe and Far-East
(and may be the balance in individual users between
Far-East and NA, now and 10 years from now).

These are certainly netwide IU subjects concerning the
DNSO very different from the @large concerns about
IDN market support in China, e-business development
in Europe, commercial conflicts between Cisco and
other large groups, anti-Digital Divide projects in Africa
or impact of IPv6 on the banking, transport, banking,
health, etc... industries.

You see, nobody will make believe that Mr. Stuart
Lynn and Louis Touton with the occasionnal help
of Andrew McLauhglin can seriously be considered,
as able to handle alone the e-development of the planet.

Cheers.

Jefsey

>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > I am sorry Sotiris, but IC is too short as it conflicts with
> > Individual User Constituency and Indvidual User Center of
> > Interests (IUCI). The WG-Review has stabilized as IDNH
> > and IDNHC after a lot of disputes. This was reflected in the
> > Chair approbation of the subject for discussion.
> >
> > Anyway there is an obvious mnemonic conflict between
> > the two requests and an overwhelming silent majority in
> > favor of the individual users :-).
> >
> > I recall you that Individual Users as to be prefered to
> > End User as the Internet is an independent station
> > oriented system (there is no "end") and "EU" would
> > be confusing with Europe?
> >
> > I add that the Individual User is absolutely not represented
> > in the DNSO - while is some ways IDNHs and SMEs are -
> > while IUs are going to be the deciding segment: should
> > IUs opt for a MultiRoot solutions, or when will hey do will
> > have a dramatical impact on the DNSO mission and
> > structure.
> >
> > I am afraid that all this leads us to a new confusion against
> > the IDNHs in pretending that IDNHs are to be confused
> > with Individual Users.
> >
> > I do not buy the possible confusion between IDNH and
> > IDNO. It would be like saying that USA and USSR where
> > so confusingly near that the "USA" had to be called
> > "Europe".
> >
> > IMHO we have another problem: there is an abvious
> > possible confusion between DNSO/IC and DNSO/BC.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > On 16:51 14/05/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> > >Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >  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.
> > >
> > >All,
> > >
> > >My original intention in proposing the title "IC" *was* to clearly
> > >disassociate it from the IDNO.  I had explained this to Joop in an
> > >offlist mailing back in the wg-review, just as we finished the final
> > >proposal paper.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >
> > >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > >

- --
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 #457
************************