Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #475
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 475

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:48:58 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

"babybows.com" wrote:

> The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
>
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board
> in accordance with its Bylaws.

I'm not crazy about the "immediate acknowledgement" part, seems too aggressive.
Simply "acknowledgement" should suffice.

> The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
> to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an Individuals'
> Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at
> the Stockholm plenary session.

This could be the entire motion in itself, given a slight rewording:

The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of an Individuals'
Constituency or the "approval in principle" of such a constituency, on its
agenda for a decision at
the Stockholm plenary session.

My 2 cents on the matter.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 18:24:37 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

On Fri, 18 May 2001 08:55:43 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
>At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>>This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. 
>>Technological change, commercial/technical solutions, and what else, 
>>can be put in place by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or 
>>at least full awareness) of Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies 
>>the competitive advantage. This is why vertical integration has been 
>>a no-no since the early days (as Director Kraaijenbrink put well in 
>>MdR).
>
>Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry 
>and registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if 
>ICANN even attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries 
>could not include the registrar function.

Are we talking gTLDs or ccTLDs?  ICANN at present has no power to
adopt policies affecting ccTLDs.  If we are talking gTLDs then is it
not the case that all of the "open" gTLDs do have a registry/registrar
split?

Was not one of the new gTLD applications turned down because it did
not have a registry/registrar split?

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 19 May 2001 04:13:04 -0700
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Agree

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
>babybows.com
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:14 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
>The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
>
>
>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the
>ICANN Board
>in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
>to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
>Individuals'
>Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at
>the Stockholm plenary session.
>
>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
>

- --
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, 19 May 2001 07:56:53 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle" ****

Now it reads:

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board
in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'
Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm plenary
session.

/Bruce

The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board
in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an Individuals'
Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at
the Stockholm plenary session.

Agree/Disagree

- --
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: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:40:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Dear DPF,
I am afraid that you confuse the issues. :-)

On 08:24 19/05/01, DPF said:
>Was not one of the new gTLD applications turned down because it did
>not have a registry/registrar split?

This is to foster competition. The target of the new gTLD is
to offer a proof of concept.

Since NSI has no Register/Registrar split, competition
should, offering the proof that you develop better in this
business with a split.

What would then be the use of a project copying NSI?
iCANN already explain at length why they did not need
.web since they had .info.

Now we know the no split model works, we urgently need
to check the split model works too. Look even Afillias will
have a split.

Competition is competition: iCANN must look in every
such subtle tiny details ... it is very complex.

Chuck established a parallel point about the "no split no
problem" issue. When you think of it a split is nothing:
show me a split: it is a void. So how could you logically
show that nothing can make a difference?

tss, tss, Dear DPF, you still have to work hard before
you understand how the iCANN thinking works.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 08:24:10 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

The whole idea of registry/registrar splitting is a canard. It was one of
the things offered to delay the introduction of new TLDs. It attempted to
answer the anti-competition rant about failing to allow other registries to
offer TLDs in competition with COM. In addition, NSI was failing miserably
at customer service. The registrar system attempted to say that there is now
competition with NSI. That one no longer has to do business with NSI because
one now has a choice of registrars. Ergo, no new TLDs were required. As a
prophylactic, it failed.

All the registrar system did was create a new layer of registry resellers.
The fundimental provider of service is still the registry and there is still
only one. It is worse because  registrar agreements bind registrars
exclusively to ICANN, preventing them from doing business with non-ICANN
registries, AFAICT. They are still locked into NSI (I don't think that RIPE
supports registrars, the last I heard). Thus, it only presents the
appearance of competition and not the fact. 

What it did do was relieve NSI of many customer service issues by pushing
most of that out to the registrars. What it ALSO does is add yet another
layer of profit margins. Thus increasing the minimal cost of doing business.
Look in your marketing 101 text for channel marketing. It is a very
effective tool. It actually enhanced NSI's position substantially. NSI
actually got ICANN to help them set up their market distribution channels.

BTW, I said most of this at the time it happened. It should be no surprise
to many. Some may disagree ... if it quacks, flies, and swims ... it's a
duck, IMHO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:25 PM
> To: Mike Roberts
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 08:55:43 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> >>This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. 
> >>Technological change, commercial/technical solutions, and 
> what else, 
> >>can be put in place by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or 
> >>at least full awareness) of Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies 
> >>the competitive advantage. This is why vertical integration 
> has been 
> >>a no-no since the early days (as Director Kraaijenbrink put well in 
> >>MdR).
> >
> >Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry 
> >and registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if 
> >ICANN even attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries 
> >could not include the registrar function.
> 
> Are we talking gTLDs or ccTLDs?  ICANN at present has no power to
> adopt policies affecting ccTLDs.  If we are talking gTLDs then is it
> not the case that all of the "open" gTLDs do have a registry/registrar
> split?
> 
> Was not one of the new gTLD applications turned down because it did
> not have a registry/registrar split?
> 
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 10:21:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

Roeland Meyer wrote:

[him] The whole idea of registry/registrar splitting is a canard.

[me] Vertical integration  is precisely the issue underlying the Microsoft
antitrust suit: you couldn't get Windows without also getting an IE
browser, and since you can hardly get a computer without getting
Windows, Netscape is toast.  The analogy in patent law is that
technology A has a patent, technology B does not, but you can't
buy technology A without also buying technology B -- it's called a
"tie-in." The present situation is not contractual, as when buying a
computer, but rather a bit of marketing and taking advantage of
knowing how consumers think -- which, of course, are themselves
legitimate and essential things to do, but to tilt the playing field itself,
by putting oneself in a position of marketing advantage with the
blessing of ICANN and the DoC, is not legitimate. NSI/Verisign
has at least a psychological tie-in.

Contrary to when I first went on line, nowadays one has a choice of
registrars, and that's a good thing. The trap one falls into is precisely
like the one I did: in those days of INTERNIC and all that, when the
Internet was just creeping out of the military mode to the public, the
idea was that NSI then became "Big Daddy," and everything went
through them.  Because of that, I had absorbed the notion that all of
that was still true: there was only one authentic registry, there was
only one WHOIS data base, etc., and I was blathering some dumb
stuff (and hassling Chuck Gomes) until one kind soul in this bunch
straightened me out.  But there are others out there whose brains
work somewhere nearly as slow as mine, and there are still traps.

One of these is the "one-stop-shopping" mentality.  "If it is known that
Company X is going to be the registry for your domain name, why go
elsewhere for anything?" Another is the recent Verisign/ICANN
agreement -- the whole thing has been publicized so much that whole
world will get the sense that "Verisign is where the action is," and "if I
want something I'd better go to them."  There are more than these few
traps, and I won't try to track them all down here, but since we now have
that agreement, what I say is, "Fellow scientists, the experiment has
started and the pots are boiling: we shall see what we shall see."

(A witch's brew, methinks.)

> All the registrar system did was create a new layer of registry resellers.
> The fundimental provider of service is still the registry and there is still
> only one.

My point exactly.

> It is worse because  registrar agreements bind registrars
> exclusively to ICANN, preventing them from doing business with non-ICANN
> registries, AFAICT. They are still locked into NSI (I don't think that RIPE
> supports registrars, the last I heard). Thus, it only presents the
> appearance of competition and not the fact.

The (at least psychological) marketing edge that Verisign now has is one major
anti-competitive aspect of the Verisign/ICANN agreement.

> What it did do was relieve NSI of many customer service issues by pushing
> most of that out to the registrars. What it ALSO does is add yet another
> layer of profit margins. Thus increasing the minimal cost of doing business.
> Look in your marketing 101 text for channel marketing. It is a very
> effective tool. It actually enhanced NSI's position substantially. NSI
> actually got ICANN to help them set up their market distribution channels.

NSI/Verisign not only remains as "Big Daddy," but has cemented its position
and taken on a marketing partner -- ICANN.

> BTW, I said most of this at the time it happened. It should be no surprise
> to many. Some may disagree ... if it quacks, flies, and swims ... it's a
> duck, IMHO.

I also hear quacking sounds.

Bill Lovell

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:34:17 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Ken:

    I think your answer is here:

http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-10mar00.htm#VI-B-3c

ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION

Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES

(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.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 19, 2001 12:04
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

question ?

are you proposing an individual constituancy with the same bylaws proposed
in 1999 by joop or are you proposing a new individual constituancy with
different by-laws.. ?

i believe the last proposal & related by-laws were rejected by the board in
1999

ken stubbs
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

> Sure Ken, please look at this Icann site:
>
> http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: May 19, 2001 08:49
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> pleas provide me with a link to the proposed by-laws for the proposed
> constituancy
>
> thank you
>
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> > I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle"
> ****
> >
> > Now it reads:
> >
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> Board
> > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> recommends
> > to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'
> > Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> plenary
> > session.
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
> >
> >
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> Board
> > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> recommends
> > to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
> Individuals'
> > Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision
> at
> > the Stockholm plenary session.
> >
> > Agree/Disagree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>

- --
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, 19 May 2001 12:11:05 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:21 AM

> One of these is the "one-stop-shopping" mentality.  "If it is 
> known that
> Company X is going to be the registry for your domain name, why go
> elsewhere for anything?"

I confess, this is exactly why MHSC domains are still with NSI. My last
experience was rather pleasant, I paid the tariff and they performed the
service.

> Another is the recent Verisign/ICANN
> agreement -- the whole thing has been publicized so much that whole
> world will get the sense that "Verisign is where the action 
> is," and "if I want something I'd better go to them."

It might get investors to buy into their stock offering more. But, I really
wonder if it is doing anything to their (already huge) market-share.
Remember, they [still] have 100% of COM/NET/ORG and they have an excellent
channel market distribution system. Discussions about market share, between
channel-market partners (registrars), are not constructive or germaine.

BTW, new TLDs that sub-contract with the NSI registry are also
non-competitive. This is mere window-dressing, like the registrar system.
What the Internet needs are multiple registries, of all sizes. The new TLDs
were supposed to do this, but the ICANN didn't make this distinction in the
process, last November. IMHO, it should have.

Maybe, what the ICANN needs is to define what a root level registry is, how
it operates, and what the policies are, first? I hate to appear to be
pounding the same drum here. But, had this been in place before November, we
might have a better defense for 1) the selection that were made, 2) the
selection process itself, and 3) a clearer road to implementation of the
[ICANN] business objectives. Such suggestions were made
<http://www.dnso.net/mhsc-tld.htm>, but ICANN seems to prefer stumbling
about in the dark.

- -- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: [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: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:18:26 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

bruce

maybe i am wrong here, but i believe that the board requires a set of
by-laws from the proposing constituancy...

that is what i am referring to and what i was asking to see..

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
To: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

> Ken:
>
>     I think your answer is here:
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-10mar00.htm#VI-B-3c
>
>
> ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
>
> Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
>
> (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.
>
>
> /Bruce
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: May 19, 2001 12:04
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> question ?
>
> are you proposing an individual constituancy with the same bylaws proposed
> in 1999 by joop or are you proposing a new individual constituancy with
> different by-laws.. ?
>
> i believe the last proposal & related by-laws were rejected by the board
in
> 1999
>
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> To: "GA" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> > Sure Ken, please look at this Icann site:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm
> >
> > Regards,
> > /Bruce
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: May 19, 2001 08:49
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > pleas provide me with a link to the proposed by-laws for the proposed
> > constituancy
> >
> > thank you
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > > I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle"
> > ****
> > >
> > > Now it reads:
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
the
> > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> > Board
> > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > recommends
> > > to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'
> > > Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> > plenary
> > > session.
> > >
> > > /Bruce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
> > >
> > >
> > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
the
> > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> > Board
> > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > recommends
> > > to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
> > Individuals'
> > > Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a
decision
> > at
> > > the Stockholm plenary session.
> > >
> > > Agree/Disagree
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:54:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Hi Ken:

We have being discussed for sometime about what the By-Laws says and the
interpretation that everyone gives to them.

Some says that a constituency has to be self organized first (with
charter, etc) in order to
be created, I say based on from what I read in the By-Laws that a
constituency
first is created, then self-organized with charter,etc (by one or
different groups) and then ICANN Board recognizes the group they think
will represent better the constituency.

However, at the end, I haven't heard anyone from the ICANN Board and/or
ICANN Board staff stating or clarifying things.

Should the NC request a clarification on the Board about this issue maybe?

Best Regards
Vany
:-)

On Sat, 19 May 2001, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> bruce
>
> maybe i am wrong here, but i believe that the board requires a set of
> by-laws from the proposing constituancy...
>
> that is what i am referring to and what i was asking to see..
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "GA" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
>
>
> > Ken:
> >
> >     I think your answer is here:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-10mar00.htm#VI-B-3c
> >
> >
> > ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
> >
> > Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
> >
> > (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.
> >
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: May 19, 2001 12:04
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > question ?
> >
> > are you proposing an individual constituancy with the same bylaws proposed
> > in 1999 by joop or are you proposing a new individual constituancy with
> > different by-laws.. ?
> >
> > i believe the last proposal & related by-laws were rejected by the board
> in
> > 1999
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "GA" <[email-masked]>; "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> >
> >
> > > Sure Ken, please look at this Icann site:
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > /Bruce
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: May 19, 2001 08:49
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> > >
> > >
> > > pleas provide me with a link to the proposed by-laws for the proposed
> > > constituancy
> > >
> > > thank you
> > >
> > > ken stubbs
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Ballot
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle"
> > > ****
> > > >
> > > > Now it reads:
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> the
> > > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> > > Board
> > > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > > recommends
> > > > to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'
> > > > Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
> > > plenary
> > > > session.
> > > >
> > > > /Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
> the
> > > > immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> > > Board
> > > > in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> > > recommends
> > > > to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
> > > Individuals'
> > > > Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a
> decision
> > > at
> > > > the Stockholm plenary session.
> > > >
> > > > Agree/Disagree
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #475
************************