Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #478
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 20 2001             Volume 01 : Number 478

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:05:13 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

- --=====================_642254==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:24 19/05/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>The whole idea of registry/registrar splitting is a canard. 

I agree with you, Roeland.   Now it has also become a red herring.
Honesty is served better with the current approved contract. 
At least there is no doubt about what we have now. :-)

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --=====================_642254==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>At 08:24 19/05/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:</div>
<div>&gt;The whole idea of registry/registrar splitting is a canard.
</div>
<br>
<div>I agree with you, Roeland.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now it has also become a red
herring.</div>
<div>Honesty is served better with the current approved contract. 
</div>
<div>At least there is no doubt about what we have now. :-)</div>
<br>

- --Joop--<br>
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.<br>
Former bootstrap of the IDNO
(<a href="http://www.idno.org/" eudora="autourl">www.idno.org</a>)<br>
Developer of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font face="Impact">The Polling 
Booth<br>
</font><a href="http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/" eudora="autourl">www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/</a><br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_642254==_.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

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:28:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

- --=====================_629738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>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
>

Dear Bruce,

I would like the original additional option ("approval in principle") to be
part of the wording of my motion.  
This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board. "Creation" by the
Board, is likely to be referred back to the NC for "advice".

 I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we are
talking
about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual "users".  
Jefsey wants this clarification.

Clarified motion for the ballot:

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of
Individual Domain Name holders)  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

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --=====================_629738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:</div>
<div>&gt;I would suggest that we leave out:&nbsp; ****or the
&quot;approval in principle&quot; ****</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<div>&gt;Now it reads:</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<div>&gt;The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
for the</div>
<div>&gt;immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the
ICANN Board</div>
<div>&gt;in accordance with its Bylaws.&nbsp; The General Assembly of the
DNSO recommends</div>
<div>&gt;to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an
Individuals'</div>
<div>&gt;Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the
Stockholm plenary</div>
<div>&gt;session.</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<div>&gt;/Bruce</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<br>
<div>Dear Bruce,</div>
<br>
<div>I would like the original additional option (&quot;approval in
principle&quot;) to be part of the wording of my motion.&nbsp; </div>
<div>This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board.
&quot;Creation&quot; by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the
NC for &quot;advice&quot;.</div>
<br>
<br>
<div> I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we
are talking about &quot;Domain Name Holders&quot; and not Individual
&quot;users&quot;.&nbsp; </div>
<div>Jefsey wants this clarification.</div>
<br>
<div>Clarified motion for the ballot:</div>
<br>
<div>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for
the</div>
<div>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
constituency of Individual Domain Name holders)&nbsp; by the ICANN Board
in accordance with its Bylaws.&nbsp; The General Assembly of the DNSO
recommends to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such
an Individuals' Constituency or the &quot;approval in principle&quot; on
its agenda for a decision at</div>
<div>the Stockholm plenary session.</div>
<br>
<div>Agree/Disagree</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

- --Joop--<br>
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.<br>
Former bootstrap of the IDNO
(<a href="http://www.idno.org/" eudora="autourl">www.idno.org</a>)<br>
Developer of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font face="Impact">The Polling 
Booth<br>
</font><a href="http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/" eudora="autourl">www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/</a><br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_629738==_.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

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:45:38 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

- --=====================_635092==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 15:18 19/05/01 -0400, 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...
>

Yes, Ken, I think you are wrong here. 
The only resolution that the Board made (in 1999 in Berlin) was a resolution
not to address the petition at that time. 
This resolution was not given to the press at that time, but L.Touton revealed
it when asked.
Ask him for the exact text.

This way, the Board did not have to come up with a reasoned rejection.

The Charter of the idno was not complete at that time (just like the
Charter of
the NCDNHC) and the Board was asked to decide in principle on the petition
with
a charter for an IDNO constituency in an abreviated form.
see www.idno.org/petition.htm  
The Board *did* on that occasion approve the NCDNHC "in principle",  but did
not recognize it as a constituency until Santiago.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --=====================_635092==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>At 15:18 19/05/01 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:</div>
<div>&gt;bruce</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<div>&gt;maybe i am wrong here, but i believe that the board requires a
set of</div>
<div>&gt;by-laws from the proposing constituancy...</div>
<div>&gt;</div>
<br>
<div>Yes, Ken, I think you are wrong here. </div>
<div>The only resolution that the Board made (in 1999 in Berlin) was a
resolution not to address the petition at that time. </div>
<div>This resolution was not given to the press at that time, but
L.Touton revealed it when asked.</div>
<div>Ask him for the exact text.</div>
<br>
<div>This way, the Board did not have to come up with a reasoned
rejection.</div>
<br>
<div>The Charter of the idno was not complete at that time (just like the
Charter of the NCDNHC) and the Board was asked to decide in principle on
the petition with a charter for an IDNO constituency in an abreviated
form.</div>
<div>see
<a href="http://www.idno.org/petition.htm" EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.idno.org/petition.htm</a>&nbsp;
</div>
<div>The Board *did* on that occasion approve the NCDNHC &quot;in
principle&quot;,&nbsp; but did not recognize it as a constituency until
Santiago.</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

- --Joop--<br>
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.<br>
Former bootstrap of the IDNO
(<a href="http://www.idno.org/" eudora="autourl">www.idno.org</a>)<br>
Developer of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font face="Impact">The Polling 
Booth<br>
</font><a href="http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/" eudora="autourl">www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/</a><br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_635092==_.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

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:57:30 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot

The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
The ballot is accordingly amended.

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of
Individual Domain Name holders)  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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:03:15 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Conflicts of Interest

Although I have zero official capacity, this works for me. More than you
ever wanted to know about me is at http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm, and
you must admire my pretty horse. (Shortly thereafter, she was trying to
steal the pens out of my pocket!)

(What I do besides get patents and such for people is hawk them
around (including my own) afterwards, and if anyone thinks any of
that would conflict with our activities here, please let me know!)

Bill Lovell

Dassa wrote:

> Hello
>
> It is noted that Patrick Corliss has made a declaration regarding conflicts
> of interests to the newly formed Top Level Domain Association as evidenced
> at: http://www.tlda.org/official/corliss_conflict.html
>
> Would it not be right and proper for any person holding an official
> capacity within the GA to also make declarations regarding conflicts of
> interests here?
>
> I do not mean to imply any improper behaviour but do consider notifying all
> GA members of outside affliations that may have a bearing on their
> positions within the GA, a good idea.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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 23:32:43 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

- --------------EE1F02E439CCC3B39F4C2F7E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm staying out of this debate, having already said my piece on the
procedure I recommend, but wish to mention another issue that
has come up in other private discussions and which might (eventually)
help a part of this.  That is, I am told on good authority that the word

"constituency" does not translate well into other languages, so we
should either use another word or get rid of it altogether.

I suggest we just say who the people are: Domain Name Holders,
Trademark Owners, Registrars, Resident Iconoclasts, etc.  That
does not touch this "acknowledge - approve in principle" issue,
but it would resolve (or would have resolved) the other one. Just
as now, that would not mean that one would have to be one or
the other in order to join (as required, e.g., in this new TLD thing
outside of ICANN -- you have to own a TLD, which is quite
the thing to do in that context), but only that one wished to
become involved in matters that concern the particular bunch
(or wanted to check up on what they were doing!).

However, this is neither the time nor the mechanism to do that. The
word "constituency" was not a GA creation, but appears in the
By-Laws, so I am just throwing this in for future reference.

Bill Lovell

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:>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>Dear Bruce,I would like the original
> additional option ("approval in principle") to be part of the wording
> of my motion.This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board.
> "Creation" by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the NC for
> "advice".
>  I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we
> are talking about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual
> "users".Jefsey wants this clarification.Clarified motion for the
> ballot:The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
> support for theimmediate acknowledgement of an Individuals'
> Constituency (a constituency of Individual Domain Name holders)  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 atthe Stockholm plenary
> session.Agree/Disagree
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --Joop--
> Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
> Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
> Developer of    The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>

- --------------EE1F02E439CCC3B39F4C2F7E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I'm staying out of this debate, having already said my piece on the
<br>procedure I recommend, but wish to mention another issue that
<br>has come up in other private discussions and which might (eventually)
<br>help a part of this.&nbsp; That is, I am told on good authority that
the word
<br>"constituency" does not translate well into other languages, so we
<br>should either use another word or get rid of it altogether.
<p>I suggest we just say who the people are: Domain Name Holders,
<br>Trademark Owners, Registrars, Resident Iconoclasts, etc.&nbsp; That
<br>does not touch this "acknowledge - approve in principle" issue,
<br>but it would resolve (or would have resolved) the other one. Just
<br>as now, that would not mean that one would have to <i>be</i> one or
<br>the other in order to join (as required, e.g., in this new TLD thing
<br>outside of ICANN -- you have to own a TLD, which is quite
<br>the thing to do in that context), but only that one wished to
<br>become involved in matters that concern the particular bunch
<br>(or wanted to check up on what they were doing!).
<p>However, this is neither the time nor the mechanism to do that. The
<br>word "constituency" was not a GA creation, but appears in the
<br>By-Laws, so I am just throwing this in for future reference.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Joop Teernstra wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:>I would
suggest that we leave out:&nbsp; ****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.&nbsp; 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>Dear Bruce,I would like the original
additional option ("approval in principle") to be part of the wording of
my motion.This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board. "Creation"
by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the NC for "advice".
<br>&nbsp;I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that
we are talking about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual "users".Jefsey
wants this clarification.Clarified motion for the ballot:The General Assembly
of the DNSO resolves to express its support for theimmediate acknowledgement
of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of Individual Domain Name
holders)&nbsp; by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.&nbsp;
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 atthe Stockholm plenary session.Agree/Disagree
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>--Joop--
<br>Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
<br>Former bootstrap of the IDNO (<a href="http://www.idno.org/" eudora="autourl">www.idno.org</a>)
<br>Developer of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font face="Impact">The Polling Booth</font>
<br><a href="http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/" eudora="autourl">www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/</a>
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------EE1F02E439CCC3B39F4C2F7E--

- --
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 23:41:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

Agree.  This is a poll, right? :-)

(Have you registered to vote yet?  If you have not,
what you do or say will have no effect whatever --
your voice will be stilled, even as the last gurgle of
a drowning man.)

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

> The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
> The ballot is accordingly amended.
>
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of
> Individual Domain Name holders)  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: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:46:49 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Conflicts of Interest

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of  William S. Lovell
|> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 4:03 PM
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Conflicts of Interest
|>
|>
|> Although I have zero official capacity, this works for me. More than you
|> ever wanted to know about me is at http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm, and
|> you must admire my pretty horse. (Shortly thereafter, she was trying to
|> steal the pens out of my pocket!)

From the little bit seen, not a bad horse :).

What I was thinking about with my question was whether a policy should be
recommended to the NC for consideration that any Official of the DNSO
(including the GA and Constituencies) be required to submit a declaration
for conflict of interest and maintain those declarations so they are up to
date.  As Patrick Corliss has pointed out, this would be better discussed
in the GA-INT list and I will move it over there.

Such a policy may stop some allegations of improprietry.

It may be appropriate for all persons participating to declare their
interests but I feel that would be overkill and unproductive.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 20 May 2001 01:08:41 -0400
From: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Hi William

At 02:10 p.m. 05/19/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think that what the Board does
>or is to do is "recognize a group" -- or at least I hope that is not the 
>case.
>That starts a cat fight, with this group battling that one for the big prize,
>during which time the Board can just lay back. I think it is (or ought to
>be) a step-by-step process, the first and really significant step being a
>resolution to the effect that "there will indeed be an Individuals 
>Constituency
>(by whatever name)."  Qualifications and acceptance ("recognition") are steps
>appropriate to the accreditation of registrars, but are not appropriate here.
And...how do you think other constituencie was created, formed and recognized?
Even the NCDNHC had to pass for such a process.

>In order to bring an IC about, I have previously argued that since the Board
>(rightly) has to have assurance that such a constituency really exists,
There was no member and no charter when the NCDNHC were CREATED.
The NCDNHC were CREATED by the ICANN Board in...I think in ICANN meeting in 
Berlin at May 1999 (someone correct me please if I am wrong).
Then ISOC began the job to meet more interested non-commercial 
organizations then
representatives of such organizations worked in a charter for the 
NCDNHC.  Then the NCDNHC was recognized in the ICANN meeting in
Santiago de Chile in 1999.

Best Regards
Vany

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: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:59:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Hello Joop,

Saturday, May 19, 2001, 7:28:47 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we are
> talking
> about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual "users".  
> Jefsey wants this clarification.

> Clarified motion for the ballot:

> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of
> Individual Domain Name holders)  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

Fully agree with this text as is.

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 18:46:57 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Amended Ballot

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of babybows.com
|> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:58 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot
|>
|>
|> The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
|> The ballot is accordingly amended.
|>
|> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
|> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
constituency of
|> Individual Domain Name holders)  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

Agree

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 20 May 2001 05:22:21 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

Agree

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 20, 2001 03:46
Subject: RE: [ga] Amended Ballot

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of babybows.com
|> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:58 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Amended Ballot
|>
|>
|> The author of the motion, Joop Teernstra, has asked to amend his motion.
|> The ballot is accordingly amended.
|>
|> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
|> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a
constituency of
|> Individual Domain Name holders)  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

Agree

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 20 May 2001 05:59:48 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Conflicts of Interest

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0E0F2.140233D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FYI..........Patrick Corliss................

 http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.html

FYI...................Danny Younger.........

http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00003.html

I hope this is what you are asking for...:)

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0E0F2.140233D0
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><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>FYI..........</STRONG></FONT><FONT =
size=3D3>Patrick=20
Corliss................</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.htm=
l">http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.html</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>FYI...................Danny=20
Younger.........</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00003.htm=
l">http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00003.html</A>=
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>I hope this&nbsp;is what you are asking=20
for...:)</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0E0F2.140233D0--

- --
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, 20 May 2001 14:10:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion - Individual User Constituency - Acknowldegement for a Study

I move the following motion to the Chair:

"
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
support for the acknowledgement of the need for an Individual
Users Constituency by the ICANN Board in accordance with its
Bylaws. The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to
the ICANN Board that to foster the study and the preparation
of such an Individual User Constituency it places an approval
in principle on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm
plennary 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

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:11:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

Dear Joop,
I am sorry but I cannot support your wording. It is conflicting.
There are indivudal DN holders and there are individual users.
My wife as no DN, but the way she uses the DNs will decide
of the DNS future.

Your motion should read:
"
The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support
for the acknowledgement of an Individuals Domain Name Holder
Constiuency 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 Domain Name
Holders Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for
a decision at the Stockholm plenary session.

Agree/Disagree
"

Let be clear any other wording has been contested at some stage.
Contestation and confusing leads to BoD confusion. If they are
confused they will not vote.

Why am I adamant on this? Because the DNSO is for DN
maters. Interested parties are:

- - Currently acknowledged centers of interests (not all the
    concerned parties):

    - DNS co-operators : TLDs, ISPs
    - organizations with their own name servers: commercial and
      non commercial
    - intersections with the DN name space: IP, multilingual,
      freedom rights,

- - Currently in an acknowldegment request process:

    - life DNS dependent: Small/Medium Entreprises
    - hosted sites: individual DN holders
    - decision makers: BIND developpers (not yet),
      Individual Users (they decide of the future of the DNS
      through the way the want/demand to use it.

2) the DNSO is not an @large (people wanting to make their
     need taken into account) nor a market (people we want to
     best serve) organization. It is purely DNS oriented.

     The groups of concerns present in the DNSO have many
     other issues to deal with than the DNS. So they may
     organize in many different structures, ML, associations,
     etc...

     If we take the case of the individual domain name holders.
     We have progressively agreed at the WG-Review that

     -  holders was a restrictive word acknowledging that the
        holder does not actually own the DN.

     -  owner was a legitimate name to use by organizations
        (IDNO is not the only one) to show that such organizations
        also consider what the holder actually owns *in addition*:
        commercial image, pages and software of the site,
        DN protection/insurrance shemes he may subscribe to,
        etc...

3) the most important issue (98% of the Internet are the
     Individual Users. These people (us all) decide of the DNS
     far more than any other existing DNSO Member.

     The demonstration is New.net. The question is simple:
     no one has a real need for the iCANN, but having the
     iCANN helps us all. This means that the iCANN must
     be both product (what is possible) and market (us) oriented
     or that Individual Users will progressively change the
     Internet into an OpenNet without the iCANN.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #478
************************