Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #480
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 21 2001             Volume 01 : Number 480

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 11:52:20 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - Individual User Constituency - Acknowldegement for  aStudy

Disagree. We're spreading ourselves too thin, papering the walls
with motions.

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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

- --
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 11:55:00 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for  aStudy

Disagree. Same reason. (And, methinks, ideas can be floated
in other than the form of a motion, and should be "vetted out"
(studied) before ever getting to the stage of a formal motion.)

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> After the approval of plan B by the Doc leading to a M$ 200
> development effort on the DNS, after various propositions of
> multi-bind solutions, after the entrance of the market of several
> plug-ins of which the purpose if to modify the user's string
> sent to the DNS, after the different official studies engaged
> in order to review the DNS (including the NAS current study
> on White House request), after the annoucement or the
> public knowlegde of plans of several private galaxies, IMHO
> it becomes advisable that the BoD stays abreast in matter
> of independent politcial, commercial, technical trends and
> initiatives in matter of DNS evolution and helps a development
> coordinated with the SSRAC and the CRADA,
>
> I therefore 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 DNS
> Developper 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

- --
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 12:37:48 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Amended Ballot

Hello Ken,

Sunday, May 20, 2001, 6:03:59 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> interesting logic here...

> it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this up for
> all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have a DN.

> what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential members)

> i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
> understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out" far
> enough to be truly "representative"

Why should they be under a burden to do this, when none of the
existing constituencies are?

- -- 
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 22:00:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

Although I do support the motion for a IDNHC, I think the distinction
between suers and domain holders is quite unimportant, certainly when
looking at the near future, when DNS will be used for much more than
websites and email. I mean the whole Enum testbed/plans. Everyone will
have one or more domains then.

The great advantage I see in setting up an influential IDNHC within
the ICANN framework, is that the voting registry is already there in
the form of whois. 

On Sun, 20 May 2001, at 14:18 [=GMT-0400], L Gallegos wrote:

> I agree, Chris.  Individual DN holders and users fall into different 
> categories.  I also feel that small business falls within an IDNHC.
> 
> Leah
> 
> 
> On 20 May 2001, at 6:39, NameCritic wrote:
> 
> > Personally I disagree, but will support it if most wish to go this route.
> > To me an IC is not the same as an IDNHC. I think both should petition for
> > inclusion as seperate constituencies. One requires you own a domain name
> > and the other does not.
> > 
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot
> > 
> > 
> > > Danny and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >  Agree.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > 
> > --
> > 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: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:07:57 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement fo r  study

Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and then sustain a
constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 2:55 PM
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement
for aStudy

Disagree. Same reason. (And, methinks, ideas can be floated
in other than the form of a motion, and should be "vetted out"
(studied) before ever getting to the stage of a formal motion.)

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> After the approval of plan B by the Doc leading to a M$ 200
> development effort on the DNS, after various propositions of
> multi-bind solutions, after the entrance of the market of several
> plug-ins of which the purpose if to modify the user's string
> sent to the DNS, after the different official studies engaged
> in order to review the DNS (including the NAS current study
> on White House request), after the annoucement or the
> public knowlegde of plans of several private galaxies, IMHO
> it becomes advisable that the BoD stays abreast in matter
> of independent politcial, commercial, technical trends and
> initiatives in matter of DNS evolution and helps a development
> coordinated with the SSRAC and the CRADA,
>
> I therefore 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 DNS
> Developper 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

- --
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 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement fo r  study

On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
> that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and then sustain a
> constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
> documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
> meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc.

It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies, don't you
think?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 16:10:39 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Another Membership Study - Berkman Center Representation in Cyberspace Study (and MAC)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>

I noticed the page <http://www.atlargestudy.org/studies_list.shtml> on the
ALSC's web site.  Omitted from that page is the Berkman Center's
Representation in Cyberspace Study ("RCS") which we conducted at ICANN's
request in the spring of 1999, with participation by multiple ICANN Board
Members, election experts, etc.

See <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/>, including full archives of our
public meeting, interim documents and draft recommendations, and ultimately
our final recommendation to ICANN.

(The document also explicitly discusses the MAC's sense of an appropriate
way to proceed, and to the extent that one values the MAC's prior
discussions here, in a process not wholly unlike the current ALSC, it might
also be worth giving their thoughts a careful read.  I appreciate the
critique in <http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00002.shtml> --
that the ALSC needs an "in-depth consideration of the benefits and goals of
At-Large involvement" whereas the MAC and RCS arguably took the existence of
some form of At-Large involvement as given.  But I wouldn't think the need
for this additional consideration would totally undermine what MAC and RCS
did in the past; indeed, I think it's interesting and quite enlightening to
revisit the thoughts and worries of two years ago in the context of current
discussions.)

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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 17:15:27 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement of r  study

Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop bylaws,
identify funding, etc.

In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any new
constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was doing.

:-)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:00 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
fo r study

On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
> that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and then sustain
a
> constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
> documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
> meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc.

It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies, don't you
think?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/
- --
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 15:24:18 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement of  r  study

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, May 20, 2001, 2:15:27 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
> standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
> organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop bylaws,
> identify funding, etc.

> In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any new
> constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was doing.

None of the other constituencies were required to do that in advance
of their approval.

Once they were approved, in principle, then their respective
communities had to come together on a charter, etc.

- -- 
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 17:39:20 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Another Membership Study - Berkman Center Representation in Cyberspace Study (and MAC)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 20, 2001 17:12

On Sun, 20 May 2001, Ben Edelman wrote:

>...  I appreciate the
> critique in <http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00002.shtml> --
> that the ALSC needs an "in-depth consideration of the benefits and goals
of
> At-Large involvement"...

This is one of the reasons why I consider this current "At-Large Study
Committee" to be not particularly relevant and somewhat of a waste of time
and money.

The existance of the at large is simply not a matter that is open to
question.

The power of the at-large to directly elect a meaningful set of directors
in elections not subject to management/ICANN manipulation is simply not a
matter that is open to question.

The power of the at-large to be the body to which the corporate entity of
ICANN shall be legally accountable is simply not a matter that is open to
question.

If one thinks that questioning the "benefits and goals" of the at-large is
a legitimate task, then it stands to reason that such an inqury must also
equally question the benefits and goals of the Supporting Organizations
and of ICANN itself.

> I think it's interesting and quite enlightening to revisit the
> thoughts and worries of two years ago in the context of current
> discussions.)

Much agreed.  But I go further and suggest that that prior work is more
than sufficient.

By-the-way, I note that the quote in
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00002.shtml contains a
perceptual error - that participation in an at-large is somehow a
compensation for denial of entry into decision making parts of the
Supporting Organizations.  This fact of the matter is that the SOs and the
at-large are utterly distinct kinds of entities.  The former are ICANN's
"primary" vehicles for policy development and the at-large has no policy
role at all.  Consequently, the existance of an at-large should never,
ever be considered as some sort of substitute for a full role for
individuals in the various Supporting Organizations.

- --karl--

- --
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 18:10:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Conflicts of interest - the quick and easy

- --------------0138D77BF5C122CF9EECC8B0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Background, affiliations, possible conflicts of interest,
etc., given at the stroke of a mouse and the grabbing
up off the hard disk of Signature.txt. Whatever anyone
says in these august pages can be weighed against
whatever that person, as an individual, might stand to
gain or lose if some issue went one way or the other.
People will of course seek to protect their interests,
which does not per se mean a "conflict," but the fact
that person X indeed has a vested interest in this or
that might well be something that others in ga would
want to take into account when evaluating something
that person X has posted

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --------------0138D77BF5C122CF9EECC8B0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Background, affiliations, possible conflicts of interest,
<br>etc., given at the stroke of a mouse and the grabbing
<br>up off the hard disk of Signature.txt. Whatever anyone
<br>says in these august pages can be weighed against
<br>whatever that person, as an individual, might stand to
<br>gain or lose if some issue went one way or the other.
<br>People will of course seek to protect their interests,
<br>which does not <i>per se</i> mean a "conflict," but the fact
<br>that person X indeed <i>has</i> a vested interest in this or
<br>that might well be something that others in ga would
<br>want to take into account when evaluating something
<br>that person X has posted
<p>--
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bill Lovell
<p><A HREF="http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm">http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------0138D77BF5C122CF9EECC8B0--

- --
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 19:52:54 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for a  Study

Can someone point me to the discussion of this proposal on the list 
where a consensus developed such that we are ready for a motion to 
be put forward .........

or is this a new approach to floating trial balloons ?

thanks

Earl Heather

> After the approval of plan B by the Doc leading to a M$ 200
> development effort on the DNS, after various propositions of
> multi-bind solutions, after the entrance of the market of several
> plug-ins of which the purpose if to modify the user's string
> sent to the DNS, after the different official studies engaged
> in order to review the DNS (including the NAS current study
> on White House request), after the annoucement or the
> public knowlegde of plans of several private galaxies, IMHO
> it becomes advisable that the BoD stays abreast in matter
> of independent politcial, commercial, technical trends and
> initiatives in matter of DNS evolution and helps a development
> coordinated with the SSRAC and the CRADA,
> 
> I therefore 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 DNS
> Developper 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-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: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:34:43 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

At 1:57 am -0400 5/20/01, 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

Agree.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 21 May 2001 12:06:44 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amended Ballot

At 09:03 20/05/01 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>interesting logic here...
>
>it would sound that we are now extending the "use" logic to open this up for
>all user of the internet, regardless of whether they have or dont have a DN.
>
>what an outreach potential & problem..... (400,000,000 potential members)
>

Yes, I agree.  Jefsey's new proposal is muddying the waters and I do not
quite understand why, since he asked me to clarify that my motion would be
specifically for the benefit of Domain Name Holders.
 
>i am still having problems with the current proposals i have seen
>understanding how the invididual constituancy proposes to "reach out" far
>enough to be truly "representative"
>
Ken, one of the ways to reach out where you can really help is the one I
just proposed a day earlier: 
let the registrars point to an IC website and signup page on the ICANN site.
Would your Afilias group be willing to contemplate that?

The argument about representativity will only become acute, when the
"constituency" becomes a mouthpiece for interests other that those that
typically concern Individual registrants. (TM lobby, ICANN staff,
registrars, ISP's , IBM, Verisign, some national political grouping, etc.)

You input in how to prevent this, other than by attracting a broad-based
membership would be appreciated.

- --Joop Teernstra-- 
[email-masked]
http://www.imachination.com
- --
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 23:11:13 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement of r  study

Marilyn,

I think the "essence", as put below, is the "legitimacy" of any
constituency.  Does a constituency's legitimacy depend, for better or worse,
on its original inclusion in the ICANN bylaws?

In that vein, I would agree with Patrick's view.  There appears to be a
higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency than for those originally
included.  The effect could be a perception that other constituencies are
considered nonsequitur with ICANN's view of the world.  This would be
incongruous with their mission, in my opinion.

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:15 PM
> To: 'Patrick Greenwell'
> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> of r study
>
>
>
> Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
> standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
> organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop bylaws,
> identify funding, etc.
>
> In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any new
> constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was doing.
>
> :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:00 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> fo r study
>
>
> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
> > that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and
> then sustain
> a
> > constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
> > documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
> > meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc.
>
> It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
> than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies, don't you
> think?
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> /\/\/\/\/\
> /\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/
> \/
> --
> 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 20:29:50 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for a  Study

Hello Earl,

Sunday, May 20, 2001, 6:52:54 PM, Earl Heather wrote:

> Can someone point me to the discussion of this proposal on the list 
> where a consensus developed such that we are ready for a motion to 
> be put forward .........

> or is this a new approach to floating trial balloons ?

There isn't.

Don't confuse Jefsey's personal actions as reflecting on the assembly
and it is doing.

- -- 
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 21:03:11 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement of r   study

- --------------202183386F2AC4F58504EFCE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Whether or not there is a "higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency
than for those originally included" in any strict, legal, By-Laws sense, I
continue to insist that there is a practical higher threshhold -- the corollary
in patent licensing is the "NIH" syndrome: "Not Invented Here" -- "if it were
any good we would have invented it" -- and so on.  On the original ones,
the Directors at the time were already sold; on new ones, they have to be
sold. And the only way to do that is to demonstrate the presence already
of all of the characteristics that would justify the creation of such a beast
- -- not this "just let us tinker and at some time in some indefinite future
we'll come back with a good toy."

I've said before that conceptually it's a two step process: first that there
will be a new constituency and secondly "this (e.g., this charter) is it," but
psychologically and marketing-wise, if you can't already show the second
you'll never get the first.

I also concur with the perspective today of Earl Heather -- he objects to
having a MOTION already on something that up until a day or two ago
many of us had never heard of before.  What we need is something like a
PROPOSAL that we could beat to death until something emerged that
was at least like a common understanding of what language a motion
would have. Seems to me that all this last minute word twiddling in
motions should have been taken care of long before any actual motion
was accepted by the Chair -- a rule something like "better get all your
comments in now, and out of those comments we'll craft a motion,
but once the motion has been accepted it's up or down, do or die,
no more amendments." (Of course, extraordinary circumstances
might require relaxing that rule, but the this last minute scrambling
really ought not to become the modus operandi.)

It's like PROPOSE -- debate the form of a motion; amendments all
over the place -- MOTION (or maybe not) -- debate the substance
of any motion; no amendments -- VOTE.

(Check out my new sig down below!)

Gene Marsh wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
> I think the "essence", as put below, is the "legitimacy" of any
> constituency.  Does a constituency's legitimacy depend, for better or worse,
> on its original inclusion in the ICANN bylaws?
>
> In that vein, I would agree with Patrick's view.  There appears to be a
> higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency than for those originally
> included.  The effect could be a perception that other constituencies are
> considered nonsequitur with ICANN's view of the world.  This would be
> incongruous with their mission, in my opinion.
>
> Gene...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:15 PM
> > To: 'Patrick Greenwell'
> > Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> > of r study
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
> > standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
> > organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop bylaws,
> > identify funding, etc.
> >
> > In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any new
> > constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was doing.
> >
> > :-)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:00 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> > Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
> > fo r study
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> >
> > > Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct community
> > > that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and
> > then sustain
> > a
> > > constituency.  Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis which
> > > documents that, or the sustainability, including participating in a
> > > meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO... etc.
> >
> > It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
> > than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies, don't you
> > think?
> >

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --------------202183386F2AC4F58504EFCE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Whether or not there is a "higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency
<br>than for those originally included" in any strict, legal, By-Laws sense,
I
<br>continue to insist that there is a <i>practical</i> higher threshhold
- -- the corollary
<br>in patent licensing is the "NIH" syndrome: "Not Invented Here" -- "if
it were
<br>any good we would have invented it" -- and so on.&nbsp; On the original
ones,
<br>the Directors at the time were<i> already</i> sold; on new ones, they
have to <i>be</i>
<br>sold. And the only way to do that is to demonstrate the presence <i>already</i>
<br>of all of the characteristics that would justify the creation of such
a beast
<br>-- not this "just let us tinker and at some time in some indefinite
future
<br>we'll come back with a good toy."
<p>I've said before that <i>conceptually</i> it's a two step process: first
that there
<br>will <i>be </i>a new constituency and secondly "<i>this</i> (e.g.,
this charter) is it," but
<br>psychologically and marketing-wise, if you can't already show the second
<br>you'll never get the first.
<p>I also concur with the perspective today of Earl Heather -- he objects
to
<br>having a MOTION <i>already</i> on something that up until a day or
two ago
<br>many of us had never heard of before.&nbsp; What we need is something
like a
<br>PROPOSAL that we could beat to death until something emerged that
<br>was at least like a common understanding of what language a motion
<br>would have. Seems to me that all this last minute word twiddling in
<br>motions should have been taken care of long before any actual motion
<br>was accepted by the Chair -- a rule something like "better get all
your
<br>comments in now, and out of those comments we'll craft a motion,
<br>but once the motion has been accepted it's up or down, do or die,
<br>no more amendments." (Of course, extraordinary circumstances
<br>might require relaxing that rule, but the this last minute scrambling
<br>really ought not to become the <i>modus operandi</i>.)
<p>It's like PROPOSE -- debate the <i>form</i> of a motion; amendments
all
<br>over the place -- MOTION (or maybe not) -- debate the <i>substance</i>
<br>of any motion; no amendments -- VOTE.
<p>(Check out my new sig down below!)
<p>Gene Marsh wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Marilyn,
<p>I think the "essence", as put below, is the "legitimacy" of any
<br>constituency.&nbsp; Does a constituency's legitimacy depend, for better
or worse,
<br>on its original inclusion in the ICANN bylaws?
<p>In that vein, I would agree with Patrick's view.&nbsp; There appears
to be a
<br>higher threshhold for entry of a new constituency than for those originally
<br>included.&nbsp; The effect could be a perception that other constituencies
are
<br>considered nonsequitur with ICANN's view of the world.&nbsp; This would
be
<br>incongruous with their mission, in my opinion.
<p>Gene...
<p>> -----Original Message-----
<br>> From: [email-masked] [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]On
Behalf Of
<br>> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
<br>> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:15 PM
<br>> To: 'Patrick Greenwell'
<br>> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
<br>> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
<br>> of r study
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> Patrick, I am not sure that my question would hold them to a higher
<br>> standard. That would remain to be seen, if they emerge with sufficient
<br>> organizations, people, and time to develop a constituency, develop
bylaws,
<br>> identify funding, etc.
<br>>
<br>> In essence, though, I think that asking such a question about any
new
<br>> constituency is a reasonable thing to do.... and that is what I was
doing.
<br>>
<br>> :-)
<br>> -----Original Message-----
<br>> From: Patrick Greenwell [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:00 PM
<br>> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
<br>> Cc: 'William S. Lovell'; Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]
<br>> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion - DNS Developer Constituency - Acknowledgement
<br>> fo r study
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> On Sun, 20 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > Disagree. I am unclear on whether this community is a distinct
community
<br>> > that is large enough to devote the time needed to create, and
<br>> then sustain
<br>> a
<br>> > constituency.&nbsp; Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any analysis
which
<br>> > documents that, or the sustainability, including participating
in a
<br>> > meaningful way in ICANN, bearing the cost of funding the DNSO...
etc.
<br>>
<br>> It is a bit inappropriate to hold this nascent effort to higher standards
<br>> than were placed upon those forming the original constituencies,
don't you
<br>> think?
<br>></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bill Lovell
<p><A HREF="http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm">http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------202183386F2AC4F58504EFCE--

- --
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 #480
************************