Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #494
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 28 2001             Volume 01 : Number 494

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:26:41 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] On Bill's post about ICANN

On 27 May 2001, at 17:15, NameCritic wrote:

> Hypothetical situation apllying to the approval of new TLDs.
> 
> An organization such as the DNSO or the GA or another organization that
> does not yet exist would first handle new TLD applications to decide their
> marketability, potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
> standpoint, usability, and end-user satisfaction, among other criteria.
> Once approv ed by this body, it would then go to ICANN and it's SOs to
> review the technical aspects of the introduction of the new TLD.

Marketability, mnemonics and other non-technical areas should not be 
factors for inclusion  in the root.  That is a market/business model issue 
and from a global standpoint is a huge red herring.  ICANN should not 
enter into anything having to do with "market."  End user satisfaction is 
also a market/business model issue.  Why should any part of ICANN 
determine who can be in business or operate a TLD from a non-
technical standpoint?

> 
> ICANN could not refuse an approved TLD unless it would definitely threaten
> the stability of the Internet or create some other technical problem such
> as length, characters it contains, or other problems.
> 
> I see this as viable. Anyone else?
> 
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> 
> 

- --
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, 27 May 2001 23:39:13 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

I would like to thank everybody who has responded, off-list and on, to
my various small ideas. Several resources have been pointed out that I
will take a look at later and perhaps we should think about how to make
them more publicly known. In fact, that general issue of "making things
known" seems to be the major problem here; all of the work we do at this
level could very well amount to a small stand against a large wave. It
seems to me that the more the general public is aware of how issues like
domain policy can affect *them*, the better the fight goes, so here's
another idea I'd like to throw out:

I'm sure most of you remember and still run across the Blue Ribbon
Campaign against internet censorship. The Blue Ribbon captured
widespread attention and was posted on thousands -- perhaps millions --
of homepages. Its very presence indicated to casual surfers and IIRC,
mainstream press, of how important that issue became to them. Many of
these people probably didn't know *exactly* why they were posting the
ribbon, but they felt it was important enough to them as a fairly
average user.

How about a smiliar campaign?

~Ladi

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 3:40 PM
To: Ladi
Cc: [email-masked]'; DNSO Council
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

Ladi and all assembly members,

  I know our members {INEGroup] have done some of what Ladi is
suggesting here.  I think her ideas are good ones as do a large number
of our members and other associated organizations with our group.  I
would suggest that the NC take this up in Stockholm, but I doubt it will
get much consideration as the DNSO is short on budget as well as having
problems with determining where that budget comes from and how it is
generated.  Therefore it is really the DNSO GA assembly members
responsibility with our own resources to "Get the Word Out" to the
stakeholders.  We [INEGroup] do some of this through our my posts and
receiving posts from this ML as they are reposted to our internal ML's.

Ladi wrote:

> Just a few random ideas on my way out the door (and some of these are 
> entirely selfish because I'm tired of getting funny looks from my 
> friends when I tell them to find a good international copyright lawyer

> before selling their desirable domain name to someone in Europe who 
> emailed them randomly):

<snip>

- --
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, 27 May 2001 21:08:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] On Bill's post about ICANN

Leah,

Please drink some coffee and smell some roses.  Please review the APNIC
agreement with ICANN and the proposed new RIR agreement.  What you say is true
in the should world.  Anyone doing business with your type of roots is soon to
be politically and business wise banned.  Oh sister your survival is all about
marketing and to date someone, and I do not believe it is Cerf, Touton, or Gomes
has their head in the sand. What the NameCritic writes here should be thought
about. He has put it forth in a generic gentle form. Please do not dismiss it so
lightly and place all TLDA eggs in one basket. Please review Dr. Lovell's posts
and do not be so quick to dismiss us ignorant dotcomonners.  Those clicks per
60/60/7/24/365 mean one hell of a lot. I understand you taking offense at my
earlier posts, but this here is just good thinking out loud.
You have many supporters please work with us and not against us!

Sincerely,

"love of the perceived enemy is the beginning of true growth and leads to better
tomorrow's" (ed2001)

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 27 May 2001, at 17:15, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Hypothetical situation apllying to the approval of new TLDs.
> >
> > An organization such as the DNSO or the GA or another organization that
> > does not yet exist would first handle new TLD applications to decide their
> > marketability, potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
> > standpoint, usability, and end-user satisfaction, among other criteria.
> > Once approv ed by this body, it would then go to ICANN and it's SOs to
> > review the technical aspects of the introduction of the new TLD.
>
> Marketability, mnemonics and other non-technical areas should not be
> factors for inclusion  in the root.  That is a market/business model issue
> and from a global standpoint is a huge red herring.  ICANN should not
> enter into anything having to do with "market."  End user satisfaction is
> also a market/business model issue.  Why should any part of ICANN
> determine who can be in business or operate a TLD from a non-
> technical standpoint?
>
> >
> > ICANN could not refuse an approved TLD unless it would definitely threaten
> > the stability of the Internet or create some other technical problem such
> > as length, characters it contains, or other problems.
> >
> > I see this as viable. Anyone else?
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:37:34 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

My personal general feeling is that technical issues simply cannot exist
in isolation from policy issues. Trying to divide them cleanly is
useless as one side will always need to understand the other at least on
a basic level, unless we just want to degenerate into two groups
pointing fingers at each other and never getting anything done. I point
to the current email as a file transfer method issue occupying NANOG as
my most recent example.

By the same token, are "non-ICANN issues" really that far from "ICANN
issues"? Not to start a new debate, but perhaps a form of the digital
divide is why some people can effectively put up a fight against UDRP
and others don't even bother. Perhaps a more unified approach is in
order...

And as a history major, I need to plug my own discipline (and my
thesis): past models are also worth examining. Without thinking too
hard, I would hazard a guess that the creation and professionalization
of the scientific community is worth a look.

~Ladi

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:48 PM
To: 'William S. Lovell'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters

I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really
doesn't belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting,
bright, and involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want
to also debate, or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital
divide; privacy on the net in general, security of
applications/communications, etc.

I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look
at. I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP
and BMI examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others
might suggest some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...
but the point is that we should see if we can learn from any of them ,
and from the other SOs about what might work...

Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think
more...

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that 
> it
just
> works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
businesses,
> and they want to take Internet operations for granted?

Marilyn:

That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
wrong place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical
advisory body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed
necessary, but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out
what the "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The
attempts by Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual
"charter" of the GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a
place to vent every gripe known (along with beating up the other guy,
etc.), creates yet another thing to gripe about, and the real business
gets lost.

> For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
about
> ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:  
> glad you are paying attention; think that our association staff 
> should. Now, I have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4 
> months, won't you?
>
> I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have 
> developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more 
> thoughtfulness.

I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run
quite professionally and serve their own special public very well. One
of these is the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP
(songwriters)
- -- for which there is another one -- BMI. 

<snip>

- --
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, 27 May 2001 21:46:28 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] On Bill's post about ICANN

Indeed correct, Leah.  Technical things are what ICANN is set up to do,
and it is especially when ICANN starts cutting business deals and
sticks its nose into the market that it dirties its face the most, especially
since it is not really possible for this juggernaut (like NSI/Verisign) to
sneeze without having adverse, anti-competitive effects on other
would-be competitors. "Stability of the Internet" does NOT mean
that "all our buddies get the fat stuff" so as to eliminate all the riffraff
"who might unsettle our way of doing things," and the "marketability,
potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical standpoint,
usability, and end-user satisfaction" comprise what us scientific types
call the "rubber slide rule" -- argument could be made to find instability
in any of them. If  X meets specific, pre-defined technical qualifications,
then X is in.  And what are "conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
standpoint?"  Trademarks? Gimme a break! That's an issue for the courts,
not ICANN, in spite of its misbegotten UDRP.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 27 May 2001, at 17:15, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Hypothetical situation apllying to the approval of new TLDs.
> >
> > An organization such as the DNSO or the GA or another organization that
> > does not yet exist would first handle new TLD applications to decide their
> > marketability, potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
> > standpoint, usability, and end-user satisfaction, among other criteria.
> > Once approv ed by this body, it would then go to ICANN and it's SOs to
> > review the technical aspects of the introduction of the new TLD.
>
> Marketability, mnemonics and other non-technical areas should not be
> factors for inclusion  in the root.  That is a market/business model issue
> and from a global standpoint is a huge red herring.  ICANN should not
> enter into anything having to do with "market."  End user satisfaction is
> also a market/business model issue.  Why should any part of ICANN
> determine who can be in business or operate a TLD from a non-
> technical standpoint?
>
> >
> > ICANN could not refuse an approved TLD unless it would definitely threaten
> > the stability of the Internet or create some other technical problem such
> > as length, characters it contains, or other problems.
> >
> > I see this as viable. Anyone else?
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

- --
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, 28 May 2001 00:23:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really doesn't
> belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting, bright, and
> involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want to also debate,
> or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital divide; privacy on the
> net in general, security of applications/communications, etc.

  ALthough I would agree that "Digital Devide" may be non-ICANN, as you
say, I would disagree that that Privacy on the Net in general (Whois personal
data in specific), and security of communications (DNSSEC and IPSEC in
specific) are not ICANN related issues...  Do you really see these issues
as non-ICANN?  I hope not.  If you still do, I wonder if you have been
paying close enough attention of late.  ????

>
>
> I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look at.
> I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP and BMI
> examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others might suggest
> some of the other more technically oriented ... groups... but the point is
> that we should see if we can learn from any of them , and from the other SOs
> about what might work...
>
> Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think more...
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that it
> just
> > works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
> businesses,
> > and they want to take Internet operations for granted?
>
> Marilyn:
>
> That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
> wrong
> place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical advisory
> body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed necessary,
> but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out what the
> "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The attempts by
> Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual "charter" of the
> GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a place to vent every gripe
> known (along with beating up the other guy, etc.), creates yet another
> thing to gripe about, and the real business gets lost.
>
> > For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
> about
> > ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:  glad
> > you are paying attention; think that our association staff should. Now, I
> > have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4 months, won't you?
> >
> > I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have
> > developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more
> > thoughtfulness.
>
> I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run quite
> professionally and serve their own special public very well. One of these is
> the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP (songwriters)
> -- for which there is another one -- BMI. (ASCAP and BMI are not exact
> parallels, since they are for profit, but the structure is similar.) What
> the
> National Writers Union has is local chapters, that have meetings and the
> whole schtick. Others that are massive and to which I also belong are
> the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the
> Advancement of Science. But these, of course, are directed at specific
> subjects (more or less) which constitute the actual professions of their
> members.  Except for registrars, ISPs, etc., "the internet" is not a
> profession, but a tool, and users thereof typically don't give a rip about
> the nuts and bolts: "can I get on line and get to where I want to go and
> send an email to whoever?" is the extent of their interest. It's like
> computers:
>
> who wants to know how the inside works, as long as it does? And
> why not? These people may be dentists or bankers or truck drivers, etc.,
> with their own professional and job concerns. So the bottom line question
> is what you said: can that kind of range of people be given an incentive
> to become involved enough to join in on something that would function?
> The bones of such a thing exist in ICANN, namely, the supposed "at-
> large," but there's no meat, and instead we have the GA playing at that
> role instead of doing its own proper function.
>
> An internet issue that should be of wide interest: your ISP gets bought up
> by megacorp #1 which in turn is purchased by megacorp #2, the service
> plummets, and although you are told that "you don't have to change your
> domain name," nevertheless a couple of months later you do -- what was
> once teleport.com became some other screwball thing, and then onemain.com
> (or maybe the other way around -- who can follow?), and on date X there
> will be no teleport.com addresses whatever, either you move (to the new
> thing, preferably!) or you're toast.  And never mind that you have a lot of
> time left on your annual contract.  That kind of thing might help generate
> some interest, but this whole "root" bit and a lot of the rest of it will
> never
> capture the fancy of the general public, which is why there are 305. The
> root thing is the right thing in the right place, but not something that
> will
> draw out a crowd. The DNSO/GA is not the place to do what a lot of
> the people in the GA want to do.
>
> (And actually this bit I should have put in ga-icann -- my mouse sometimes
> takes on a life of its own.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >
> > Marilyn
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:19 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] 305 Voters
> >
> > Interesting who one sees there and who one does not.
> > Some people post but don't vote; quite a few more
> > vote but we never see them post. 305 people speaking
> > for millions. Amazing!
> >
> > Is it possible that the purported lack of any "bottom up"
> > operation by ICANN might arise because it has almost
> > no "bottom?"
> >
> > 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
>
> --
>          Bill Lovell
>
> http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:26:31 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Tower of Babble

Anything that depends upon the presence or absence of a "working lunch"
in even the slightest way would not be worth 1/1000th of the cost of a
ticket to Stockholm.  If the ducks haven't been lined up well before now,
nothing will come of them.  This whole "mike time" bit is a charade -- is
not useless babble here enough;  must it also be endured in Stockholm?
Useful effort is called planning and preparation, not the latest flash of
electrons across the cerebellum of someone seeking public exposure,
fame, and glory. And a vote? With a few minutes worth of thought, at
best?  A more effective prescription for disaster could hardly be imagined.

And I would ascribe what lack of a clear program of work there is to
the babble, not the other way around.  I believe the Chair and Alternate
Chair to have earned high congratulations to get two resolutions on board
- -- I hadn't thought they could do it -- against such a background of noise.
The questioning of credibility comes from the incessant racket of a
very few, only some of whom I shall name: Jeff Williams, Jefsey, and
last, but not least, Sotiris. There are others whose ability to resist
emulating great literature can get quite wearing, but sometimes within
all that twaddle they actually say things worth hearing.  There is also a
"Terminator" in the crowd here, but he often seeks to terminate just what
so needs to be, not incessantly. It's just the knee-jerk negativists whom
I have named, and some others, so I say that instead of staring breathlessly
out into the ring as the toreador steps forth and the bull starts to charge,
with the crowd screaming for failure so as to watch the blood flow, let's
just all shut up and let those who have the job, do it. The foregoing is not
meant to emulate great literature, especially not Hemingway, but sometimes
images are better than literal words, and it is precisely that image that what
Sotiris proposes brings to my mind.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Dear Company,
>
> The GA has disintegrated into babble, pure and simple.  I ascribe this, in large
> part, to no clear program of work.  The coming meeting in Stockholm may only serve
> to emphasize this point.  How can the GA expect to be taken seriously, when its own
> members no longer take it seriously, and even question its credibility?
>
> Mssrs. Chair, and Alt-Chair, outcome reflects on leadership.  Don't get carried
> away with the party-favours and other mementos of the occasion...   I will be be
> watching the webcast closely, as will many others.  Perhaps we will add our voices
> in the public participation.  But, we're going to need a commitment from our
> colleagues who are at the meeting, to ensure that all voices will be given a fair
> chance.  It will also be interesting to see how the time will be allotted for the
> various discussions.   If necessary, will the meeting run over/through
> lunch/dinner/breakfast and even overtime?  Or will it be the ersatz performance yet
> again?  (Considering the gravity of the matters to be discussed, I think a working
> lunch is not too much to be expected, surely?  I remember Esther Dyson herself
> deigning to dine and do... that is, if memory serves me correctly.)  I would even
> like to see a motion or two with real and virtual participation in a vote!
> (`wishful thinking', I know)  Is this GA really going to happen gentlemen?  Let us
> see your resolve, will, and character over the next two weeks.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 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

- --
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm

- --
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, 27 May 2001 22:22:16 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> Erica, I'm with you. Bret, do you have ideas about that?

That is what I'd like to see too. Erica said it well.

       -- Bret

Erica Roberts wrote:
> Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I would like to see the GA become a real
> forum for cross constituency discussion with a view to building consensus on
> key policy issues amongst constituencies and others not represented within
> existing constituencies.

- --
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, 28 May 2001 15:32:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sinking The Titanic

On Sun, 27 May 2001 19:54:57 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

> WHAT Mr. Corliss is right about is that we need a leader, a greater leader
that
> will command our respect and bring us together and move us forward to
achieve
> our synergistic goals.  That person is within our sphere and we need only
to
> back her/him in order to make that dream I speak of a reality. Find that
person
> and quick!

I find Bill Lovell to be interesting and responsive.  Perhaps he would like
to assist with one of the working groups?  I'd therefore nominate him to
guide the GA-ICANN working group.

Of course, others may not agree and may wish to nominate someone else.  As
well, I am sure that those who don't like imposed authority will object to a
title like "sub-Chair".

What about "guide" ?  Or "co-ordinator" ?  Or the French word "chef" ?

I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 27 May 2001 22:40:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters

Ladi,

danged if it ain't a sawed off runt lookin for milk from its mama.  Damn
straight this is a legitimate and hard moral and philosophical battle.  I
play hard at the personal side and study night and day at the technical.  My
older children ask me to show them the windmills I am fighting, and my
younger ask what child I came closer to saving today. Those of us who want
to help must understand and fight for what is right in both arenas.
Satellite link ups and IPv16s have me well worried but not out classed. Us
dotcommoners will raise to the occassion.  One more serious IPv4 to
southheast  asia may help one more village Doctor which will save countless
children, one more political blocking of same may kill hundreds more.

We talk in the ether, but when I leave Stockholm I will go directly to
deltas where i will witness more tagedy at ICANNs hands. Oh no my friend
this is not an intellectual debate.

Sincerely,

"when men of brains debate trouble, men of trouble die" (ed 2001)

Ladi wrote:

> My personal general feeling is that technical issues simply cannot exist
> in isolation from policy issues. Trying to divide them cleanly is
> useless as one side will always need to understand the other at least on
> a basic level, unless we just want to degenerate into two groups
> pointing fingers at each other and never getting anything done. I point
> to the current email as a file transfer method issue occupying NANOG as
> my most recent example.
>
> By the same token, are "non-ICANN issues" really that far from "ICANN
> issues"? Not to start a new debate, but perhaps a form of the digital
> divide is why some people can effectively put up a fight against UDRP
> and others don't even bother. Perhaps a more unified approach is in
> order...
>
> And as a history major, I need to plug my own discipline (and my
> thesis): past models are also worth examining. Without thinking too
> hard, I would hazard a guess that the creation and professionalization
> of the scientific community is worth a look.
>
> ~Ladi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:48 PM
> To: 'William S. Lovell'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> I've been thinking that some of what "we" want to talk about really
> doesn't belong at ICANN at all, but that there a lots of interesting,
> bright, and involved people who are interested in ICANN, but really want
> to also debate, or socialize ideas bout non-ICANN areas.... digital
> divide; privacy on the net in general, security of
> applications/communications, etc.
>
> I think, like William, that there may be some models which we could look
> at. I am not holding up any examples, since I am searching. Your ASCAP
> and BMI examples are interesting ones. Some might suggest ISOC; others
> might suggest some of the other more technically oriented ... groups...
> but the point is that we should see if we can learn from any of them ,
> and from the other SOs about what might work...
>
> Thanks, William, I enjoyed reading your post, and it made me think
> more...
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:43 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] 305 Voters
>
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > William, might it also be that many users of the Internet think that
> > it
> just
> > works, and they are busy running their personal lives, and their
> businesses,
> > and they want to take Internet operations for granted?
>
> Marilyn:
>
> That's really it in a nutshell. Also, the GA attempts to do stuff in the
> wrong place. The problem is that the GA is supposed to be a technical
> advisory body on domain name issues, where technical expertise is indeed
> necessary, but the GA more often falls into the process of carrying out
> what the "at-large" group would do, if there were such a thing. The
> attempts by Younger and Corliss to get things focussed on the actual
> "charter" of the GA by way of the mailing lists, instead of being a
> place to vent every gripe known (along with beating up the other guy,
> etc.), creates yet another thing to gripe about, and the real business
> gets lost.
>
> > For instance, I often speak to busienesses through trade associations
> about
> > ICANN. Most of the executives and managers whom I brief usually say:
> > glad you are paying attention; think that our association staff
> > should. Now, I have to get back to work. Give an update in about 3-4
> > months, won't you?
> >
> > I'm struggling to think about other organizations and how they have
> > developed "representative democracy".  I think it deserves some more
> > thoughtfulness.
>
> I gave the examples some time back of two organizations that are run
> quite professionally and serve their own special public very well. One
> of these is the National Writers Union (free lance writers) and ASCAP
> (songwriters)
> -- for which there is another one -- BMI.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:42:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sinking The Titanic  (was The Tower of Babble)

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Sotiris
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 19:48:20 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > The GA has disintegrated into babble, pure and simple.  I ascribe this, in
> > large part, to no clear program of work.  The coming meeting in Stockholm
> > may only serve to emphasize this point.  How can the GA expect to be taken
> > seriously, when its own members no longer take it seriously, and even
> question
> > its credibility?
>
> In which case the naysayers will have succeeded in THEIR hidden agemda.

  What is an "Agemda"?   Do you mean AGENDA here Patrick.  If so,
your characterization of those that do not share your AGENDA's, and
which ever one is the REAL one you aspire to, I find that particularly
abusive towards the assembly members...  I for one would appreciate
you discontinuing this sort of baiting or characterization in the negative.

>
>
> > Mssrs. Chair, and Alt-Chair, outcome reflects on leadership.  Don't get
> carried
> > away with the party-favours and other mementos of the occasion...   I will
> be
> > watching the webcast closely, as will many others.  Perhaps we will add
> our
> > voices in the public participation.
>
> I don't know why you are so presumptious.  First I am not going to Stockholm
> as the DNSO GA has no money and only one person on the list cared enough to
> do anything about it.

  The ICANN BoD is supposed to fund such trips for those whom they
feel are deserving and necessary to attend.  I believe you were
turned down as a result of one or the other of these conditions when
you requested funding to go to Stockholm.

>
>
> Second, I haven't been to a party of any sort in 10 years.  Or the movies.
> Or anywhere exciting.  Last time in Melbourne I stayed in the cheapest hotel
> in the City where I couldn't afford to buy breakfast for 4 days.  I survived
> on the free snacks.  So I'm not doing that again !!

  That was a very bad financial decision on your part Patrick.  Planning
you expenses for any trip of that nature is paramount to a successful
trip.  This does not speak well for you financial judgment...

>
>
> Third, it's easy to blame the leadership.  Where's your support?  Your input
> lately?

  Support for what?  For whom perhaps?

>
>
> It's like a sinking ship.  We are all in this together.  Sure the Captain
> can stand there and say "To the liferafts !!" but when everybody argues
> which way to go, who's going to be in charge of the liferafts, why weren't
> they repaired and provisioned, etc. we will all drown.

  First of all this is not a ship.  Second if for the sake of discussion here,
the life rafts, if you will, were not provisioned, it would be proper to ask
why not, don't you think?  I do.

>
>
> Of course it is easy to blame the Captain.

  What Captain?  You?  If so , I don't think so, Patrick.

> It doesn't matter that he just
> took over and that nobody ever listened to him in the first place.

  I think most participants here are willing to listen.  As to acting, that is
another
matter entirely.

>
>
> So the Captain comes over to take charge of the out-of-control situation
> saying "OK, you can be in charge of that liferaft".  What happens?

  Again do you invasion yourself as the "Captain"?  Your not.

>
>
> You guessed it !!  Everybody says either (a) Who put you in charge? OR (b)
> No, we don't agree with your choice and we will do everything in our power t
> o undermine it.

  Undermine?  I don't think so here either.  Question, yes.  Undermine, no?

>
>
> So the ship sinks and we all drown -- not "babble" but "burble".
>
>  . . . . burble . . . burble . . . burble. . . . glug !!

  Great theatrics here.  However I fail to see the connection really nor
how it is very helpful.  Such theatrics also do not show good leadership
traits either....

>
>
> I call upon all fair-minded persons to stop flaming the leadership so that
> there will be some chance that we might be able to achieve something
> worthwhile in Stockholm.

  I don't know what flaming you are referring to.  Could you be more specific?

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> But, we're going to need a commitment from our
> colleagues who are at the meeting, to ensure that all voices will be given a
> fair
> chance.  It will also be interesting to see how the time will be allotted
> for the
> various discussions.   If necessary, will the meeting run over/through
> lunch/dinner/breakfast and even overtime?  Or will it be the ersatz
> performance yet
> again?  (Considering the gravity of the matters to be discussed, I think a
> working
> lunch is not too much to be expected, surely?  I remember Esther Dyson
> herself
> deigning to dine and do... that is, if memory serves me correctly.)  I would
> even
> like to see a motion or two with real and virtual participation in a vote!
> (`wishful thinking', I know)  Is this GA really going to happen gentlemen?
> Let us
> see your resolve, will, and character over the next two weeks.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 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
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> _________________________________________________________
> This article is copyright and may not be reproduced or quoted beyond this
> forum without the express permission of the author.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #494
************************