Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #521
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, June 9 2001            Volume 01 : Number 521

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:28:20 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Earth is a single point of failure."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/msg00702.html
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]> 

"Earth is a single point of failure."
- ----

You must be living on Mars to see that...

:-)

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
BIZ World - Coming from Mars 128n 128e

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:40:51 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restructuring ICANN

Hello William,

on 6/8/01 12:07 PM, William X. Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> For what it is worth, I object to any attempt to restrict subject
> matters of discussion to sublists.

For what it's worth, I do support topic specific lists and this is why. If
you are one of the few who actually do more than talk on these lists,
meaning, you draft proposals, reports and so on, it becomes a nightmare to
trawl through the ga archives for relevant posts to summarize. Topic
specific lists greatly assist that process.

At the same time, I agree with you that you should not be restricted on the
GA main list, which is where the seeds of ideas may be planted and
incubated. If your ideas receive support, then they may be transplanted to a
more nurturing environment amongst members with a particular interest in
bringing such ideas forward to fruition.

Whether you give these topic-specific lists the label of working group or
not, is irrelevant. The task is likely to be similar.

Really, it's common sense to make a comment to a group which is directed to
deal with it, but if you prefer not to do so, I, for, one have no
objections. Just don't expect any sympathy if a written report does not take
your comments into consideration.

Regards,
Joanna 

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:13:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Media reports on ICANN's Stolkholm meeting

All assembly members,

  From the media and posted on another forum:

http://www.nytimes.com/thestandard/standard_26896.html
June 5, 2001
Sleepless in Stockholm
By KEITH DAWSON, THESTANDARD.COM

.....

For a good overview of the gnarly issues on ICANN's agenda, turn to Jim
Wagner's report in InternetNews. Wagner touched on ICANN's budget (it's
increasing - surprised?), the search for a new home for the .org domain,

alternate roots and the polite international revolt against ICANN's
legitimacy. A sound bite from an Australian delegate summed up this last

beef: "ICANN is basically an American intranet" holding the ..com, .net,

.org and country code top-level domains...

http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,,10_777441,00.html
June 4 2001
ICANN Wraps Up Stockholm Meetings
By Jim Wagner, Internet News

....

Len Lindon, an Australian lawyer following the proceedings, said many
people
outside the U.S. are increasingly fed up with the organization's
exclusive
policies and until ICANN takes the international community's concerns
seriously, a budget increase is not warranted.

"Until ICANN can demonstrate to the world that it has no association,
direct
or indirect, with (the U.S.), their budget increase isn't warranted,"
Lindon
said. "The ICANN is basically an American intranet holding the .com,
.net,
org and (country code Top Level Domains). China has its own intranet
globally as do most U.S. multinational corporations, so it becomes an
interoperability issue.

"Vint Cerf (ICANN chairman) and Stuart Lynn (ICANN president) have made
it
clear they view other roots and TLDs as competitors," Lindon continued,
"but
they still are in denial about their monopolistic practices."

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

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:24:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  Excluding inputs to the WG

Patrick and all,

  I posted it for the exact reasons I stated.  No other.  I am in agreement
with Robert Elz in his disagreement with a document that is no longer
being considered for even IETF review for reasons that Robert nicely
articulated on the possion list (IETF Forum).  In that this was in relationship
to DNSEXT WG of the IETF and seemed to be in stark contrast to
some of the comments made here on the GA by Harald, I felt that
some accuracy and/or alternative viewpoints were appropriate.  Hence
my posting this to the GA....  I hope this is now clarified adequately
for the assembly members...

Alternate Chair wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:30:42 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
> To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>; Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excluding inputs to the WG
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:43:30 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>; Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>;
> > [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> >
> > >   FYI.  It would seem that the IETF as I had disagreed with
> > > Harald on last week seems to be yet again in some turmoil
> > > on procedural issues, and ones that seem to revolve around
> > > DNS related issues.  Therefore I thought that sharing this
> > > with the DNSO GA was of some importance and interest...
> > >
> > > Robert Elz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > For those who don't know him, Robert Elz is, of course, the delegate for
> the
> > .au country code.
>
> On Friday, June 08, 2001 9:18 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> > More than that, is also someone who can't even begin to imagine what
> > an procedural matter in the IETF (which has nothing at all to do with
> > the DNS, other than that it happened to arise in the working group
> > that deals with DNS protocol changes) could possibly be of any interest
> > to the DNSO under any circumstances.
>
> Hi Robert
>
> Thank you for your inquiry.
>
> I am not exactly why Jeff William made this comment but think that it was an
> oblique reference to an official position which Harald Tveit Alverstrand
> holds or has held with the IETF.
>
> As you have commented that it is "off topic" in relation to the GA list, I
> have referred the posting to the Committee of List Monitors for
> adjudication.  They may also consider the implications of the reference to
> Mr Alvestrand.
>
> Please note that although both Mr Alvestrand and myself are list monitors,
> we will not participate in this process.  I trust this resolves the issue
> for you.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> Alternate Chair
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:51:00 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  Excluding inputs to the WG

These issues are clear as mud.  For anyone to take an exception to it as off topic
is nonsensical.  I for one got a lot of very beneficial information from the post
and clarification.

It was on topic for the simple reason that it explained a previous represntation
made on this list.  If any (and none should be) complaint should be lodged it
should be regarding the original post. But it kind of is split on au grounds, I
think Mr. Flemmings questions on this are on point also. Maybe the au just doesn't
want the US group meddling in their affairs.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Patrick and all,
>
>   I posted it for the exact reasons I stated.  No other.  I am in agreement
> with Robert Elz in his disagreement with a document that is no longer
> being considered for even IETF review for reasons that Robert nicely
> articulated on the possion list (IETF Forum).  In that this was in relationship
> to DNSEXT WG of the IETF and seemed to be in stark contrast to
> some of the comments made here on the GA by Harald, I felt that
> some accuracy and/or alternative viewpoints were appropriate.  Hence
> my posting this to the GA....  I hope this is now clarified adequately
> for the assembly members...
>
> Alternate Chair wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:30:42 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
> > To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>; Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excluding inputs to the WG
> >
> > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:43:30 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>; Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>;
> > > [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > > >   FYI.  It would seem that the IETF as I had disagreed with
> > > > Harald on last week seems to be yet again in some turmoil
> > > > on procedural issues, and ones that seem to revolve around
> > > > DNS related issues.  Therefore I thought that sharing this
> > > > with the DNSO GA was of some importance and interest...
> > > >
> > > > Robert Elz wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > For those who don't know him, Robert Elz is, of course, the delegate for
> > the
> > > .au country code.
> >
> > On Friday, June 08, 2001 9:18 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> >
> > > More than that, is also someone who can't even begin to imagine what
> > > an procedural matter in the IETF (which has nothing at all to do with
> > > the DNS, other than that it happened to arise in the working group
> > > that deals with DNS protocol changes) could possibly be of any interest
> > > to the DNSO under any circumstances.
> >
> > Hi Robert
> >
> > Thank you for your inquiry.
> >
> > I am not exactly why Jeff William made this comment but think that it was an
> > oblique reference to an official position which Harald Tveit Alverstrand
> > holds or has held with the IETF.
> >
> > As you have commented that it is "off topic" in relation to the GA list, I
> > have referred the posting to the Committee of List Monitors for
> > adjudication.  They may also consider the implications of the reference to
> > Mr Alvestrand.
> >
> > Please note that although both Mr Alvestrand and myself are list monitors,
> > we will not participate in this process.  I trust this resolves the issue
> > for you.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> > Alternate Chair
> >
> > --
> > 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-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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:21:38 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     .BIZ

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:212 BIZ

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/msg00705.html
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
"Sweeping it under the rug is not going to resolve the issue."

- -----

Sweeping what under the rug ?

Sweeping .BIZ under the rug ?

http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,40301,00.html
"The origins of dot-biz lie in Usenet, when activist Karl Denninger in the
late 1980s created newsgroups where commercial messages would be allowed.

Denninger said he expanded the concept to allow automated dot-biz domain
name registrations in 1995, and his company, Macro Computer Systems, was
sold in 1998 to Winstar Communications.

He says ORSC changed from pointing to Winstar's list of dot-biz names to
Alantic Root Network's in the last year. "The problem is that (Gallegos')
claim to this is no more legitimate than JV Team's. I would argue that
neither of them has a legitimate claim," Denninger says."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
BIZ World

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:28:09 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Restructuring ICANN

What is going on here?

This is from our election rules:

SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR

The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for chair is
eliminated before the counting starts.

(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in the
selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the electorate rank one
person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote for a third.
Re-running the process is considered more likely to select a team that can work
well together.)

Of course when I pointed this out after the election I was heavily chastised by
Corliss and crew as being a sore loser.  Now the bird has come home to roost.
This obvious behind the scenes pickering and fighting for power and control over
the lists is killing us.  It is becoming quite obvious that this alternate chair
has a different agenda than our chair.

Now review that I was suspended from this list because of pointing out this
horrendous conflict before either chair was formally elected. Of course the
suspension was voted for by Harald who drafted the above sited rule.

Most the time we do not need to restructure we just need to follow the existing
rules.

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:

> Subject: [ga-roots] RE: Restructuring ICANN
>
> > Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
> > any discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing
> > list."
> >
> > On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural issues
> > were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> > discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> > started in the DNSO Review Working Group.
>
> Actually I am glad that you attacked me first.  That's twice now.
>
> I note that you have made another post to GA-REVIEW.  That makes nine
> postings to that list in six weeks.  Four of them were yours.  This can be
> compared with GA-ROOTS which has 704 postings to date.
>
> Please keep up the good work.  LOL.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:38:06 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Restructuring ICANN

ICANN is structured:
1/3 Protocol
1/3 Address
1/3 Names

Are you discussing Protocols, Addresses or Names ?

Jim Fleming
http://wwww.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 BIZ World

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Eric Dierker
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:28 PM
To: Patrick Corliss
Cc: Danny Younger; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Restructuring ICANN

What is going on here?

This is from our election rules:

SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR

The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for chair
is
eliminated before the counting starts.

(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in the
selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the electorate rank
one
person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote for a third.
Re-running the process is considered more likely to select a team that can
work
well together.)

Of course when I pointed this out after the election I was heavily chastised
by
Corliss and crew as being a sore loser.  Now the bird has come home to
roost.
This obvious behind the scenes pickering and fighting for power and control
over
the lists is killing us.  It is becoming quite obvious that this alternate
chair
has a different agenda than our chair.

Now review that I was suspended from this list because of pointing out this
horrendous conflict before either chair was formally elected. Of course the
suspension was voted for by Harald who drafted the above sited rule.

Most the time we do not need to restructure we just need to follow the
existing
rules.

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:

> Subject: [ga-roots] RE: Restructuring ICANN
>
> > Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
> > any discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing
> > list."
> >
> > On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural
issues
> > were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> > discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> > started in the DNSO Review Working Group.
>
> Actually I am glad that you attacked me first.  That's twice now.
>
> I note that you have made another post to GA-REVIEW.  That makes nine
> postings to that list in six weeks.  Four of them were yours.  This can be
> compared with GA-ROOTS which has 704 postings to date.
>
> Please keep up the good work.  LOL.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:49:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

Hi Joanna

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:34:43 -0400, you wrote:
Subject: [ga-review] 3,328 comments added to this list

> Part of the original DNSO Review process included discussions on
structural
> reform of both DNSO and ICANN.
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html

As you know I was not a member of WG-Review but it is clear to me that there
are very few subscribers currently.  I believe that another list was set up
elsewhere and this was done because of friction between the members.  Of
course I was not involved.  I have no idea of the current status of the
"review" or whether the matter should be progressed.

My concern is simply that mailing lists should be operating effectively.  If
the GA-REVIEW mailing list was intended to deal with restructuring ICANN
then I should have been informed so that I would not post requests to
members to use GA-ICANN.  Having made such a post, it would be a simple
matter to advise me privately so I could correct my error.

It is my view that too many people on these lists let their own personal
likes and phobias influence their professional behaviour.  I expect
reasonable courtesy and co-operation when I am merely trying to do my job
advising people of the appropriate list to use.

Could you please, therefore clarify the position for me in clear and
unequivocal terms?  Can you advise what were the terms of reference for the
WG-REVIEW?  To what extent did it complete its task when it was closed down
by the Names Council?  Was any further work performed outside this forum
and, if so, with what result?  Is there a "due" date for completion?

I am particularly interested in two fundamental issues:

(1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the origibal
WG-REVIEW not joined this GA-REVIEW mailing list?  Is it because the work is
completed?  Are they likely to sign up anytime soon?  In other words, will
the list be useful? and viable?

(2)   Boundary or Scope.  I'll use that term for now -- I may think of a
better one later.  What I need to know is to what extent the lists overlap.
If the principal objective of the Review is looking at the structure of the
DNSO then wider issues, such as Supporting Organisations, are outside its
scope.  We need to establish these boundaries very precisely.

In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
lists but (1) whether the list is viable and (2) what purpose the list will
serve.  Given the latest ccTLD moves, list members may very well need to
revise the terms of reference of more than one list.

Finally, I consider each list as a Working Group.  Whether it is or not, it
needs to have a WG-Chair or Co-ordinator of some sort.  Perhaps you will
consider how this might be arranged.

It occurred to me that your interest in WHOIS and registration systems might
have inclined you towards becoming a Chair of the GA-SYS mailing list rather
than GA-REVIEW.  The important point is to make sure that each list is
properly managed by the most suitable people.

Of course I will post this to the [ga] list until these issues are properly
settled.

Best 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 13:54:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Restructuring ICANN

I was discussing nothing of the sort!  I was discussing the inner and outer
politicking going on within the GA of the 1/3 Names which has a written
structure which is ignored when it fits certain political interests.  It is
quite clear here that it was restructured as a behind the scenes deal making
process with swapping support and agendas.  Compomises were made and goodies
handed out for going along.

Interesting how Harald was immediately placed on the monitoring committee after
going against his own rules in order that Corliss would become alternate chair
without the second election as set forth in the rules. Doubly interesting that
Corliss now touts his list as opposed to one created by the chair.  But it is
clear that the major deal was made based upon the restructuring, the trouble is
they did not make it clear what they were restructuring and now they are having
a falling out that has spilled publicly.

The Corliss/Harald connection is made even more clear in Corliss' recent
unfounded attack against Mr. Williams for revealing an inconsistency in
position. Especially when the issue was really about delegation of a TLD what
could be more germane to the 1/3 Names.

Sincerely,

JIM FLEMING wrote:

> ICANN is structured:
> 1/3 Protocol
> 1/3 Address
> 1/3 Names
>
> Are you discussing Protocols, Addresses or Names ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://wwww.DOT-BIZ.com
> 0:212 BIZ World
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Eric Dierker
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: Patrick Corliss
> Cc: Danny Younger; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Restructuring ICANN
>
> What is going on here?
>
> This is from our election rules:
>
> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
>
> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for chair
> is
> eliminated before the counting starts.
>
> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in the
> selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the electorate rank
> one
> person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote for a third.
> Re-running the process is considered more likely to select a team that can
> work
> well together.)
>
> Of course when I pointed this out after the election I was heavily chastised
> by
> Corliss and crew as being a sore loser.  Now the bird has come home to
> roost.
> This obvious behind the scenes pickering and fighting for power and control
> over
> the lists is killing us.  It is becoming quite obvious that this alternate
> chair
> has a different agenda than our chair.
>
> Now review that I was suspended from this list because of pointing out this
> horrendous conflict before either chair was formally elected. Of course the
> suspension was voted for by Harald who drafted the above sited rule.
>
> Most the time we do not need to restructure we just need to follow the
> existing
> rules.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Subject: [ga-roots] RE: Restructuring ICANN
> >
> > > Patrick writes:  "It would be much appreciated if members would take up
> > > any discussion relating to restructuring ICANN to the GA-ICANN mailing
> > > list."
> > >
> > > On this occasion, I disagree with Patrick.  Knowing that structural
> issues
> > > were to soon become a major topic of debate, it was decided to set up a
> > > discussion list (GA-review) to continue the structural analysis first
> > > started in the DNSO Review Working Group.
> >
> > Actually I am glad that you attacked me first.  That's twice now.
> >
> > I note that you have made another post to GA-REVIEW.  That makes nine
> > postings to that list in six weeks.  Four of them were yours.  This can be
> > compared with GA-ROOTS which has 704 postings to date.
> >
> > Please keep up the good work.  LOL.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > --
> > 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-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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:54:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

Hello Patrick,

Friday, June 08, 2001, 1:49:15 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> likes and phobias influence their professional behaviour.  I expect
> reasonable courtesy and co-operation when I am merely trying to do my job
> advising people of the appropriate list to use.

But that isn't your job.

- -- 
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:13:38 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

It sure isn't listed anywhere in the rules.  As a matter of fact the "rules"
(but why should we care what the rules say) say we only have two lists,
announce and ga, but then later go on to describe the ga-full.
This GA governance by gang has got to stop.  If we simply abide by the existing
rules we will be fine, while we refine them.  It should be noted that most
rules are to protect the governed from the leaders, not the other way around as
applied here.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Patrick,
>
> Friday, June 08, 2001, 1:49:15 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > likes and phobias influence their professional behaviour.  I expect
> > reasonable courtesy and co-operation when I am merely trying to do my job
> > advising people of the appropriate list to use.
>
> But that isn't your job.
>

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 18:45:37 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

Hi Patrick,
on 6/8/01 4:49 PM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

> Could you please, therefore clarify the position for me in clear and
> unequivocal terms?  Can you advise what were the terms of reference for the
> WG-REVIEW?  To what extent did it complete its task when it was closed down
> by the Names Council?  Was any further work performed outside this forum
> and, if so, with what result?  Is there a "due" date for completion?

What did your last slave die of? Sorry, it is not my job to bring you up to
speed on issues about which you, of all people, as an officer of the GA,
should be fully informed.

As a courtesy, I have posted the wg-review archive link to the appropriate
list for those willing to do research before passing judgement and workload
onto others.

Why you moved this thread back to the main list is beyond my understanding,
but for me, it stops here and now.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 09 Jun 2001 01:41:47 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] our outreach geographical priorities 

During the @large election ANZ candidates complained they stand no chance 
in the same area than China; India and Japan (a 1 to 100 ratio if no more). 
They seem to have found a solution since a geographical DNSO review shows 
that our top people are :

7 NC from North America + the GA Chair
7 NC from Europe + Secretariat
5 NC from Latin America
3 NC from ANZ + GA alt-Chair
1 NC from East Asia
0 NC from Japan
0 NC from Indian Sub-Continent
0 NC from Africa.

May be we went too far. The coming elections/selections should be  used to 
correct that unbalance. We should focus first on China and India as Africa 
and Japan have at least an @large Director.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 02:24:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual Property Constituency

Dear DPF,
it only shows the BC is not fulfilling its mission. Not that it has no mission.
As an SME and a sall TM owner I don't see my interests represented by
anyt of them two. You may rememebr that Philip Shepard publicly asked
me on this list broadcasting a mail he has sent me privafely. This makes
two responses: I did not have even an ACK.
My position is simple: BC and IP should at least be be populated by 50%
real people; true TM owners and true business owner/CEOs. Not by
lawyers and employees.
Jefsey
.

On 23:44 08/06/01, DPF said:
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:41:49 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >The history of the DNSO is replete with joint communiqués issued by the
> >Business and Intellectual Property Constituency:
> >
> >1. BC-IPC Safeguards Precis (Sept.2000)
> >2. Minimum safeguards for the introduction of new TLDs - a joint statement
> >from the Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (Sept. 2000)
> >
> >The Business Constituency website routinely posts remarks from the
> >Intellectual Property Constituency such as, "IP Constituency Statement on
> >Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement".
> >
> >It is clear to even the most casual observer that the affinity between these
> >two groups is such that we are essentially looking at two sides of the same
> >coin.  A merger of these two constituencies would seem to be indicated.
>
>I must admit I can see almost no difference between them.  I was
>surprised to see on the WIPO site a submission from one of the BC reps
>on the Names Council in his role as Chair of the European Trademark
>Association (or similar).
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-review" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #521
************************