Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #523
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 10 2001            Volume 01 : Number 523

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:45:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends concerned over what
we are discussing here.  We are having a very hard time with the difference with
the domain name holders and us simple users, my children without domain names
asked me if they would be represented.  I want to tell them it is ok, can I?

Eric

Danny Younger wrote:

> Having received a number of comments from the membership expressing a desire
> to use a nomination process to select a representative from the General
> Assembly to join the Names Council's Task Force that will be dealing with
> the Individuals' Constituency issue, and finding no legitimate reason not to
> support such a process, I am asking our DNSO Secretariat to make the
> necessary arrangements.
>
> --
> 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, 10 Jun 2001 15:20:28 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:45:46 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

>Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends concerned over what
>we are discussing here.  We are having a very hard time with the difference with
>the domain name holders and us simple users, my children without domain names
>asked me if they would be represented.  I want to tell them it is ok, can I?

That would of course be one of the major challenges of the Taskforce -
to work out who is eligible to join.

Some issues which come to mind are:

a) Should it be gTLD name holders only
b) How about ccTLD name holders
c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
eligible?
d) If ones goes with (c) then should any individual at all be eligible
as it is easy to get a third level name for free
(e) Should there be a minimum age of membership
(f) Do you need to hold/own the name or just be the admin contact for
it?
(g) Should there be restrictions on membership of an individual
constituency and other constituencies?  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:26:49 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Nomination Process

Eric writes:  "Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends
concerned over what we are discussing here."

Back in late February, the Names Council Business Plan was first introduced
(the URL is:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc ).
This was shortly after the reports of the Review Working Group and the
Review Task Force were issued.  That Business Plan had a section devoted to
"DNSO Operation Related" and included the following statement:

"5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency."

The NC Business Plan was formally adopted in Melbourne, and Interim
Committees were created to establish Terms of Reference for Task Forces or
"other bodies".  These Terms of Reference were formally adopted in
Stockholm.  Discussions led to a recommendation to involve the GA, through a
representative, in the process:

DNSO Review (Swinehart): Need to discuss implementation of terms of
reference. Based on the suggestions from WG-D, which were extensive and
conducted openly. Review costs in preparation for moving forward. Question
of next steps for individuals constituency - accept proposals, form a
further task force, etc.
       1.   Sheppard: A task force makes sense. I might volunteer to chair
it, if that was acceptable to others.
       2.   Swinehart: Consultation.
           • Stubbs: Need to include the chairman of the GA.
           • Swinehart: A good suggestion.
       3.   Swinehart: GA chair (consider changes), Individuals Constituency
(determine next steps), language diversity (determine costs, and make a
recommendation for a cost-effective means for making translations).
       4.   Swinehart: Perhaps we should take proposals from DNSO, and
evaluate the various proposals.
       5.   Stubbs: Goal is to include some representative of the GA. This
may or might not be the GA chair. "GA chair or designee."
       6.   Martinez: Is this process consistent with the Bylaws? Bylaws
call for self-organizing of constituencies.
           • Sheppard: Seems OK. We're anticipating what will happen when a
group self-organizes.
           • Chicoine: Note that ICANN Board has considered prior proposals.
We're just helping move the process forward.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-nc-060201.html

Two days thereafter, the ICANN Board began a discussion pursuant to the
motion passed by the General Assembly:

N.   General Assembly request re Independent Domain Name Holders
Constituency
       1.   Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of
ICANN as a whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for
legitimacy and reasonableness.
       2.   Auerbach: There are many individuals joining the DNSO for the
purpose of considering domain name policy. At Large considers general ICANN
policy (protocols and addresses also). Two concepts shouldn't be mixed.
       3.   Mueller-Maguhn: Ask the Board to agree that this request goes to
the Public Comment Forum. Should discuss results in Montevideo.
       4.   McLaughlin: Procedure in Bylaws. See Article VI. Not clear
whether Board has a petition as contemplated by Bylaws. Previously, have
seen concern that proposals don't have enough support.
       5.   Abril i Abril: Uncomfortable receiving motions from GA or
constituencies, but never getting anything from the DNSO as such. DNSO
should try to work as an SO, or suggest another structure that they think
would work better. Recall also that GA was not supposed to vote.
       6.   Lynn: Would have thought that a proposal like this would come
through NC, which would make sure that proper background work was done. Many
questions about what makes an individual domain name holder. Much work to be
done. Also need an impact statement in terms of staff work. Some homework to
be done.
       7.   Mueller-Maguhn: Nothing wrong with discussion here. But
individuals are disorganized by their nature. Similar to problem that
non-commercial organizations face in raising funds.
       8.   Cerf: Possible to note that we received the GA's communication,
that there is a procedure here, but that Bylaws must be followed. Proposal
should come through the NC. We would entertain any reasonable proposal in
accordance with Bylaws.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html

The issue is now completely in the hands of the Names Council.  If a
definition is required, then the Names Council's DNSO Review Task Force will
be the body that addresses that matter.  As Phil Sheppard has volunteered to
Chair that Task Force, perhaps your questions/concerns should be directed to
him until such time as we select our representative.

- --
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 20:37:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

You all that bro;

So the question is where do you stand on these issues.

Do you stand for both an IC constituency and a DNH constituency?

easy huh?

Eric the Pr---

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:45:46 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends concerned over what
> >we are discussing here.  We are having a very hard time with the difference with
> >the domain name holders and us simple users, my children without domain names
> >asked me if they would be represented.  I want to tell them it is ok, can I?
>
> That would of course be one of the major challenges of the Taskforce -
> to work out who is eligible to join.
>
> Some issues which come to mind are:
>
> a) Should it be gTLD name holders only
> b) How about ccTLD name holders
> c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
> eligible?
> d) If ones goes with (c) then should any individual at all be eligible
> as it is easy to get a third level name for free
> (e) Should there be a minimum age of membership
> (f) Do you need to hold/own the name or just be the admin contact for
> it?
> (g) Should there be restrictions on membership of an individual
> constituency and other constituencies?
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:06:20 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Funds for Proper Analysis

In Stockholm I was 6 hours ahead.
In Kona now I'm 6 hours behind.
I will get to this after a few Mai Ties.

Mahalo!

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Derek,
> this post is interesting. Please do not be hurt as it is not intended
> and this is basis for further analysis, but this exactly the powerfull
> rolling process to construct uncessary institutions.
>
> What is the Internet? A consensus. Billion of people agreeing the
> same thing: to use TCP/IP protocols to dialog together. This is
> nothing more. Question: is Internet necessary to TCP/IP? No.
> Is TCP/IP necessary to the Internet? Yes. From this one can say
> that the Internet is part of the TCP/IP usage. Would you make the
> Internet boring, TCP/IP users would move out of the Internet. This
> is whet one start hearing around: OpenNet a successor to the
> Internet.
>
> I agree with you the DNSO is a mess and the iCANN is of no other
> use than allowing the USG to delegates something they do not
> know what to do with, and they do not even own as it does not exist.
>
> So why do you care about groupies - they are fun. I love calling
> Kent or Dave or Harald or Robert or Joop or Patrick or Danny or
> me a groupy. They enjoy time that way, disputing absurd issues
> about a group of 30 people. (BoD + Staff).  Looks like a Parent
> Association of 8 years old class.
>
> iCANN is of no use:
> - if they had some use in root management they would hire a
>    Technical manager
> - TLD management? .. they even mess the few the create in
>    entering collider.  Two TLD  a year: creating one to 1000
>    TLDs takes me 10  minutes (I automated the process :-) ).
> - they are of no use in creatig IP addresses. Too complex, too
>    politictal for them. Will be taken over..
> - they have some use in alocating Proteocl numbers: you need
>    to have someone rememberng were the book is.
>
> Oh, no I am wrong. They have a use: to have peole sqwaking
> about them. Look at the number of sites, documents, etc...
> iCANN has nothing to do with the net, it is pure show.biz
>
> Frankly. Why do you want me to put a penny in funding the
> iCANN? Please give me a good reason to help such a
> charity (?), research (?), educational (?) corporation.... I am
> 99% concerned in the iCANN for one single reason: to lower
> the harm it can cause to me.
>
> Now, would the iCANN stick to its bylaws and accept TLDs
> as unlimited Members it could provide some good internationad
> consensus secretariat. It could be of some good use. But
> the $ 50.000 application fee into the "international TLD
> business" killed that..... and I am afraid your propositions
> are not correcting it. Or am I wrong?
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 17:13 09/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> >Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
> >here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
> >questions and comments being submitted by participants.
> >
> >What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
> >present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
> >presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
> >matter being addressed by the DNSO.
> >This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
> >Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
> >http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> >
> >APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
> >represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
> >need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
> >organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
> >experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> >subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> >
> >The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
> >and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
> >groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
> >and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
> >their group.  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
> >when constructive comments and positions are presented.  Groupies exist
> >in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
> >development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
> >position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
> >the established group.
> >
> >If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
> >then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
> >about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
> >analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
> >information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
> >the groupies position.
> >
> >The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
> >experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> >subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
> >policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
> >non-experts.
> >
> >ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
> >restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
> >concept.  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
> >world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
> >advancement of international policy and standards.  The Governments of
> >the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
> >through APO processes.
> >
> >I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
> >
> >Derek Conant
> >DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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, 10 Jun 2001 00:29:00 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Funds for Proper Analysis

Hang loose everyone. That's Mai Tai.

Derek Conant wrote:

> In Stockholm I was 6 hours ahead.
> In Kona now I'm 6 hours behind.
> I will get to this after a few Mai Ties.
>
> Mahalo!
>
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear Derek,
> > this post is interesting. Please do not be hurt as it is not intended
> > and this is basis for further analysis, but this exactly the powerfull
> > rolling process to construct uncessary institutions.
> >
> > What is the Internet? A consensus. Billion of people agreeing the
> > same thing: to use TCP/IP protocols to dialog together. This is
> > nothing more. Question: is Internet necessary to TCP/IP? No.
> > Is TCP/IP necessary to the Internet? Yes. From this one can say
> > that the Internet is part of the TCP/IP usage. Would you make the
> > Internet boring, TCP/IP users would move out of the Internet. This
> > is whet one start hearing around: OpenNet a successor to the
> > Internet.
> >
> > I agree with you the DNSO is a mess and the iCANN is of no other
> > use than allowing the USG to delegates something they do not
> > know what to do with, and they do not even own as it does not exist.
> >
> > So why do you care about groupies - they are fun. I love calling
> > Kent or Dave or Harald or Robert or Joop or Patrick or Danny or
> > me a groupy. They enjoy time that way, disputing absurd issues
> > about a group of 30 people. (BoD + Staff).  Looks like a Parent
> > Association of 8 years old class.
> >
> > iCANN is of no use:
> > - if they had some use in root management they would hire a
> >    Technical manager
> > - TLD management? .. they even mess the few the create in
> >    entering collider.  Two TLD  a year: creating one to 1000
> >    TLDs takes me 10  minutes (I automated the process :-) ).
> > - they are of no use in creatig IP addresses. Too complex, too
> >    politictal for them. Will be taken over..
> > - they have some use in alocating Proteocl numbers: you need
> >    to have someone rememberng were the book is.
> >
> > Oh, no I am wrong. They have a use: to have peole sqwaking
> > about them. Look at the number of sites, documents, etc...
> > iCANN has nothing to do with the net, it is pure show.biz
> >
> > Frankly. Why do you want me to put a penny in funding the
> > iCANN? Please give me a good reason to help such a
> > charity (?), research (?), educational (?) corporation.... I am
> > 99% concerned in the iCANN for one single reason: to lower
> > the harm it can cause to me.
> >
> > Now, would the iCANN stick to its bylaws and accept TLDs
> > as unlimited Members it could provide some good internationad
> > consensus secretariat. It could be of some good use. But
> > the $ 50.000 application fee into the "international TLD
> > business" killed that..... and I am afraid your propositions
> > are not correcting it. Or am I wrong?
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > On 17:13 09/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> > >Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
> > >here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
> > >questions and comments being submitted by participants.
> > >
> > >What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
> > >present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
> > >presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
> > >matter being addressed by the DNSO.
> > >This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
> > >Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
> > >http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> > >
> > >APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
> > >represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
> > >need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
> > >organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
> > >experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> > >subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> > >
> > >The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
> > >and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
> > >groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
> > >and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
> > >their group.  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
> > >when constructive comments and positions are presented.  Groupies exist
> > >in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
> > >development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
> > >position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
> > >the established group.
> > >
> > >If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
> > >then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
> > >about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
> > >analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
> > >information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
> > >the groupies position.
> > >
> > >The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
> > >experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> > >subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
> > >policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
> > >non-experts.
> > >
> > >ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
> > >restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
> > >concept.  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
> > >world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
> > >advancement of international policy and standards.  The Governments of
> > >the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
> > >through APO processes.
> > >
> > >I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
> > >
> > >Derek Conant
> > >DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:41:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

David and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 19:45:46 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends concerned over what
> >we are discussing here.  We are having a very hard time with the difference with
> >the domain name holders and us simple users, my children without domain names
> >asked me if they would be represented.  I want to tell them it is ok, can I?
>
> That would of course be one of the major challenges of the Taskforce -
> to work out who is eligible to join.

  I would think this would be self evident, and therefore a "Task Force"
is not needed, unless less that ANY and ALL interested parties
could not participate or be eligible to join.  If that is what this
"Task Force" is really for or to otherwise decree, than this "Task
Force" is not a "Task Force" at all, but rather a "Witch Hunt Force"...

>
>
> Some issues which come to mind are:
>
> a) Should it be gTLD name holders only
> b) How about ccTLD name holders
> c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
> eligible?
> d) If ones goes with (c) then should any individual at all be eligible
> as it is easy to get a third level name for free
> (e) Should there be a minimum age of membership
> (f) Do you need to hold/own the name or just be the admin contact for
> it?
> (g) Should there be restrictions on membership of an individual
> constituency and other constituencies?

  None of the above should be restrictive criterion for a Individuals
Constituency.  If so, than such a constituency is a misnomer, and therefore
cannot be accurately called a "Individuals Constituency" as all...

  All stakeholders or "Interested Parties" are created equal!!

>
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:54:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Nomination Process

Danny and all assembly members,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Eric writes:  "Please define Individuals Constituency.  I have many friends
> concerned over what we are discussing here."
>
> Back in late February, the Names Council Business Plan was first introduced
> (the URL is:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc ).
> This was shortly after the reports of the Review Working Group and the
> Review Task Force were issued.  That Business Plan had a section devoted to
> "DNSO Operation Related" and included the following statement:
>
> "5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
> contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
> constituency."
>
> The NC Business Plan was formally adopted in Melbourne, and Interim
> Committees were created to establish Terms of Reference for Task Forces or
> "other bodies".  These Terms of Reference were formally adopted in
> Stockholm.  Discussions led to a recommendation to involve the GA, through a
> representative, in the process:
>
> DNSO Review (Swinehart): Need to discuss implementation of terms of
> reference. Based on the suggestions from WG-D, which were extensive and
> conducted openly. Review costs in preparation for moving forward. Question
> of next steps for individuals constituency - accept proposals, form a
> further task force, etc.

  Yes, but lest any forget the "Swienhart" version of the WG-Review report
was not the actual conclusions that were reached as part of that review
process.  Ergo, basing any continued "Study" or "Task Force" on the
"Swienhart" Version for the WG-Report are invalid and inaccurate...

>
>        1.   Sheppard: A task force makes sense. I might volunteer to chair
> it, if that was acceptable to others.
>        2.   Swinehart: Consultation.
>            • Stubbs: Need to include the chairman of the GA.
>            • Swinehart: A good suggestion.
>        3.   Swinehart: GA chair (consider changes), Individuals Constituency
> (determine next steps), language diversity (determine costs, and make a
> recommendation for a cost-effective means for making translations).
>        4.   Swinehart: Perhaps we should take proposals from DNSO, and
> evaluate the various proposals.
>        5.   Stubbs: Goal is to include some representative of the GA. This
> may or might not be the GA chair. "GA chair or designee."
>        6.   Martinez: Is this process consistent with the Bylaws? Bylaws
> call for self-organizing of constituencies.
>            • Sheppard: Seems OK. We're anticipating what will happen when a
> group self-organizes.
>            • Chicoine: Note that ICANN Board has considered prior proposals.
> We're just helping move the process forward.
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-nc-060201.html
>
> Two days thereafter, the ICANN Board began a discussion pursuant to the
> motion passed by the General Assembly:
>
> N.   General Assembly request re Independent Domain Name Holders
> Constituency
>        1.   Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of
> ICANN as a whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for
> legitimacy and reasonableness.
>        2.   Auerbach: There are many individuals joining the DNSO for the
> purpose of considering domain name policy. At Large considers general ICANN
> policy (protocols and addresses also). Two concepts shouldn't be mixed.
>        3.   Mueller-Maguhn: Ask the Board to agree that this request goes to
> the Public Comment Forum. Should discuss results in Montevideo.
>        4.   McLaughlin: Procedure in Bylaws. See Article VI. Not clear
> whether Board has a petition as contemplated by Bylaws. Previously, have
> seen concern that proposals don't have enough support.
>        5.   Abril i Abril: Uncomfortable receiving motions from GA or
> constituencies, but never getting anything from the DNSO as such. DNSO
> should try to work as an SO, or suggest another structure that they think
> would work better. Recall also that GA was not supposed to vote.
>        6.   Lynn: Would have thought that a proposal like this would come
> through NC, which would make sure that proper background work was done. Many
> questions about what makes an individual domain name holder. Much work to be
> done. Also need an impact statement in terms of staff work. Some homework to
> be done.
>        7.   Mueller-Maguhn: Nothing wrong with discussion here. But
> individuals are disorganized by their nature. Similar to problem that
> non-commercial organizations face in raising funds.
>        8.   Cerf: Possible to note that we received the GA's communication,
> that there is a procedure here, but that Bylaws must be followed. Proposal
> should come through the NC. We would entertain any reasonable proposal in
> accordance with Bylaws.
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html
>
> The issue is now completely in the hands of the Names Council.  If a
> definition is required, then the Names Council's DNSO Review Task Force will
> be the body that addresses that matter.  As Phil Sheppard has volunteered to
> Chair that Task Force, perhaps your questions/concerns should be directed to
> him until such time as we select our representative.
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:58:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Nomination Process

Hello Eric,

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 8:37:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> You all that bro;

> So the question is where do you stand on these issues.

> Do you stand for both an IC constituency and a DNH constituency?

I don't know if he does.  I don't.

A domain name is easy enough (And cheap enough) to obtain.  If someone
wants to be a part of the process, they should have some basis for
declaring a stake in the process.  A domain name is a very minimum
standard for that, and I stress minimum since they are so easy and
cheap to get.

The individual public is better represented by the At Large, where
they have a stake, since ICANN deals with more than just domain
policy.  The DNSO deals specifically with domain name/dns issues, and
as such those who have a direct stake and interest in that process
should be the ones who make up the constituencies in that supporting
organization.

- -- 
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, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hi Cindy

Thank you very much for your most welcome explanation of the work of the
WG-REVIEW.  You have clearly gone to a lot of trouble which I am certain
will be most appreciated by those of this GA list who were not involved
themselves.

It does seem, however, that I unintentionally caused some confusion writing:

> As you know I was not a member of WG-Review but it is clear to me
> that there are very few subscribers currently.

My reference to *subscribers* was in relation to the recently created
GA-REVIEW mailing list (which you have called "GA DNSO REVIEW").
I was not referring to the former WG-Review which, as you say, is no
longer in existence or the external mailing list through Yahoo!.

I'll refer to the current list as GA-REVIEW and the former as WG-REVIEW.
The external list we could simply reference as the Yahoo! or external list.

Perhaps I can try redress the misunderstanding by saying that there are
currently 11 mailing lists relating to the DNSO General Assembly:

GA                     GA-FULL      GA-ABUSE        GA-ANNOUNCE
GA-ICANN      GA-ORG        GA-REVIEW      GA-ROOTS
GA-RULES       GA-SYS         GA-UDRP

The first four were set up some time ago.  The remaining seven lists have
been called "GA Specific Purpose Lists" by the DNSO Secretariat.  Most
people refer to them as sub-lists.  Six were setup on 30 April 2001.  Some
were renamed on 21 May 2001.  GA-ORG was added on 7 June 2001.

When these were first set up, the idea was to have one list for everything
related to Internal Processes (GA-INT) and one for all External Issues
(GA-EXT).  The other three lists were specialised areas Alternate Roots
(GA-ROOTS), Registration Systems (GA-SYS) and Trade Marks (GA-TM).

This system was both simple and comprehensive.

Danny decided on his own initiative, to add another list GA-REVIEW for the
purposes you have outlined.  Whilst I had no objection to the list, I saw
there was a possible difficulty as it was not clear where the new boundaries
were between the several lists.  It was a "scoping" problem.

Perhaps due to internal division, very few people (less than 20) joined the
new GA-REVIEW.  Those that did were people, like me, that subscribed to most
or all of the new lists.  Importantly, there was not a mass transfer of
people from the external Yahoo! list to the new GA-REVIEW list.  There was
thus no continuity of membership.

To encourage participation in the new mailing lists, GA-INT was renamed
GA-RULES and GA-EXT was renamed GA-ICANN.  At the same time, the GA-TM name
was changed to GA-UDRP giving the present system (listed above).

Recently, Derek Conant and others made a call for the restructuring of ICANN
as a whole.  A number of emails were posted to the main GA list on this
subject.  I felt that this issue should be addressed on the GA-ICANN list.

I tried to encourage people to use the GA-ICANN list and even proposed a
*terms of reference* for the task.  This approach met with some resistance.

I can understand that some people are reluctant to use the new lists but I
was most suprised when Danny made a strong statement that the issue was
one that should be addressed by the GA-REVIEW mailing list.  The terms
of reference of the Working Group, as you have shown, state:

> Ongoing DNSO review:  To consider and recommend proposals that
> improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today and those\
> which may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major
> changes in its functioning.

It is clear to me that Danny is mistaken.  The GA-REVIEW was set up to
consider the restructuring of the DNSO not ICANN.  Even if both issues were
discussed, the wider scope would have been outside its terms of reference.
Thus the ever present *scoping* problem needs to be addressed.

It  would be most confusing, not to say, nonsensical to have no less that
three different opinions on which list was most appropriate to consider a
restructuring of ICANN.

It also seems to me inappropriate for either the Chair or the Alternate
Chair to disagree when the prime determinant will be the wishes of the
members themselves.  Hence my comment that there were two fundamental
issues:

(1)  Viability of the List.  There are 11 mailing lists.  Some are little
used.  The question is whether these lists are all likely to be viable.  For
example, if nobody wishes to use GA-REVIEW (or any other list) perhaps it
could be retired from service.

(2)   Boundary or Scope.  What I need to know is to what extent the 11
present mailing lists overlap.  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, for each list, whether it is viable and, if so, what purpose it
will serve.  Unless we address that issue the lists will not be very
effective as a tool for policy formulation.

Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from the
list members in relation to how the see the system working most effectively.

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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:15:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

William and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Saturday, June 09, 2001, 8:37:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > You all that bro;
>
> > So the question is where do you stand on these issues.
>
> > Do you stand for both an IC constituency and a DNH constituency?
>
> I don't know if he does.  I don't.
>
> A domain name is easy enough (And cheap enough) to obtain.  If someone
> wants to be a part of the process, they should have some basis for
> declaring a stake in the process.  A domain name is a very minimum
> standard for that, and I stress minimum since they are so easy and
> cheap to get.

  Although what you say here is quite right what you are saying does not
address the whole picture or situation.  That being for instance, how
does a domain name owned by multiple registrants qualify or one that is
corp. Intellectual Property?

>
>
> The individual public is better represented by the At Large, where
> they have a stake, since ICANN deals with more than just domain
> policy.

  Yes but some stakeholders are joint owners of Domain Names
and /or joint partnership corps. that have joint ownership of any
Intellectual property, how does and @large membership address
this issue as far as representation is concerned?  I don't believe it
can or could.  As such some stakeholders are both @large
members or candidates and DNH candidates as well.  Another example
is where a stock holder in a publicly owned corp. that has a domain Name
associated with it's corp. that is part of the corp.'s intellectual
property
and therefore jointly owned by all of the stock holders.

>  The DNSO deals specifically with domain name/dns issues, and
> as such those who have a direct stake and interest in that process
> should be the ones who make up the constituencies in that supporting
> organization.

  I agree.  This would include than, stock holders of some Domain Names
that are part of that corps. intellectual property, such as VRSN/NSOL/
Networksolutions.com/NSOL.com/verisign.com, ect... ect... as well as
other corp. types such as the joint partnership corp. that has a domain
name as part of their corps. Intellectual Property.

>
>
> --
> 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

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 #523
************************