Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #524
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 10 2001            Volume 01 : Number 524

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:14:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 11:02:30 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 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.

Eliminate the sublists.  They were a bad idea from day one.

- -- 
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 03:41:43 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: [ga] Nomination Process

Oops, sorry for the mis-directed post. :(

- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	"L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To:             	[email-masked]
Date sent:      	Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:37:13 -0400
Subject:        	[ga-roots] Re: [ga] Nomination Process
Send reply to:  	[email-masked]

On 10 Jun 2001, at 2:15, Jeff Williams wrote:

> 
>   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.

I thoroughly disagree, Jeff.  IDNHC is individual domain name holders
constituency.  An individual domain name holder is one person who 
holds a
domain name.  To me that would indicate nothing further than a sole
proprietorship or individual person who holds a registration would qualify
for membership in that SO.  Publicly held corporations would certainly 
not
qualify, nor would the shareholders of those corporations.

Although I rarely agree with WXW, I do in this case.  The @large is (or
will be hopefully) the body for users and other stakeholders, which means
that all *individual* members of all SO's are eligible for it.  Call it one
huge user's group.  It just needs to be more equitably divided among a
greater number of regions - one for each of the nine seats.

There are three groups not represented in ICANN - individual dn holders,
small business (which could be part of the IDNHC) and users/other
individual stakeholders.  ICANN needs to address that issue and not overlap
the groups.

MHO.

Leah

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

- ------- End of forwarded message -------
- --
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 20:07:40 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

At 15:20 10/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:

>Some issues which come to mind are:
>
>a) Should it be gTLD name holders only

I see no reason at all to discriminate between gSLD and ccSLD (or third 
level) Domain registrants.

>b) How about ccTLD name holders

Full members.  The ccTLD registries leaving the DNSO and trying to become a 
new SO does not lessen the DNSO interests of their registrants in any way.
I have given Joanna's objection a lot of thought, but I cannot see any 
logic in creating a differentiation. Their interests remain the same.

>c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
>eligible?

Yes, if it is the first level where Individual registration is permitted.

>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

See above.

>(e) Should there be a minimum age of membership

For holding office, yes.

>(f) Do you need to hold/own the name or just be the admin contact for
>it?

Admin contact is not enough. There should be "colour of title" and the 
determinant is the power to withdraw the Domain or let it lapse.

>(g) Should there be restrictions on membership of an individual
>constituency and other constituencies?

Some feel yes, others no. ICANN bylaws demand openness and free 
cross-memberships. In practice this has turned into a big organizational 
obstacle.
It is reasonable to impose restrictions when it comes to running for public 
office in any constituency.

All these questions have been threshed (bottom -up) out a long time ago.

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

- --
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 04:48:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] Nomination Process

Leah and all assembly members,

L Gallegos wrote:

> Oops, sorry for the mis-directed post. :(
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> From:                   "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> To:                     [email-masked]
> Date sent:              Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:37:13 -0400
> Subject:                [ga-roots] Re: [ga] Nomination Process
> Send reply to:          [email-masked]
>
> On 10 Jun 2001, at 2:15, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >
> >   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.
>
> I thoroughly disagree, Jeff.  IDNHC is individual domain name holders
> constituency.  An individual domain name holder is one person who
> holds a
> domain name.

Yes it is.  I was addressing the DNH and the IC, not the IDNHC
The DNH is the Domain Name holders constituency proposal.
The IC is the Individual Constituency..  These are constituencies
within the DNSO that are being proposed that I was responding to
in the post that you seem to have snipped...

>  To me that would indicate nothing further than a sole
> proprietorship or individual person who holds a registration would qualify
> for membership in that SO.  Publicly held corporations would certainly
> not
> qualify, nor would the shareholders of those corporations.
>
> Although I rarely agree with WXW, I do in this case.  The @large is (or
> will be hopefully) the body for users and other stakeholders, which means
> that all *individual* members of all SO's are eligible for it.  Call it one
> huge user's group.  It just needs to be more equitably divided among a
> greater number of regions - one for each of the nine seats.
>
> There are three groups not represented in ICANN - individual dn holders,
> small business (which could be part of the IDNHC) and users/other
> individual stakeholders.  ICANN needs to address that issue and not overlap
> the groups.
>
> MHO.
>
> Leah
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
> --
> 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, 10 Jun 2001 21:48:44 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:07:40 +1200, Joop wrote:
>At 15:20 10/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
>
>>c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
>>eligible?
>
>Yes, if it is the first level where Individual registration is permitted.

I should have made this clearer - I meant if at a lower level than
possible ie third level in a gTLD.

As an example would we allow the holder of farrar.com.au to be a
member but not of farrar.au.com?

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 13:13:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] could the DNSO/GA be penetrated? proposition for a FireWall 

Dear Danny,
the work you may achieve is amazing. You are worth a task force by 
yourself, as if you were full time on this issue. With such a work achieved 
I feel quite disturbing you do not even considered Eric's question.

Until very recently - only due to your action, and only on the GA but may 
be disseminating - the IDNH project has become a confuse "IC" project [cf. 
your motion and your response], what made it fail in Stockholm.

On 05:26 10/06/01, Danny Younger said:
>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."

<snip>

Now, let suppose I want to defend the interests of .NAME or .PRO at the 
iCANN what should I do? Identify an  interesting position to be elected to. 
Create confusion there so people spend their time about that confusion. 
Maintain a float some controverted topics active so the world knows there 
are concerns "backing" you and you embody a reasonable clarification of the 
confusion. I would use this support an official outreach effort towards my 
future customers (individuals without a DN but going to have mine) under 
the cover of known and acknowledged supporters - those that Derek calls 
groupies.

I think you will agree that such DNSO/GA penetration is possible and we 
have to take some protection arrangements. All the more than the other 
future gTLDs applicants might not like such an "hi-jacking".

IMHO the following propositions would help us "fire walling" the DNSO/GA:

1. we stop half confusion and most traffic jam in decommissioning sub-MLs.
2. we clearly talk about IDNH as per the last three years
3. we select a representative dedicated group of 9 geographic reps to 
seriously interface the NC, the ccTLDs and the BoD on that matter.
4. we start seriously to consider the Individual Users ("dotcommer") impact 
on DN policy and how to foster an outreach and a dialog effort 
geographically credible in that area (*)
5. electing Joop Teemstra to the BoD with a clear mandate and an 
articulated doctrine.
6. developing a far more active relation with *our* Directors. Mr. Abril i 
Amril, Cohen and Pisanty should post more often on their GA ML than Mr. 
Cerf or Mr. Stuart.
7. investigating seriously the matter of the strictly DNSO constituencies 
as general interests in the DNS: review of the priorities and concerns of 
*each* of the constituencies. Introduction of a DNS development oriented 
Constituency (both for innovation fostering and for real technical 
competence to be at hand).

Jefsey

(*) This might certainly lead to support an IUSO/AC (Internet User Support 
Organization where both current @large and IDNH could fit together as 
separated constituencies but at equal level with DNSO [gTLDs] and ccTLDs).

>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

- --
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 22:52:49 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

At 21:48 10/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:07:40 +1200, Joop wrote:
> >At 15:20 10/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
> >
> >>c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be
> >>eligible?
> >
> >Yes, if it is the first level where Individual registration is permitted.
>
>I should have made this clearer - I meant if at a lower level than
>possible ie third level in a gTLD.
>
>As an example would we allow the holder of farrar.com.au to be a
>member but not of farrar.au.com?

It does not make much sense to be very strict about this. We are a 
constituency of individuals. People. If you would have only farrar.au.com 
(a subdomain) and nothing else, (out of some principle?) I would still 
favour admission as a member. Even if such a Domain would be free.
Same for a DN holder who just lost his Domain to a hijacker.

Constituency members will pay membership fees to support their 
constituency.  It will be hard enough to get paid-up members. Why exclude 
people who do not represent contrary interests?  The more the merrier. I 
would only foresee problems if the interests of sub-domain holders would 
start to diverge sharply from holders of normal SLDs' . For now, I see this 
as a little far-fetched.

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

- --
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 14:23:29 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Process

On 11:15 10/06/01, WXW said
> >  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.

The Individual Usership is mostly concerned by society issues and the way 
the Naming System may help or create them. This if first to deal with the 
Digital Divide. When the WIPO wants to forbide teenths to access  their 
favorite singing group site because it is named "Aspirine" or my delishop 
site because his Armenian name is the English acronym of an UN organization 
etc... etc... there is a real problem.

A problem which is resolving: possible IU Members (i.e. the real world) are 
disregarding the Internet and its inneficient american joke organizer or 
use the nets their own open way ...  Individual Users integration is of the 
essence if you want the iCANN to survive as one of the RSCs (root service 
centers).

All the capacities - including the @large - represented at the iCANN or 
planed to be represented are on a supply side (telco, host, machine, 
software, content, media).  All the problems we face are from the lack of 
the demand representation.

We could reprersent it. As we are users too. But we have to reform (not 
review) the DNSO.

We have to get rid of the word constituency first: the cultural problem is 
incredible. When I read Joanna, Joop, Jeff or Danny they will never 
understand each other as their thinking is obliterated by what a 
constituency is in their own local culture.  We have to accept once for all 
that the DNSO is not representative. It is not a place where problems are 
disputed. It is a place place where problems should be solved. No one cares 
by who, as long as the system makes sure that every concerned need has been 
taken into account and satisfactorily addressed. By one or thousand people.

This should allow us to serialize the issues, instead of the people. I am 
interested in every and more issues covered by the DNSO. The current system 
prevents me to keep track because some MLs are barred to me and either they 
are inactive or jammed (when you put people together without a target they 
just talk and argue on nothing). No-constituency, no sub-lists: centers of 
interests (one site, position links to be resolved into consensuses through 
an ML open to all) served by a common secretariat.

Up to you folks.

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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:35:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Seconded. Let reduce the traffic please.

On 09:14 10/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Patrick,
>
>Saturday, June 09, 2001, 11:02:30 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > 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.
>
>Eliminate the sublists.  They were a bad idea from day one.
>
>--
>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

- --
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 06:56:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

This is really important to get right and we must understand that the lists
are wrong and innappropriate until we amend our rules to allow for them.
As it stands we have no authority to create working groups or "sublists".
This is not a matter of little consequence.  In order to correct the lists
we must build our foundation to make them "legal", then the correct amount
and style of lists will follow.

Why our chairs are ignoring this is quite troublesome.  I am as crazy and
wild and questioning of authority as the next person, but I don't hold
office.  These "officers", if they have any job, it is to keep us
compliance with our jown rules, and right now we do not even resemble our
rules.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Seconded. Let reduce the traffic please.
>
> On 09:14 10/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
> >Hello Patrick,
> >
> >Saturday, June 09, 2001, 11:02:30 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> >Eliminate the sublists.  They were a bad idea from day one.
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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 07:15:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Motion for amendment]RULES

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------24DDF3B7397A3FC042301650
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is not a cross post but requires the attention of the entire GA.  I
ask all to input on this matter.  I ask all again to review our rules
and be ready to clean up our own house as Madilyn has so correctly
pointed out.

I apologize but this will be a very boring task, however if we do it,
and view it as evolutionary we can reach a much higher degree
credibility and outreach and participation.  (Us children really do need
a clear set of rules before we want to play, Us adults will not lay down
our money until we know the rules the dealer is going to follow.) With
all your hard work we can create a much more effective GA.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --------------24DDF3B7397A3FC042301650
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:08:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Organization: Hi-Tek.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "[ga-rules]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Motion for amendment
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hereby move the chair for a vote on the following point of order;

Amend our GA rules to allow the establishment of sublists in order to
facilitate greater and more pointed discussions.

Lists to be established by the GA chair after a 12 day discussion on the
GA list.  The Chair to post an announce and a notice on all existing GA
lists to begin discussions.  The GA chair to determine GA consensus in
her own judgment after said 12 day discussion and create or not create
new list.  The list may also be created by a 12 day discussion after 12
members of the GA jointly propose it to the GA.  That list shall be
created by the secretariat after notice from the spokesperson for the 12
gives proper notice after the 12 day period.

(this is needed to legitimize our actions and allow us to move forward
to further amend the rules)

- --------------24DDF3B7397A3FC042301650--

- --
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 10:16:32 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

For what it is worth, I am having trouble keeping the various list straight
too, and haven't found the time to subscribe in all I probably am interested
in.  A smaller number would be helpful to me.  

Organizing logically is a good idea; but keeping it small enough in numbers,
since most of us are on a lot of other lists too [:-)], would be helpful.
Not a problem to reorder this, I would think, if enough of the members of GA
agree,. 

Folks, just a little plea here..... can we avoid being unnecessarily
critical about any need to refine or change?  I'd prefer that being critical
of each other not become our most time-consuming work item.  That just clogs
up the communications even more.  

Regards,

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 3:14 AM
To: Patrick Corliss
Cc: Cindy Merry; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 11:02:30 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 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.

Eliminate the sublists.  They were a bad idea from day one.

- -- 
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
- --
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 15:15:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IUSO/IUAC an urgent necessity

On 11:15 10/06/01, WXW said:
 >  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.

The Individual Usership is mostly concerned by society issues and the way 
the Naming System may help or create them. This if first to deal with the 
Digital Divide. When the WIPO wants to forbide teenths to access their 
favorite singing group site because it is named "Aspirine" or my delishop 
site because his Armenian name is the English acronym of an UN 
organization, and do not even consider Arabic, Chinese, Indian wording as 
to be protected etc... etc... there is a real problem.

A problem which is now resolving: possible IU Members (i.e. the real world) 
start disregarding the Internet and its inneficient american joke organizer 
or use the nets their own open way (ex. NewNet, NameSlinger,  foreign 
roots, and more to come...) Individual Users integration is of the essence 
if you want the iCANN to survive as one of the RSCs (root service centers).

All the capacities - including the @large - represented at the iCANN or 
planed to be represented are on a supply side (telco, host, machine, 
software, content, media). All the problems we face are from the lack of 
the demand representation.

We could represent it. As we are users too. But we have to reform (not 
review) the DNSO.

We have to get rid of the word constituency first: the cultural problem is 
incredible. When I read Joanna, Joop, Jeff or Danny they will never 
understand each other as their thinking is obliterated by what a 
constituency is in their own local culture. We have to accept once for all 
that the DNSO is not representative. It is not a place where problems are 
disputed. It is a place place where problems should be solved. No one cares 
by who, as long as the system makes sure that every concerned need has been 
taken into account and satisfactorily addressed. By one or thousand people.

This should allow us to serialize the issues, instead of the people. I am 
interested in every and more issues than covered by the DNSO. The current 
system prevents me to keep track because some MLs are barred to me and 
anyway they are either inactive or jammed (when you put people together 
without a target they just talk and argue on nothing). No-constituency, no 
sub-lists: centers of interests (one site, position links to be resolved 
into consensuses through an ML open to all) served by a common secretariat.

Up to you folks. But the world will not wait much longer for you.

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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:26:16 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

Perhaps another way to resolve this and move forward would be to give the
designated person to the NC working group, GA folks to consult with--e.g.,
the 9 folks you were suggesting.

I would assume that any designee would want to have consultation back to the
full GA anyway; this might be helpful to organize such consultation. It
wouldn't have to be limited, but since everyone is busy, they could be the
group who helped the designee ensure broad consolation with the GA, took
responsibilty for drafting, etc.

Just an idea.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 11:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop Teemstra's candidacy

On 16:17 09/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>Saturday, June 09, 2001, 5:44:38 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > This being said, I fully support the nomination proposed by
> > WXW of DPF to the NC.
>You misunderstood, Jefsey.  The nomination was as GA Representative to
>a Names Council working group, NOT to the Names Council. Only the
>constituency appointed people to the Names Council.

YOu right: this is what I mean. Several have asked about the way such a 
representation would be carried: these are minor  procedural points that 
still may be discussed.

The main point is who will be selected. As I proposed, instead of one 
talented and experience but alone person I propose 9 Members of the GA. You 
may note that I continued considering that the NC working group would only 
welcome one representative from the GA. In selecting 9 people from the 
different geographical areas and cultures (what is a real need for 
individual users) I think we would push the NC to delegate 9 people too to 
that WG. We would then be sure to have a serious and documented final 
document agreeing to the BoD.

But this is to the NC to decide.
Jefsey

>--
>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
- --
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 07:53:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] could the DNSO/GA be penetrated? proposition for a FireWall

I want a quick solution here but I cannot find one.  As Joanna recently pointed
out there are contributors and there are Contributors.  I am not generally I
fellow to keep my head down in the trenches, I would much rather have it shot off,
but we must establish some reasonble rules in order to forestall problems in the
future. Rules defining and confining our Chairs roll will help a great deal and
will I am sure help the Chair.  We cannot do this on a hope and a prayer and a
wing on the fly anymore we must establish proper procedures and rules.

In marketing when we send a salesperson out without a clear description of a
project we call him/her going out naked.  If they make a sale all they have done
is sell themselves, without clear definition of duties and responsibilities we are
doing the same to our Chair.

All of Jefsey's 1-7 below have good merit but we have no method or mechanism to
get them accomplished.

Danny's 1-6 and 1-8 have a reasonable assertion and need to be considered but we
lack a proper structure to have those inserted and dealt with in a cohesive manner
here in the GA.  We have to stop running this like a chat room and start running
it like a board room.

i.e. an outside but official position from any duly appointed member of ICANN and
any of it's working organs is recognized and rephrased and placed before the GA
for comment, if there is a proposal included therein it shall be the proponents
obligation to move it through the GA and develop the Idea into a reasonable
consensus.

We have to get organized or we will lose all of our credibility as a group, and we
are the dotcommoners last hope within ICANN.

Sincerely

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Danny,
> the work you may achieve is amazing. You are worth a task force by
> yourself, as if you were full time on this issue. With such a work achieved
> I feel quite disturbing you do not even considered Eric's question.
>
> Until very recently - only due to your action, and only on the GA but may
> be disseminating - the IDNH project has become a confuse "IC" project [cf.
> your motion and your response], what made it fail in Stockholm.
>
> On 05:26 10/06/01, Danny Younger said:
> >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."
>
> <snip>
>
> Now, let suppose I want to defend the interests of .NAME or .PRO at the
> iCANN what should I do? Identify an  interesting position to be elected to.
> Create confusion there so people spend their time about that confusion.
> Maintain a float some controverted topics active so the world knows there
> are concerns "backing" you and you embody a reasonable clarification of the
> confusion. I would use this support an official outreach effort towards my
> future customers (individuals without a DN but going to have mine) under
> the cover of known and acknowledged supporters - those that Derek calls
> groupies.
>
> I think you will agree that such DNSO/GA penetration is possible and we
> have to take some protection arrangements. All the more than the other
> future gTLDs applicants might not like such an "hi-jacking".
>
> IMHO the following propositions would help us "fire walling" the DNSO/GA:
>
> 1. we stop half confusion and most traffic jam in decommissioning sub-MLs.
> 2. we clearly talk about IDNH as per the last three years
> 3. we select a representative dedicated group of 9 geographic reps to
> seriously interface the NC, the ccTLDs and the BoD on that matter.
> 4. we start seriously to consider the Individual Users ("dotcommer") impact
> on DN policy and how to foster an outreach and a dialog effort
> geographically credible in that area (*)
> 5. electing Joop Teemstra to the BoD with a clear mandate and an
> articulated doctrine.
> 6. developing a far more active relation with *our* Directors. Mr. Abril i
> Amril, Cohen and Pisanty should post more often on their GA ML than Mr.
> Cerf or Mr. Stuart.
> 7. investigating seriously the matter of the strictly DNSO constituencies
> as general interests in the DNS: review of the priorities and concerns of
> *each* of the constituencies. Introduction of a DNS development oriented
> Constituency (both for innovation fostering and for real technical
> competence to be at hand).
>
> Jefsey
>
> (*) This might certainly lead to support an IUSO/AC (Internet User Support
> Organization where both current @large and IDNH could fit together as
> separated constituencies but at equal level with DNSO [gTLDs] and ccTLDs).
>
> >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
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #524
************************