Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #525
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 525

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:28:47 -0400
From: "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

IMHO, I agree with Marilyn....we need to avoid being critical.  We do also
need to look at the problem of multiple lists.  There are several solutions.

1) reduce the number of lists
2) make the lists web based and thus threaded
3) subscribers use outlook (express) and setup rules to move the messages
from the their inbox to a folder for that list (this is what I do)
4) any number of other ways to solve this problem.

FYI, I just re-subscribed to this list and others.  Two main reason I
unsubscribe: 1) the amount of critical, non-productive email, and 2) the
duplication/difficulty following the lists.

Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:17 AM
To:	'William X. Walsh'; Patrick Corliss
Cc:	Cindy Merry; [ga]
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
- --
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 16:29:19 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

If it were announced tomorrow that the Names Council had created a number of
formal working groups to deal with the topics of:

1. UDRP (Working Group G)
2. Dot ORG (Working Group H)
3. Roots (Working Group I)
4. DNSO Review (Working Group J)
5. Privacy/WHOIS (Working Group K)
6. At-Large (Working Group L)

I seriously doubt that I would be hearing the argument that these working
groups should not have their own lists, nor would I be hearing that it would
be preferable if all the work were conducted on the main GA list, nor would
I be hearing that there are too many working groups and that it is too
confusing.

Instead, I would probably note a large number of participants rushing to
become part of the process.  As long as our "management" (the Names Council)
organizes the working groups, appoints the Chairs or Liaisons, establishes
the Terms-of-Reference, sets the Timeline, and drafts the Conclusions, then
we are eagerly willing to participate...

but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
emerged?  Do we have any self-organized bottoms-up leadership?  Of course
not.  Who in their right mind would willingly want to become a target for
the relentless abuse that has characterized this Assembly?  It is no wonder
that calls for volunteers to head up these committees have gone unheeded.

We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
actions.

Perhaps we are not capable of effective bottoms-up self-organization,
perhaps like other groups of individuals that have struggled for years and
still have not be able to raise funding for their respective membership
efforts, we are destined to remain nothing more than another chat-room for
domain name policy (one of many).  We can certainly continue in this fashion
for years to come, knowing that through this process those that monitor
these lists (Vint Cerf, Stuart Lynn, Karl Auerbach and others) can get a
sense of the public mood.  Perhaps being a "barometer" is all we are capable
of achieving.  But I have higher hopes for this Assembly.

It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
ExCom to direct list activities.

The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major issues
that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN.  Notes from
the last Board meeting make it eminently clear that the ALSC will be
providing recommendations to the ICANN Board for an overall restructuring -
their mission has gone far beyond a mere "clean-sheet" study of the
At-Large:

"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."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html

We can contribute to this effort, much like the Boston Working Group and
others contributed to the development of ICANN's formative structure.  Our
Alternate Chair has argued that the venue for such discussion should be on
our GA-ICANN list, and I will accept this recommendation.  What is needed
now, in my opinion, is a small group to organize the effort for the benefit
of all current and future participants.

As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
decline such an appointment):

1. Sotiris Souteropolis
2. William Walsh
3. Jefsey Morphin
4. Marilyn Cade
5. Eric Dierker
6. Leah Gallegos
7. Joop Teenstra
8. Bret Fausett
9. Joanna Lane

It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish Terms-of
Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background documents to rapidly
educate those of us new to the process.  After this group finishes its
preliminary work, the rest of us may then better participate in a formally
structured environment.   What I hope for ultimately is a consensus-based
report to emerge at least as thorough as the recent interim NAIS
presentation, and supported by documented outreach to all of our
constituencies.  The future of the General Assembly, the At-Large, and ICANN
may well be determined by the bottoms-up collective consensus view.  I ask
you to accept this challenge, to create a new model for participation, and
to lead us into a new future.

- --
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 16:48:22 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Hello Danny,

Sunday, June 10, 2001, 1:29:19 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
> turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
> groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
> 700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
> emerged?

That is because the subject is not one that it is appropriate to have
a document on.

Alternative roots are outside our scope.  They have no relevance as
far as the DNSO of ICANN is concerned.

> We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
> constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
> leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
> actions.

You just lost me Danny.

Anyone who claims questions of process are more important than action,
is someone who is seeing that their own view points and agenda are not
getting advanced enough.

To you, it is more important that there be action, not that the action
be appropriate or right.

> The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.

They've already failed.

> As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
> people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
> decline such an appointment):

> 1. Sotiris Souteropolis
> 2. William Walsh
> 3. Jefsey Morphin
> 4. Marilyn Cade
> 5. Eric Dierker
> 6. Leah Gallegos
> 7. Joop Teenstra
> 8. Bret Fausett
> 9. Joanna Lane

Declined.

- -- 
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 16:51:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IUSO/IUAC an urgent necessity

Hello Jefsey,

Sunday, June 10, 2001, 6:15:35 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

This is what the At Large is there for.  That is their place.

- -- 
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 18:04:16 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
[...]
> It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
> efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
> vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> ExCom to direct list activities.

That is, you want to subvert the Names Council.  The things you 
describe above are *precisely* what the NC is supposed to do.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 20:15:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

WXW, Danny and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Danny,
>
> Sunday, June 10, 2001, 1:29:19 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
> > turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
> > groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
> > 700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
> > emerged?

  To answer Danny's question here.  Yes Danny we do.  Had you taken
the time and effort to properly review the g-roots list, you would know that
Simon Higgs has submitted such a draft.  He also submitted to the
IETF as well...  I believe the Kent Crispin also submitted such a draft
as well that is opposite of Simons...

>
>
> That is because the subject is not one that it is appropriate to have
> a document on.

  Please try to do a better job of proper review.  (See above comments
to Danny)...

>
>
> Alternative roots are outside our scope.  They have no relevance as
> far as the DNSO of ICANN is concerned.

  This is YOUR opinion and it may be shared by others.  However
it is the opinion of many others that this statement is incorrect and
therefore no appropriate to date...

>
>
> > We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
> > constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
> > leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
> > actions.
>
> You just lost me Danny.
>
> Anyone who claims questions of process are more important than action,
> is someone who is seeing that their own view points and agenda are not
> getting advanced enough.

  This may be true.  Than again it may not be so.  There are any number of
motives/reasons why questions of process are more important, as the
process drives the actions...

>
>
> To you, it is more important that there be action, not that the action
> be appropriate or right.

  I don't get this from anything that Danny has said.

>
>
> > The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> > longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.
>
> They've already failed.

  I am sure of this.  I am sure that there are to many.

>
>
> > As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
> > people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
> > decline such an appointment):
>
> > 1. Sotiris Souteropolis
> > 2. William Walsh
> > 3. Jefsey Morphin
> > 4. Marilyn Cade
> > 5. Eric Dierker
> > 6. Leah Gallegos
> > 7. Joop Teenstra
> > 8. Bret Fausett
> > 9. Joanna Lane
>
> Declined.

  Fine WXW.  Danny I would be happy to take WXW's place for the
Roots task force slot...

>
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:28:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Kent:
What you have a problem with is bottoms-up open and transparent truth.  You and
your ICANN STAFF cronies can go stuff it.  The only subversion going on here is
your desire( that of corporate america) to stifle true representativeness of us
dotcommoners.  Your tact is offensive. Your demeanor is a misdemeanor.  You
belong elsewhere. Please immediately post again with more rhetoric so I can
immediately show it for what it is!

with love, Eric, but stay lonesome!

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
> [...]
> > It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
> > efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> > for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
> > vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> > been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> > ExCom to direct list activities.
>
> That is, you want to subvert the Names Council.  The things you
> describe above are *precisely* what the NC is supposed to do.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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 22:25:53 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Let's go a bit more softly here...I think there is a way to both have the NC
do it's job and also to take consultation from the GA, from those who aren't
in constitutiences.  But not to replace the NC. And, that seems to be our
challenge. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 9:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
[...]
> It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which
list/committee
> efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and
a
> vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> ExCom to direct list activities.

That is, you want to subvert the Names Council.  The things you 
describe above are *precisely* what the NC is supposed to do.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:00:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list 

The following message did not appear on the GA list.
Could I ask the DNSO Secretariat to advise, please?

From: Cindy Merry <[email-masked]>
To: GA <[email-masked]>
Cc: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>; Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:05:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list 

Hi Patrick:

I have responded below to some of your questions but would like to first
comment about this thread which suddenly appeared in my GA e-mail.  I had
to go to the GA DNSO REVIEW archives to figure out what this was about.
Since I do not subscribe to the GA DNSO Review I will respond to the list
that I subscribe to however feel free to also post it to the GA DNSO Review
list.

I feel that within the 'terms of reference' for the GA DNSO REVIEW list,
Joanna added a very helpful and meaningful link for information.  For the
GA DNSO REVIEW list to be effective, it would appear that using the
information, the report, and the work done by the WG-Review would be
appropriate.  Perhaps her intention was also to point out the amount of
work that had been done in this area and what it actually accomplished.  I
am sure the GA could utilize the WG Review information.  And it always
seemed to me that more could have been developed out of the WG Review if it
had had a longer time period to function.

The questions below appear to disregard using the WG Review information as
background research and building blocks for the GA DNSO Review and focus
more on a concern with a group that no longer exists.  Hopefully those
participating in the GA DNSO Review will take the opportunity to read all
of the 3,328 comments.  They provide great research and a variety of
excellent information on structuring, consensus, equal but opposing
viewpoints, representation, ICANN, Domain Name Holders vs. Owners, Internet
Freedom, Business interests, individuals, constituencies, communication,
education, etc.

On Friday, June 08, 2001 1:49 PM Patrick Corliss wrote:
Subject:  [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

>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.

There cannot be any subscribers to the WG-Review as it was shut down at a
time designated by the Council.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03328.html   The list was
shut down because it was only established to exist for a certain length of
time by DNSO/ICANN.  The participants had no choice on continuing the WG
Review.  Some of those participants chose to create another mailing list
because they felt they had more to contribute.  Others, like me, were not
interested in participating in a mailing list that had no "official"
purpose or standing.  However the work done by the WG Review was important
and should be used and included in any discussions about the DNSO/ICANN.

(Two paragraphs deleted that didn't appear to have anything to do with the
WG-Review)

>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?

The point is that the work done by the WG Review is available for use
within the GA DNSO REVIEW.  I have placed the terms of reference for the
WG-Review at the end of this message.  The report that was submitted is
available for you to read in the archives - in fact there are several
excellent reports beyond the one finally sent by the Council.  There was
plenty more that could have been done in finding a better way for the
DNSO/ICANN to function and be more inclusive and I assume that is why there
is a GA DNSO Review.  If you're interested in finding out about the group
who created their own mailing list after the WG Review you'll probably have
to ask them about their on-going discussions, results, whether they have
some type of due date, etc.  (I believe that Jefsey, Danny, Eric, and
others might still have the subscribe information.)  However, if your
interest is inviting all of the participants from the WG Review to join in
on the GA DNSO Review discussion, that seems like a great idea.  The
original group that subscribed responded to an ICANN announce list.

>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?

The viability of the list is no longer pertinent as it doesn't exist.  The
point is to use the work done by the WG Review to help the GA DNSO REVIEW.
In my opinion the objective was not completed.  A starting and ending time
was established for the work group and there was no agreement from the
Council to keep the work group active although most participants hoped they
would do so.  At times I suspect that there never was an intention by DNSO/
ICANN to use the WG Review for improvement; it just satisfied certain
political and public relation needs.  There were far more than a 100
participants in the original WG-Review - and I think it's a great idea to
ask them to join the GA DNSO Review.  Their contributions and experience
would be valuable.  I have also seen many of their names of the GA list.
Have those who participated in the WG Review been invited to join the GA
DNSO Review?  Can we explain how the GA DNSO Review will be used and what
it can accomplish?

That leads me to the question:  Why don't I subscribe to the GA DNSO
Review?  After some thought I'd have to say I don't believe that the
existing structure will allow anything that the GA DNSO Review comes up
with to be implemented or used.  Further I am not comfortable with the
often personal nature of the e-mails within this forum.  (Although by
sending this message I realize I am opening myself up to receiving a
variety of e-mails that will, most likely, focus on anything but the point
of using the WG Review's work and continuing the progress that was made
along with providing outreach to those participants.)

>(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.

I guess I don't understand these questions?  Which review - WG or GA DNSO?
The lists cannot overlap as the WG Review list no longer exists - however
as I've said there appears to be several WG Review participants who are on
the GA list but certainly not all of them.  What does outside its scope
mean?  Isn't the DNSO a Supporting Organization of ICANN?  It appears to me
that any discussion about the DNSO naturally moves into the entire ICANN
organization, including outreach, membership, organizations outside ICANN,
the GA, representation, defining the process, and more.  In fact this did
occur within the WG Review and was quite enlightening and helpful in
reaching some consensus.  Based on the GA DNSO Review's stated objective
below, I can't see how boundaries could be established within this thread.
Perhaps for the sake of clear communication there would be more mailing
list groups created under the GA DNSO Review that would focus on even more
specific topics.  However by keeping all of these dialogues off the GA list
we may be limiting the number of participants who might follow the
discussions and eventually participate.

Below I have pasted a partial 'terms of reference' for the WG Review (with
links) and I have pasted the GA DNSO Review Objectives (with link).  Once
again I suggest  we use the work done by the WG Review to help the GA DNSO
REVIEW.

Cindy

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00002.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00098.html
Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a bottom-up
policy coordination body.

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO
would be a structure that will include all of those who will be affected
by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/msg00001.html
DNSO REVIEW
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.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, DNSO GA

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:21:23 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Eliminating "owner" from List Addresses

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:00:35 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> The following message did not appear on the GA list.
> Could I ask the DNSO Secretariat to advise, please?
>
> From: Cindy Merry <[email-masked]>
> To: GA <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>; Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:05:35 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

Hi Cindy

I have just realised that you have inadvertently used the wrong address for
the GA list.  It is, of course, <[email-masked]> and NOT <[email-masked]>.
Similarly with all the other lists, you should not use the word "owner" as
such emails will not get posted to the list.

I use Outlook Express (sorry!) and find that an alphabetical sort in the
adddress book puts the square brackets [..] at the top.  It is probably an
ASCII character sort feature.  You may wish to save [ga] into your address
book using the <[email-masked]> address.  That way you're safe.

Could I ask everyone on the list to please eliminate any "owner" addresses?

May I, as an individual, suggest that you re-post your failed email under
your own name for the archives.

Thank you all.
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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:10:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  ALthough I can understand you political correctness in your comment
below Merilyn, it is evident that the GA is more representative of the
DNSO in some respects that most of the NC members.  As such,
it seems reasonable to equate the GA on par with the NC.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Let's go a bit more softly here...I think there is a way to both have the NC
> do it's job and also to take consultation from the GA, from those who aren't
> in constitutiences.  But not to replace the NC. And, that seems to be our
> challenge.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 9:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
> [...]
> > It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which
> list/committee
> > efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> > for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and
> a
> > vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> > been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> > ExCom to direct list activities.
>
> That is, you want to subvert the Names Council.  The things you
> describe above are *precisely* what the NC is supposed to do.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

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 21:26:02 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IUSO/IUAC an urgent necessity

Is this another language problem?  I've never heard of the "Individual
Usership"
before. Other than that, I concur entirely with what Jefsey says, and if by the

quoted term he simply means eliminating these legalistic impediments to the use

of domain names by Internet users around the world -- first conceived as a
money
making scheme by Network Solutions -- he could not be more correct. The digital

divide is also a cultural divide to which the NSI/Verisign/ICANN power elite
and
the GA "we know, you don't" power elite (see my other post of this date) both
contribute.

(What is an "american joke organizer?")
(What does it mean to "serialize" an issue?)

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #525
************************