Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #527
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 527

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:10:22 -0700
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Eliminating "owner" from List Addresses

Humble apologizes to all.  I will immediately correct my problem.  However,
I note that Patrick has already posted my communication to the main list
and will not bore you with that again.  Thank you Patrick for your help and
explanation and Joanna for your kind words.  Cindy

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Alternate
Chair
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 8:21 PM
To: Cindy Merry
Cc: DNSO Secretariat; [ga]
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

- --
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 01:21:47 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight" Body?

All assembly members,

  Reposted (Not cross posted per Patrick Corliss rant),
from the NCDNJC list along with my response.  This may be
of interest to the GA members...

============== Post from NCDNHC starts here ==========

YJ and all,

  It would seem to me that the proper body for such a proposed oversight
body would be the DNSO GA.  I am sorry if this is in contrast to your
view
in this instance.  But the NCDNHC is only one constituency within the
DNSO.  The DNSO GA allows participation of any constituency
member as well as others.  Therefore the reason for my suggestion of
the DNSO GA.

YJ Park wrote:

> Those who are concerned in NCDNHC's ccTLD resolution,
>
> NCDNHC resolution comprised of three parts.
> Please, note that each resolution was passed separately
> and finally it was passed in one motion after three different
> voting to make it easier in presenting resolutions in the forum.
>
> 1st, support for forming a body which would provide technical
> assistance to developing countries' ccTLD registries.
> (Proposed by Hakikur and no objection from the community.)
>
> 2nd, NCDNHC's body which will study whether the current
> ICP-1 and RFC-1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented,
> or replaced by a new document which will ensure ccTLD admin
> adhere to community-based, community-supported and neutral
> registry operations of the ccTLD registries in consonance with
> ICANN's policy of ensuring a neutral gTLD registry.
> (Proposed by Horacio and have raised concerns from the community.)
>
> Due to Horacio's absence in the meeting, his motion was explained
> by several people to understand his motion.
>
> FYI, the body formation by NCDNHC also raised concerns during the
> discussion on June 1st whether NCDNHC has such resources and it
> was very unclear what kind of roles or functions are expected from such
> a body. However, it is very clear that nobody in the constituency, as far
> as I understand, considers such a body can paly "oversight" role, which
> has been raised by ccTLD communities. The general rationale which I
> understood was NCDNHC has to be involved with ccTLD issues as part
> of local Internet community which is also clearly written in ccTLD's
> "Best Practice" document.
>
> 3rd, My ammendment addresses the importance of consulation with
> local Internet community which should not exclude non-commercial
> voices and more open discussion under the assumption that ccTLD
> is one of DNSO constituencies.
>
> However, under ccSO condition as proposed in Stockholm, this motion
> can be changed in the ccSO context.
>
> ccSO is expected to elaborate "local Internet community" and is to
> facilitate its consultation with appropriate bodies and parties including
> local Internet community.
>
> DNSO/ICANN has been occupied with gTLD concerns from its
> beginning and little chances to be involved with ccTLD concerns.
> i.e. DNSO has looked into Verisign contract whether it is fair to
> the global Internet community. With the same logic, I do believe
> ccTLD contract should be consulted with the relevant community
> in an open manner. Such ccTLD contract or issues will affect
> ISPs, Registrars, Non-commecial folks, business in the same
> fashion the gTLD affects to them.
>
> If DNSO is not the proper place to have such an open forum,
> ccTLD constituency can propose ccSO which will encompass
> its relevant stakeholders in the form of General Assembly such as
> local Internet community which is expected to be defined with
> more clean-cut mode rather than leaving a blank which can be
> arbitrarily changed without consistancy.
>
> Hoping this will clear the concerns raised by some parts of
> the community, NCDNHC is willing to participate in its further
> ccTLD discussion as part of "Local Internet Community".
>
> Regards,
> YJ
>
> > My advice is for ccTLD constituency members to read the
> > resolution, enter into discussions with its authors (Hakikur Rahman,
> > YJ Park, and Horacio Cadiz) about what the rationale was,
> > correct any misperceptions they might have, and explain how the
> > proposed new SO structure might allay those concerns.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > > Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is very disturbing. Particularly considering the fact that no one
> > from
> > > > the NCDNHC consulted with or formally notified the ccTLD constituency.
> > It
> > > > sounds like the NCDNHC wants to set up a "regulatory board" over
> ccTLDs.
> > > >
> > > > I am looking forward to an expmanation of this from the NCDNHC to the
> > ccTLD,
> > > > in some kind of direct communication.
> > > >
> > > > Peter de Blanc
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked]
> > > > [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of J. William Semich
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD "Oversight" Body?
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > See below. from the minutes of the meeting (and actions) of the
> > > > Noncommercial Domain Name Holders Constituency during their meeting in
> > > > Stockholm. The NCDNHC:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is about to begin a "witch hunt" for ccTLDs who are violating
> > RFC-1591
> > > > (proposed by a person who is attempting to redelegate .PH);
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 2. Plans to determine exactly who/what is the "local Internet
> community"
> > > > when it comes to ccTLD redelegations, and to require DNSO "approval"
> of
> > > > ccTLD agreements with ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > These proposals were *approved* at the meeting of the noncommercial
> > > > constituency during the ICANN sessions in Stockholm.
> > > >
> > > > With friends like these, who needs enemies?
> > > >
> > > > Bill Semich
> > > > .NU Domain
> > > >
> > > > >Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> > > > >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:02:09 -0400
> > > > >From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> > > > >To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > >Subject: Stockholm meeting minutes [long]
> > > > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > > > >List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
> > > > >List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > > > >List-Owner: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> > > > >Sender: [email-masked]
> > > > >X-Lyris-Message-Id:
> > > > <[email-masked]>
> > > > >
> > > > >Minutes
> > > > >Noncommercial constituency meeting, June 1, 2001
> > > > >
> > > > >Meeting called to order 9 am
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >Resolutions
> > > > ...
> > > > >ccTLD resolution
> > > > >Motion has three distinct parts. Zakaria Amar takes
> > > > >responsibility for moving the first part, regarding
> > > > >assistance to developing countries' cctlds. Kathy
> > > > >Kliman and Zakaria amend the language slightly to
> > > > >improve clarity, adding "technical and policy"
> > > > >assistance and some specific examples. That amendment
> > > > >passes 25 for, 2 against, 4 abstentions.
> > > > >
> > > > >Discussion of second part of resolution (Horacio Cadiz
> > > > >amendment), concerning formation of a NCDNHC committee
> > > > >to "investigate violations of ICP1 and RFC 1591."
> > > > >Example of the Philippines discussed.
> > > > >Criticism of this section by Adam Peake and Raul
> > > > >Echeberria: bad idea to get our constituency in the
> > > > >middle of this, also we lack the resources and
> > > > >capability to really investigate such problems. Motion
> > > > >to delete this part of the resolution fails 15
> > > > >against, 12 in favor, 4 abstentions.
> > > > >
> > > > >Moves on to a discussion of YJ Park's amendment,
> > > > >concerning a) consultation with local Internet
> > > > >community and the DNSO in making delegation or re-
> > > > >delegation decisions, and b) how ccTLD contracts
> > > > >should go through the DNSO process, and not be worked
> > > > >out directly between ccTLDs and ICANN management.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <sigh>
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > > --
> > > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > > Discussion Mailing list
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > > Discussion Mailing list
> > >
> > > --
> > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > Discussion Mailing list
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:18:50 -0700
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ga-rules] Question on the General Assembly

Hello all:  In reviewing the discussion on Mailing List Management I find I
need to have clarification.  Please 'simply' explain what the purpose of
the GA is and who is represented?  A simple explanation would be
appreciated as it is extremely difficult to concentrate on lengthy and
roundabout definitions.  Thanks,  Cindy

- --
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 01:29:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] could the DNSO/GA be penetrated? proposition for a FireWall

Jefsey and all assembly members,

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.

  I also find this rether amazing as well...

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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

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 23:33:13 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ga-rules] Question on the General Assembly

Hello Cindy,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 1:18:50 AM, Cindy Merry wrote:

> Hello all:  In reviewing the discussion on Mailing List Management I find I
> need to have clarification.  Please 'simply' explain what the purpose of
> the GA is and who is represented?  A simple explanation would be
> appreciated as it is extremely difficult to concentrate on lengthy and
> roundabout definitions.  Thanks,  Cindy

From the charter docs:

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO,
    and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the 
    DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a 
    knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for 
    which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to 
    contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including 
    work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft 
    document preparation, and participation in research and drafting 
    committees and working groups.

- -- 
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:35:08 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Patrick C wrote:
> Hi Michael
> 
> > 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
> 
> Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
> reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:
> 
> [ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote

Agreed.  They are really the same list just one lightly moderated.  No-one will 
be a member fo both - it is one or the other.

> [ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it

Need to keep for elections etc.

> [ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.

Agreed - will always be discussed on main GA

> [ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
> debate.

I think it is useful that the main GA list doesn't get flooded with process 
discussions so agree.

> [ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system

Up to those who use it.  This isn't a public list so not so impt.

> [ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.

Agreed.

> [ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested

Hopefully it will become more relevant once WIPO submits its formal 
recommendations.  

> [ga-org]                   -- ditto --

The NC has specifically asked us to start the ball rolling here so great 
opportunity for us to perform.

> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> systems

Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
 
DPF

- --
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 23:39:36 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, June 10, 2001, 10:56:03 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Michael

>> 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

> Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
> reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:

Let's not be disingenuous, Patrick.

> [ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote

This is really one list, and it is and should be counted that way.

> [ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system

This is not a mailing list of the GA, this is a convenience list for
the monitors.  Email is the simplest way to handle this.

This "list" is not counted as a GA list.

> [ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it

It is used.  It is a one way only list.  This also should not be
counted, as it is ENTIRELY for administrative announcements from the
secretariat to those who elect to receive those announcements.

> [ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.

Agreed.

> [ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
> debate.

Disagree completely.  This list has served no purpose,and it shows no
potential for developing into any purposeful list.

> [ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.

It's also unproductive.  It CANNOT be productive, because the only
ones it is at all of interest to are the polar opposites.

It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.  And it won't. Kill it.

> [ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested

If there was interest in having a separate list for this issue, the
list would be in use.

> [ga-org]                   -- ditto --

This is a VITAL and mainstream issue.  The issue MUST be before the
entire GA for the best possible exposure and most input.

> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> systems

But it isn't being used for that, is it?  Scrap it.

- -- 
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:09:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Question on the General Assembly

Domain Name Support Organization General Assembly.  Pretty Cool without all the
abreviations.  So we assemble with ease and the brightrest minds available to
help decide policy issues for the giving out of names on the net.  Ah heck we
may fight but we have a dirty job to do and everyone here does it because they
want to. there is nothing easy here.  we work hard for all the people using the
net.  We are the common womans' representation on the highly technical
internet.http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html tells you much
more about us and is long but easy reading.

Cindy Merry wrote:

> Hello all:  In reviewing the discussion on Mailing List Management I find I
> need to have clarification.  Please 'simply' explain what the purpose of
> the GA is and who is represented?  A simple explanation would be
> appreciated as it is extremely difficult to concentrate on lengthy and
> roundabout definitions.  Thanks,  Cindy
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:18:13 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Mr. Farrar:

Can you point to one place in any rule that makes these lists appropriate?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Patrick C wrote:
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
> > reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:
> >
> > [ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote
>
> Agreed.  They are really the same list just one lightly moderated.  No-one will
> be a member fo both - it is one or the other.
>
> > [ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it
>
> Need to keep for elections etc.
>
> > [ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
>
> Agreed - will always be discussed on main GA
>
> > [ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
> > debate.
>
> I think it is useful that the main GA list doesn't get flooded with process
> discussions so agree.
>
> > [ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system
>
> Up to those who use it.  This isn't a public list so not so impt.
>
> > [ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > [ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
>
> Hopefully it will become more relevant once WIPO submits its formal
> recommendations.
>
> > [ga-org]                   -- ditto --
>
> The NC has specifically asked us to start the ball rolling here so great
> opportunity for us to perform.
>
> > [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> > systems
>
> Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:26:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Question on the General Assembly

Cindy and all assembly members,

 Cindy, you might want to check our the DNSO web site at http://www.dnso.org
for the official information to which you seek.  I say this as you may get
all sorts of answers fro all sorts of individuals on this forum...

  As you seem to be new to this forum, it may be wise to lurk for
a while before actively participating.  However I for one welcome
new stakeholders or interested parties such as yourself to this
forum!  Welcome Cindy!  >;)

Cindy Merry wrote:

> Hello all:  In reviewing the discussion on Mailing List Management I find I
> need to have clarification.  Please 'simply' explain what the purpose of
> the GA is and who is represented?  A simple explanation would be
> appreciated as it is extremely difficult to concentrate on lengthy and
> roundabout definitions.  Thanks,  Cindy
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:49:00 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight" Body?

Jeff and Erica,

Jeff wrote:

> It would seem to me that the proper body for such a proposed oversight
> body would be the DNSO GA.  I am sorry if this is in contrast to your
> view in this instance.  But the NCDNHC is only one constituency within the
> DNSO.  The DNSO GA allows participation of any constituency
> member as well as others.  Therefore the reason for my suggestion of
> the DNSO GA.

To be more correct, it would be better not to use "oversight" body.
Instead, it would be more appropriate to put it as "consensus" process.

Therefore, it is not important to divide constituency or GA from DNSO.
We all have to be involved with this process.

Erica wrote:

> While I sympathise with your concerns, it is worth remembering the the
role
> of the DNSO is to promote consensus and provide advice to ICANN on policy
> issues.

As Erica described here, we are all here to particiapate in DNSO consensus
building process. In this respect, ccTLD issues need to be discussed in an
open manner to reach such consensus through GA, and other constituencies,
which in some sense we have already started by sharing views in the public
forum.

ccSO proposal sounds in general consulted with most constituencies and
was supported by them(no formal consultation in NCDNHC yet) in public.
However, we are just at its initial stage to explore ccTLD-related consensus
from "Best Practice" into "Local Internet Community" etc.....

Thanks,
YJ

- --
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 06:27:08 -0400
From: "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

To clarify:

I am not sure lists are the way to get the job done.  It seems that lists
give the ability to claim a bottoms-up consensus process....in other words
just the mere creation of a list gives the appearance that we are obtaining
the constituency's opinion....we all know that could not be further from the
truth.  So some suggestions:

1) Reduce the number of lists and/or move to a different discussion vehicle.
Web based discussion board are one alternative.  I know that in my academic
discipline  we tend to shy away from lists to carry discussions....epically
multiple discussions (different topics within the same area) concurrently.
Lists result in your inbox getting a lot of traffic that is not necessarily
threaded on the fly - yes, you can get threaded archives, but that is
largely useless for participation in real-time. 
2) I appreciated what Eric Dierker wrote: "We have to stop running this like
a chat room and start running it like a board room."  We need to act more
busiless-like, not to the exclusion of people uncomfortable with that
setting, but so their voice can be hear more clearly.  We need to have
decorum, professionalism, and rules of order.  That way everyone gets heard
- - fairly.  I would suggest that "joe-Q-public," many governmental officials,
and perhaps members of ICANN's board disregard our lists as nothing more
than chat rooms.  The appearance of being a chat room might allow some to
marginalize our opinions and carry forward their own agenda's.  We may be
shooting ourselves in the foot.  It we want to be taken seriously, we need
to act deliberately.  That includes stopping the personal flaming and
diatribes.
3) The lists are cluttered by editorial comments that are not substantive or
are off topic.  As professionals we need to respect each others time and
efforts by not posting off topic, flaming, personal agenda, or other
inappropriate messages.  It takes time to read all of them.  We need to
think before we write...I know that I have adopted a policy of saving any
*really important emails* for at least 8 hours before I send them -
rereading them - then sending them.  This allows me to think before acting.
The mere fact that email is readily available and "free" can make one act
impulsively - which is often the wrong move.  A good friend tells me that
"those things that are  [time] important are often not critical, and those
things that are critical are often not [time] important" [emphasis added].

Just my thoughts....if you disagree please be gentle :)

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

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, June 11, 2001 1:56 AM
To:	Gendron, Michael (MIS)
Cc:	[ga]
Subject:	Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hi Michael

> 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

Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:

[ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote
[ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it
[ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
[ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
debate.
[ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system
[ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
[ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
[ga-org]                   -- ditto --
[ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
systems

In other words, like an operating system the separate lists must represent
different levels of the hierarchy.  The "rules" list is needed for internal
housekeeping.

Special purpose lists are like subroutines -- you use them when you need
them.

> 2) make the lists web based and thus threaded

I'm not sure of your meaning here.  Archives can be 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)

Me too but that's not the real problem.  There are two issues.  One is the
inherent problem of any classification system -- allocation (or "scope").
If ICANN issues a policy on Roots, does that go to [ga] or [ga-icann] or
[ga-roots] ?

The second problem is human error.  For example, one person may write a post
which provokes a new train of thought (or "thread") but this will inevitably
continue on the same list.  In fact people will need to be more disciplined
in the postings.

> 4) any number of other ways to solve this problem.

Basically the set of lists must be intuitive.  That's not the case at
present -- they are not even coherent let alone intuitive.

> 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.

If you see the sublists as issue-driven, the work will be productive.  An
intuitive system will allow subscribers to follow what's going on without
difficulty.  For that you must have sub-list Chairs and terms of reference
(not just an agenda).

As Eric Dierker wrote:

> We have to stop running this like a chat room and start running
> it like a board room.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #527
************************