Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #532
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 13 2001           Volume 01 : Number 532

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:07:57 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Membership Drive

I propose the DNSO Secretariat prepares a formal press announcement to
invite the general public to subscribe to the Electoral Register of the
General Assembly for the specific purposes of participating in the
forthcoming election to select the next candidate to represent the DNSO on
the Board of Directors.

The public has a right to be informed about this election, to participate
and vote. How many signed up for the AtLarge, 158,000 with 75,000 voting?
That should do it.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:29:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Membership Drive

Joanna I think I found the thread for my domain name sale concept.  You know
our local PTA calls it a membership drive when they want my money. It is
called psychological investment. We should also note that the mainstream press
is becoming interested in ICANN, sadly almost all negative.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> I propose the DNSO Secretariat prepares a formal press announcement to
> invite the general public to subscribe to the Electoral Register of the
> General Assembly for the specific purposes of participating in the
> forthcoming election to select the next candidate to represent the DNSO on
> the Board of Directors.
>
> The public has a right to be informed about this election, to participate
> and vote. How many signed up for the AtLarge, 158,000 with 75,000 voting?
> That should do it.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna

When a church wants to conduct some outreach, it combines it with funding and
has a
bakesale combined with some fun and games and music.  I leave the legalities
to
those more organized than I.

I propose a digital virtual all net domain name blind auction for the benefit
of the
GA.  Within the day I will have a name or two to donate in my company's name.
My
company in return will get to flag wave it's donation and thereby drive eager
participants to the auction and thereby cross market the GA. (I guess I could
donate ICANNTALK.com since I don't have time to develop that site. But I was
hoping
to put the donated Net Sol List archives there).  Leah can you get us a good
dotBIZ
name I am sure the publicity would not hurt your cause.  Mr. Tucows certainly
you
could use some good will about now.  Mr. Walsh we know you have some old
domains
just sitting in your attic come on bust out.  Mr. Corliss will you please ask
the
TLDA to come up with a name or two.  Who is here from dotCN it would be a kick
to
have a domain name in that wonderful language.   I think we need some serious
umpf
so that WECANN make some news and pull the THEYCANN up from its bottoms.

When you all complain about negative posts and derisive infighting, be careful
what
you ask for in replacement, this feel good crap is nauseating.

Eric the Sincere

ps. Is NetSol.com being used?

- --
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the additional
mailing lists were set up for "major" topics of
interest, so that they could benefit from noise
reduction, and have a better chance of producing
results, as has happened in the case of former WGs.

While these desired results may or may not happen, and
the lists may or may not perform as expected, some
initial effects may already be observed:

It will be extremely difficult now to eliminate
individual sublists without contest.  The existence of
a sublist on a topic gives an air of authority (real
or imagined) about that topic.  People who believe
strongly in one side of a topic / issue that has a
sublist dedicated to it  will identify with that
"authority".  This "authority", in their minds, gives
added credence to the topic, and hence their position
and their words.

Less biased opinions are less expressed in additional
sublists.  As I can attest, a person who does not have
a strong opinion on a topic is loathe to subscribe to
an additional list on that topic, when simply reading
messages from the main list can take the better part
of a day.  

I can understand the opinion of some, saying "let them
go into their own little room and fight amongst
themselves."  But for the sake of exposure of these
important topics, it would be IMO better served if
people who have yet to make up their minds on the
issue had the easiest access to the dialogue, so that
they can add to and compromise the divisive issue.

Easy access, for me,  does not include subscribing to
sublists on issues in which I have, as yet, no strong
opinion.  Better to have them in the immediate open,
where the observers can be informed, persuaded, and
educated into making up their own minds.  After that
happens, they can only add to the discussion.

- -Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:22:13 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Membership Drive

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:07:57AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> I propose the DNSO Secretariat prepares a formal press announcement to
> invite the general public to subscribe to the Electoral Register of the
> General Assembly for the specific purposes of participating in the
> forthcoming election to select the next candidate to represent the DNSO on
> the Board of Directors.

According to the bylaws, the GA nominates a slate of candidates for the 
director positions, and the NC votes on them.  

> The public has a right to be informed about this election, to participate
> and vote. How many signed up for the AtLarge, 158,000 with 75,000 voting?
> That should do it.

It only took 10 endorsements to get a candidate on the slate of
nominees.  And in the past you could endorse more than one candidate.  
I don't think that the NC has changed this...

- -- 
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 07:34:48 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Membership Drive

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:07:57 -0400, you wrote:

>I propose the DNSO Secretariat prepares a formal press announcement to
>invite the general public to subscribe to the Electoral Register of the
>General Assembly for the specific purposes of participating in the
>forthcoming election to select the next candidate to represent the DNSO on
>the Board of Directors.

The GA does not get to elect the Board member.  We get to nominate
people but not make the selection.

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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:54:18 -0500
From: "JIM FLEMING" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212     BIZ.....RE: Intellectual Property Claim Service for .BIZ

- -----Original Message-----
From: JIM FLEMING [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 1:52 PM
To: Charles Scott; [email-masked]
Cc: Richard J Sexton; JandL; vint cerf; Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ;
Amadeu@nominalia. com; karl@cavebear. com; jcohen@shapirocohen. com;
phil. davidson@bt. com; f. fitzsimmons@att. net; ken. fockler@sympatico.
ca; mkatoh@wdc. fujitsu. com; shkyong@kgsm. kaist. ac. kr; Lynn;
andy@ccc. de; junsec@wide. ad. jp; quaynor@ghana. com; helmut.
schink@icn. de siemens.; linda@icann. org; lswilson@free. midcoast. com;
edyson@edventure. com
Subject: 0:212 BIZ.....RE: Intellectual Property Claim Service for .BIZ

Charles,

Are you talking about the "Proof-of-Concept" .BIZ ?
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
...(i.e. the one that uses IPv4)...

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appu-11may01.htm
"Registry Operator shall provide the following reports and related data to
ICANN for use in its proof of concept evaluation."

BTW...Are there any .BIZ nameservers "operational" using IPv4 ?
NANOG = "operations" ?

BTW...Are there any IPv6 .BIZ nameservers running ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
0:212     BIZ
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

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

http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Charles Scott
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 1:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Intellectual Property Claim Service for .BIZ

All:
  Does anyone else think this Intellectual Property Claim Service stuff
for .BIZ is a scam? We started getting flooded with questions from our
customers, who in turn have been flooded with notices from their lawyers
on this. A quick read of all the stuff on the ICANN and Nuelevel sites
makes me sick. The only benifit I see from this "IP Claim Service" is the
registrars getting rich.

http://www.neulevel.com/countdown/step1.html
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr15may01.htm

Chuck

- --
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:55:20 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Not a good idea - Re: [ga] Membership Drive

What Joanna describes here appears good at first, however, the GA should not
want to deal with the problems the At-Large groups are currently facing.

This forum is not the PTA.  If the GA is going to function and be worthwhile
it needs to first understand that it will not be a democracy that fits any
known democracy model.  It should be good ideas that fly here, not just votes.

I could easily engage advertising regarding the DNSGA to 200,000+ consumers I
am associated with through my various Internet companies.  However, I have
realized that it would not be fair or productive to have participants who have
not demonstrated their knowledge regarding the subject matter being decided
through votes.  It appears that the best mechanism for managing and weighing
votes is through a process that qualifies those votes.  This is the DNSGA's
APO concept.

If you want to count individual votes from everyone, then let's hand ICANN and
the Internet over to China right now and save us all the hassle and time here
regarding how to weigh and count votes, and save us the hassle and time of
figuring out what the future will be like for that matter.  Does this help
you?

We should be careful about what we are suggesting here regarding counting
everyone's votes when there is no way to manage and validate such process at
this time within this forum.  This was primarily the purpose for the DNSGA
suggesting ICANN APOs at http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Joanna Lane wrote:

> I propose the DNSO Secretariat prepares a formal press announcement to
> invite the general public to subscribe to the Electoral Register of the
> General Assembly for the specific purposes of participating in the
> forthcoming election to select the next candidate to represent the DNSO on
> the Board of Directors.
>
> The public has a right to be informed about this election, to participate
> and vote. How many signed up for the AtLarge, 158,000 with 75,000 voting?
> That should do it.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:20:18 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than
a general chat channel.

The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:

DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
======================

1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
process forward.

2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.

I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
representatives:
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
10.  Roeland Meyer
11.  David Farrar
12.  Kent Crispin
13.  Derek Conant
14.  Patrick Corliss
15.  Patrick Greenwell
16.  Jim Fleming
17.  Sandy Harris
18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
19.  Jeffrey Williams
20.  Danny Younger
21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.

3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
representatives.

4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed
to the forum and vote on the GA's position.

5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule
must be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.

6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
constructive information.

7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change
it position from information received within its scheduled agenda from
GA members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
positions.

9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the
9 GA representatives reached their conclusions.

8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.

This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
DNSGA's APO concept or model at
http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.

I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:29:31 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

At 22:13 11/06/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Both of you are right but in your brutality you are both wrong.  Joanna I am a
>proud US citizen yet my views on privacy make yours pale in comparison. 
>You chose
>to make this an American versus UK issue you will lose.  Please do not 
>smack my
>conutrymen in order to gain points.  You do not represent a position 
>against me as
>I and every representative of my country is the US position. I am not 
>offended but
>I will be shortly!

Easy, easy, Eric.  This is only about continuing or scrapping lists.

I favour continuing. Even a few sporadic, but informative postings are a 
resource for many GA lurkers, who are hesitant to enter the debate.
With regards to GA roots, although the traffic has been heavy and I have 
stayed out of this fray, I have read substantive and informative postings. 
I suggest: keep it.

- --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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:31:57 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but 
within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.

On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:

> The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> general chat channel.
> 
> The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> 
> 
> DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> ======================
> 
> 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> process forward.
> 
> 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> 
> I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> representatives:
> 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
> 10.  Roeland Meyer
> 11.  David Farrar
> 12.  Kent Crispin
> 13.  Derek Conant
> 14.  Patrick Corliss
> 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> 16.  Jim Fleming
> 17.  Sandy Harris
> 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> 20.  Danny Younger
> 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> 
> 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> representatives.
> 
> 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> 
> 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> 
> 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> constructive information.
> 
> 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> positions.
> 
> 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> 
> 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> 
> This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> 
> I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:07:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

Leah and all assembly members,

  Beaurocrats love more layers of beaurocracy, it justifies their existence,
and also can feather their caps!  I am sure we don't need that.

L Gallegos wrote:

> Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but
> within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.
>
> On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> > progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> > however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> > general chat channel.
> >
> > The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> > DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> >
> >
> > DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> > ======================
> >
> > 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> > control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> > process forward.
> >
> > 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> > representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> > participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> > decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> > demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> >
> > I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> > representatives:
> > 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
> > 10.  Roeland Meyer
> > 11.  David Farrar
> > 12.  Kent Crispin
> > 13.  Derek Conant
> > 14.  Patrick Corliss
> > 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> > 16.  Jim Fleming
> > 17.  Sandy Harris
> > 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> > 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> > 20.  Danny Younger
> > 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> >
> > 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> > months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> > term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> > representatives.
> >
> > 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> > agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> > respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> > the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> >
> > 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> > considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> > be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> > material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> >
> > 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> > perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> > constructive information.
> >
> > 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> > position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> > members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> > positions.
> >
> > 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> > GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> >
> > 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> > representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> > will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> >
> > This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> > DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> >
> > I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-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

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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:56:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

Let us not be to hasty here, (if bureaucracy is the most misspelled).
this layering
may be just what the surgeon ordered. Alas;

                  Etymology: French bureaucratie, from bureau + -cratie
- -cracy
                     Date: 1818
                     1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b
: an
administrative policy-making group
                     2 : government characterized by specialization of
functions,
adherence fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
                     3 : a system of administration marked by
officialism, red
tape, and proliferation

But I do not see anything good about this term so lets not get bogged
down therein.

If we build of several layers of insulation from the top and simulation
from the
bottom is that so bad?  Conant put this out to be discussed and it
barrows some
merit.  It almost would work if each representative also represented one
of these
lists we seem to have grown accustomed to, the rep is the chair but
elected by the
general, and I don't like chair I like leader. We keep the number at
nine and make
the ones that don't represent a list at large.  (I tell you what; you
give me no
budget and the leadership of a list entitled dotcommoners I will come
back with
really good results, no suspensions and the like but plenty of work and
disgusting
political and intellectual debauchery to keep it fun, people on my list
won't have
time for no stinking "Survivor".  We will be filled with hackers and
slackers and
housewives and college kids.  The only problem will be that by taking
our advice
ICANN could extract itself from their mess. - even financially. People
will not be
driven to the list they will be glued to it)

All the best friends! I am on cloud nine our dotVN launching has full
governmental
authority and our engine is complete, the newest and fastest ever.  77
million
people wait for us to market themselves, our dotcommoners will soon
include
thousand of merchants on the streets of SouthEast Asia. These guys love
participation and to practice their english, I am making hundreds of
invitations to
join our list - watchout!!!

Eric the Sincere

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Leah and all assembly members,
>
>   Beaurocrats love more layers of beaurocracy, it justifies their existence,
> and also can feather their caps!  I am sure we don't need that.
>
> L Gallegos wrote:
>
> > Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but
> > within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.
> >
> > On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> > > progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> > > however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> > > general chat channel.
> > >
> > > The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> > > DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> > >
> > >
> > > DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> > > ======================
> > >
> > > 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> > > control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> > > process forward.
> > >
> > > 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> > > representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> > > participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> > > decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> > > demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> > >
> > > I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> > > representatives:
> > > 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
> > > 10.  Roeland Meyer
> > > 11.  David Farrar
> > > 12.  Kent Crispin
> > > 13.  Derek Conant
> > > 14.  Patrick Corliss
> > > 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> > > 16.  Jim Fleming
> > > 17.  Sandy Harris
> > > 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> > > 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> > > 20.  Danny Younger
> > > 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> > >
> > > 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> > > months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> > > term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> > > representatives.
> > >
> > > 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> > > agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> > > respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> > > the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> > >
> > > 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> > > considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> > > be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> > > material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> > >
> > > 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> > > perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> > > constructive information.
> > >
> > > 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> > > position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> > > members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> > > positions.
> > >
> > > 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> > > GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> > >
> > > 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> > > representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> > > will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> > >
> > > This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> > > DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> > > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> > >
> > > I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:11:16 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING

Maybe what you realize is the necessity of a names council (this is what you
called it) type governing body for the GA itself.  What else is going to be
qualified to rationalize the noise in the GA forum and what else will have the
ability to move the forum forward efficiently through establishing GA positions
regarding subject matter?

The difference in what I proposed is that the 9 GA representatives can be held
accountable through the open and transparent process that shows how they
determined their positions.  If the 9 GA representatives do not perform
accordingly, then the GA representatives are replaced by the active participants
during the GA representatives' review process.

Another point is that I suggested that the 9 GA representatives' terms are for
only 2 months at a time.  This gives the GA active participants the ability to
review the GA representatives' performance and positions.

It is easy to criticize, however, we also need solutions to the problems facing
the DNSO GA organization.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

L Gallegos wrote:

> Derek, you have just described the equivalent to the names council, but
> within the GA.  Another layer of beaurocracy.
>
> On 12 Jun 2001, at 20:20, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > The DNSO needs to move forward, whereas, it does not appear to be making
> > progress.  There may be indeed hundreds of posts within this forum,
> > however, that does not show that the organization is anything more than a
> > general chat channel.
> >
> > The DNSO needs to move forward and to do this I propose the following
> > DNSO GA restructuring suggestions:
> >
> >
> > DNSO GA RESTRUCTURING
> > ======================
> >
> > 1.  Forget counting everyone's votes.  GA representatives should take
> > control over the non-active participants in this forum and move this
> > process forward.
> >
> > 2.  The DNSO GA should rely on the votes of 9 qualified GA
> > representatives that continually demonstrate their constructive
> > participation.  It should be easy for the active participants here to
> > decide who the 9 GA representatives should be, as based upon their
> > demonstrated, verifiable and constructive participation.
> >
> > I could begin to qualify the following individuals as GA
> > representatives:
> > 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
> > 10.  Roeland Meyer
> > 11.  David Farrar
> > 12.  Kent Crispin
> > 13.  Derek Conant
> > 14.  Patrick Corliss
> > 15.  Patrick Greenwell
> > 16.  Jim Fleming
> > 17.  Sandy Harris
> > 18.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> > 19.  Jeffrey Williams
> > 20.  Danny Younger
> > 21.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
> >
> > 3.  The 9 qualified representatives will hold their posts for only 2
> > months.  1 Week before the expiration of the representative's 2 month
> > term, the GA active participants again vote for 9 qualified
> > representatives.
> >
> > 4.  The 9 GA representatives request input from GA members for GA
> > agenda.  The 9 GA representatives give the GA members several days to
> > respond, then the 9 GA representatives weigh the information contributed to
> > the forum and vote on the GA's position.
> >
> > 5.  GA members may suggest new material and subject matter that is
> > considered off topic.  However, the GA's current position and schedule must
> > be clearly posted and informative and the GA will schedule such new
> > material for consideration for the following weeks agenda.
> >
> > 6.  Regardless of the GAs current position, it must be open to new
> > perspectives and be flexible enough to change its position upon
> > constructive information.
> >
> > 7.  It should take only 1 week or less for the GA to develop or change it
> > position from information received within its scheduled agenda from GA
> > members.  It should not take several months to produce GA agenda or
> > positions.
> >
> > 9.  The process is open and transparent and GA members will see how the 9
> > GA representatives reached their conclusions.
> >
> > 8.  Only 9 people vote on GA subject matter.  I believe that the 9 GA
> > representatives will want the GA process to be successful and therefore
> > will use their best judgment in representing GA positions.
> >
> > This is the beginning of what I was trying to describe through the
> > DNSGA's APO concept or model at
> > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> >
> > I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-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

- --
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 #532
************************