Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #536
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 536

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:02:27 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: This was not necessary - Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-announce]  ICANN Montevideo  Meeting (7-10September   2001); DNSO Whois Survey

Mr. Morfin, this was not necessary and is an example as to why this GA is not moving
forward.  I can agree that I should not have made such loose statements.

I believe that I am at some GA forum posting limit for today.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Mrs. Ida Holtz,
> I want here to apologize on behalf of this DNSO/GA for this mail. We here
> certainly look for a productive iCANN meeting in your place in Septembre
> (even if I carry no more illusions about the capacity of the iCANN to be
> productive :-)  ). I long for decades to visit your country, I hope I can
> make it and meet with all the SeCIU team.  I hope Mr. D. Connant will stop
> in Montevideo on his way to Syndey so he may learn from the art. 3rd of
> your Constitution what could be of real benefit to the Internet and from
> art. 165 what might be of benefit to this GA. :-) .
> Our real pleasure to be your guests.
> Jefsey Morfin
>
> On 00:21 14/06/01, Derek Conant said:
> >Okay, if there is a Four Seasons Resort in Uruguay I may reconsider.
> >
> >Derek Conant
> >DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 04:42 13/06/01 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> > > > >ICANN just amazes me.  Who picked Uruguay?  Why Uruguay instead of
> > some more
> > > > >predictable or more stable country?  Like Brazil or somewhere else
> > in South
> > > > >America?  Maybe things have changed in Uruguay?  Maybe not?  I'll have
> > > > >friends at the CIA before considering attending this ICANN
> > meeting.  Maybe
> > > > >I'll go to Sydney instead.
> > > >
> > > > Derek,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Rio or Buenas Aires, or even Auckland, New Zealand <g> or
> > > > Amsterdam <vbg> will get their turn.
> > > > With 4 meetings a year  and no end in sight ...
> > >
> > > Never fear, there is a near neverending supply of quality resort locations
> > > throughout the world to choose from. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> > >                                Patrick Greenwell
> > >                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> > >
> > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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

- --
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:44:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC telecon, 29 June 2001, agenda

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

ICANN/DNSO

         DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 29 June 2001 - agenda
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 June 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
adopted on 26th February 2001.

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on 29 June at the
     following time:

     (6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Japan/Korea, 23:00 Melbourne)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
     Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST   8:00
     Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00 since 6 May
     Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST   8:00
     Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
     St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
     Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   9:00 since 11 Mar
     Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  10:00
     London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
     Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
     Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
     Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
     Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
     Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
     Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
     Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00 since 25 Mar
     Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 next day
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. The teleconference bridge will be provided by TBD

  3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints.

          Dial in number: to be provided later

          Passcode #: to be provided later

          Conference operator:

          10 ports "listen only" will be reserved for remote
          participants

          The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
          http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, DNSO
          Secretariat, ICANN Officers and Invited Guests

          The conference Scribe will be Maca Jamin

          The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Bret
          Fausett

Agenda and related documents

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.

Scheduled time for meeting -120 mins. Allotted time - 100 mins.

Deadline documents (7 days): 22 June 2001.

  1. Adoption of agenda - (Philip Sheppard) 5 mins

  2. Approval of summary of 9 May 2001 meeting - (Philip Sheppard) 5 mins

        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010509.NCtelecon-minutes.html

  3. Approval of summary of 2 June 2001 meeting - (Philip Sheppard) 5 mins

        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010602.NCstockholm-minutes.html

  4. IDN TF formation and action - 10 mins

  5. Review TF formation and action - (Philip Sheppard) 10 mins

  6. Dot org - constituency first thoughts, agreement to Board referral,
     next steps - (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins

  7. TLDs - Board referral and proposal from gTLDS - (Philip Sheppard) 10
     mins

  8. UDRP interim group recommendation - (Caroline Chicoine) 10 mins

  9. Call for sponsors feedback - (Roger Cochetti) 10 mins

 10. Call for secretariat feedback - (Erica Roberts) 10 mins

 11. Status WHOIS survey - (Paul Kane) 10 mins

 12. Any other business

Next NC teleconference will be held on 16 August 2001, see dates for the NC
meetings in 2001 in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 16:57:32 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bill Lovell - Re: [ga] Re: Thanks for support

Derek Conant wrote:

> Actually, the DNSGA is legitimate and filed with the United States Patent and
> Trademark Office (USPTO) as follows:
>
> IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: ASSOCIATION SERVICES-NAMELY, PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF
> INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR BETTER STABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET. FIRST
> USE: 20000801. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20000801
>
> ICANN is wholly aware of the DNSGA.  The DNSGA / DNSO GA as you put it is not
> confusing.  ICANN cannot make any valid claims against the DNSGA for its use of the
> term "DNSGA."  You appear to be the only one confused here regarding DNSGA / DNSO
> GA.  Everyone here knows that when I mention the GA in this forum I am describing
> the DNSO GA.

Well, ICANN can fumble itself if it will; we've seen such mismanagement before in ample

amount.  So why are you explaining the difference below? Hmm??

> Let's move forward.

If I see one more of these I'm likely to throw up.

> If the DNSO GA supports your being a DNSO GA Director would you accept the position
> for 2 months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and
> positions regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the
> GA and will not take much of your time.

I'll deal with people I know and trust instead of this con job.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > This whole dnsga/dnso ga bit is getting everyone confused.  Actual
> > confusion is the best proof of likelihood of confusion in trademark
> > (and, of course, service mark) law.  If ICANN legal staff are not
> > drafting a "cease and desist" letter to this dnsga.org upstart they ought
> > to be.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > This is not about the DNSGA, it is about the DNSO GA. The DNSGA organization
> > > currently is not offering anything more here than comments from me.  The DNSGA
> > > has an office in Paris and I apologize for not getting back to you regarding
> > > that.  I have been busy and I am in Kona HI following Stockholm.  The DNSGA is
> > > not ready to move forward with its representation in France, however, it will
> > > soon.  DNSGA representatives are patiently organizing and figuring out DNSGA
> > > structure, agenda and positions.  What do you have to offer, or want to offer,
> > > the DNSGA in Paris?  Further comments regarding this should be communicated
> > > directly to me and not on the GA list.
> > >

- --
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 15:55:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Derek,
>
> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
> > something more tangible here for the GA.
>
> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
>
> Because such a thing does not exist.

Exactly correct, William.  Besides which, my inbox is stacked with so
many "Derek Conant" I can't find anything else. Don't we have some
kind of limit on this sort of pooh bah?

Bill Lovell

- --
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/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
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 17:15:21 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WXW - Re: [ga] Re: Thanks for support

One helpful thing for filing purposes is to put posts to [email-masked]
as, e.g., [ga] blah, blah, instead of hiding the [ga] back in the
subject heading.

Bill Lovell

Derek Conant wrote:

> I am trying to assist in moving this GA process forward regardless of any opinion
> concerning the DNSGA, of which is not at issue here.
>
> Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello Derek,
> >
> > Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:19:30 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > This is not about the DNSGA, it is about the DNSO GA. The DNSGA organization
> > > currently is not offering anything more here than comments from me.  The DNSGA
> > > has an office in Paris and I apologize for not getting back to you regarding
> > > that.  I have been busy and I am in Kona HI following Stockholm.  The DNSGA is
> > > not ready to move forward with its representation in France, however, it will
> > > soon.  DNSGA representatives are patiently organizing and figuring out DNSGA
> > > structure, agenda and positions.  What do you have to offer, or want to offer,
> > > the DNSGA in Paris?  Further comments regarding this should be communicated
> > > directly to me and not on the GA list.
> >
> > Sounds rather like the ICIIU to me.....
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
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 20:31:55 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Membership Drive

on 6/13/01 9:54 AM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:

Furthermore, where is the valid
> consensus regarding your action to move this forward?

Interesting that you think the GA is an elitist Old Boys Club Derek. Point
me to the rule that says existing members have to be consulted before new
members may join.

>Leave the task to the At-Large to figure out.
I expect you want to put a freeze on new memberships in the GA until AtLarge
Study is completed as well.

>We don't need special interest group penetration or undue influence taking over
ICANN via the DNSO GA.

Perhaps you'd like to write a paper on membership criteria for the GA. Let
me help you... "Members must be of the Aryan race, blond hair, blue eyes.. "

The fundamental problem with ICANN is poor levels of participation. A
membership drive is absolutely what we need. I wouldn't be too concerned
about being overrun. Chance would be a fine thing.

Regards,
Joanna

> 
> By the way, in case you want to write a Membership Drive letter for votes, the
> Chinese Embassy address is as follows:
> 
> Chinese Ambassador
> United States Embassy of the People's Republic of China
> 2300 Connecticut Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC  20008
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
>> Joanna Lane writes:  "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."
>> 
>> I see this as an excellent suggestion and will forward the recommendation to
>> our Secretariat   I had written to Elisabeth on the 8th of this month
>> inquiring about the nomination process and was advised that:  "Each year the
>> procedure shall be adapted (timeline). And each year we start the process in
>> the second half of July."
>> 
>> Having scoured the archives, I believe that I may have found the URL that
>> deals with this nomination process:
>> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990917.DNSO-ICANN-nominations.html although
>> it is quite possible that our Secretariat might be aware of a more current
>> URL.
>> 
>> (Please note that Elisabeth is now on scheduled travels until after the
>> 14th).  Upon her return I expect that we can also move forward on the
>> nomination process to select a representative to the NC Task Force dealing
>> with the Individual Domain Name Holders' Constituency.
>> 
>> Acting further upon Joanna's suggestion, I have also posted an invitation on
>> the ICANN public forum asking those interested in domain name policy issues
>> to join the General Assembly.
>> 
>> --
>> 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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:41:41 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:38:24 -0700, William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
wrote:
To: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>; DNSO Secretariat
<[email-masked]>; M. Stuart Lynn <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Thanks for support

> This whole dnsga/dnso ga bit is getting everyone confused.  Actual
> confusion is the best proof of likelihood of confusion in trademark
> (and, of course, service mark) law.  If ICANN legal staff are not drafting
> a "cease and desist" letter to this dnsga.org upstart they ought to be.

Hi Bill

Thank you for your comment.  Danny Younger, the Chair of the DNSO GA seems
like an intelligent and well-meaning person.  Derek Conant, the Chair of the
DNSGA seems like an intelligent and well-meaning person  When Danny Younger,
the Chair of the DNSO GA made one proposal relating to the DNSO GA, Derek
Conant, the Chair of the DNSGA, the Chair of the DNSGA, made a well-meaning
but confusing counter-proposal.   Now everybody is confused.

Ahha !!  But is the confusion deliberate ??

But, if you look at the whole history of the GA as a think-tank, you will
see that it is particularly ineffective.  Every proposal to move forward is
met with a counter-proposal.  Every suggestion, however mild, is met with
rejection, hostility or criticism.  Diversion of topic is the norm and there
are far more postings about the process than the substantive issues.

Of course, much of this is expected in a think-tank consisting of
intelligent and informed persons many of whom have an interest in the
outcome.  But as an intelligent person myself I find it incredibly hard to
believe that all this confusion is a natural result of the list dynamics.

I agree that leadership is required and of course that leadership MUST
listen to the comments of the list members and act within the rules, but
there is a problem.  That is that the leadership feels increasingly
alienated by the stridency of the views expressed.  And increasingly
confused.   The reaction is inevitable, the leadership becomes isolated and
out of touch wiith reality.  Angry, desperate and unpredictable.

This is seen in a total failure to heed well-meaning advice.  And paranoia.

Which brings me to the conclusion that there is, somewhere, a mastermind
guiding the whole scheme. It's a well-known strategy of disinformation used
by security services around the world.  Some have naturally attributed the
problem to the shadow services (or Verisign -- an associate).  Others think
it's inspired by ICANN or its staff.   Personally I don't know who.  But I
more than sense the countervailing forces.

And I salute the opposing General !!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

Hello Derek,

There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
results.

That removes the entire purpose of the GA.

The suggestion is out of bounds, since it would require a change of
the DNSO charter anyway.

Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 5:36:20 PM, Derek Conant wrote:

> Such a thing can exist if we put it into motion.  How can we get to work without a
> stable representative body.  Anything less than a showing of coordination that
> produces valid results is only chat session in the end is my point.

> If the GA supports your being a GA Director would you accept the position for 2
> months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and positions
> regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the GA.

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> Hello Derek,
>>
>> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>>
>> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
>> > something more tangible here for the GA.
>>
>> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
>>
>> Because such a thing does not exist.
>>
>> Let's dismiss all these wild ideas and get down to work.
>>
>> Danny, are you going to lead us or what?
>>
>> --
>> 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

- -- 
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:05:57 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Stockholm, June 2001, Chairman's Speech

Maiden Speech by the Chairman of the General Assembly, Danny Younger

MEETING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Stockholm, June 2001

Transcribed by Joanna Lane

http://www.internetstakeholders.com
http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/article.php?sid=66&mode=thread&order=0

- --
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 21:26:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

Danny and all assembly members,

 I agree with your comments and observations entirely.  Many of us long
ago on various other forums learned that dealing with WXW was likely
and exercise in futility and not worth much bother.  I suggest that you
Danny take the same approach in put in a individual filter and only
occasionally review WXW's posts...

Danny Younger wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> Your incessant droning about what the Chairs should and should not be doing
> is becoming rather odious.  Patrick has politely asked you , "whether you
> see a place for working groups with the General Assembly?  Or do you see the
> whole thing as a single "chat room" as Eric has called it?"  Instead of
> giving him a direct answer you choose to pursue this unending litany.  As
> much as you speak about leadership, you appear to be looking for nothing
> more than a chat-room moderator.   I would offer you the job, but you have
> turned down every offer made to you so far.
>
> If you are not willing to participate in a meaningful fashion, or to provide
> direct answers to direct questions when politely asked, perhaps it is time
> that you should consider resigning from this list.
>
> You have implied that I come in every few days and preach about
> dismantlement.  Sorry to have to be the one to bring it to your attention,
> but the restructuring of ICANN, especially in view of the action of the
> ccTLD community, is very much a real issue.    The only one that appears to
> be up on a soapbox and preaching is you.
>
> I do so much regret that I haven't kept you entertained in the last 3 days
> after posting my preliminary 52K post to the dot org list... some will
> understand that research takes time and that the Chair has other projects
> and more to do than to daily engage in banter with WXW.   Some of us also
> understand that we have lives, and family, and obligations which
> occasionally will pull us away from the lists.
>
> I wonder, is there any list to which you subscribe in which you haven't
> attacked the Chairs?
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:42:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: NC representatives appear non-effective - Re: [ga] DNSO GA  RESTRUCTURING

Derek and all assembly members,

  No argument that Danny did a good job in his presentation in Stockholm.
However he was that ONLY GA member allowed to make such a presentation
and had only limited approved motions to which he could accurately speak for
the GA members about.  As such, the presentation was limited in both
scope and time (15mins).

  Where we differ, Derek, is that your suggestion is not only not needed
but also not warranted.  I have I believe clearly stated where and why
this is the case in my previous two posts in response to you and your
suggestion already.  Please review them carefully and completely.
It seems that you missed the most important parts...

Derek Conant wrote:

> As you may know, I attended the ICANN meetings in Stockholm and I witnessed first hand Danny
> Younger represent the GA as its Chairman.  I met with Mr. Younger and I thought he did an
> outstanding job at orally representing the GA with what he had to work with.  I believe that
> Mr. Younger may have realized that the NC was evaluating the GA's performance and the future
> of the GA.  I do not believe that Mr. Younger moved forward in representing the GA without
> GA support.  I certainly do not believe Mr. Younger did anything intentional or that could
> be considered not in the GA's best interest.  Furthermore, as I understand it, to represent
> the GA Mr. Younger funded his trip to Stockholm himself.  I think that there is a lot of
> good to be said about Mr. Younger and his contributions to the GA and ICANN processes.  I
> cannot find anything wrong in Mr. Younger representing the GA.
>
> I understand that Mr. Younger is the Chairman of the GA.  What I attempted to explain is
> that the current GA organizational structure is not capable of producing valid consensus or
> positions.  Mr. Younger cannot produce valid consensus for the GA's positions himself, nor
> is the GA functioning at a level that can produce valid results or a valid position
> concerning subject matter.  Mr. Younger has no GA motions with merit to take before the NC
> for consideration.  The basis of the GA motions lack validity.
>
> I believe that the GA here has what it takes to do it right.  What I mean by doing it right,
> is that Mr. Younger cannot stand before the NC himself.  Mr. Younger needs 8 other directors
> to help him, stand beside him, and represent the GA's solid positions that are based upon
> verifiable information and valid consensus.  What I am presenting here are the building
> blocks to a solid organization that can efficiently produce valid positions and effectively
> present those positions to the NC and BoD.
>
> Are we here to chat about ICANN related matters?  Or, are we here to produce verifiable
> information and valid consensus for GA positions for the NC and eventually the BoD?  For
> those here to chat, here is the hyperlink to AOL's Instant Messenger
> http://www.aol.com/aim/home.html.
>
> GA members have voted Danny Younger as Chairman and Patrick Corliss as the Alternate Chair.
> I now propose that active participants here suggest 7 other individuals to represent the GA
> as directors for 2 months.  I suggest we do this immediately.  Then, I propose that the 9
> representatives immediately create scheduled agendas to address the following subject matter
> for GA positions.
>
> AGENDA FOR GA POSITIONS
> 1.  ccTLD and ccSO
> 2.  Alternate roots
> 3.  .org contract
>
> I suggest any of the following individuals to be one of the 7 directors for the GA:
>
> LIST OF POTENTIAL DIRECTORS
> 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 Greenwell
> 15.  Jim Fleming
> 16.  Sandy Harris
> 17.  Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 18.  Jeffrey Williams
> 19.  Ken Stubbs
> 20.  Vint Cerf, Michael Froomkin and others.
>
> The GA could have all 9 representatives or GA Directors in place by 16 June 2001.  The GA
> Agenda could be scheduled by 19 June 2001.  The GA positions for the scheduled agenda of 19
> June 2001 could be posted by 25 June 2001.
>
> The point is that the GA needs to move forward and produce valid positions in order to be
> considered worthwhile.
>
> I have submitted this for development, constructive input and criticism.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Derek and all assembly members,
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > It may be true that we have an officially elected GA representative on the NC.
> > > However, it appears that the GA NC representative is completely non-effective.  This
> > > is also the claim from most of the DNSO constituencies with their own NC
> > > representatives.  By the way, this is also the case with the ccTLD representatives.
> >
> >   I think you are possibly confused as to the structure and my comments
> > that pertain to that structure.  This is not unusual however and I have
> > seen a number of others here on this forum that are also confused
> > as to the structure of the DNSO.  Our NC rep. is very effective if he
> > has a set of motions to bring to the NC council.  But the DNSO GA
> > has of just before Stockholm only brought two such motions to a vote
> > as the CHAIR of the GA had not brought to the attention of the DNSO
> > Secretary several other motions and requested a ballot be sent to the
> > voting members of the GA on those motions.  That is not the fault of
> > the NC rep. but rather the CHAIR of the GA.  This was essentially what
> > I said in my previous post on this thread.  The ccTLD had their own constituency
> > and a corresponding rep. for that constituency before Stockholm.  At
> > Stockholm the ccTLD constituency or at least 31-40 members of the
> > ccTLD constituency withdrew from the DNSO.  However this is not
> > because the ccTLD constituency rep. was ineffective, but rather that the
> > ICANN BoD had on several occasions ignored several of the votes
> > that they took on several issues such as the Verisign "OptionB" contract
> > and the new gTLD selection method, and the ICANN BoD voted
> > contrary to the recommendation by vote of the NC on these key issues,
> > in essence ignoring the consensus of the participating stakeholders
> > in the current structure.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It may be that the NC representatives appear non-effective at moving forward agenda
> > > and subject matter on behalf of their members or constituencies because the DNSO
> > > constituencies are not properly organized nor funded.
> >
> >   And NC rep is not supposed to move forward any agenda but rather to develop
> > and agenda in which the constituency members have a consensus on.  I agree
> > that most of the constituencies are either not funded at all or under funded...
> >
> > >  It appears impossible to
> > > determine the consensus developed through the DNSO constituency process.
> >
> >   Developing a consensus is a very difficult task at best.  But without taking
> > a vote on motions, such as the DNSO GA members have put forward and
> > went ignored or denied (one case I believe), and consensus cannot be
> > determined at all on those issues.  This the problem with the DNSO GA
> > presently.  And it is well documented should you care to do a review
> > of the archives of this forum....
> >
> > >  This causes the NC representative's presentation, on behalf of her/his members or
> > > constituencies to the Names Counsel and the ICANN Board, to be non-effective.
> >
> >   I think you again have the NC rep. confused with the DNSO GA CHAIR
> > here.  The presentation was given by Danny, the DNSO GA Chair TOO
> > the NC council, not the other way around.  And at that, he, Danny, the DNSO
> > GA CHAIR was requested by the NC council to do so without the consensus
> > of the DNSO GA members.  In addition several members, myself included,
> > felt that other members should also be making a presentation to the NC
> > Council as well.  But this was not allowed due to the short time allotted
> > for such a presentation in Stockholm (15 mins. I believe) for other DNSO
> > GA members to be afforded or granted that opportunity.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > For the the GA to be effective at presenting its case to the NC and BoD, there must be
> > > a coordinated effort within the GA that stands behind the GA's position and
> > > recommendations.  The GA's current way of doing things appears out of focus and
> > > uncoordinated.  Therefore, the GA has no real position nor can it make any worthwhile
> > > recommendations under its current organizational structure.
> >
> >   Agreed.  And that method was determined, but has yet to be followed.
> > I gave a brief explanation in my previous post on this thread, as well
> > as above in these comments as to how that is supposed to work.  But
> > again due to the agenda's that the current Chair has of his own making and
> > interest as well as the Alt chair's agenda's seeming to be taking precedence
> > that process had been corrupted or otherwise not allowed to be
> > executed.
> >
> > >  There's nothing in the GA
> > > process that appears valid.  The GA does not appear to have a position based upon
> > > valid consensus.  The GA currently appears to have no agenda, whatsoever, nor
> > > direction.
> >
> >   I agree to a degree.  However just before Stockholm, tow motions were
> > passed and presented to the ICANN BoD in Stockholm.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > For the GA to be effective there must be an established and known working body within
> > > the GA that stands behind the GA's positions and recommendations and drives the GA
> > > forward.  This is why I suggested the 9 GA representatives that will stand together
> > > for 2 months at a time hammering out GA member input for valid GA positions on subject
> > > matter.
> >
> >   This is both too complicated and would likely erupt in controversy before
> > being ever adopted.  In addition to track all "9" of you proposed GA Representatives
> > would be much more difficult to track than the current structure with one GA
> > rep to the NC.
> >
> > >  Without this, the GA appears disorganized and will be non-effective at
> > > presenting its position to the NC and BoD.
> >
> >   So YOU say.  I believe that the brief arguments I have presented,
> > would tend to dismantle your argument for your proposal...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > With regard to investing moneys to fund the GA, I believe that the GA will first need
> > > to show that it can develop and present valid GA positions to the NC and BoD.  To do
> > > this it must first be better organized.
> >
> >   It takes $$ to organize effectively to move forward into getting WG's of meaningful
> > weight to be established.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I suggest that GA active participants come to terms with reality here if they are
> > > truly interested in moving this GA process forward.  I suggest that we begin by
> > > choosing 9 GA representatives and give them the helm.
> >
> >   Very well.   I disagree with this suggestion/proposal for the reasons I have
> > already stated...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Derek and all assembly members,
> > > >
> > > >   We already have an officially elected GA representative on the NC.
> > > > And it is much easier to track the performance of a single representative
> > > > than your suggested "9" GA Reps.   So I am having trouble finding
> > > > a clear cut view as to how this provides for better performance
> > > > compliance.
> > > >
> > > >   Indeed this assembly needs to be improved in it's viability and
> > > > performance.  Many good suggestions regarding putting forth motions.
> > > > But many of those motions with seconds have gone ignored by the Chair.
> > > > What is needed is a full time paid Chair, that can recognize what motions
> > > > are pending and than suggest to the secretariat to ask for a ballot to vote
> > > > on those motions.  Once that vote is completed, than the NC should be
> > > > notified and the GA NC Representative knows where his/her constituency
> > > > members/GA members stand on those motions passed.  This can work
> > > > nicely, but required a diligent chair that is not interested in setting his
> > > > or her own agenda and follows the desires and will of the GA members.
> > > > I don't believe this has been done very diligently, due to lack of real
> > > > interest from the chair and motivation as he is an unpaid chair...
> > > >
> > > > Derek Conant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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
> >
> > 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #536
************************