Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #539
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 539

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

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:43:58 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Membership Drive

Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.

Indeed, the correct sentence should be "... participating in the forthcoming 
election to nominate the next candidate ...", but I think that still we need 
to correct some technicality of the mechanism.
Up to now, we have considered as eligible to nominate the candidate DNSO 
Director all individual that is either subscriber of the GA-list or 
participant to a Constituency (plus other odds and ends).
I have pointed out in the past that this language is prone to confusion, 
because it is not at all clear who has to be considered participant or 
member of a Constituency, and who not. In fact, in the past the DNSO 
Secretariat has found out that some Constituencies are in the practical 
impossibility to validate an individual as member or not.
Now that we have a DNSO Voting Registry, I would highly recommend that we 
use this Registry as the list of eligible voters. In practical terms, it 
would not reduce in any way the "power" of the participants to any 
constituency: we just ask them to "register to vote [=nominate]".
In practical terms, this will be a big improvement, because we would be able 
to use the standard procedures to verify eligibility prior to election day, 
and not to be obliged to verify after the fact.

Maybe this should be suggested to NC.

>
> > 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...

I fail to see the point.
The fact that only 10 endorsements are sufficient to nominate a candidate is 
not in contradiction with the willingness to have more people participating 
in the process.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:13:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

Hello Derek,

What happened to :
"I believe that I have said enough on this subject"  ?

Thursday, June 14, 2001, 7:29:44 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> The body of representatives I have suggested set scheduled agenda.  I suggest that
> that GA body strictly follow the agenda and schedule.  The body of representatives
> should weigh constructive information in the GA forum and put forth their own
> opinions regarding subject matter and/or ask for more information regarding the
> subject matter.  For this to work, the process is open and transparent.

> There will be some who cannot do more than chat in the GA forum.  I stress that
> the GA body should ignore the static that is not constructive and move forward
> with the GA schedule and establish GA positions from the valid consensus.  I
> believe that what I have proposed with the GA body will stop most of the static
> currently in the GA and snap the GA into line.

> Do we have 9 people willing to stand behind the GA for 2 months?  If we do, then
> we have the GA body I have suggested and the ability to produce valid GA
> positions.  1 week before the GA body 2 month term expires, the GA active
> participants review the GA body performance and replaces certain representatives
> if this is decided by the GA active participants.  This should cause the GA body
> representatives to make of record why they support, or don't support, subject
> matter.  This further fosters the valid consensus process and the development of
> GA positions.

> At some point the GA needs to grow up.  There is no malicious conspiracy in this
> and I believe that the active participants want the GA to work.  Therefore, it
> will work.

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>> Dear DPF,
>> you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to
>> make enforced an agenda without corrdination nor conesensus. This will
>> result in :
>>
>> - 11 mails a day about the discussions of this group to be public or not
>> - 5 about the fact they must be archived or not
>> - 3 about them being on the the GA-Full but noton the GA
>> - 7 from Patrick explaining that this dicussion is to be on ga-review
>> - 1 from Danny to say it should be on ga-icann, then that it is true it
>> could be on ga-review
>> - 5 from each "director" to remind people that they should remember their
>> own agenda
>> - 11 from people saracastic about the 5 reminders
>> - 3 good will mail to calm down the sarcastics
>> - 7 mails to explain how we could find a better system
>> - 12 supporting a similar policy to the one of the 7 or 9 directors in
>> their areas (i.e. 84 to 108)
>> - 5 to propose new interests
>> -  3 proposing a better organization for the ExecComm
>> - 2 proposing every two days a new name for the ExecComm
>> - 13 to abusively explain why so and so is stupid about criticising the
>> Director
>> - 9 explaining why one Director has better understood the agenda of another
>> Director than that Director
>> - 3 feeling abused by the mails from the Directors and asking them to clarify
>> - 7 to explain that the Director abuse cannot be legally handdle as we are
>> international
>> - 3 explaining that in their place the law is different and could apply
>> - 2 asking why we could not make that law entered in the bylaws
>> - 7 explaining that all this mess is the fault of Louis Touton, Lynn Stuart...
>> - 12 asking if at the end of the day the DNSO GA could not be interested in
>> DNS matters.
>> etc..; etc...
>>
>> Jefsey
>>
>> On 08:19 14/06/01, DPF said:
>> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:
>> >
>> > >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.
>> >
>> >My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
>> >thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
>> >considerable merit which may be worth considering.
>> >
>> >Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
>> >committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
>> >reason for this model - because it works.
>> >
>> >Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
>> >effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
>> >The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
>> >the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
>> >obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
>> >members may be supportive.
>> >
>> >So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
>> >This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
>> >Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
>> >as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
>> >issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
>> >draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.
>> >
>> >These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
>> >easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
>> >than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
>> >GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.
>> >
>> >If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
>> >can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.
>> >
>> >However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
>> >reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
>> >useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
>> >considering.
>> >
>> >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
>>
>> --
>> 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

- -- 
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:25:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thanks for support DPF - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William  Walsh

Derek and all assembly members,

Derek Conant wrote:

> Don't worry.  For some of you I am going to let this idea of 9 GA
> Directors subject go to the way side if it does not receive more support.

  Good.  It is not getting very much support thus far...

>
>
> When I first proposed the idea of 9 GA Directors, I was responding to the
> GA's call for a Membership Drive to enlist the general public and I was
> responding to claims that the GA lacks funding.  I originally called the 9
> GA Directors "GA representatives".  The term GA Directors developed later
> when I realized the description I was giving the GA representatives was
> similar to that as the role of Directors.
>
> I am uncomfortable with having used the term GA Directors, however, the
> term does better describe what I meant by GA representatives.
>
> The GA Chair representative appears to need assistance in maintaining
> direction, creating agenda and establishing GA positions.

  The members can do this themselves through proposing MOTIONS
or RESOLUTIONS, Derek.  Than a WG can be set up, hopefully
funded adequately from the GA members themselves and/or the
ICANN BoD.

>  It is normal
> for the Chair to have a Board of Directors or certain close
> representatives to assist with the direction of an organization.

  This is where you seem to not understand the difference between
and ORGANIZATION and an ASSEMBLY.  The GA=General
Assembly.  It is NOT an ORGANIZATION.  A huge difference.

>  The GA
> is the most diverse constituency of all of the DNSO constituencies.

  The GA is not a CONSTITUENCY either, Derek.  It is and ASSEMBLY.

>  The
> GA Chair should not be expected to single-handedly run the GA.  That some
> of the GA active participants don't get this surprises me.

  We do get it I think.  What is needed if the funding to set up the WG's
by which specific issues can be adequately pursued.

>
>
> My position is that the GA cannot validate and count everyone's vote and
> that the GA needs a body of representatives within the GA membership to
> review and weigh the information the GA receives through the GA forum.

  Sure it can validate everyone's vote.  We have a voting process for the
some 300+ GA voters.  It works fairly well when not changed in the
middle of a vote on and issue, motion or resolution.

>
> - snip -
>
> We have Danny and Joanna talking about luring potential members to the GA
> through some Membership Drive solicitation program.  We have complaints
> that the GA is not funded.  Without a certain body of representatives
> within the GA membership to assist the Chair in managing information
> submitted to the GA forum, the GA will be incapable of establishing valid
> consensus and GA positions.

  The problem is in funding WG's not representation within the DNSO GA.

>
>
> Another point I should make is that the GA cannot rely on counting votes,
> especially when we do not know who is voting and it will be difficult to
> end debate and begin counting votes.

  Any ballot should remain secret.  So I am not seeing the concern here
that you purport to exist in this specific area.

>  The GA should rely on information
> received and the GA should rely on the votes from a certain body of
> representatives within the GA membership.

  No. The GA members should vote on each Motion or Resolution before it.

> The GA should not rely on
> counting all of the votes from the whole of its members.  The GA will not
> accomplish anything worthwhile if it relies on counting all of the votes
> from the whole of its members.

  As has been documented, it already has relied on the counting of it's votes
from all of the GA members.

>
>
> For the GA to function it will eventually need to employ a certain body of
> representatives within the GA membership to assist the Chair.

  Yes these would be WG chairs, not representatives.

> - snip -
>
> What I have proposed I suggest should be implemented as an experiment.
> What I have proposed cannot hurt the current GA process and what I have
> proposed may work if we can find 9 people who will stand behind the GA.  I
> am beginning to believe that the GA does not have 9 people who are willing
> to do more than chat.  Chat is not valid consensus.

  It is true that "Chat" is not valid consensus.  True consensus can only
be established by the voting members of the GA.

>
>
> I believe that I have said enough on this subject without more help from
> GA members.

  Good, lets let it go by the way side.

>
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> DPF wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
> > thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
> > considerable merit which may be worth considering.
> >
> > Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
> > committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
> > reason for this model - because it works.
> >
> > Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
> > effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
> > The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
> > the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
> > obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
> > members may be supportive.
> >
> > So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
> > This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
> > Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
> > as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
> > issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
> > draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.
> >
> > These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
> > easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
> > than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
> > GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.
> >
> > If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
> > can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.
> >
> > However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
> > reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
> > useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
> > considering.
> >
> > 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
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:17:17 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Membership Drive

Derek Conant wrote:

>
>Mr. Younger, you crack me up.
>
>How do you propose that the GA manage enlisted participants that will 
>probably
>know absolutely nothing about the ICANN and DNSO process?   Were you 
>enlisted to
>the GA via spam or by a similar means?  Furthermore, where is the valid
>consensus regarding your action to move this forward?  At least with GA
>Directors you wouldn't be alone here.
>
>To enlist members through a Membership Drive for the purpose of counting 
>votes
>is in my opinion is a ridiculous prospect in this case.  Especially 
>considering
>that the GA has not figure out how to make what it has work.  Leave the 
>task to
>the At-Large to figure out.  We don't need special interest group 
>penetration or
>undue influence taking over ICANN via the DNSO GA.

I did not see in Danny's words any push for a specific "special interest 
group", just the attempt to reach out to a larger basis for consensus.
Maybe new people that may join will know less about the ICANN and/or DNSO 
process, but that does not exclude that they may have an equal interest at 
stake.
Considering, then, that the role of the GA is just to nominate candidates, 
while the Director will be elected by the NC, it will be particularly 
worthless for any "special interest group" to adhere by the thousands to the 
GA: 10 individuals would suffice, while the effort should be concentrated in 
lobbying the NC, if one would have a specific candidate elected.
Last but not least, a lot of the valuable contributors of today's GA have 
been "newcomers" at one point in time. This is the essence of the GA, IMHO: 
a discussion forum where new voices and opinions are welcome, not a 
decision-making body where you have to be an "insider", and you have the 
risk of capture.
(This explains also my different opinion about the "GA restructuring", but 
this I may address in a different post)

>
>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

Interesting.
If in need to contact the Chines Internet community, I would not have 
thought of the Ambassador to the US as first choice.

But I would not have thought either of the CIA as advisor if to participate 
to an ICANN meeting or not (but that I will answer also separately).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:34:32 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: [icann-announce] ICANN Montevideo Meeting (7-10 September 2001); DNSO Whois Survey

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.

As I said in a different message, I would not have thought of the CIA as 
advisor if to participate to an ICANN meeting or not.
Don't get me wrong, I do recognize that the CIA has had a leading role in 
some events of the recent history of Latin America, and therefore they may 
be well informed about past, present and even future of that part of the 
world: I simply thought that this element would not have had any relevance 
in the choices for an Internet meeting.

Oddly enough, other ICANN meetings have raised similar "concerns" from a 
couple of people (Santiago and Cairo come to my mind), but in all cases the 
meetings went well.
Incidentally, I bet that the March 2002 and the June 2002 locations may also 
stimulate these postings ;>).

>  Maybe
>I'll go to Sydney instead.

Enjoy your trip!

Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:03:33 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."

Thanks, Marilyn!

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote on 13.06.01, 23:59:40:
> Okay, ideas for work:     There is a questionnaire from the DNSO on WHOIS.
> How about we post it, and encourage all XXX GA members to fill it in,
> factually.  Small request. But a deliverable.  I know, we all have opinions.
> I'm interested in facts... let's learn together.

I support this very much, and I'm already trying to
spread knowledge about the survey to groups who are
interested in the Whois issue, but who aren't necessarily
reading mailing-lists or icann-announce lists.

English: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
Spanish: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-es-10jun01.htm
German (my inoff.):  http://www.icannchannel.de/docs/whois.htm

Another important issue is .org, another deliverable.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/

Last but not least: the At Large Study.
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml

> Secondly, how about we ask the GA members what their characteristics are:
> in broad categories, so we can say: the GA is representative of:   XX SMEs;
> XX Corporations; XX non profits/civil libertarian organizations; XX
> individual concerned about YYY; XX universities; XX... please realize I'm
> struggling with categories... my only purpose for this is to say: let's see
> if we can say "we are representative and of what, and then we can also use
> the data to recruit... participation.

I'm not so sure about the idea of 'representativeness'
here -- some people are already claiming to represent
organizations with 100,000+ members or worldwide offices.
But if you put in terms of 'characteristics', I would
be interested, too. E.g. how many organizations and
companies from the DNSO constituencies are participating?

> thirdly, I wondered if the GA would agree to schedule itself BEFORE the
> constituencies so that it can be more of a vehicle into the Constituencies,
> as we "used" to do... [I know, I suffer from being around tooooo long]...
> but that made the GA really more useful/meaningful... means that the
> constituencies don't report in, but instead, take input from...

Are you referring to the 'physical meeting GA' or to the
discussions? My impression from the Stockholm meeting is
that those two are totally unconnected: Very few people in 
the K2 room in Stockholm thought that they somehow 'belonged 
to the GA', and very few people from the online GA were there.
If you are referring to the online GA, I'm afraid the time
pressure both on GA and constituencies will only allow for
parallel work...

> Fourthly, how about inviting a presentation from the IAB/IETF (happy to help
> to plan) on the issues which are really critical, from technical standpoint.
> We have started this in the ISPC and BC, and it is really a  great learning
> and educational experience.  And, of course, we have some folks already in
> the GA who are leaders in these issues... and could ask their help in
> getting very high level presenters...

This probably makes sense in the physical meetings, but
not so much in online discussions where we can (a) link
to papers and presentations and (b) certainly have enough
people with a strong technical background, including the
IETF chair. Additionally, there is of course not /the/
technical standpoint on issues like internationalized
domain names.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:24:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DPF support of Derek's proposition

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:25:14 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> you propose us 7 or 9 "Patrick Corlisses", i.e. good will people trying to
> make enforced an agenda without coordination nor consensus.

Hi Jefsey

Thank you for attributing me with good will.  However the following words
suggest some crackpot scheme of my own.  In fact, as you well know, I have
tried very hard to seek consensus.  In the process I have written hundreds
of emails to you alone -- more than anybody else on this list !!

Here's just one comment I made to you on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:02:21 +1000
when I wrote:

> My "agenda" as you call it is to be altruistic, helpful, honest and
> hard-working.  Nobody spends more time trying to build consensus
> (writing long letters to people like you, for example) than I do.  I
> could go on but I feel it's a waste of time . . .

That was almost two months ago, Jefsey.  What have I said publicly?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100
> I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against)
> but would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:35:15 +10001
> It is my nature to seek consensus and that's why I'm proposing peace
> between ICANN and the alternative community.  It's also why I'm proposing
> a peaceful resolution of colliding TLDs.  It's because I'm in favour of
> democracy, participation and more that I am proposing a fairer
> constituency structure

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:34:12 +1000
> I would ask that those of us who support Joanna's attempt to capture
> members' concerns in this short period endorse her letter and/or add
> their signature.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 +1000
> Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> Monitor.

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:13:46 +1000
> Of course, all of us -- and I include myself -- are tempted to respond
> with personal characterisations. However, we must all resist the
> temptation if we wish the General Assembly to be considered an
> appropriate forum for serious debate.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:00:01 +1000
>  Since I have been Co-Chair I have said very little in support of
> "alternative roots" except that I agreed with Danny that there should
> be a separate mailing list.  I gave simple reasons without any emotive
> argument.

On Wed, 2 May 2001 02:09:09 +1000
> I'd suggest, therefore, that this issue is one that relates to the
> competitive position of local commerce and industry.  It is interesting,
> topical and relevant.  I would appreciate any feedback that members can
> provide in understanding this technology and/or its implications for the
> promotion of TLDs other than .com.

On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:35:41 +1000
> Given that there will, at least, be confusion, would you be kind enough to
> specify why ICANN should not have a policy?  It is not sufficient to say
> "the root systems are independent".  So are countries but they have
> international agreements.

On Thu, 3 May 2001 15:32:06 +1000
> The real question is whether ICANN should have a policy?  What should
> it be?

On Fri, 4 May 2001 04:36:54 +1000
> My point, which has in fact been made elsewhere, was to ask members of
> this list whether there were any *policy concerns* about the contracts.
> If so, it might be appropriate for us to convey those concerns to members
> of the ICANN Board.

On Sun, 6 May 2001 00:32:20 +1000
> As the role of the DNSO General Assembly is to provide consensus-based
> policy input to ICANN, what should that consensus-based policy be?

On Sun, 6 May 2001 21:32:37 +1000
> I think most people will agree with the truth of your observations below.
> What we need to do now, it seems to me, is move on from saying "Yes, there
> is a problem" to working out whether on not ICANN should have a policy
> and, if so, what it should be.
. . .
> Given your stated views, do you see any merit in such an approach?

On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:40:34 +1000
> I'm sure you agree that ICANN should adopt compliance with the relevant
> standards as a general principle.  And to encourage co-operation and
> compliance within the industry is hardly a radical notion.

On Sun, 6 May 2001 23:40:13 +1000
> Anyway, can you think of an amendment to soften the implication?

On Wed, 9 May 2001 15:23:24 +1000
> It's a very *iffy* proposal but I see it as the only one that stands a
> chance of getting adopted on a consensus basis.  But you turn your head
> away from even the tiniest glimmer of light at the end of the long, dark
> tunnel.

On Thu, 10 May 2001 00:58:13 +1000
> My intention was to formulate a consensus motion more-or-less acceptable
> to both groups.  I don't think tht your motion even pretends to do that.
> You are therefore forcing a division instead of a consensus.  Which
> suggests to me that we will end up with two opposing motions which can
> then be put to the vote.

On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:33:38 +1000
> There MAY BE a possible consensus motion.  Meanwhile we will treat it as
> two opposing motions both of which might need work.  If they can be merged
> later that will be good.  If not we will put them to the vote as "opposing
> motions".  Vote one or the other.

On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:44:57 +1000, I wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 21:07:35 +1000, Dassa wrote:
> > Perhaps we should be discussing if ICANN needs to adopt a policy to deal
> > with other root zones?  If so, what that policy should be.
>
> Thank you, Dassa, from the bottom of my heart.  Have you any idea how
> often I've said exactly that on this list?

On Tue, 15 May 2001 05:00:17 +1000
> The proposed policy that has been moved and seconded is very clear.  You
> have indicated that you understand it.  All of the persons posting have
> explained their positions.  These can be summarised as follows:
>
> (1) <snip>
>
> (4)    ICANN has no policy on so-called "alternate root systems".   The
> mandate of the DNSO is to provide such a policy.  This should be based on
> consensus according to the by-laws.

On Wed, 16 May 2001 00:04:47 +1000
> In fact, I am pleased to see that your latest response, which addresses
> the propositions individually, does advance the debate adequately.  I
> thank you for your efforts.

On Sat, 19 May 2001 02:01:51 +1000
> Article 3(iii) requires ICANN to develop policies for determining the
> circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root
> system.  Should anyone know of such policies, I would appreciate a pointer
> to where they might be located.

On Mon, 28 May 2001 15:32:27 +1000
> I welcome any constructive suggestions ;-)

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:14:31 +1000
> I'd agree with the following comment made to me privately:
. . .
> What do you think ?

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly
> William X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views
> which I'd like to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people
> have a genuine interest in such a discussion.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 02:45:43 +1000
> I'd like, if we can, to work our way through Stuart's paper.  Like it or
> not, it is the principal statement on the table and needs to be addressed
> properly.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:36 +1000
> Good idea.  Let's work on a dictionary of terms to be put on FAQ
> ("frequently asked questions") on the DNSO website.  We can then
> reasonably expect people not to explain such terms.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:38:03 +1000
> Hard to tell, from the quote, who agrees with Karl and who doesn't.  My
> understanding, from previous list discussions, is that most people in the
> alt.root community agree with Karl's paper on Multiple Roots.  I'd ask
> anyone who doesn't to raise their hands.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 02:26:45 +1000
> But I'd like to see some genuine policy outcome on this list.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 06:49:15 +1000
> (1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the
> original WG-REVIEW not joined this GA-REVIEW mailing list?  Is it
> because the work is completed?  Are they likely to sign up anytime
> soon?  In other words, will the list be useful? and viable?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000
> Thank you very much for your most welcome explanation of the work of the
> WG-REVIEW.  You have clearly gone to a lot of trouble which I am certain
> will be most appreciated by those of this GA list who were not involved
> themselves.
 . . .
> Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> the list members in relation to how the see the system working most
> effectively.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:29:11 +1000
> I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
> onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
> memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
> expect a significant turnaround.
 . . .
> My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:06:19 +1000
> I think there's a general consensus that the idea is over-played
> particularly when we cannot seem to get much support for sub-list (or
> working group) Chairs, Coordinators -- call them what you like.

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:27 +1000
> It seems to me that there are two or three approaches which can be used
> assuming you agree with the hypothesis that the General Assembly is not
> working as intended.  Probable reasons are as follows:
. . .
> I'd appreciate your comments.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:57:16 +1000
> Personally I would like to achieve some work-output.
> How do you think this would best be achieved?  I'd value your opinion

etc.

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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:17:11 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO Board Elections

Dear members,

Our Secretariat has provided URLS for reference regarding past procedures
utilized in the GA's nomination of Board Directors:

The last year (2000) election o the ICANN Board is in:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html
It references:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2000.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
with the recall of all rules.

As the Names Council must set the timeline for such process, and must
resolve to either adopt the same procedures as last year or to invoke new
procedures, I will forward a request to Phil Sheppard to have this item
added to the upcoming Names Council teleconference agenda.

- --
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 12:27:40 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Announcement

Dear members,
I have received the following message:

Hi Danny,

You may remember meeting me in Melbourne, before you took on your present
task with DNSO.

My current task is managing the RFP process for DNSO NC for an Information
and Technical Services Manager and Information Services provision. Responses
close on June 20, and details can be found at www.dnso.org.

I'm interested to know whether any announcement about this has appeared on
the GA mailing list yet. If not, I'm interested to see that it does fairly
quickly, can you help? This might appeal to someone already associated with
the ICANN processes.

Thanks if you can help,
Keep smiling,

Ian Peter

- --
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 13:33:53 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."

Thanks for your comments, Alexander

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

Thanks, Marilyn!

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote on 13.06.01, 23:59:40:
> Okay, ideas for work:     There is a questionnaire from the DNSO on WHOIS.
> How about we post it, and encourage all XXX GA members to fill it in,
> factually.  Small request. But a deliverable.  I know, we all have
opinions.
> I'm interested in facts... let's learn together.

I support this very much, and I'm already trying to
spread knowledge about the survey to groups who are
interested in the Whois issue, but who aren't necessarily
reading mailing-lists or icann-announce lists.

English: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm
Spanish: http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-es-10jun01.htm
German (my inoff.):  http://www.icannchannel.de/docs/whois.htm

Another important issue is .org, another deliverable.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/

Last but not least: the At Large Study.
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml

> Secondly, how about we ask the GA members what their characteristics are:
> in broad categories, so we can say: the GA is representative of:   XX
SMEs;
> XX Corporations; XX non profits/civil libertarian organizations; XX
> individual concerned about YYY; XX universities; XX... please realize I'm
> struggling with categories... my only purpose for this is to say: let's
see
> if we can say "we are representative and of what, and then we can also use
> the data to recruit... participation.

I'm not so sure about the idea of 'representativeness'
here -- some people are already claiming to represent
organizations with 100,000+ members or worldwide offices.
But if you put in terms of 'characteristics', I would
be interested, too. E.g. how many organizations and
companies from the DNSO constituencies are participating?

> thirdly, I wondered if the GA would agree to schedule itself BEFORE the
> constituencies so that it can be more of a vehicle into the
Constituencies,
> as we "used" to do... [I know, I suffer from being around tooooo long]...
> but that made the GA really more useful/meaningful... means that the
> constituencies don't report in, but instead, take input from...

Are you referring to the 'physical meeting GA' or to the
discussions? My impression from the Stockholm meeting is
that those two are totally unconnected: Very few people in 
the K2 room in Stockholm thought that they somehow 'belonged 
to the GA', and very few people from the online GA were there.
If you are referring to the online GA, I'm afraid the time
pressure both on GA and constituencies will only allow for
parallel work...

> Fourthly, how about inviting a presentation from the IAB/IETF (happy to
help
> to plan) on the issues which are really critical, from technical
standpoint.
> We have started this in the ISPC and BC, and it is really a  great
learning
> and educational experience.  And, of course, we have some folks already in
> the GA who are leaders in these issues... and could ask their help in
> getting very high level presenters...

This probably makes sense in the physical meetings, but
not so much in online discussions where we can (a) link
to papers and presentations and (b) certainly have enough
people with a strong technical background, including the
IETF chair. Additionally, there is of course not /the/
technical standpoint on issues like internationalized
domain names.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 #539
************************