Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #560
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 560

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:58:05 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ??? .EARTH, 1:10 .USA and 1:45 .Z

http://www.tlda.org/associates/
"AGN Domain Name Service, Inc.
About AGN Domain Name Service Inc.

ADNS operates a domain registry offering domains in the .EARTH, .USA and .Z
top-level domains. ADNS was one of the first organizations to approach Jon
Postel at IANA back in September 1995 and offer to develop a registry for
additional top-level domains. In fact, we are the second and third entries
on the now-famous "List Postel", a list of all requests for new top-level
domains received by Jon Postel and IANA."
- --------------------

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
??? EARTH
1:10 USA  (UNITED-STATES)
1:45 Z    (Single Letter TLD)

??? IN-ADDR.EARTH
??? IN-ADDR.USA
??? IN-ADDR.Z

??? IPv6
??? IPv8
??? IPv16

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
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
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:10:12 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld by ICANN

Hello John,

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 9:40:11 AM, John Palmer wrote:

> I have sent mail to to the secretary stating that there is a motion and
> seconds and I have requested a
> ballot be prepared.

Which only shows your ignorance over how things are done.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:10:44 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld  by ICANN

Got a message back from the Secretarit saying that there wont be any vote.

Oh well, I guess we know how democratic this organization is.....

John

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:26:16 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: My recent motion

Yes William, you are right. I thought that this was a body with some
semblance of democratic process.
Thank you (and the Secretariat) for correcting me.

There is no democracy here. Please forgive me for "hoping".

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld
by ICANN

> Hello John,
>
> Sunday, June 24, 2001, 9:40:11 AM, John Palmer wrote:
>
> > I have sent mail to to the secretary stating that there is a motion and
> > seconds and I have requested a
> > ballot be prepared.
>
> Which only shows your ignorance over how things are done.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:31:57 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldby ICANN

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> Dear Sandy,
> there are three different things here.
> 1) a consensus about the need of a global name space policy to be draft.

Certainly we need to discuss name space policy. That's what the GA is for.

However, I doubt that currently, or anytime soon, we have the consensus
required for a clear policy formulation. Documents setting out various
non-consensus views are certainly possible, but it is not clear that we
need more of them :-).

Some one might even tackle writing a document giving a statement of the
issues without embracing any particular solution. That would be tricky.
I'm not sure how useful it would be. 

> I suppose you do not agree that the "historic" iCANN policy on the
> matter is to be drafter by Lynn alone.

No, though I do feel he's made a fair statement of that policy.

> The consensus is not on the policy but on the
> need to discuss it. At least I hope so since for three months every thing
> is made to impeach that?
> 
> 2) a vote of the Members of the DNSO about a political move. There is no
> consensus reasearch. This is only a motion to be voted. Like we voted last
> year against the Cybersquatters? How can you oppose a vote?

As I said, without consenus the vote is pointless. 

If we were a parliament of some sort, composed of elected representatives
of the net.community, voting would make sense. For a self-selected body
composed of whoever knows about ICANN and cares enough to be here, it makes
none at all.

Perhaps you've encountered the terms 'bolshevik' and menshevik'? They
originally meany 'majority' and 'minority', but acquired another meaning
when Lenin's faction won some vote at a party congress and began using
the labels for themselves and their opponents. Having a vote when there's
no consensus might encourage use of that sort of propaganda manouevre
here.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:45:45 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld  by ICANN

John Palmer wrote:

> Got a message back from the Secretarit saying that there wont be any vote.
>
> Oh well, I guess we know how democratic this organization is.....

To be fair, wrong conclusion. There are procedures for having votes,
but on this bit we're not following them.  Just as in our earlier "vote"
on the Individual Constituency, what we did was a "poll," not a vote.
Polls have their value, since that particular activity, through the help of
the Chair and Alternate Chair, did in fact ultimately lead to an official
vote, and a resolution went to Stockholm and was adopted.

People insist on starting their pet projects with a MOTION, and I've
noted before that the use of that language is not correct, but so long
as it ultimately proceeds to something useful, no harm done, so far as
I can see. (Except when people (evidently such as yourself, John) are
disappointed to learn that what they thought was to be an official
"vote" in fact was not.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> John
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:55:52 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld  by ICANN

Hello John,

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 10:10:44 AM, John Palmer wrote:

> Got a message back from the Secretarit saying that there wont be any vote.

> Oh well, I guess we know how democratic this organization is.....

Actually what we see is that one person trying to advance their own
agenda cannot manipulate the process to try and get his way through
Grandstanding.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:31:26 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century

Fine.

If you're that confident that the proposal has no merit, let's take it to a 
vote, and we'll see who wins.

Defeating a motion seems a valid reason for encouraging the vote so I 
fail to understand your desire to AVOID the vote.

Earl

> Hello Eric,
> 
> Saturday, June 23, 2001, 9:38:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > GA-Rules sublists had my proposal several days ago and there has been
> > not direct opposition to it.
> 
> There has been no support for it, either.  Your proposal has no merit.
> The rules do not need to be modified as you say.  Your assumption that
> they do is faulty.
> 
> Bottom line, there has not been sufficient support for your proposal
> to warrant it being taken into consideration as a motion for the GA.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:20:49 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century

Hello Earl,

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 11:31:26 AM, Earl Heather wrote:

> Fine.

> If you're that confident that the proposal has no merit, let's take it to a 
> vote, and we'll see who wins.

> Defeating a motion seems a valid reason for encouraging the vote so I 
> fail to understand your desire to AVOID the vote.

Your logic is flawed.

That isn't how the GA works.

We don't vote on every motion or every proposal that every member
makes.

If someone has a proposal or motion, then they need to bring it up for
discussion and debate, and if there appears to be enough support that
the motion may actually represent some consensus (and consensus is
not measured by a majority vote, btw), then the motion is put forward
for a vote.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:10:30 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consensus

Consensus is anything we agree is important enough to engage in
discussing among ourselves.  After all, if we accept the principles of
free speech, it is possible to have dissenting and differing opinions,
and yet still engage in fruitful dialogue.  Discussion can lead to a
better or more thorough understanding of all issues involved in a given
matter, hence a better prepared voting assembly.  Topics are reached by
consensus and ongoing education.   Decisions are made by votes.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

P.S.  I've been away for the last little while due to personal matters.
I apologize to all those with whom I have been incommunicado.  I look
forward to resuming our correspondence.

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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:17:48 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to the NC Review TF

At 12:29 24/06/01 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:

>      Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
>      committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
>      copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
>      Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
>      such reported activity.
>
>      Watchdog Committee list archive in
>      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
>
>      The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
>         o Roberto Gaetano
>         o Harald Alvestrand
>         o Kent Crispin
>         o Dany Vandromme
>         o Alexander Svensson
>         o Izumi Aizu

But Kent Crispin has just been nominated as a candidate himself by Ken Stubbs.

Can he be a watchdog while being a candidate?

- --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: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:45:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldby ICANN

My wife spent 2 years in Africa in the Peace Corps, and in the course
of all that learned quite a bit about underdeveloped countries. One of
the things that she learned was that it makes little sense just to throw in
some voting procedure in a country that has had no experience with
democratic processes.  The GA is an underdeveloped country.

In consecutive posts here, I see two different meanings of the term
"consensus;" that of Sotiris I believe not to be correct. Jefsey raises
the issue of whether a domain name space policy should be drafted.
This post concurs that it should be discussed.  Sotiris says "Consensus
is anything we agree is important enough to engage in discussing among
ourselves," when in fact a consensus represents a conclusion on an
issue, not just the idea of discussing it.  And not to knock any of these
ideas as such, we see Joanna Lane proposing methods for getting some
proposal raised to the stage of being given consideration by the GA;
Eric Dierker evidently thinks that no opposition means approval,
Earl Heather says, in effect, "let's vote right now," etc., etc., the
point being that everyone is popping out with ad hoc procedural
means and interpretations, when in fact the DNSO, through the AG
Chair, now has procedures established on how to bring things to a
proper vote within the GA.  The people popping out with all these
various notions, so far as I can tell, all come from developed countries
that have a tradition of democratic processes, with all their rules for
how things are done, and why these same people forget everything
they know and want to fly the GA by the seats of their respective pants
is quite beyond me.

One does not just throw in a motion and then complain that there has
been no action on it. As I noted earlier, when someone does that, one
can still respond with a "second" or whatever, just to keep the thing
moving, so long as one realizes that there will be no official "vote"
that comes out of such a method. But whether started by that means,
or by Jefsey saying we need such and such, that is not the time to
re-invent the wheel.  That is the time either to discuss the merits of
the proposal ("yes, we should draft a policy statement;" "no, we
don't want a policy statement") or else say "trivia, we're not
interested, let's not get into that." If the merits are addressed, then
some consensus may or may not emerge, but at least something
of substance would have been addressed. It is the responses to
the merits of a proposal that determine whether any consensus
will emerge, and whether the thing should be discussed should
not be determined by a debate on THAT -- that determination is
made operationally: either people start to discuss, or they don't,
and that's the end of it unless something in the way of a consensus
is seen to emerge, at which time there is something of substance
that the Chair could recognize and then advance into the formal
DNSO procedure.

The need to invent new procedures every time some new thing is
dropped into the GA hat ranks third with me among the things that
paralyze the GA (the first being flame wars, the second being those
who attempt to take over the GA with their personal agendas, often
of the hair-brained variety, and around which some little clique of
"yeay- sayers" is collected for a time until that distraction disappears).
The common result of all of these is fragmentation: everyone is running
in different directions all at once, and simply cannot stay on point on
any single issue long enough to get anywhere. Indeed, the only
mechanism that can serve to prevent that is the specific DNSO
voting procedure that has the necessary degree of formality (one
must register to vote, one must then vote, etc.) to direct, at least
for the moment, the attention of everyone to some one thing on
which a decision must be made.

In other words, instead of re-hashing for the nth time how to
discuss, why not JUST DISCUSS?  I don't get up every morning
and re-instruct myself on how to walk,  how to breathe, or what
I'm supposed to do in the bathroom.

As Nike would say, "Just Do It."

Bill Lovell

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sandy,
> > there are three different things here.
> > 1) a consensus about the need of a global name space policy to be draft.
>
> Certainly we need to discuss name space policy. That's what the GA is for.
>
> However, I doubt that currently, or anytime soon, we have the consensus
> required for a clear policy formulation. Documents setting out various
> non-consensus views are certainly possible, but it is not clear that we
> need more of them :-).
>
> Some one might even tackle writing a document giving a statement of the
> issues without embracing any particular solution. That would be tricky.
> I'm not sure how useful it would be.
>
> > I suppose you do not agree that the "historic" iCANN policy on the
> > matter is to be drafter by Lynn alone.
>
> No, though I do feel he's made a fair statement of that policy.
>
> > The consensus is not on the policy but on the
> > need to discuss it. At least I hope so since for three months every thing
> > is made to impeach that?
> >
> > 2) a vote of the Members of the DNSO about a political move. There is no
> > consensus reasearch. This is only a motion to be voted. Like we voted last
> > year against the Cybersquatters? How can you oppose a vote?
>
> As I said, without consenus the vote is pointless.
>
> If we were a parliament of some sort, composed of elected representatives
> of the net.community, voting would make sense. For a self-selected body
> composed of whoever knows about ICANN and cares enough to be here, it makes
> none at all.
>
> Perhaps you've encountered the terms 'bolshevik' and menshevik'? They
> originally meany 'majority' and 'minority', but acquired another meaning
> when Lenin's faction won some vote at a party congress and began using
> the labels for themselves and their opponents. Having a vote when there's
> no consensus might encourage use of that sort of propaganda manouevre
> here.
> --
> 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: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:30:52 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to  the NC Review TF

IMO, that's a conflict.

Leah

On 25 Jun 2001, at 11:17, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:29 24/06/01 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 
> 
> >      Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
> >      committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
> >      copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
> >      Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
> >      such reported activity.
> >
> >      Watchdog Committee list archive in
> >      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
> >
> >      The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
> >         o Roberto Gaetano
> >         o Harald Alvestrand
> >         o Kent Crispin
> >         o Dany Vandromme
> >         o Alexander Svensson
> >         o Izumi Aizu
> 
> But Kent Crispin has just been nominated as a candidate himself by Ken Stubbs.
> 
> Can he be a watchdog while being a candidate?
> 
> 
> 
> --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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:36:23 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Hello Sotiris,

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 3:10:30 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Consensus is anything we agree is important enough to engage in
> discussing among ourselves.

No, that is not what consensus is.  Consensus is something that is
agreed on quite widely in the GA (not just by a simple majority).

> After all, if we accept the principles of
> free speech, it is possible to have dissenting and differing opinions,

Yes, but that does not define consensus.

> and yet still engage in fruitful dialogue.  Discussion can lead to a
> better or more thorough understanding of all issues involved in a given
> matter, hence a better prepared voting assembly.  Topics are reached by
> consensus and ongoing education.   Decisions are made by votes.

No, decisions are reached by consensus.  Consensus can be determined
by the discussion and debate on the list, and a vote is merely to
confirm it and document it.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:41:38 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a 
vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?

On 24 Jun 2001, at 16:36, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
> 
> Sunday, June 24, 2001, 3:10:30 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> > Consensus is anything we agree is important enough to engage in
> > discussing among ourselves.
> 
> No, that is not what consensus is.  Consensus is something that is
> agreed on quite widely in the GA (not just by a simple majority).
> 
> > After all, if we accept the principles of
> > free speech, it is possible to have dissenting and differing opinions,
> 
> Yes, but that does not define consensus.
> 
> > and yet still engage in fruitful dialogue.  Discussion can lead to a
> > better or more thorough understanding of all issues involved in a given
> > matter, hence a better prepared voting assembly.  Topics are reached by
> > consensus and ongoing education.   Decisions are made by votes.
> 
> No, decisions are reached by consensus.  Consensus can be determined
> by the discussion and debate on the list, and a vote is merely to
> confirm it and document it.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 17:27:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to   the NC Review TF

And I agree. Clearly, one cannot oversee the fairness of an election or
nomination process in which one has already been nominated. Without
any reference to Kent Crispin himself, of course, the "fairness" of the
nomination process could be manipulated so that those persons whom
the nominee thought might be a "dangerous" candidates against that
person's own ambitions could be "disqualified" for trumped-up reasons.

(Unless, of course, the nominee's nomination was refused.)

If the DNSO does not have a rule which removes candidates on
anything from any watchdog role over the particular election in which
the person is a candidate, it should be drafting one right now.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> IMO, that's a conflict.
>
> Leah
>
> On 25 Jun 2001, at 11:17, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 12:29 24/06/01 +0200, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> >
> >
> > >      Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
> > >      committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
> > >      copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
> > >      Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
> > >      such reported activity.
> > >
> > >      Watchdog Committee list archive in
> > >      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
> > >
> > >      The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
> > >         o Roberto Gaetano
> > >         o Harald Alvestrand
> > >         o Kent Crispin
> > >         o Dany Vandromme
> > >         o Alexander Svensson
> > >         o Izumi Aizu
> >
> > But Kent Crispin has just been nominated as a candidate himself by Ken Stubbs.
> >
> > Can he be a watchdog while being a candidate?
> >
> >
> >
> > --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-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

- --
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: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 17:33:06 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Even the dictionary (i.e., my WordWeb) has differing views:

 1) Agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief;
 2) General agreement

Maybe it's like pornography: one can't define it, but one knows it
when one sees it.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
>
> On 24 Jun 2001, at 16:36, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Hello Sotiris,
> >
> > Sunday, June 24, 2001, 3:10:30 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > > Consensus is anything we agree is important enough to engage in
> > > discussing among ourselves.
> >
> > No, that is not what consensus is.  Consensus is something that is
> > agreed on quite widely in the GA (not just by a simple majority).
> >
> > > After all, if we accept the principles of
> > > free speech, it is possible to have dissenting and differing opinions,
> >
> > Yes, but that does not define consensus.
> >
> > > and yet still engage in fruitful dialogue.  Discussion can lead to a
> > > better or more thorough understanding of all issues involved in a given
> > > matter, hence a better prepared voting assembly.  Topics are reached by
> > > consensus and ongoing education.   Decisions are made by votes.
> >
> > No, decisions are reached by consensus.  Consensus can be determined
> > by the discussion and debate on the list, and a vote is merely to
> > confirm it and document it.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> > DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:48:22 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

And that's the point, I think.  How can one arrive at or determine 
consensus when it is not even defined as a process?  Define 
"general agreement."  It still boils down to majority rule.  

So, if there are 50 participating members in a discussion and 26 of 
them agree on an item, is that consensus?  Who determines the 
number?  If the 26 determine it's enough to go for a vote and 200 
people vote with a majority deciding the issue, was there 
consensus?

We have no guidelines for determining consensus which is why we 
are paralyzed.  If a member of this list brings up a topic, it should 
be discussed.  If there are a number of participants who determine 
it is a viable topic and needs a determination, it should then, 
perhaps have a straw poll to see if there is enough interest to take 
it further and write a motion...

Whatever is done, it must be defined.

Leah

On 24 Jun 2001, at 17:33, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Even the dictionary (i.e., my WordWeb) has differing views:
> 
>  1) Agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief;
>  2) General agreement
> 
> Maybe it's like pornography: one can't define it, but one knows it
> when one sees it.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
> >
> > On 24 Jun 2001, at 16:36, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Sotiris,
> > >
> > > Sunday, June 24, 2001, 3:10:30 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > > Consensus is anything we agree is important enough to engage in
> > > > discussing among ourselves.
> > >
> > > No, that is not what consensus is.  Consensus is something that is
> > > agreed on quite widely in the GA (not just by a simple majority).
> > >
> > > > After all, if we accept the principles of
> > > > free speech, it is possible to have dissenting and differing opinions,
> > >
> > > Yes, but that does not define consensus.
> > >
> > > > and yet still engage in fruitful dialogue.  Discussion can lead to a
> > > > better or more thorough understanding of all issues involved in a given
> > > > matter, hence a better prepared voting assembly.  Topics are reached by
> > > > consensus and ongoing education.   Decisions are made by votes.
> > >
> > > No, decisions are reached by consensus.  Consensus can be determined
> > > by the discussion and debate on the list, and a vote is merely to
> > > confirm it and document it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> > > DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #560
************************