Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #561
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 561

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:49:01 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus

L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] said:

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

con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n. 

1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). 

2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus. 

While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
(IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.

The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
the dictionary.

The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
.biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
.biz in the manner outlined.

Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:

That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
reviewed by a taskforce.

Now debating this and then calling for a vote might well be more productive.

Steven Heath
- --
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 18:16:39 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Consensus

Hello L,

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 5:48:22 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> 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.  

No, actually it doesn't.

The Names Council defines consensus as 2/3 I believe.

This was also the criteria we used in Workgroup C.

I believe it to be a fair criteria for consensus.

- -- 
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 18:18:54 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldby ICANN

In a rare moment  :)

I agree with Bill's statement.

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 4:45:18 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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

- -- 
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 21:28:22 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus

On 25 Jun 2001, at 12:49, Steven Heath wrote:

> 
> 
> L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] said:
> 
> > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a 
> > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
> 
> con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n. 
> 
> 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). 
> 
> 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus. 
> 
> While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.

Okay, let's say the GA agreed on 2/3 (not necessarily my choice).  
2/3 of what?  The entire voting membership?  Has that ever 
happened?  I don't think I've ever seen 2/3 participate in discussion, 
never mind a vote.  That would permanently paralyze the GA.

2/3 of the 30 or so who do participate?  This has happened 
already.  The few really loud ones squelsh those who disagree with 
them.  One could easily draw a line and the two camps would be 
obvious.  When does it reach consensus enough for a vote?

> 
> The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> the dictionary.
> 
> The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> .biz in the manner outlined.

How do we know that?

> 
> Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
> 
> That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> reviewed by a taskforce.
> 

Hasn't that been done?  Is it the process or the decision?  or is it 
both?

I believe John's "motion" was a statement of more than concern. It 
is being discussed on the ga-roots list, but there is little doubt that 
anything will come of it no matter how many participants want to 
do something about the seriousness of the issue.  There will be the 
two camps and the one will prevail because it will never be allowed 
to go further - not in the GA, not by the NC.

> Now debating this and then calling for a vote might well be more productive.
> 
> 
> Steven Heath
> --
> 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 18:40:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Dear Mr. Heath,

There is no question on consensus, and thank you for pointing that out.  During
discussions we get a feel for what is becoming a good feel.  Some one or several
draft a motion and or opposing motions.  We argue about them and hone the
concepts. (Joanna, Harald, Danny, Sotitiris and the like do the hard work in
drafting and my hat is off those fine folks and I am trying to contribute
likewise) Then we vote in an informal to very formal online process depending on
the gravity.  This type of vote is not a winner/loser vote but merely a method
of documenting the consensus which 90% follows the proposal, because it was
garnered through open and transparent discussion.

{as a challenge I ask anyone to find more than five proposals that actually got
to motions that failed & find three passed motions that supported action finally
taken by the board  -- You have to look through all the WG and Task force
archives, I found 2 & 1 respectively -- NC approval is not board so leave Chair
type voting out.}

Regardless of a few outspoken anti-dotcommoners when things come to a vote it is
because hardworking folks propose it out of a sense of right, and we witness
statistics of consensus.  Watch closely who opposes voting and you will see who
does not want verifiable statistics of consensus.  Joop is our point of light in
this regard, he loves to hear what the people really think and document it.

ERIC

Steven Heath wrote:

> L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] said:
>
> > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
>
> con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n.
>
> 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
>
> 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
>
> While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.
>
> The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> the dictionary.
>
> The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> .biz in the manner outlined.
>
> Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
>
> That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> reviewed by a taskforce.
>
> Now debating this and then calling for a vote might well be more productive.
>
> Steven Heath
> --
> 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 19:04:55 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to   the NC Review TF

I certainly hope this ruffles some feathers while not hurting anyones feelings.

I like the *WatchDog* committee.  I like who is on it.  I trust them to act just
exactly how we may predict them to act.  When one of us dotcommoners is placed in the
proper position I want the world to know that they carried the heart to make it
through that gauntlet. I want them to be a BraveHeart. After we elected Danny I have
no fear, we will not elect a partyliner.*

I am not saying that Dr. Lovell is wrong I simply say let them stack the deck we will
still win this battle.

Danny has been gone for far longer than necessary to fix the problem he described.
Whoever takes this post will have the heck of it to survive but I want that person to
take our agenda and hurt themselves further to get it done.

Best to all, -vote
Eric the worried

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> 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-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 22:07:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld  by ICANN

John and all assembly members,

  I believe the Chair needs to call for a vote and notify the Secretariat
to prepare a ballot.  As far as I know that has not been done yet.
Also currently the Chair position is being temporarily taken over
by the Alt Chair, Patrick Corliss.  So a request to the Temporary
Chair would be in order now that this motion has been twice
seconded.  As this is your motion John, maybe you should also
publicly on this forum draft a separate request to the Temporary
Chair to move this motion forward and request the Secretary to
prepare a ballot or deny the Motion.

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.....
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:56:40 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] bringing the rules into the 21st century

"Democracy is when you can vote, Tyranny is when you could vote".
Jefsey

On 21:20 24/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>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

- --
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 20:46:19 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 25 Jun 2001, at 12:49, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] said:
> >
> > > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
> >
> > con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n.
> >
> > 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> > women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> > traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
> >
> > 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
> >
> > While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> > (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.
>
> Okay, let's say the GA agreed on 2/3 (not necessarily my choice).

William X. Walsh says that he believes that to be the rule, but did
not cite any reference.

>
> 2/3 of what?  The entire voting membership?  Has that ever
> happened?  I don't think I've ever seen 2/3 participate in discussion,
> never mind a vote.  That would permanently paralyze the GA.

Best line of the day, from Jim Fleming:

"consensus appears to be....'apathetic consent'"

>
> 2/3 of the 30 or so who do participate?  This has happened
> already.  The few really loud ones squelsh those who disagree with
> them.  One could easily draw a line and the two camps would be
> obvious.  When does it reach consensus enough for a vote?

Those who run the vocal minority will assert that the "vote" of the
majority of the vocal minority should define "consensus," i.e. 12
people are discussing, 30 vote, and 20 vote in favor. Whatever
number were selected, 2/3 or whatever, GA votes can never define
a consensus if only 10% of registered voters vote, it being even worse
that our now astounding 322 registered voters is likely less than 10%
of the people who actually follow all this poobah

>
> > The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> > the dictionary.
> >
> > The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> > .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> > .biz in the manner outlined.
>
> How do we know that?

We don't. It's hype.

> > Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
> >
> > That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> > board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> > limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> > reviewed by a taskforce.
> >
>
> Hasn't that been done?  Is it the process or the decision?  or is it
> both?
>
> I believe John's "motion" was a statement of more than concern. It
> is being discussed on the ga-roots list, but there is little doubt that
> anything will come of it no matter how many participants want to
> do something about the seriousness of the issue.  There will be the
> two camps and the one will prevail because it will never be allowed
> to go further - not in the GA, not by the NC.

Whether it is allowed to go further is the choice of the Chair, I think.
And that's why I think the Chair should not need to read a "consensus"
out of the tea leaves in making that decision, but should rather determine
simply whether or not there is an issue of great interest, and are there
one or more positions regarding that issue that are sufficiently defined
to be set out in the form of one or more motions. When that happens,
motions should be filed and a vote called.

Bill Lovell

- --
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 20:43:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: My recent motion

Whoa just a minute give me a little time and try about five more posts.  the
Secratariat ain't cutting you off.

A motion and point of order is really cool here and there is no objection.
Your motion I believe was seconded now please draft a formal motion for
discussion and let it simmer.  When it gets to a boil with no objection (or
only from them who always object) let us make it formal or informal.  Hey it is
this simple; since I am pro and someone else is con, they can vote by emailing
us seperately.  Everyone can see the votes transparently and you win -- because
you will not lose. [alright let them cry not a real vote, big deal we will have
one that is better than any other truth in the world]

Push it bro We Dotcommoners will stand behind you and our current chair is
great at this kind of thing.  He will endorse upon his return, I am sure.

Peace,
Eric

John Palmer wrote:

> 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-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 21:01:17 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to   the NC Review TF

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I certainly hope this ruffles some feathers while not hurting anyones feelings.
>
> I like the *WatchDog* committee.  I like who is on it.  I trust them to act just
> exactly how we may predict them to act.  When one of us dotcommoners is placed in the
> proper position I want the world to know that they carried the heart to make it
> through that gauntlet. I want them to be a BraveHeart. After we elected Danny I have
> no fear, we will not elect a partyliner.*
>
> I am not saying that Dr. Lovell is wrong

Yeah, right.

> I simply say let them stack the deck we will
> still win this battle.

Oldest and smelliest trick in politics: accuse the other side of that
which you yourself are doing.  Again trying to keep Kent Crispin's
role out of this, since he's not been heard from, it is fundamental to
all law and to all democratic processes that a man cannot serve as
judge of his own case, so no one can be a watchdog of an election
in which that person is him/herself a candidate.  I should think the
ploy to be so transparent that even the halt and feeble would spot
it in an instant, and the issue would warrant no further discussion:
Mr. Crispin either refuses his nomination or is removed from the
watchdog committee, and I'm assuming that having been put in
that position is no doing of his own.

(Proof again that the GA is an underdeveloped country, in which
every unsophisticated, immature, juvenile, dirty trick will be tried
out.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Danny has been gone for far longer than necessary to fix the problem he described.
> Whoever takes this post will have the heck of it to survive but I want that person to
> take our agenda and hurt themselves further to get it done.
>
> Best to all, -vote
> Eric the worried
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > 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-full" 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 21:00:43 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Multilingualism Buddy/mentors

I am way upset.  Today I had trouble communicating with my Vietnamese
housemates, my 18 year old daughter, my 12 year old daughter and my
Mexican Girlfriend.  I stink and I suck and I am a gringo.  I have made
peace with all, but not without much effort on all our parts.  Just in
my family it does not come cheap.  But my friends it was worth it when
we all sat down to dinner.  Let us all sit down to dinner together and
fully support Elizabeths and Pilars and YJ and Vanny's efforts to bring
cultures together.

I stink at this.  And I now request any mentor/buddy  to help me be a
better GA member by learning more about multilingualism and
Multiculturilism.  I know with help I can be a better ambassador for the
dotcommoners.

Eric,

- --
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 #561
************************