Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #565
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 565

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:34:23 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quorum and Definition

- --On 25. juni 2001 08:59 -0400 Sotiris Sotiropoulos 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe it is time that this General Assembly considered a resolution
> on what constitutes a valid quorum requirement for the validity of any
> future voting.  If this is not established, we can talk till the sky
> falls.

The GA in its vote on the voting rule made the following decisions:

- - For a "normal" vote, a majority of the cast votes suffice.
- - For a change of the rules, a 2/3 majority with a certain minimum
  number of cast votes suffice.

Adopted by a majority of 56 in favour, 5 against.

> The next step is the definition of what a domain name is in fact, not in
> some nebulous or partisan legal haze.  At no other time in History has a
> public resource remained undefined in terms of its estimated ontic
> significance and value for so long (not to mention its economic
> weight).

I believe that there has never been a public resource that has had a value 
assigned to it by decision of a discussion body, where that decision has 
had any significant effect.

The significance of a domain name comes from its use, and the use of other 
domain names. We need to observe, not to assign.

- --
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 07:51:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> A quorum is needed to validate a vote or a poll.  But votes and polls should
> not be thought of as methods for evaluating full consensus.  At best they
> can only be a small part of the overall consensus development process.
>
> Chuck

Exactly correct, Chuck.  Welcome back to the maelstrom!

Bill Lovell

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:05 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Patrick Corliss'; Danny Younger; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"
>
> Excellent Mr. Gomes!  Then you would agree in the importance of an
> established
> quorum figure for the GA, to circumvent capture by a subgroup on a given
> vote,
> yes?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > In my personal opinion, Danny's points are right on target.  It is
> critical
> > to get beyond the point where we think consensus can be determined by a
> vote
> > of some subgroup of the overall affected population.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:20 AM
> > To: Danny Younger
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:46:45 -0500, Danny Younger wrote:
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: [ga] Suggestions
> >
> > > My preliminary suggestions for DNSO improvement have been posted to the
> > > Public Forum.  The URL:
> > >
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing your comments posted as well.
> >
> > This describes Danny's views on "consensus".  It is very worth reading.
> >
> > I quite agree with William X. Walsh that conensus requires more that a
> > simple majority.  I do not agree that a 2/3 rds majority satisfies
> > consensus.  What is needed is substantial agreement in the sense that
> those
> > who disagree accept the proposal of offer as the best solution they can
> > reasonably expect or they don't disagree strongly enough to have a fight
> > over the issue.
> >
> > Let's say you have a country with two racial groups.  One group has twice
> as
> > many members as the other giving them a two-thirds majority.  The majority
> > decides to overwhelm the minority by taking their land, their personal
> > possessions and even their lives.   Clearly there is no consensus.
> >
> > On the other hand, we have a vote about mailing lists.  :Let's say that
> > everybody except one lone voice agrees that mailing lists are sort of a
> good
> > idea.  Some people think there should be more of less of them but, in the
> > end, everybody agrees on five.   You could say there was general agreement
> > even if everybody would have preferred a different proposal.  That's more
> > like consensus.
> >
> > But please read Danny's comments following:
> >
> > On Sat, March 31, 2001 at 8:29 PM GMT, Danny Younger wrote:
> > http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
> >
> > The DNSO recommends domain name policies to the ICANN Board; these
> policies
> > purportedly are based on what has been termed a bottoms-up consensus-based
> > decision-making process.  At issue is whether these recommendations truly
> > stem from "consensus".   It is my observation that what is commonly held
> to
> > be "consensus" by the vast majority of participants in the General
> Assembly
> > and by members of the Names Council of the DNSO is not that which ICANN
> > itself defines as "consensus":
> >
> > A "Consensus Policy" is one adopted by ICANN as follows:
> > 1. "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among
> > Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by
> > (1) the adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
> > recommendation that the policy should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds
> > vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the
> matter
> > is delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which
> must
> > include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization
> relating
> > to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and
> disagreement
> > among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to
> > achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to
> be
> > impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> > and opposition to the proposed policy.
> >
> > To better illustrate this above point, let us consider a recent effort to
> > arrive at consensus, an effort that began in response to the following
> Board
> > resolution:
> >
> >    Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various
> >    revisions in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc.,
> >    and the United States Department of Commerce that were approved on
> >    4 November 1999 in resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed
> >    on 10 November 1999;
> >
> >    Whereas, the Board intends to consider what action, if any, to take
> >    on this proposal in its meeting to be scheduled for 2 April 2001
> >    at a time to be confirmed;
> >
> >    It is therefore
> >
> >    RESOLVED [01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet
> > community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and
> > other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide
> > comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March
> > 2001;
> >
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO initiated the consensus process with
> debate
> > on this topic and came to the following conclusions (as reported to the
> > Names Council):
> >
> > After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
> > option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.  A straw poll conducted
> between
> > the 15 and 20 March has given the following
> > results:
> > - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
> > - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
> > - 1 neither of the above
> >
> > Subsequent to this conclusion being posted, some members of the General
> > Assembly expressed concern that the issue of the .org charter had not been
> > fully addressed in the GA statement, to which the Chair replied:
> >
> > I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from
> > 2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.  I might have
> > overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are the
> following:
> >
> > - In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
> > - Against the change of the charter of .org: 7
> > - Against the removal of names: 5
> > - No opinion on the subject of the .org charter change: 34
> >
> > If I misunderstood somebody, can the misunderstood party point out to me
> the
> > message that I have overlooked, or misinterpreted?
> >
> > Of particular note is the Chair's observation on the overall process:
> >
> > Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.  I only
> > stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that the
> > current bona-fide registrations be kept.  In all fairness, this is what I
> > understood.  We have enough problems with the people that estimate that 24
> > to 2 is not consensus enough, you can imagine the reactions to a consensus
> > call that was more dubious.
> >
> > An analysis of the extent of participation in the above-cited debate is
> > critical to our understanding of how members of ICANN view the concept of
> > "consensus" or "rough consensus".  Comments on the .org charter topic came
> > from members of the GA voting registry, and from nine participants not on
> > that roster.  There are currently 291 registered GA voters, and with these
> > additional nine participants the total contributory GA pool therefore
> > consists of a sum total of 300 voices.
> >
> > Seven of these participants (02.33%) argued against the change of the .org
> > charter; another five such members (01.66%) argued against removal of
> names.
> > Two hundred eighty eight members (96%) chose not to participate in
> > discussions on this topic.
> >
> > Similarly, in the context of the GA position on the proposed Verisign
> > agreement it can be noted that:
> >
> > Twenty-four participants (12.5%) were in favor of the current contract
> > arrangements;
> > Two of the participants (00.66%) were against, and
> > Two hundred seventy-four (91.33%) chose not to participate in the poll.
> >
> > It is my view that the above numbers are more reflective of the phenomenon
> > known as "last man standing" than as any true measure of consensus.
> >
> > Based on the numbers alone, a casual observer might conceivably conclude
> > that over 90% of the General Assembly decided that these topics were not
> in
> > fact policy issues; that as such no comments were warranted, but this too
> is
> > not an accurate assessment.
> >
> > What is clearly true is that flawed procedures within the General Assembly
> > have created a situation wherein the expectations of the Board
> consistently
> > fail to be met.  Consider the comments of Director Auerbach:
> >
> > *      As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output
> > of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of
> > the competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that
> > all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
> >
> > *      I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
> > procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
> a
> > clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted. As it
> > stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very unlikely to
> > give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless I see
> > objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion by
> > something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
> > "consensus".
> >
> > Having only 8.6% of the participants in the GA determine that which has
> been
> > termed "consensus" (no matter what the decision) is comparable to having a
> > vote of the Board of Directors in which only two members (10.56%) show up
> to
> > cast a vote.   One would seriously doubt that anyone would consider such a
> > vote to be representative of "consensus".
> >
> > What is missing procedurally is an obligation to establish a necessary
> > quorum to legitimize the decision-making process in the General Assembly.
> > Yet even with a quorum, unless decisions are accompanied by a substantive
> > "analysis" of the kind to which Director Auerbach has referred (and which
> > are stipulated within the context of a uniform policy declaration), the
> > pronouncement of "consensus" will never be considered sufficiently
> > justifiable, nor will it withstand judicial scrutiny.
> >
> > An agreement on the requirements of "consensus" is clearly needed, as it
> is
> > most obvious that many participants in the DNSO confuse simple "majority"
> > with "consensus".
> >
> > Even members of the Names Council obfuscate the meaning of "consensus" in
> > their resolutions. by way of example, note that the "Names Council
> > resolution on the proposed revision to the ICANN/Verisign (NSI) agreement"
> > states:
> >
> > Parts B and C passing by majority and A and D by a 2/3 majority thus
> > representing a consensus policy within the definitions of the NC by-laws
> and
> > referenced in the 1999 ICANN NSI agreement.
> >
> > "Consensus Policies are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
> > stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
> > adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
> recommendation
> > that the policy should be adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the
> > council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
> > delegated.."
> >
> > Significant by its absence is the remainder of this quote:
> >
> > "and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all
> > substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the
> > proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement
> among
> > impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to
> achieve
> > adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be
> > impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> > and opposition to the proposed policy."
> >
> > Also significant is the absence of the required "analysis" in an NC
> > presentation that was not much more than a mere compilation of the views
> of
> > the constituencies.   Most obviously, not "all" substantive submissions
> were
> > included in the supporting materials, there was no written "report", only
> > the declaration of a resolution with accompanying position papers; the
> > outreach process was not documented, and an assessment of the relative
> > weight or fervor of opinions was never prepared.
> >
> > There are no shortcuts to getting the job done right.  If we intend to
> > contribute within the ICANN process, we have an implied responsibility
> under
> > the Bylaws to guard against the possibility of judicial challenge that may
> > contest "the presence of such a consensus".
> >
> > It is our obligation therefore to provide for the requisite "document
> trail"
> > to substantiate any claims of "consensus".  This has not been done.  Only
> > one constituency actually reported on the degree of its outreach and
> > response to such outreach, the ccTLDs.  Out of 245 current ccTLDs, it was
> > reported that:
> >
> > 1. Four (4) members are in favour of "A"  (01.63%)
> > 2. Five (5) members are in favour of "B"  (02.04%)
> > A result based on replies by less than 4% of the constituency members can
> > hardly be called consensus.
> >
> > Whereas the remaining constituencies (Business, Non-Commercial, ISP, IP,
> and
> > Registrars) didn't even report on their outreach process, it is impossible
> > to properly assess their conclusions.
> > There are 180 registrars, but how many actually participated in this
> > process?  There are 66 voting members in the business constituency.  Where
> > are the records to indicate that any of them were even contacted?
> >
> > I, personally in Melbourne, re-submitted my application to join the
> Business
> > Constituency (after having faxed it in three weeks earlier). I can attest
> to
> > the fact that I was not contacted by the Business Constituency, nor by
> their
> > NC members, nor notified in any manner regarding a need to comment on the
> > Verisign agreement.
> >
> > I am not, however, disputing that outreach occurred; at issue is the
> failure
> > to document outreach and response.  What is missing is a set of publicly
> > accessible constituency mailing list archives that may be used to quantify
> > results.  The ICANN Bylaws stipulate that "The Corporation and its
> > subordinate entities shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an
> open
> > and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> > fairness."  Without such archives we do not have the transparency and the
> > openness that is stipulated.
> >
> > Solutions to our problems:
> >
> > 1. EDUCATION -- As the concept of "consensus" appears to be thoroughly
> alien
> > to most ICANN participants, the ICANN staff should present a workshop on
> > this topic on every occasion that ICANN convenes in session.  Guest
> > speakers, such as David Johnson and Susan Crawford, should be invited as
> > expert commentators.     Documents on the topic of the consensus process
> > should be provided as a link on the main DNSO website.
> >
> > 2. PROCESS - Those on the voting roster of the General Assembly should be
> > required to vote; failure to vote will place voting privileges at risk.  A
> > quorum should be established.
> >
> > 3. OUTREACH - As decision-making will be based on both outreach and
> > quantifiable response to such outreach, each constituency must have its
> own
> > publicly archived mailing list.
> >
> > 4. WORK-PRODUCT - That which will ultimately take the form of a uniform
> > consensus policy must be rigorously documented.
> > <end Danny Younger>
> >
> > I agree generally with these views.
> >
> > 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
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:55:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] Origin and members to the Watchdog Committee

was: GA election to designate its representative to the NC Review TF

Origin and members to the Watchdog Committee
- --------------------------------------------

The initial Watchdog Committee was composed of people who
submitted proposals for nomination for the GA Chair,
cf: item(9 in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991126.DNSO-GAchair-procedures.html

     The committee shall consists of the authors of the nominations 
     procedures proposals submitted to the GA, which includes 
     Jonathan Weinberg, Kent Crispin, Javier Rodriguez, Roberto Gaetano
     and Bradley Thorton. In the event that any of the members of 
     this committee are nominated and/or accept a nomination, 
     they shall immediately resign from the committee. 

The full 1999 GA Chair election is in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html
accessible throught NC Administration Documents, vote b03.

After that initial setting up of Watchdog Committee,
it appeared that in several situation such a group is needed.
The Secretariat made appel to them for each vote and nominations.

The Watchdog Committee in 2001 (for GA Chair) election was set
up under the responsibility of Chair and Alternate.

Let me add one comment: to detect some fraudulent activity
in electronic nomination and votes, the Watchdog Committee
must have people with very solid technical knowledge.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 07:59:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

This is correct, but please take the value judgment of *small part* out of the
picture.  Consensus is nothing if it is not a bunch of small parts coming together
to form the whole. That small part may be used by lobbyist to great advantage when
being asked for statistics to back up their point.  That one small part may be
just what that jury member #4 was looking for in order to swing to the plaintiff.
Remember whether we censor or not is just another small part.

We must support Dassa and Joanna in making these rules legitmate as that is a
fairly LARGE small part.

Sincerely,
Eric.

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > A quorum is needed to validate a vote or a poll.  But votes and polls should
> > not be thought of as methods for evaluating full consensus.  At best they
> > can only be a small part of the overall consensus development process.
> >
> > Chuck
>
> Exactly correct, Chuck.  Welcome back to the maelstrom!
>
> Bill Lovell

- --
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 08:54:48 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A perfect test case on being "open"

- --------------CF11A810A725D336CBEE293E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I borrow the following from one of numerous posts:

> What is clearly true is that flawed procedures within the General Assembly
> > have created a situation wherein the expectations of the Board
> consistently
> > fail to be met.  Consider the comments of Director Auerbach:
> >
> > *      As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output
> > of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of
> > the competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that
> > all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
> >
> > *      I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
> > procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
> a
> > clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted. As it
> > stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very unlikely to
> > give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless I see
> > objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion by
> > something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
> > "consensus".
>

That being the premise, I bring out the point that in order for the GA
to include objective data
in the matters it sends up through the DNSO to the Board of Directors,
it must have had such
data made available to it.  Consequently, on the present issue of the
.biz TLD, it is respectfully
requested that the Board of Directors make available, on a separate web
site, a description of
the procedures by which it made its decisions on this matter, including
links to copies of all
correspondence and other documents upon which those decisions were
based, and further
including any minutes of any meetings of the Board of Directors at which
those decisions were
made.  It is only through having access to, and the use of, such
materials, that the GA can provide
the kind of objective analysis that Director Auerbach correctly states
would be worthy of any
credence. The reference to a separate web site, with all such materials
concentrated in one,
easily accessible place, would avoid the problem of having to search
endless archives, and one
must also assume that many of such materials would not have been posted
anywhere, but yet
are essential in order for any analysis to be fully based on fact.

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

- --------------CF11A810A725D336CBEE293E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I borrow the following from one of numerous posts:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>What is clearly true is that flawed procedures within the General Assembly
> have created a situation wherein the expectations of the Board
consistently
> fail to be met.&nbsp; Consider the comments of Director Auerbach:
>
> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output
> of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of
> the competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that
> all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
>
> *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
> procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
a
> clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted. As it
> stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very unlikely to
> give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless I see
> objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion by
> something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
> "consensus".</pre>
</blockquote>

<p><br>That being the premise, I bring out the point that in order for
the GA to include objective data
<br>in the matters it sends up through the DNSO to the Board of Directors,
it must have had such
<br>data made available to it.&nbsp; Consequently, on the present issue
of the .biz TLD, it is respectfully
<br>requested that the Board of Directors make available, on a separate
web site, a description of
<br>the procedures by which it made its decisions on this matter, including
links to copies of all
<br>correspondence and other documents upon which those decisions were
based, and further
<br>including any minutes of any meetings of the Board of Directors at
which those decisions were
<br>made.&nbsp; It is only through having access to, and the use of, such
materials, that the GA can provide
<br>the kind of objective analysis that Director Auerbach correctly states
would be worthy of any
<br>credence. The reference to a separate web site, with all such materials
concentrated in one,
<br>easily accessible place, would avoid the problem of having to search
endless archives, and one
<br>must also assume that many of such materials would not have been posted
anywhere, but yet
<br>are essential in order for any analysis to be fully based on fact.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>--
<br>Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
<br>to the reader may possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------CF11A810A725D336CBEE293E--

- --
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 08:43:37 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Testing ...

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0FD52.ED953C60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No activity since 6/21 ... just testing List is still operative.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0FD52.ED953C60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>No activity since 6/21 ... just testing List is =
still=20
operative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0FD52.ED953C60--

- --
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 09:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> A quorum is needed to validate a vote or a poll.  But votes and polls should
> not be thought of as methods for evaluating full consensus.  At best they
> can only be a small part of the overall consensus development process.

I'd like to echo Chuck's sentiment and add this: all of this discussion
about "consensus" being tied to a 2/3rds majority vote is an indicator
that people really aren't discussing consensus at all, but rather a
democractic voting mechanism.

As an example, if I remember my history correctly in order for a proposed
Constitutional amendment to carry in the U.S. Congress a 2/3rds majority
vote is required. Would anyone then claim that the U.S. Congress is run by
consensus?

I believe this is another indicator of poor wordsmithing which is causing
a great deal of consernation and discussions ad nauseum such as the one
we are now engaged in. The term "consensus" certainly sounds nice, but
it's not how things are being run IMO.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:39:26 +0200
From: Stefan Probst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF - Eric Dierker (fwd)

Dear Jeff, All,

you wrote ...

>He seems to IMHO have a good grasp of much of the history
>of the DNSO NC as well as is actively involved in the Registry business
>with the up and coming launching of the .VN ccTLD.

There is either a major typo or plain nonsense.
The .vn (Vietnam) ccTLD is up an running since about four years.

I know the "father" of the Internet in Vietnam, Rob Hurle,
as well as some of the people who work now in the registry.
Their website, since quite a while, is http://www.vnnic.net.vn/

Stefan,
Hanoi, Vietnam.

- --
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 14:23:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Time to get organized

FYI, forwarded from the ga-rules list.
- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:17:54 -0400
To: organizing committee
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Organizing committee

Organizing Committee - Agenda and Timelines

Large organizations involved in creative work set seasonal deadlines for
accepting proposals from independent parties. These rounds determine the
allocation of resources, technical and administrative support and more or
less guarantee a constant supply of new work with high production values.

Without submission rounds, life is a free for all, with decision makers
never knowing when something substantive will be presented, if ever. The
market is known for its veracious appetite, but not for its ability to
discriminate between quantity and quality. This situation creates a very
real temptation to approve mediocre, ill-considered work, provided that an
established name is attached to it. The reality is that restrictive
practices are the lowest short-term risk.

To my way of thinking, that is not dissimilar to the current situation in
which ICANN claims that progress is being made in the best interests of the
general public, at the same time, acting upon initiatives to fill gaps,
presented at the last minute by selected entities with whom they already
have an established relationship. It's all to easy to justify shortcuts in
the present climate.

One fundamental problem facing the GA is how to encourage ICANN to put large
and small independent players on the same level field without adversely
affecting the stability created by the big players that ICANN has come to
rely upon.

It is my personal opinion that the GA cannot possibly be expected to succeed
without a more organized set of procedures in place; procedures that would
not be a rigid structure, but would establish a rolling agenda to ensure a
regular flow of innovative ideas founded in solid research.

The GA should be be sending out formal invitations with set deadlines for
the submission of proposals, then select a shortlist to embrace fully and
develop, while cutting off new submissions until the next round. This would
encourage diversity of input from all players, large and small, while
creating anticipation at BoD level that something of value will be
forthcoming from the GA on a particular issue at a specific moment in time.

Currently, a perfectly sensible proposal may be met with a negative response
on the list, simply for reasons of being perceived as a distraction to a
more urgent topic, leading to resentment by the author and their persistent
drum beating on the various lists. This can be intolerable for all parties.
The answer is simple. Use formal submission rounds, allowing for
resubmission at agreed times, time for the author to hone proposals off-list
in the intervening period, and a mechanism that gives notice of issues to be
addressed in this round in a timely fashion.

I witness Danny and the BoD attempting this kind of structure, using
resolutions and referrals and deadlines attached to the quarterly meetings,
but I don't see a positive response within the GA for any kind of formal
working method. Attempts to organize the GA, whether individually by the
Chair/ Alt Chair, or collectively through sub-lists, or an Organizing
Committee, is viewed as restrictive practices, limiting freedom of speech,
to be derided and shot down in flames. The price that is being paid for that
strategy, is being ignored by the decision makers and even worse, by
default, actively encouraging the ICANN to increase the stranglehold of the
big players whose own procedures can be relied upon to deliver the goods.
This is a far greater cost than whatever may result from a few short-term,
self-imposed restrictions, that could transform the GA into a body that
cannot be ignored by ICANN.

The free speech advocates and loudest voices in the GA decry the sub-lists
as being divisive. It's worth noting that Stuart Lynn has been personally
involved in the dialogue on the ga-roots list, something that to my
knowledge has not occurred on the ga-full list. There is the evidence that a
little self-organization can go a long way.

What we need most in the current climate can be undertaken by an organizing
committee appointed by the Chairs. It is not a policy matter requiring
consensus. A rolling agenda set by the committee does not remove a member's
right to submit any proposal for consideration in any form at any time,
either to the full GA, the NC or the BoD direct, but it should be made clear
that if a document is not submitted by a certain set date, it would be
deferred to the next round, as the GA would then be fully committed
elsewhere.

Those who would argue against submission rounds and an organizing committee
to flag the timeline should include with their response an answer to each of
the following questions:-

1) What are the key issues facing the GA at this time?
2) What has the GA achieved since Stockholm?
3) What will the GA accomplish before Uruguay and how will this be achieved?

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:52:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF - Eric Dierker (fwd)

Stefan and all assembly members,

  Excuse me, I was referring to the .VN registry...  The reference you
provided,
although very interesting is not the .VN registry...

Stefan Probst wrote:

> Dear Jeff, All,
>
> you wrote ...
>
> >He seems to IMHO have a good grasp of much of the history
> >of the DNSO NC as well as is actively involved in the Registry business
> >with the up and coming launching of the .VN ccTLD.
>
> There is either a major typo or plain nonsense.
> The .vn (Vietnam) ccTLD is up an running since about four years.
>
> I know the "father" of the Internet in Vietnam, Rob Hurle,
> as well as some of the people who work now in the registry.
> Their website, since quite a while, is http://www.vnnic.net.vn/
>
> Stefan,
> Hanoi, Vietnam.
>
> --
> 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 15:00:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tld by ICANN

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I agree with Thomas, with the two caveat below.
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> >On 2001-06-24 09:00:32 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >
> >>Nonsense. Voting may sometimes be a useful tool for testing
> >>whether a consensus exists. If it is clear, as it is here on this
> >>issue, that no consensus exists, then a vote is pointless.
> >
> >Not at all.  Voting on this topic will, in this case, make the
> >non-existence of any consensus abundantly clear, and would thus help
> >the GA.
>
> First caveat: on the question of the unique/multiple roots the discussion
> comes back periodically, and I do not expect a vote of the GA to prevent the
> issue to pop up again in few months (maybe with a dot-something-else).

  Well roberto the vote or motion that a vote has been requested on is
not about the broad issue of unique/multiple roots, but rather is narrowed
down to the issue or .BIZ registries.  Ergo I am not sure what or why you
are suggesting this caveat...

>
>
> Second caveat: a vote is expensive, if not in IT resources (a poll can be
> set up in a much easier way and is sufficient as a first check), in terms of
> blocking the debate.

  Blocking debate by taking a vote is absurd.  We have had a number of
debates on issues that have been voted upon before.  In expense, in terms
of IT resources, the DNSO has a working voting mechanism.  It is not
an expensive one....

> I would not recommend to take the habit of
> motioning-seconding-polling for every question: let's keep it for few
> meaningful things.
> (Kent Crispin has given a "reductio ad absurdum" demonstration of what I
> mean: see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01126.html)
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #565
************************