Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #567
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 26 2001            Volume 01 : Number 567

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:52:56 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Quorum and Definition

- --On 25. juni 2001 18:17 -0400 Sotiris Sotiropoulos 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> My offlist-reply to Harald's earlier email was a mistake.  I must have hit
> Reply when I meant to hit Reply All.  My apologies to Harald.  But, I
> think harald's reply speaks to an interesting issue.  The low
> participation rate of the GA membership in votes.

When deciding what rules to propose, there were 2 opposing interests 
discussed,
both having to do with the ease of changing the rules:

- - avoiding the easy capture of the GA by a small group of activists in
  the face of a large, but less active majority. This argues for a 
relatively
  large "minimum quorum".

- - avoiding the paralysis of the GA by a large group of people who have 
registered
  once and then have lost interest and left. This argues for a relatively 
small
  "minimum quorum".

The compromise numbers proposed (20% or 100 votes, whichever is lower) 
seems to have worked reasonably well - we got a quorum on the rule changes 
proposed so far,
even in the face of a large group of disinterested voters.

This note isn't about what's the Right Thing, but tries to explain some of 
the
reasoning that went into the current ruleset.

Things I would consider doing differently:

- - Imposing a yearly reregistration on the voting registry, so that the truly
  disinterested voters get removed from the count of registered voters 
after a
  while

- - Imposing a minimum quorum rule on general motions as well as on rule 
changes
  (note that experience shows that the minimum quorum needs to be 
surprisingly
  low....)

But detailed discussion of proposals for changes really belong on the 
ga-rules list...

                 Harald

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:13:53 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

FYI:

After the decision of Patrick Corliss to overrule the suspension of Eric 
Dierker for inappropriate behaviour on the GA list, I have resigned from 
the ga-abuse team.

I believe that judgment needs to be taken on actions, not on the degree of 
grovelling performed afterwards, and that Eric Dierker's behaviour on the 
lists has been clearly inappropriate.

It would not be consistent with my beliefs to continue serving in this role 
under a Chair who does not have a compatible view.

In the interest of calm on the list, I ask that people taking issue with my 
position constrain themselves to private mail; this decision is personal, 
and not a GA or DNSO policy issue.

But I thought you all should know.

             Harald T. Alvestrand

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:32:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Domain Names as observed (was: [ga] Quorum and Definition)

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 16:34 25/06/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> So, by observation you conclude that we are talking about a public
> resource. I can agree.

Excellent, so far this makes three of us who consider domains a public resource.

>
> >The significance of a domain name comes from its use, and the use of other
> >domain names. We need to observe, not to assign.
>
> Agreed.
> Collectively we are in a good position to observe. Our observations can be
> helpful in the policymaking process.
> Let's start making our observations and record the results on a dedicated
> website.
>
> Let me kick it off. There are hundreds of aspects to Domain Names, so this
> is intended as a start only.
>
> Domain Names are a Public Resource (Harald)
> Domain Names (at least those registered by end-users) are Private Property
> (Sotiris, Joop)
> Domain Names are subject to lease contracts with registrars.

I think it's important we stipulate that Registrars and Registiries can not claim
ownership of the domain names they lease.

Further, Domain Names are *not* the property of ICANN or WIPO.

> Domain Names are a mnemonic aid for web site location.
> Domnain Names can be a mnemonic aid for an IP address.
> Domain Names are a mnemonic aid (as MX record) to address an Individual or
> Organization via email.
> Domain Names are a unique identifier of an Internet presence.
> Domain Names can appear in thousands of links embedded in web sites and
> thus acquire economic value for the registrant.
>
> Domain Names can be listed as Assets on companies' balance sheets.
> Domain Names can be ordered sold to satisfy creditors.
> Domain Names create wealth.
>
> Domain Names can be used as vehicles of  on-line (free) "Speech".
> Domain Names can create copyrights.
> Domain Names can be used to establish, re-inforce or infringe on Trade Marks.
>
> Domain Names give independence from ISP's

Domain Names are a lucrative global industry.
Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers no legal
rights to the holders of domain names.
Domain Names can be bequeathed as heirlooms (witness the recent rise of baby
domain names).
Domain Names can determine the potential for success in an online venture.

.... That's about all I have time for this morning.  I'll add some more later.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:35:56 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Domain Names as observed (was: [ga] Quorum and Definition)

At 06:32 26/06/01 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>I think it's important we stipulate that Registrars and Registiries can 
>not claim
>ownership of the domain names they lease.
>
>Further, Domain Names are *not* the property of ICANN or WIPO.

Excellent, although stipulation goes a little beyond observation. (can we 
observe consensus?)
I will add these to a listing of what Domain Names are observed NOT to be.

>Domain Names are a lucrative global industry.
>Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers 
>no legal
>rights to the holders of domain names.
>Domain Names can be bequeathed as heirlooms (witness the recent rise of baby
>domain names).
>Domain Names can determine the potential for success in an online venture.
>
>.... That's about all I have time for this morning.  I'll add some more later.

Thanks, Sotiris.
The growing list will appear at www.idno.org/domainnames.htm

- --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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:07:36 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Propoganda

I have been nominated (and accepted) as a potential GA representative
on the Names Council review Taskforce.

At this stage no one else has accepted nomination but I'm sure there
will be more and hence we will have an election.  Unfortunately I will
be away from Internet access before nominations close and for almost
all the voting period, hence I thought it appropriate to make a
statement or two now.

From this weekend I will be in Sri Lanka (working unpaid for the
Westminister Foundation for Democracy) for the next ten days and it is
very unlikely I will have time or resources to access my e-mail.

My bio statement is at
http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc02/msg00005.html

I make no bones that I see the main challenge as gaining consensus on
how to advance an individual's constituency because I feel that is an
issue which should have been resolved long ago.  The GA has given over
whelming support on many occasions to this goal.

Along with many I believe the DNSO is fairly dysfunctional and I
certainly want to help identify ways in which we can improve, so that
our input to the ICANN Board has greater credibility.

Some people seem to believe that those pushing for an individual's
constituency do so only so that they can push their own self interests
by gaining a place on the Names Council etc.  As I have stated in my
biography I will refuse any inaugural elected position within an
Individual's Constituency should one be formed, including being a rep
on the Names Council.  

I'm happy to answer questions from people over the next few days, but
then after Saturday I'll be out of touch until the final day of the
voting period.

Cheers

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:19:52 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

The term 'consensus' needs to be defined relative to a particular
population.  For example, consensus among all members of the GA List has
quite a different meaning than consensus of the active members of the GA
List.  Similarly, consensus of the GA has a different meaning than consensus
of the DNSO.  And consensus within the DNSO undoubtedly does not necessarily
mean consensus within the broader Internet community.

It might be helpful when referring to 'consensus' to identify the population
involved.  In this particular debate, would it be correct to talk about
'consensus among active GA List participants?'  Even then, it still may not
be enough to simply take a vote to determine consensus.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Steven Heath [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:01 PM
To: [ga]
Subject: RE: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

> Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]

>> 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.

The 2/3 comment came about when Leah, rightly so, questioned 'what is
consensus?'.

My opinion is that motions are crafted from debate and refined 'on the fly'
and not detailed motions being posted 'out of the blue'. I agree we have had
major debate on 'alt. roots' and even discussion on ICANN .biz vs. non ICANN
.biz but I fail to see how this discussion get us to the point of this
motion.

I understand the reason for the motion I even agree with the overall essence
of it but I very much disagree with the wording and the outcomes it would
result in.

With regard to the calls for 'lets vote anyway and see if it wins or not!'.
Well, does that mean I can get the GA to vote on my pet projects whenever I
want?

Summary: As we cant seem to agree if this motion has 'consensus' I am
willing to let the Chair or Alt Chair decide if consensus has been reached
at the meta level on 'alt roots' and then if that is the case we can decide
if the proposed motion then has consensus on the .biz issue. (However, I
don't even think we have consensus in the subject of 'alt roots but I may be
mistaken).

Steven Heath

PS Can we please clip and edit replies as most posts have a few lines of new
info and scores of previous lines that are not related to the new comments.
- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:25:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Propoganda

DPF wrote:

> I have been nominated (and accepted) as a potential GA representative
> on the Names Council review Taskforce.
>
> At this stage no one else has accepted nomination but I'm sure there
> will be more and hence we will have an election. <snip>

Excellent!  The more the merrier.  I'm happy to hear of your interest in
the post David.

> <snip>I'm happy to answer questions from people over the next few days,
> but
> then after Saturday I'll be out of touch until the final day of the
> voting period.

Where do you stand on the question of domain name definition?

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:56:07 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Domain Names as observed (was: [ga] Quorum and Definition)

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 06:32 26/06/01 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >I think it's important we stipulate that Registrars and Registiries can
> >not claim
> >ownership of the domain names they lease.
> >
> >Further, Domain Names are *not* the property of ICANN or WIPO.
>
> Excellent, although stipulation goes a little beyond observation. (can we
> observe consensus?)
> I will add these to a listing of what Domain Names are observed NOT to be.

Tremendous, I agree that we must speak Latin here in Rome... Let us continue our
observations.

Domain Names are assigned through a registration process.

Domain Names lack a qualification of the assignment properties (rights) conferred
with the creation/acquisition of a domain name.

Domain Names are a status symbol.

Domain Names can be subdivided into sub-domains.

Domain Names are a much sought after commodity.

Domain Names are the very reason for the existence of the ICANN and its DNSO.
(Which is analogous to saying that the United Nations exist because there is a
planet Earth.)

I'll be adding more as they come to me...

>
>
> >Domain Names are a lucrative global industry.
> >Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers
> >no legal
> >rights to the holders of domain names.
> >Domain Names can be bequeathed as heirlooms (witness the recent rise of baby
> >domain names).
> >Domain Names can determine the potential for success in an online venture.
> >
> >.... That's about all I have time for this morning.  I'll add some more later.
>
> Thanks, Sotiris.
> The growing list will appear at www.idno.org/domainnames.htm
>
> --Joop--
>

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:05:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Domain Names as observed 

I should point out that in my haste in posting the last reply (I've been so busy
lately), I didn't realize I was practically epeating myself with the following:

"Domain Names lack a qualification of the assignment properties (rights) conferred
with the creation/acquisition of a domain name."

In my earlier post I had written:

"Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers no legal
rights to the holders of domain names."

Joop, I think I would prefer the top wording to the bottom, so if you could replace
the bottom wording at
the growing list at www.idno.org/domainnames.htm I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 06:32 26/06/01 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > >I think it's important we stipulate that Registrars and Registiries can
> > >not claim
> > >ownership of the domain names they lease.
> > >
> > >Further, Domain Names are *not* the property of ICANN or WIPO.
> >
> > Excellent, although stipulation goes a little beyond observation. (can we
> > observe consensus?)
> > I will add these to a listing of what Domain Names are observed NOT to be.
>
> Tremendous, I agree that we must speak Latin here in Rome... Let us continue our
> observations.
>
> Domain Names are assigned through a registration process.
>
> Domain Names lack a qualification of the assignment properties (rights) conferred
> with the creation/acquisition of a domain name.
>
> Domain Names are a status symbol.
>
> Domain Names can be subdivided into sub-domains.
>
> Domain Names are a much sought after commodity.
>
> Domain Names are the very reason for the existence of the ICANN and its DNSO.
> (Which is analogous to saying that the United Nations exist because there is a
> planet Earth.)
>
> I'll be adding more as they come to me...
>
> >
> >
> > >Domain Names are a lucrative global industry.
> > >Domain Names are assigned according to a process which currently confers
> > >no legal
> > >rights to the holders of domain names.
> > >Domain Names can be bequeathed as heirlooms (witness the recent rise of baby
> > >domain names).
> > >Domain Names can determine the potential for success in an online venture.
> > >
> > >.... That's about all I have time for this morning.  I'll add some more later.
> >
> > Thanks, Sotiris.
> > The growing list will appear at www.idno.org/domainnames.htm
> >
> > --Joop--
> >

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:52:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldbyICANN

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 6/24/01 7:45 PM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> [snip]

> First, I'm reassured to find my name in the middle of your list, which is
> exactly the ground I wish to claim. Second, I would hardly call getting a
> calendar out, to pencil in a few key dates next to a task list, as
> "inventing a new procedure", or forgetting rules of democratic processes.

Way to go Joanna! I've said that a procedure exists; you say that all you
want to do is "timeline" it.  That's progress, and  from past experience
precisely what I would have expected from you.

> >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.
>
> Yes, but if you do not check your priorities and adjust your schedule, we
> could say that you fly your business by the seat of your pants.

The missing element here is that the decision on what now rises to the
surface and has become worthy of a motion is made not by the
proponents, but by the Chair.  It is the ad hoc generation of multiple
motions with various numbers of seconds that creates the chaos. It
is then loudly complained that "the Chair didn't act," when in fact all
that's on the table is a bunch of competing schemes on whatever, with
no discussion at all.  What's needed in your timeline is a set of criteria
that will define what is "motion worthy" and what is not. I cannot
imagine a Chair, having seen an issue thoroughly discussed, not then
asking for a motion, draft one him/herself as a suggestion, or whatever,
so as to get to the next part of the DNSO procedure.

> What is being originated on the ga-rules list is simply a template document
> for good business practice to improve operations and save time. It's not a
> change of policy or a matter related to democratic traditions.

Ordinary democratic traditions do no include a shotgun scatter of scatter-
brained notions all vying for position (as motions) at once.  Proponent
of scheme X endeavors to rush "motion" X to a vote as soon as possible,
which is not a democratic process but rather a scam. The recognition of
a "worthy motion" is not time-defined, however, but rather to be defined
by its content and the opportunity that has been available to chew over
its pros and cons.

> Get with the plan Bill!

Isn't that what we're doing?  :-)

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:28:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Propoganda

At 23:07 26/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
>I have been nominated (and accepted) as a potential GA representative
>on the Names Council review Taskforce.

By whom?

<snipped>

>I make no bones that I see the main challenge as gaining consensus on
>how to advance an individual's constituency because I feel that is an
>issue which should have been resolved long ago.  The GA has given over
>whelming support on many occasions to this goal.
>
>Along with many I believe the DNSO is fairly dysfunctional and I
>certainly want to help identify ways in which we can improve, so that
>our input to the ICANN Board has greater credibility.
>
>Some people seem to believe that those pushing for an individual's
>constituency do so only so that they can push their own self interests
>by gaining a place on the Names Council etc.

The  person who has actually made such preposterous accusations is William 
X Walsh.
What is the purpose of repeating them?
Are you supporting the idea that those who sit on the Names Council do so 
out of  self-interest?

>  As I have stated in my
>biography I will refuse any inaugural elected position within an
>Individual's Constituency should one be formed, including being a rep
>on the Names Council.

The inaugural elected position is going to be the toughest.
What do you intend to do to help organizing the Individuals' Constituency 
after the Task Force has come up with its RFP?

Last question: In discussions on the idno-discuss list and elsewhere, you 
favoured an Individuals constituency made up of organizations rather than 
of Individuals.
Will you promote this position on the Task Force?

- --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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:59:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to get organized

Members,

(I do not repost the entire response of Mr. Williams to Joanna's post)

Thank you both for your hardwork on very important issues.  We have approximately
300 voting members and I often hear about 1,000 list members. We have one chair to
run that whole thing.  Bad idea.  Think about the term chair.  We have chairs of
BoD and of committees. But not chairs of Assemblies.  We have Presidents of
assemblies, which form into working committees, and advisory panels.

While Jeff's comments rang true the bottom line that all of us agree on is that we
need a committee. Normally we would appoint the first group and call for elections
for the next once organized - just like our BOD:-(

So I ask for volunteers to go to sub list sys.  Just say I volunteer to be on the
organizing committee and from there we can start.

Any objections?

Have a great day :-)
{I just hate that}

Sincerely,
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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:20:13 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Propoganda

Hello Joop,

Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 6:28:53 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>Some people seem to believe that those pushing for an individual's
>>constituency do so only so that they can push their own self interests
>>by gaining a place on the Names Council etc.

> The  person who has actually made such preposterous accusations is William 
> X Walsh.
> What is the purpose of repeating them?
> Are you supporting the idea that those who sit on the Names Council do so 
> out of  self-interest?

Since I am ONE of the people (not the only one) who have made that
statement in regard to you, Joop, I'll speak up.

What I say is that your motivation has been from the start to maintain
a dominant role in the IDNO for the purposes of getting yourself
elected as the IDNO's rep to the Names Council should that ever occur.

I believe, based on your actions and an evaluation of your own posts
(and again, I am not alone in this belief) that a lot of your
motivation has been to get a seat on the Names Council, by whatever
means necessary.  I think your desire to be on the Names Council so
badly has cost the movement for an individuals constituency quite a
bit, and your reaction above shows just how sensitive you are on the
subject and how personally you feel that you are the only one who can
properly speak out in support of building a domain owners
constituency.  These are the same behaviors you illustrated at the
Santiago, Chile ICANN meeting that was observed and commented on by
people who were in attendance.

Mind you, you are the one who made this about you here, by naming me
as a source of the comment, and effectively identifying yourself as
the subject of those comments.  I am merely responding to your doing
so and clarifying my position which you challenged and called into
question with your comment.

- -- 
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:28:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Dear Harald and All,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> FYI:
>
> After the decision of Patrick Corliss to overrule the suspension of Eric
> Dierker for inappropriate behaviour on the GA list, I have resigned from
> the ga-abuse team.

I believed at one time we needed protagonists who supported dotcommoners, maybe
I was right and maybe I was wrong.  At this point I see the need for serious
attempts just to get the work we have been given done.
As a protagonist I would have snapped on the post which Harald made which would
appear to bash me.

As a consensus building, progress making idealist I applaud his action.  I
speak not to the mess that the GA finds itself in and Haralds' role in creating
it, but to this decision, especially in light of his recent several posts.

Tierra Firma - on solid ground.  The winds are shifting and it is time for men
like Harald to step aside.  They do not fit in with the new genre of
hardworking people with open and transparent agendas who do not care about
control as much as their ideals.

I salute the hardwork and dedication that these men and women put in, in
service to us stakeholders.  I appreciate how hard it must of been to forge
this frontier.  And it takes real courage to know when to step aside and let
the new generation take over. (do you think you could go talk to vint and....
;-) )

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:34:14 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Tierra Firma - on solid ground.

Sorry, Eric, but I feel I have to call you on this one. As I see it, you're
on exceedingly thin ice.

>  The winds are shifting and it is time for men like Harald to step aside.

You could make a pretty good case for "keep their lawyers off our computers",
disbanding the Intellectual Property constutituency, scrapping UDRP, ...,
or for getting governments and politicians out of the equation. I don't
entirely agree and don't think you'd succeed, but there's certainly an
argument there to be made.

I don't think you have any sensible argument at all "for men like Harald
to step aside."

It is definitely not time for the technical types who built the net to step
aside. Granted, there are non-technical issues, as there always have been,
and it would be silly to suggest the techies run everything.

Internet technical folk have a long and rather impressive record of building
a socially useful network, open and uncensored.

They also have a fine record of resisting government pressures in the opposite
direction. See for example:
IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1984.txt
List archives for a discussion of proposals for net.wiretapping, which the
IETF has since firmly rejected:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/raven/current/maillist.html

> They do not fit in with the new genre of hardworking people with open and
> transparent agendas who do not care about control as much as their ideals.

The net was definitely built by an open process, and with ideals in play.

As for "hardworking", an interesting experiment is to go to an RFC search
site such as:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html

and try a search on various names we see here. People like Alvestrand and
Crocker (let alone Cerf) have impressive lists. Of course this does not 
mean anything they say here is necessarily correct, but it is strong evidence
they've done some work, paid some dues, and deserve some minimum of respect.

Of course there are others who've never written an RFC in their lives that
could be called "hardworking" here. Froomkin and Aurebach have written some
interesting papers, for example.

However, for most people here, including myself (but if anyone cares, see 
www.freeswan.org for what I'm working on), there's no evidence visible
to the rest of us that they are "hardworking" at all, let alone in the only
interesting sense -- working hard for the community rather than for their
own benefit. 

I don't doubt many are, but how are we to know that? Your description above:

> the new genre of hardworking people with open and transparent agendas
> who do not care about control as much as their ideals.

is a little vaque. How do I recognise these wonderful folk? What work
have they done?

> I salute the hardwork and dedication that these men and women put in, in
> service to us stakeholders.  I appreciate how hard it must of been to forge
> this frontier.  And it takes real courage to know when to step aside and let
> the new generation take over. (do you think you could go talk to vint and....
> ;-) )
- --
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: 26 Jun 2001 10:49:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] excessive amount of postings -- again

Dear members,

I would like to begin by thanking Patrick Corliss for having taken over the duties of Chair while I was attending to other matters, and to thank Harald Alvestrand for his patient and dedicated service as a monitor of these lists -- his contributions, and the guidance offered to the list monitor unit have been well appreciated.

As I return to active duty, I see that some things have still not changed for the better.  Reviewing yesterday's archive I note with some dismay that some participants continue to post excessively in violation of our rules.  As there is no value in having rules of decorum if they are not enforced in a timely manner, I am asking the list monitors to review the archives and to take necessary action.  

Danny Younger
(posting from my new email address)

- --
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: 26 Jun 2001 11:10:13 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] .org input

Reminder -- The NC has requested input from the GA on .org in advance of the 29 June NC teleconference.  Any last thoughts should be posted to the .org list at this time. 

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:49:58 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldbyICANN

on 6/26/01 9:52 AM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:

> The missing element here is that the decision on what now rises to the
> surface and has become worthy of a motion is made not by the
> proponents, but by the Chair.  It is the ad hoc generation of multiple
> motions with various numbers of seconds that creates the chaos. It
> is then loudly complained that "the Chair didn't act," when in fact all
> that's on the table is a bunch of competing schemes on whatever, with
> no discussion at all.  What's needed in your timeline is a set of criteria
> that will define what is "motion worthy" and what is not. I cannot
> imagine a Chair, having seen an issue thoroughly discussed, not then
> asking for a motion, draft one him/herself as a suggestion, or whatever,
> so as to get to the next part of the DNSO procedure.

Agreed. Harald has already picked this up on the ga-rules list and I have
just posted some source material there on DEFINITIONS OF MOTIONS and
PROCEDURES that may or may not help. I feel like I'm rushing between two
rooms...this should really be on the ga-rules list.

> Ordinary democratic traditions do no include a shotgun scatter of scatter-
> brained notions all vying for position (as motions) at once.  Proponent
> of scheme X endeavors to rush "motion" X to a vote as soon as possible,
> which is not a democratic process but rather a scam. The recognition of
> a "worthy motion" is not time-defined, however, but rather to be defined
> by its content and the opportunity that has been available to chew over
> its pros and cons.

Point taken, but our very existence is time defined. It's a choice. Do we
ignore external deadlines set by the NC, BoD, DoC etc., or work with them?

For me, this is a no-brainer, hence the Organizing Committee would first get
on top of any situation that presents itself by creating the timeline. Best
Practices in that process may include provision for a short debate on
possible adjustments to debating and voting, the number of amendments and
motions and so on; options that the Committee could recommend to members in
order for the Assembly to have any possibility of meeting an externally
imposed deadline effectively. This would be regarded as the fallback
position and would require a separate vote prior to any debate on the main
topic, but after the Chair had presented a summary in rough document form of
opening arguments related to the main issue.

Also, since the ByLaws say that the BoD can make decisions unilaterally when
exceptional circumstances arise, it seems reasonable that the GA should also
have a shortcut at its disposal. It has the right to be heard, however
imperfect the world in which it exists may be with respect to consensus
building procedures. Anything, and I mean anything, that we can do to
encourage the BoD to stop making policy decisions by fiat, and to pass
everything, and I mean everything, through the GA first, has got to be an
improvement.

>> Get with the plan Bill!
> 
> Isn't that what we're doing?  :-)

Yes! 
> 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #567
************************