Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #588
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 588

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:51:43 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO board elections

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Patrick, you are in a busy mood today.
> Why do you, vice chair of the GA, ask me as NC Chair to explain the purpose
> of a ga mailing list? If you believe a GAmailing list serves no purpose
> please propose its deletion and seek GA endorsement for the proposal.
> Philip

  VIce Chair?  I didn't know that Patrick was promoted.  I thought
he was ALT-Chair...  Is there an announcement regarding this
promotion Phillip?  If so, could you please point it out?

  As to your question?  It seems likely that Patrick is confused...

>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:46:43 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Dealing with bounced and returned mail

Patrick,
you clearly have an issue over bounced and returned e-mails and ga abuse.
You perceive a simple technical solution, others may perceive such a
solution as interference.

The DNSO secretariat will take instruction from the GA as a body on the way
GA mail lists are set up, the nature of their filters etc.  If you seek
change persuade the GA you are right and together with the GA chair as
spokesmen for the GA make a request to the DNSO secretariat.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

- --
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, 04 Jul 2001 03:02:59 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]elections NO! BOYCOTT

This is a very bad and serious situation.  I am very sorry that it has come to
this point.  Mr. Younger is my friend and my chair.  He has one agenda and that
is to do the right thing for the populace of the GA.  Mr. Phil I do not see
such transparency in how you handle your position. {{ just in case you missed
something, you are our servant --end of story}} I understand how a *staff* gets
all together and protects their position but I expect better out of my
Council.  I do not advocate it at this time but we must be prepared.  How do we
remove our representatives on the council.

I know Danny and I have had many an argument with him.  But if he takes such a
stance then I trust him and will follow him.  I know he speaks as much for my
children as I do.

As for Corliss I think he is right and requires some cooperation.  We must
support both of our elected officials and do it now.

On a historical level I think something has ruined a cop esthetic deal because
our Chairs would not capitulate to the improper whims of the NC. Well good for
them and good for the GA.

Think of this;!!  Let us all quit.  Nobody post a word except for fun for a
week. Where would the NC and the BoD claim bottoms-up or transparency. We got
the UDRP, FTAA, dotKIDS and the IDNH and privacy matters coming on heavy.  How
say thee noble constituency and assembly let us boycott.  Yes I said BOYCOTT.
If we just quit they have no safety valve left. They have not enacted an
individuals group and they have laid waste to the At-Large.

Sincerely
Eric

(I suppose this ruins my election to the TF, shoot)
Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Patrick, you are in a busy mood today.
> Why do you, vice chair of the GA, ask me as NC Chair to explain the purpose
> of a ga mailing list? If you believe a GAmailing list serves no purpose
> please propose its deletion and seek GA endorsement for the proposal.
> Philip
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 10:39:13 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] SABOT

William and William ;>),

William X. Walsh wrote:
>Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 10:37:54 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > I really have to agree with Patrick, on this and on the lists in 
>general.
> > One measure of maturity in a polite and civilized society is a 
>willingness
> > to abide by particular practices for the good of the group effort as a
> > whole, even though one may not happen to agree with them.  Without
> > that, and with each person seeking to follow whatever rule that person
> > happens to think best, there can be nothing but anarchy.
>
>This assumes that there are rules that govern the behavior in
>question.
>
>There aren't.

Correct, but WSL was speaking about common practices and behaviour, not 
written rules.
When brought up as a child I have been told simple things, like not to speak 
with my mouth full of food.
I do not know whether there is a written rule about it, probably not, so I 
assume I could get away with it without being slammed into jail, but I have 
noticed that in many environments to comply with this "behaviour" (not rule) 
is appreciated.

IMHO, a lot of what we are talking about is "mature behaviour", and the 
simple fact that we are obliged to spell out written rules about 
cross-posting, excessive posting, irrelevant subjects, offensive posts, AATJ 
(And All That Jazz) speaks volumes about the maturity of some participants.
It would be terrible if we had to get into legal language to describe polite 
behaviour, considering also the multicultural environment we are in. I guess 
just some good will might do.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 10:47:23 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FTAA treaty to mandate use of ICANN UDRP]

Peter de Blanc wrote:

>
>We have, and will have in the future, a number of LDRP (Local Dispute
>Resolution) workshops, including one hosted by WIPO in Geneva. At the
>WIPO workshop, WIPO presented their idea of a 'model' LDRP, in hopes
>that ccTLDs would use it, or some of it, as a guideline for their own
>policy.
>
>Many ccTLDs, due to local government laws and policies, would need a
>policy suited to their own specific country.
>
>Even WIPO understands this.
>
>Finally, I do not see how an unbrella organization could mandate a
>single policy that would apply to so many soverign governments.

I guess that we have to make the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs.
While to have a set of common rules would be a good thing, my opinion is 
that for ccTLDs the governing country is the ultimate authority, while some 
global authority (WIPO?) is needed for gTLDs.

This said, in the text below it seems to me that the reference to the 
national law (I assume of the country of the ccTLD) is the ultimate 
authority, but IANAL, so I may well be wrong.

Regards
Roberto

>Article XX. [Cancellation and transfer of domain name
>
>In the event that a well known distinctive sign has been inappropriately
>registered in the country of the Party, as part of a domain name or
>electronic mail address of an unauthorized third party, on request by
>the owner or legitimate rightholder of that sign, the competent
>authority shall consider the matter and, where appropriate, shall order
>cancellation or amendment of the registration of such domain name or
>electronic mail address, in accordance with the respective national law,
>provided that use thereof would be liable to have one of the following
>effects:

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:17:37 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Sotiris,

>So if MADONNA.COM is "a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that has an 
>Internet
>address" why does the popstar have some kind of claim to ownership of the
>domain?  Or how about the BARCELONA.COM domain?  I'm sorry Roberto, but 
>your
>response is a little too simplistic, almost naive.  If I were to ask you 
>what
>"gold" was would you tell me it was just a yellow metal?

It is indeed simplistic.
To follow up in your example, to the "what is gold" question I would answer 
that it is the element of atomic number 79 in Mendeleev's periodic table of 
elements. That's what chemically characterizes gold: the fact that people 
can kill for it is super-structural, and depends from the socio-cultural 
environment, not from the nature of "gold".

Going back to "what is a domain name" I maintain that it is just a string of 
chars that allows you to point to an internet address. The fact that some 
people have attached super-structural values does not change the nature of 
the internet domain name, just its attributes.

Let's take another example: postage stamps.
They are the proof of payment for a service that allows (physical) mail to 
be routed via the snail-mail system.
This definition will not take into account the exceptional value that some 
stamps might have for philatelists. But still, this is not the point.
If to send a parcel you need stamps for a value of 20 pounds, you cannot use 
the world famous "Penny Black" (face value 1 penny) with the justification 
that its value on the philatelic market is more than 20 pounds: the Royal 
Mail will refuse the parcel (as would the US Mail, I suppose).

This is somethink of key importance for the UDRP or whatever IP policy the 
DNSO should endorse: the economic value of (some) domain names is accessory 
and cannot interfere with the primary purpose, which is an alias for an 
internet address.
Corollary (for instance): if somebody is for long enough a "bona fide" user 
of a domain name on which somebody else claims IP rights, it should not be 
automatic that the owner of the name (and "user" of the name for its primary 
purpose, i.e. to point to an internet "thing") shall relinquish the name. 
IMHO, his/her rights, being "primary", are superior to the "accessory" value 
of the name as identification of a business, or vanity.

Naive indeed, as you point out, nevertheless my opinion on the subject.

>
>Labels in assembler programs mean specifically whatever the programmer 
>assigns
>to them... in the case of domain names, where is the programmer who defines
>their signification?  Isn't the original registrant the arbiter of meaning 
>as a
>domain name's creator?

Exactly.
The registrant chooses the name (among the available combinations, as domain 
names have to be unique as labels in programs).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:33:47 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Wanton Refusal of Names Council

Just a question:
Can't these issues be solved among Chairpeople+Secretariat without needing 
public proclaims on a public list? What is the real purpose of this post?
Moreover, it seems to me that everything is being originated by a 
misunderstanding, as the request is to still let the message through 
[ga-abuse], but block it on [ga], which should not have additional policy 
decisions by the GA. Hence a polite private exchange could solve it.
Incidentally, we created specialized lists to limit the general traffic on 
the GA main list. To increase the traffic on the main list with messages 
that should stay private is going in the opposite direction.

Regards
Roberto
(P.S.: what on earth means "Wanton"?)

>From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
>CC: "Names Council" <[email-masked]>,        "Danny Younger" 
><[email-masked]>,        "Elisabeth Porteneuve" 
><[email-masked]>,        "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] Wanton Refusal of Names Council
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000
>
>Dear Philip
>
>I am utterly dismayed by the wanton refusal of Elisabeth Porteneuve on
>numerous occasions, with any feeble justification she can think of, to
>refuse outright and point blank, any reasonable request made by the
>representatives of the General Assembly.
>
>And, despite your personal promise to me to the contrary, you have 
>supported
>her at every turn.  Here is another example.  Not only that you are quite
>wrong in your assessment.  It also proves my point, which Ken Stubbs,
>denied, about lack of co-operation from the Names Council.
>
>It is a very simple task to prohibit cross posting between lists.  Even
>Elisabeth will tell you that herself.
>
> > The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this 
>request
> > because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to 
>the
> > GA abuse list.
>
>In relation to a cross-posting between [ga-abuse] and another list, you can
>set the filters so they reject the [ga-abuse] post, reject the *other* post
>OR reject both posts.
>
>To give both you and Elisabeth the benefit of failing to understand my
>communication, please ask Elisabeth to set the filters so that it rejects
>the OTHER post.  That would be wiuthin you so-called *policy* restrictions
>as it would not reject the [ga-abuse] post.
>
>Otherwise please unsubscribe me from the GA-ABUSE list.
>Then we'll just write to each other privately.  Without archives.
>
>I cannot understand why the DNSO Secretariate shouldn't treat us like the
>CLIENT with some sort of service level agreement for mailing lists and
>websites.
>
>Sheesh !!!
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corliss
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]>
>To: Patrick GA Alt Chair <[email-masked]>; Danny Younger GA chair
><[email-masked]>
>Cc: Elisabeth DNSO Sec <[email-masked]>; NC (list)
><[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:31 PM
>Subject: GA abuse
>
>
> > Danny and Patrick,
> > Patrick has asked me to intervene in a request (originally made by
>Patrick)
> > to the DNSO secretariat to set up an automated stop to cross posting to
>the
> > GA abuse list. The reason for this is that you are obliged to act upon
>input
> > to this list and it is tedious to look at mail that should not be on the
>GA
> > abuse list. I entirely sympathise.
> >
> > The DNSO secretariat has rightly declined to date to act upon this 
>request
> > because it is in effect a POLICY issue. We would be adding a filter to 
>the
> > GA abuse list.
> >
> > The DNSO Secretariat can introduce a stop to cross posting but first you
> > need to seek agreement within the GA and get a mandate to do so.
> >
> > Philip
> > NC Chair
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 04:44:47 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

Hello Patrick,

Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 11:51:45 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> you don't like the rules

I like the rules.

> you don't like suspensions

Including the penalties available.

I think they are used too infrequently.

Gets your facts straight before you attack someone, Pat.

- -- 
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:53:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-rules] A Fairer Set of Rules, Anyone?

On 12:35 04/07/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>Hi Jeff
>So you rules boil down to no rules.  All in favour of no rules say "Aye".

Aye!
Better nothing than this mess.

> > Ok as long as you understand that that at best is arbitrary and
> > illegitimate...
>Says who?

your rules.

>Why not everybody on the GA?
>That's the fairest solution of them all.

True. The one you should use.

Jefsey

- --
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, 04 Jul 2001 15:01:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Probably the most sensible position I read on that matter for long.

On 13:17 04/07/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Sotiris,
>>So if MADONNA.COM is "a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that has an Internet
>>address" why does the popstar have some kind of claim to ownership of the
>>domain?  Or how about the BARCELONA.COM domain?  I'm sorry Roberto, but your
>>response is a little too simplistic, almost naive.  If I were to ask you what
>>"gold" was would you tell me it was just a yellow metal?
>
>It is indeed simplistic.
>To follow up in your example, to the "what is gold" question I would 
>answer that it is the element of atomic number 79 in Mendeleev's periodic 
>table of elements. That's what chemically characterizes gold: the fact 
>that people can kill for it is super-structural, and depends from the 
>socio-cultural environment, not from the nature of "gold".

What is the atom for 49, I suppose the 49ers should file an UDRP to change 
its atomic mass.

>Going back to "what is a domain name" I maintain that it is just a string 
>of chars that allows you to point to an internet address. The fact that 
>some people have attached super-structural values does not change the 
>nature of the internet domain name, just its attributes.
>
>Let's take another example: postage stamps.
>They are the proof of payment for a service that allows (physical) mail to 
>be routed via the snail-mail system.
>This definition will not take into account the exceptional value that some 
>stamps might have for philatelists. But still, this is not the point.
>If to send a parcel you need stamps for a value of 20 pounds, you cannot 
>use the world famous "Penny Black" (face value 1 penny) with the 
>justification that its value on the philatelic market is more than 20 
>pounds: the Royal Mail will refuse the parcel (as would the US Mail, I 
>suppose).
>
>This is somethink of key importance for the UDRP or whatever IP policy the 
>DNSO should endorse: the economic value of (some) domain names is 
>accessory and cannot interfere with the primary purpose, which is an alias 
>for an internet address.
>Corollary (for instance): if somebody is for long enough a "bona fide" 
>user of a domain name on which somebody else claims IP rights, it should 
>not be automatic that the owner of the name (and "user" of the name for 
>its primary purpose, i.e. to point to an internet "thing") shall 
>relinquish the name. IMHO, his/her rights, being "primary", are superior 
>to the "accessory" value of the name as identification of a business, or 
>vanity.
>
>Naive indeed, as you point out, nevertheless my opinion on the subject.

Stamp is excellent. If really fit a concept we develop. As RFC 1034 there 
may be many innovative use of the DN concept, as there are many uses of 
stamps. We cannot stay blocked by Louis Touton's e-legal model (BTW that 
guy must get some sleep or we will be responsible for his death).

>>Labels in assembler programs mean specifically whatever the programmer 
>>assigns
>>to them... in the case of domain names, where is the programmer who defines
>>their signification?  Isn't the original registrant the arbiter of 
>>meaning as a
>>domain name's creator?
>
>Exactly.
>The registrant chooses the name (among the available combinations, as 
>domain names have to be unique as labels in programs).

Yes. This is why the people are entitled to have the label they want and to 
add to it the tag they think to best correspond to their label and image. 
Hence the need for millions of TLDs (*)

Jefsey

- --
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, 04 Jul 2001 09:00:36 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> <snip>

> Let's take another example: postage stamps.
> They are the proof of payment for a service that allows (physical) mail to
> be routed via the snail-mail system.
> This definition will not take into account the exceptional value that some
> stamps might have for philatelists. But still, this is not the point.
> If to send a parcel you need stamps for a value of 20 pounds, you cannot use
> the world famous "Penny Black" (face value 1 penny) with the justification
> that its value on the philatelic market is more than 20 pounds: the Royal
> Mail will refuse the parcel (as would the US Mail, I suppose).

Just one simple question:

If I purchase one or hundreds of postage stamps from my post office, go home and
put them in my drawer, and you come over and take one or many of them without my
permission, is that theft or not?

>
>
> This is somethink of key importance for the UDRP or whatever IP policy the
> DNSO should endorse: the economic value of (some) domain names is accessory
> and cannot interfere with the primary purpose, which is an alias for an
> internet address.
> Corollary (for instance): if somebody is for long enough a "bona fide" user
> of a domain name on which somebody else claims IP rights, it should not be
> automatic that the owner of the name (and "user" of the name for its primary
> purpose, i.e. to point to an internet "thing") shall relinquish the name.
> IMHO, his/her rights, being "primary", are superior to the "accessory" value
> of the name as identification of a business, or vanity.

Well, at least it's beginning to become more clear that we may have consensus on
some points you and I, Roberto.

>
> >Labels in assembler programs mean specifically whatever the programmer
> >assigns
> >to them... in the case of domain names, where is the programmer who defines
> >their signification?  Isn't the original registrant the arbiter of meaning
> >as a
> >domain name's creator?
>
> Exactly.
> The registrant chooses the name (among the available combinations, as domain
> names have to be unique as labels in programs).

As I said, it appears we may be standing on some common ground.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotirpoulos

- --
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, 4 Jul 2001 11:23:36 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...a decentralized, accessible, user-controlled, and market-driven Internet."

http://www.gipiproject.org/

"The Global Internet Policy Initiative supports adoption in developing
countries of the legal and policy framework for an open and democratic
Internet. The project works with local stakeholders in consultative,
coalition-based efforts to promote the principles of a decentralized,
accessible, user-controlled, and market-driven Internet."

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html
RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 10:24:33 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to Philip

This is not a motion, but if it were, I would second it. This being
Independence Day in the United States, we should remind
ourselves what happened to King George -- King Philip can
expect the same.  It's time to make it abundantly clear who
runs the Internet -- we ("dotcommoners," as Eric Dierker
would put it) do.

For the rest of you, I suggest that it's time to stop beating up on
our people like Danny and Patrick, who are striving earnestly to
advance our interests, and begin to form a united front, without
regard to silly little quibbles over whether this mode of action or
that happens to fit within our own, narrow little perspectives.

In short, grow up.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Philip,
>
> During your tenure as Chair of the NC you have abruptly terminated the life
> of the Review Working Group, failed to convene a working group on policy
> issues relating to the alternate root community, and indefinately postponed a
> working group on the UDRP.  For the benefit of those of us who believe that
> the General Assembly is mandated to undertake the substantive work of the
> DNSO, please advise when your term of office is set to expire so that we may
> know precisely when we will have the opportunity to honor the intent of the
> Bylaws.
> --
> 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: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:37:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Independance Day

Today in the United States we celebrate Independance Day.  This is a 
particularly apt moment to reflect upon grievances, upon lack of 
representation in the decision-making process, upon the lack of the right to 
elect our own officials, and upon an organizational structure that continues 
to disenfranchise the rights of individuals.

The Non-commercial constituency and others are threatened by the potential 
loss of voting rights if they fail to pay for representation on the Council.  
The ccTLD community has already inaugurated efforts to create a separate 
Supporting Organization, arguing that the DNSO is not sufficiently attentive 
to its needs.  This is indeed a time to consider whether the DNSO is 
sufficiently attentive to the needs of the General Assembly.

One of the issues facing our forefathers here in the United States was the 
question of taxation without representation.  They were being asked to supply 
the fruits of their labour without the benefit of a voting voice in the 
legislative process.  We too are being asked to supply the fruits of our 
labour through contributions to a forum in order to confer legitimacy upon 
the ICANN process, and in like fashion we too have been denied not only the 
right to vote in the decision-making body of the DNSO, but we are now being 
denied the right to fully participate as top-down Task Forces have come to 
replace bottom-up Working Groups.   

This is tyranny.  When the Review Working Group was callously terminated by 
the leadership of the Council, we were promised the following:

"The Names Council will be reviewing both the input from the final WG D 
report and from the Review process to develop a new process to implement the 
recommendations of the Review process. Full participation in this 
implementation phase is envisaged. It is understood that the structure of 
participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO
working groups!"  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00840.html

Lies.  There is no full participation, there has been no improvement, only 
less participation, endless delays, and continued procrastination.  The NC 
Task Force report was issued on 17 February.  What progress has been made?!!  
Do we have any published Terms-of-Reference yet?  No.  Has the new Review 
Task Force made any attempt to work in an open and transparent manner?  No.  
Do they have a publicly-archived mailing list where terms-of-reference have 
been discussed?  No.  What has been done?  According the last teleconference, 
there has been some "drafting going on".  More backroom dealings.  Nothing 
out in the open.   At this rate, will there ever be an Individuals' 
Constituency?  Don't bet on it.  

The Council determined its need to silence the voices in the Review Working 
Group because we were engaged in serious discussions on structural changes 
that called for a complete re-organization of the DNSO.  We were not alone in 
our conclusions... even the ICANN Board recognized the need for change and 
issued a resolution to address the issue:

[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources to 
separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as it 
is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure 
of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

Where is the Council's proposal to change the structure of the DNSO?   There 
is no proposal, nor will there be one.  They will continue to defy the Board 
and will continue to ignore the voices calling for change.  Change must be 
thrust upon the NC.  They will not reform themselves nor the DNSO.  In the 
interim, we all suffer from the consequences of their lassitude and their 
ex-parte deal-making.  

Why are there no more working groups?  It does not accord with the 
self-interest of the entrenched participants to allow for the opposing 
consensus view of the majority to be articulated.    They fear the prospect 
of 120 voices raised in discussion on a topic because the results may not be 
to their liking.   We cannot have a working group on collisions in namespace 
because we might conclude that ICANN is responsible and accountable for 
creating such collisions.  We cannot have a working group on the UDRP because 
we might take a collective stance to decry the excessive influence of the 
intellectual property interests, and might actually shift the balance in 
favor of the individual against corporate interests.  We cannot have a Review 
working group because we might challenge an abusive power structure.  We 
cannot have a working group on .org because only the Council has the wisdom 
to make the appropriate choices.  This is unmitigated elitism.  

There is not one single issue that should pass out of the DNSO without the 
full involvement of the General Assembly.
Token participation in Task Forces is no more than a sop to keep us quiet.   

The issue boils down to this -- what course of action should the General 
Assembly take?  

Personally, I am in favor of following the lead of the ccTLDs and moving 
forward to a discussion of withdrawing from the DNSO in favor of a Supporting 
Organization that would better guard the interests of individuals.  I look 
forward to your comments.  Happy Independance Day!

- --
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, 04 Jul 2001 10:48:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote

Leah and All,

The first order here is for people to realize this post is not
singularly about an individuals constituency.  The TF will guide there
but it is only one of many focus points. I ask our voting members to
take the short cyber journey over to;
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-ReviewTF-vote.html  and review
just a little.

I come from a non-formed group and try to maintain my perspective here
as a dotcommoner.  That means the majority of the people who use the
internet and don't care or know anything about what we do in the GA.
The vast majority do not even have domain names.  I deal with them daily
and study their behavior as what I do for a living. I then analyze those
findings and extrapolate into the future what they will want and how
best to deliver it. I juxtapose that with government rules and treaties
and policy and hourly communication with technicians to see what can be
done. I then strategize how best to achieve the deliverence of what the
dotcommoner wants.  I then meet with the lawyers and silk suits and
figure out how we can work within existing parameters and what must be
changed to reach our objective.  Then if need be I go and convince
people in positions to make changes to make them so that we meet the
needs of the dotcommoner and therefor have an Internet that is
productive and creative.  I work with all facets of the internet
community and try to get them to interface in order to best serve the
user.

It is here where I find the highest degree of difference between myself
and the other nominees.  Esparanza.  I do deal in dreams and fears.
(this is why I have studied your situation so deeply)  Dotcommoners
perceptions is what creates the commercial value within the internet.
They are not adept at the realities of RFCs, White Papers, Treaties and
UDRPs.  They read the headlines and if you scare them enough they will
not use their credit card on-line and then e-commerce is broken. They
care about privacy but have been trained to believe that they must give
it up in order to get what they want or they retreat from the net.  Many
have bought their children computers but will not let them go on-line
due to fears, real or imagined. I deal in this ethereal world all day
and everyday.  On this list and in boardrooms I am constantly scorned
for speaking of things that make most people  uncomfortable because they
cannot quantify it and categorize it.

This is why I can best represent the GA on this Task Force.  Get your
technical people and get your legal people but please do not leave out
us common people.

With all that said it is a fore gone conclusion that there is more
support for the other candidates because people will vote in there own
interest and so we will have technical representatives, representing
technical interests.  But I will keep trying because someday we will
have a place set at the table for the common user.

Eric,

L Gallegos wrote:

> What is the possibility of having each of the candidates provide a
> brief statement of their position?
>
> Leah
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:57:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independance Day

Fellow users,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Today in the United States we celebrate Independance Day.  This is a
> particularly apt moment to reflect upon grievances, upon lack of
> representation in the decision-making process, upon the lack of the right to
> elect our own officials, and upon an organizational structure that continues
> to disenfranchise the rights of individuals.

What truths do we hold self evident?  In the course of human events what episode
are we transpiring?  I fully believe we are at a threshold.  We either move
forward and create an individual user based set of standards or we allow the
continued complete unfettered commercial - taxed without representation -
dominance of the Internet. Our only question is do we allow for peaceful moderate
and painfully slow change or do we sign the papers and dump the tea in the
harbor.  The DoC by their silence and acquiescence has quite literally proclaimed
that we may go to open and complete cyber warfare.
When you ignore proper petitions for grievances you might as well paint a target
on your face and say here I am your dictator, take your best shot.  On our behalf
Danny and Patrick have petitioned to rectify our grievances and they have been
laughed at and scorned. Their concerns have been belittled and minimized. (sound
historically familiar to anyone?)  And so we do find ourselves in a point of time
when we must live by our convictions and follow a course in human affairs which
may lead to our personal destruction.  Danny has done so in the past two weeks
knowing full well the consequences, I have already been warned of the outcome to
my livelihood should I continue in this endeavor.  So be it.

For those who scorn my portrayal of the gravaman of this point of view, count
only those who have died recently in protests of globalization, these are not
trivial issues, at least there are over a thousand California Law enforcement
personnel who did not think so this past week in San Diego.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #588
************************