Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #589
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, July 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 589

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:22:19 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SABOT

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-07-04 09:10:37 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> >I imagine that it would be possible for the DNSO Secretariat to
> >set the mailing lists so that all mails were forwarded to
> >[ga-full].  This would be a budensome task and I cannot see any
> >support for it except from Jefsey Morfin himself.
>
> This would, of course, be a trivial task for the secretariat.
>
> However, it would be burdensome to the subscribers to ga-full, and
> possibly to the other lists.
>
> So, if someone believes they absolutely have to mess around with
> ga-full in order to silence Jefsey (or to please Eric, or whatever),
> please ask the ga-full subscribers FIRST.  If they want all sublists
> - fine, go ahead, ask the secretariat to direct all sublists to
> ga-full.  You'd do everyone concerned a favor.
>
> However, I'd guess it would be considerably wiser to just let Jefsey
> post his messages to lists where they don't belong.
>
> IFF (if and only if) the split-up is carried by general consensus of
> list members, he'll soon notice that his messages to "wrong" lists
> will be ignored, or that replies are directed back to the
> appropriate sub-list.  I suppose that Jefsey would notice this
> sooner or later, and would follow general consensus.  (Otherwise,
> he'd start to look foolish at some point.)
>
> If, however, the split-up is not carried by consensus, it may be
> time to rethink it.
>
> In either of these case, I don't thinkt here is any need to start
> bothering the ga list with public notes about Jefsey's behaviour. We
> all see what he does, and make our own judgements about it. If you
> want to talk just to him, and try to persuade him to follow
> consensus (which will either be unnecessary, or unsuccessful - see
> above), please do so, possibly CCing your co-chair or ga-abuse. But,
> please, don't do so on ga.
>
> So, could we please stop this thread and leave things to themselves?

I would think so, but would first add one point. It seems to me that any
continued refusal to abide by established posting procedures (whether
or not one agrees with them) should in itself -- and even if expressed
with utmost politeness and nice clean words -- and more importantly
any attempt unilaterally to change those procedures, without the input
of the rest of the GA more or less in the manner expressed above,
should itself be grounds for suspension from posting privileges. The
rationality of this kind of thinking continues to escape me -- that is,
one complains of this or that "autocratic" conduct, and then addresses
it by oneself assuming the role of autocrat, attempting, without a shred
of authority to speak for anyone but oneself, to countermand and destroy
the procedures that the Chair (whether wisely or not makes no difference
here) has set up. Postings are often made in error -- I have myself been
guilty of such error more than once -- but there comes a time when
unilateral alternations of procedure can clearly be distinguished from
that kind of error, and the continued, relentless defiance of procedure,
and particularly the unilateral quest for "no rules at all," should be
grounds
for suspension -- that person clearly has no understanding of the manner
of civilized discourse and conduct, where "civilized" means that the
people
have decided to establish a mechanism for discussion and decision-making
that they all agree to use for their common good.  And "people"
exercising
their right of free expression means bunches of people, not one
incalcitrant.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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 14:12:10 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: 1:20 ARIZONA....Re: [ga] Independance Day

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>

> Today in the United States we celebrate Independance Day.  

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
1:20 ARIZONA

Happy Fourth of July

The .ARIZONA Top Level Domain is Operational

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.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona

- --
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 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independance Day

Danny,

> 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!

if the GA wants to be an SO the libility is in the 7 figures, look at how
much each SO has to contribute to ICANN's budget. You can't have your tea,
and drink it too.

- -rick

- --
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 14:45:57 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Everything that we had feared about Carl Bildt is coming true."

http://www.google.com/search?q=slobodan+bildt&btnG=Google+Search
>
> http://members.nbci.com/bhmedia2001/clanci/bildt.htm
> "Everything that we had feared about Carl Bildt is coming true."
> http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/bhmedia2001/slike/bildt.jpg
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr26jan01.htm
> ICANN Launches At Large Membership Study - Carl Bildt to Chair Study
> Committee
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/28/milosevic/index.html
> "The trial of Milosevic promises to be one of the most remarkable since
the
> Nuremberg trial. Milosevic is the first head of state to face
international
> war crimes charges. It also could prove highly embarrassing to western
> governments and some diplomats, who negotiated and made deals with
Milosevic
> at several points during the Bosnian, Croatian and Kosovo wars."
>
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13mar01.htm
> RESOLVED [01.21] that the President is authorized to expend funds of the
> Corporation in support of the At Large Membership Study in an amount not
to
> exceed US$ 450,000 (of which US$ 100,000 has already been authorized by
the
> Board) on direction of the Chair of the At Large Membership Study
Committee,
> with the expectation that the Chair and members of the At Large Membership
> Study Committee will continue to expend these funds carefully in support
of
> the accomplishment of the charter of that Committee.

- --
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 14:52:16 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call 

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call

> [email-masked] is the mailing list for the ietf dnsext wg.  see
> <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html> for the wg
charter.
> messages should be on topics appropriate to the dnsext wg, which are
various
> discussion of the dns protocols or administrivia of the wg itself.  the
list
> is moderated.
>
> calls for papers, announcements of events not directly relevant to the dns
> protocols, etc. are not appropriate.  discussion of problems with
particular
> implementations, announcements of releases, sites' misconfigurations, etc.
> should be done on mailing lists for the particular implementations.
>
> there is a wg for dns operational practice, dnsop, whose charter can be
> found at <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html>.
>
> there is a mailing list for discussion of whose implementation is better,
> and why someone else's is broken.  it is [email-masked].  all
> discussions of such nature should occur there or on /dev/null.  unlike the
> namedroppers list, [email-masked] is not archived.
>
> discussion of this policy is a topic for the poisson wg.  poisson's
charter
> can be found at <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/poisson-charter.html>.
>
> > From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Paul A Vixie" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call
> > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:40:31 -0500
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul A Vixie" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call
> >
> >
> > > > If your implementation is not compliant then you have three choices,
> > > >          1. Convince the working group to change the specification
> > > >          2. Update your incorrect implementation
> > > >          3. Discontinue distribution of non compliant software.
> > >
> > > You forgot one:
> > >
> > >            4. Continue distribution of noncompliant software
> > >
> > > (this shall be henceforth be known as the Scorched Earth approach.)
> > >
> >
> > The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
> > IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
> > IPv16 is the "high-ground"....
> >
> > ...good luck in the sewer....
> >
> > 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, 4 Jul 2001 13:10:51 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] SABOT

Hello William,

Wednesday, July 04, 2001, 12:22:19 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> I would think so, but would first add one point. It seems to me that any
> continued refusal to abide by established posting procedures (whether
> or not one agrees with them) should in itself -- and even if expressed
> with utmost politeness and nice clean words -- and more importantly
> any attempt unilaterally to change those procedures, without the input
> of the rest of the GA more or less in the manner expressed above,
> should itself be grounds for suspension from posting privileges.

So then you agree that hte posting privileges of our Chair and
Co-Chair should be revoked for implementing a unilateral change by
adding sub lists, and then trying to force subjects off the main list
as off topic since they have a sublist that they created on their own?

Refusing to recognize unilateral actions taken without basis by these
individuals is not a violation of the rules, nor should it be.

The only established posting procedure we have is that the [email-masked]
list IS the complete incarnation of the DNSO General Assembly, and is
the list for discussions of GA related issues, and those rules that
are posted on the website that were approved by the assembly.

Anything else we have are independent efforts without sanction, and
none of us are under any obligation to recognize them or abide by
them.

- -- 
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, 4 Jul 2001 22:57:32 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independance Day

Danny Younger about the DNSO:

>This is tyranny.

It is (of course) not.

In particular, the current DNSO structure (and the NC) still seems 
to have the (possibly limited) support of (most of?) the DNSO's 
constituencies, with the notable exception of the ccTLDs - anyway, 
the support is apparently sufficient to let the DNSO and NC kind of 
survive.

The DNSO may be inefficient as hell.  It may produce no results. And 
the DNSO establishment may currently mostly disregard the GA.  But 
still, the DNSO is not a "tyranny".

Danny and Patrick: I think it's an extremely unwise idea for the GA 
chairs to start attacking the Names Council and Secretariat in 
public - and in the form you elected to use in 
<029201c1040b$6e707660$b33efea9@hamza> and 
<[email-masked]>.  The NC's and Secretariat's decisions 
or activities may quite well be worth of criticism - but it's the 
GA's and the GA chairs' job to exercise this criticism in a 
responsible and constructive manner.

Being polemic is a privilege which ordinary list members may enjoy 
to a certain degree, but it's a privilege which chair and co-chair 
should not exercise as long as they are holding their respective 
offices.

Quid licet bovi non licet Jovi, for those of us who speak Latin, and 
still remember who Europa actually was. ;-)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 14:26:02 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Utility of the GA

William X. Walsh writes:
 > Wednesday, July 04, 2001, 12:22:19 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
 > > I would think so, but would first add one point. It seems to me that any
 > > continued refusal to abide by established posting procedures (whether
 > > or not one agrees with them) should in itself -- and even if expressed
 > > with utmost politeness and nice clean words -- and more importantly
 > > any attempt unilaterally to change those procedures, without the input
 > > of the rest of the GA more or less in the manner expressed above,
 > > should itself be grounds for suspension from posting privileges.
 > 
 > 
 > So then you agree that hte posting privileges of our Chair and
 > Co-Chair should be revoked for implementing a unilateral change by
 > adding sub lists, and then trying to force subjects off the main list
 > as off topic since they have a sublist that they created on their own?

Yes.  I agree with Mr. Walsh that I have seen an incredible amount of
inappropriate behavior by both the Chair and Co-Chair.  I do not believe
that either is a fit representative of the will of the GA.  Under their
direction, the GA list has become the haven of spammers and children,
people with absolutely no sense of the history of the debate whose only
desire is to promote their own selfish, money-making schemes to the
detriment of free and open exchange.

I do not believe that the GA serves any useful purpose any more.  The NC
should disband it and ICANN should concentrate their efforts on the
At-Large Membership in hopes that useful ideas will come from it.

/Joe
- --
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 18:48:06 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] AOL Time Warner today asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to approve its three nominees 

http://www.washtech.com/news/telecom/10948-1.html
By Brian Krebs,
Newsbytes.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2001; 3:01 PM

AOL Time Warner today asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to approve
its three nominees for providing unaffiliated Internet access over the
company's high-speed networks.
In a filing with the FTC today, AOL Time Warner formally named Juno Online
Services, Earthlink , and High Speed Access Corp. as the three independent
Internet service providers (ISPs) who would offer Web access over its
networks.
- -------

http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp

EarthLink The No. 1 Provider of the Real Internet(TM), EarthLink brings the
Internet to more than 4.8 million subscribers.

@Home is the leader in broadband, offering residential and commercial
services, with a global footprint of 74 million homes

Prodigy Communications Corporation is one of the nation's largest Internet
service providers

Juno Online Services, Inc. is one of the nation's leading Internet access
providers, with 15.9 million total registered subscribers,

NetZero, Inc. is a leading provider of free and pay Internet access services
- ----------

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, 4 Jul 2001 19:31:09 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Utility of the GA

I think the value of New.Net domains just went up a notch....

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/07/fyi0138.htm
For Your Information: July 3, 2001
The Federal Trade Commission today announced the following actions:

Application for approval of non-affiliated Internet service providers (ISPs)
and alternative cable broadband ISP service agreements:
- ------

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Kelsey" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:26 PM
Subject: [ga] Utility of the GA

> William X. Walsh writes:
>  > Wednesday, July 04, 2001, 12:22:19 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>  > > I would think so, but would first add one point. It seems to me that
any
>  > > continued refusal to abide by established posting procedures (whether
>  > > or not one agrees with them) should in itself -- and even if
expressed
>  > > with utmost politeness and nice clean words -- and more importantly
>  > > any attempt unilaterally to change those procedures, without the
input
>  > > of the rest of the GA more or less in the manner expressed above,
>  > > should itself be grounds for suspension from posting privileges.
>  >
>  >
>  > So then you agree that hte posting privileges of our Chair and
>  > Co-Chair should be revoked for implementing a unilateral change by
>  > adding sub lists, and then trying to force subjects off the main list
>  > as off topic since they have a sublist that they created on their own?
>
> Yes.  I agree with Mr. Walsh that I have seen an incredible amount of
> inappropriate behavior by both the Chair and Co-Chair.  I do not believe
> that either is a fit representative of the will of the GA.  Under their
> direction, the GA list has become the haven of spammers and children,
> people with absolutely no sense of the history of the debate whose only
> desire is to promote their own selfish, money-making schemes to the
> detriment of free and open exchange.
>
> I do not believe that the GA serves any useful purpose any more.  The NC
> should disband it and ICANN should concentrate their efforts on the
> At-Large Membership in hopes that useful ideas will come from it.
>
> /Joe
> --
> 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, 4 Jul 2001 21:51:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Parties

Excerpted from "Challenges for Domain Managers", by Esther Dyson 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/27/B

U171918.DTL&type=printable
(Thanks to Alexander Svensson and Thomas Roessler for providing this citation 
on the @Large forum).
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now, there is some lively discussion of all these issues. But it is 
still difficult for points of view, rather than specific people or 
nationalities, to get votes. People outside the United States and Europe 
often feel marginalized in ICANN's English-only deliberations. Those who lack 
Web access, and communicate primarily by e-mail, can't use its current 
Web-centric facilities. 

What ICANN needs ultimately is the equivalent of political parties. Perhaps a 
No New TLDs party, or a Free-IP Rights party (which would support a totally 
free market in domain names), or the Alternative-Root party, which would 
support alternatives to the domain-name system. 

Each of these parties would then have to provide coherent explanations of how 
its policies would work, and to win adherents. These parties should not be 
organized by ICANN (unlike its three supporting organizations, which 
represent specific interests and already elect half of ICANN's board). 

Would this approach work? It would still be an experiment. Proper voting 
policies would need to make sure a party didn't simply buy votes. But a 
marketplace for ideas is a lot better than one for people. 

In the end, ICANN as an effective system, not just an organization, depends 
on input from the public in addition to a set of formal rules governing how 
board members can vote on ICANN's policies. 

That is, it depends on independent action by self-appointed, self- organizing 
stakeholders around the world. That means you. 

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:05:16 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

messages of this kind below achieve nothing positive and serve only to
further undermine confidence in the GA as a responsible participant in the
ICANN process.  Is it really too much to expect that people refrain from
personal abuse - or must  we just accept that that GA list is for personal
abuse??

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: [ga] Admin note: I have resigned as list monitor

> Hi William
>
> > This is not the way abuse should be handled.
> >
> > The majority of those voting is not always right, Joop.
>
> So who is right?  Mr William X. Walsh, I suppose?
> How would you like to do something constructive?
>
> Suggest HOW we might achieve anything worthwhile.
> I'm sure we would be most attentive.
>
> You don't like the lists, you don't like the Chair or Alt Chair, you don't
> like Joop, you don't like IDNO, you don't like the rules, you don't like
> being asked to behave, you don't like suspensions, you don't like the
> process, you don't like people disagreeing with you.
>
> The only thing you like is arguing and wasting time.
>
> 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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:13:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] .kids domain

Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment 
of a .kids domain, U.S. citizens may wish to express their opinions on this 
topic to their local legislators (pro or con).  For information on how to 
write to your local representatives:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
- --
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 22:45:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Organization/Communication

Reposted from the @Large forum:  
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00130.shtml

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Karl, can you give all of some useful and concrete suggestions about how to 
organize and communicate with individuals. I think that part is still missing 
from your suggestions.<

You are raising a very critical issue.

Let me try to begin my attempt to answer by suggesting that there is a 
difference between an election and between the communications that occur 
among electors and between electors and candidates.

As for elections - they can be regional or global or whatever; that's a 
matter for another discussion.

The issue here is how we can allow individual electors to organize and 
communicate.

First off - my own experience tells me that a global Hyde Park - i.e. an open 
forum - is necessary but hardly sufficient.  My experience is that a global 
forum is merely an entry vehicle for ideas, but that the maturation of 
discussion and evolution of ideas won't happen except in smaller fora that 
have evolved fora-based notions of who has credibility, who is a demagog or 
fifth columnist, or who is simply singing off key.

My sense is that most of us who have watched ICANN or who have participated 
in large discussion spaces have some lesser or greater degree of skepticism 
of such spaces.

So, what's the means by which these more focused fora arise?

There are probably an infinite number of means, but I've had experience with 
only a few.

Self-organized clusters of roughly similar-minded people are a very valuable 
mechanism.

My experience with the Boston Working Group (BWG) is illustrative.  When the 
final IFWP "wrap up meeting" was cancelled several of us were left with 
non-refundable air tickets to Boston.  So we simply went and gathered - 
physically gathered - face to face - and worked.  The result was mutual trust 
and understanding.  We've built on that foundation and expanded the group so 
that it serves as a pretty solid vehicle for the evolution of ideas.  We 
don't depend entirely on electronic communications - there are frequent face 
to face interactions among the members; I consider that a
valuable characteristic.  Yes, it is a closed group - that's one of its 
strengths.  And since it has no intrinsic voting power except insofar people 
might be convinced of the value of ideas, I have no trouble rejecting those 
who attack it as a closed group.

It takes a great deal of work to form and maintain this kind of ad hoc group. 
 One should not expect others to do the work for them - ICANN should not be 
expected to facilitate such formations.  But equally, ICANN should not do 
things that impede such formations - for instance, ICANN should avoid things 
like anonymous public mailing lists that make it
difficult for people to identify one another for purposes of initiating those 
critical off-list contacts that serve as the nuclei about which coalitions or 
fora may coalesce.

As you know, I'm a strong opponent of censorship in public spaces. However, 
in private spaces, the ability to impose a degree of etiquitte is essential 
to the long-term survival of the group and the maturation of its thought 
processes and the growth of its political strength.  In the Boston Working 
Group we have a rule that requires mutual respect and another that demands 
that nothing be leaked without permission.  Of course we aren't perfect in 
this, far from it, but we've survived and grown since before the era of ICANN.

Another very important mechanism is an active press - Journalists build their 
own visibility and credibility and that, in turn, serves as a sieve that 
helps us identify those in the global forum who are simply oddballs from 
those who are modern day Aristotles in the rough.

Just as it takes time for interest-coalitions to forum out of the inchaote 
cloud of global-forum partipants, it takes a great deal of time for 
journalists to realize the importance of issues, much more to comprehend them 
sufficiently to write about coherently.  The press is not simply an observer; 
it is a partner, in the evolution of a mature body politic - we have to give 
them the time, materials, and patience so that over time they can do their 
job well.

You ask how people can remain engaged in this process without burning out...

Lord knows. ;-)

In my own case I look at ICANN as an historical event - It is my sense that 
we are creating a new kind of sovereign governmental institution - something 
that hasn't really happened since the nation-state reached modern form in the 
years following the Napoleonic Wars.

This is simply too interesting (to me) to miss.

(I don't see treaty-based entities or NGO's as being independent sovreign 
entities and thus really not the same kind of thing as is being created with 
ICANN.)

As for getting work done - That's a hard one.  In the global forum it simply 
isn't possible to depend that organized work efforts will reach fruition.  In 
the smaller fora it is important that there develop a kind of management 
structure - nothing formal, but rather a sense that members can ask others to 
help and that once a committment is made, it is
important that the committment be honored.  Again drawing on the BWG 
experience - we had the luck of starting life in a compressed weekend in 
which we had to essentially review the entire initial ICANN proposal, agree 
upon limited changes, and put those into writing.  We litterally gathered 
around a dining room table and pounded out our ideas until we were exhausted. 
 That kind of thing builds a lot of strength in a group.

As for resources, it is my sense that a viable ad-hoc forum requires some 
degree of network support - A mailing list and archive are important, as is 
easy access to private and public web servers so that drafts can be floated 
and final documents published.  This kind of thing is not particularly hard 
or expensive to establish - in the BWG case it was
particularly easy because several of us have strong technical backgrounds and 
were already running 24x7 e-mail and web-server systems with decent 
constant-on connectivity.

My own experience tells me that the process of maturation of an electorate 
involves a lot of unrecognized work, a lot of ego, piles of frustration, a 
strong dose of hyperbole, and the catalyst of face-to-face contact.

I'm kind of running off at the keyboard here... I hope I've made some useful 
suggestions.

        --karl--

- --
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 05:03:18 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .kids domain

Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment
of a .kids domain, *non*-U.S. citizens may *also* wish to express their opinions
on this topic to the U.S. legislators, but have no avenue.

Meanwhile, they may enjoy the U.S. Capitol Virtual Tour.
http://www.senate.gov/vtour/

Cynically yours,
/// Alexander

(This message is not aimed at Danny, the messenger in this case.)

> Now that U.S. legislators have introduced a bill regarding the establishment
> of a .kids domain, U.S. citizens may wish to express their opinions on this
> topic to their local legislators (pro or con).  For information on how to
> write to your local representatives:
>
> http://www.house.gov/writerep/
> --
> 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 22:21:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Utility of the GA

Jim and all assembly members,

  Yes I believe you are quite correct.  In that this ins "Independence Day"
it seem quite fitting.  I am sure the ICANN BoD and staff are not all that
happy about this however....

Jim Fleming wrote:

> I think the value of New.Net domains just went up a notch....
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/07/fyi0138.htm
> For Your Information: July 3, 2001
> The Federal Trade Commission today announced the following actions:
>
> Application for approval of non-affiliated Internet service providers (ISPs)
> and alternative cable broadband ISP service agreements:
> ------
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
> http://www.DOT.Arizona
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Kelsey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:26 PM
> Subject: [ga] Utility of the GA
>
> > William X. Walsh writes:
> >  > Wednesday, July 04, 2001, 12:22:19 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >  > > I would think so, but would first add one point. It seems to me that
> any
> >  > > continued refusal to abide by established posting procedures (whether
> >  > > or not one agrees with them) should in itself -- and even if
> expressed
> >  > > with utmost politeness and nice clean words -- and more importantly
> >  > > any attempt unilaterally to change those procedures, without the
> input
> >  > > of the rest of the GA more or less in the manner expressed above,
> >  > > should itself be grounds for suspension from posting privileges.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > So then you agree that hte posting privileges of our Chair and
> >  > Co-Chair should be revoked for implementing a unilateral change by
> >  > adding sub lists, and then trying to force subjects off the main list
> >  > as off topic since they have a sublist that they created on their own?
> >
> > Yes.  I agree with Mr. Walsh that I have seen an incredible amount of
> > inappropriate behavior by both the Chair and Co-Chair.  I do not believe
> > that either is a fit representative of the will of the GA.  Under their
> > direction, the GA list has become the haven of spammers and children,
> > people with absolutely no sense of the history of the debate whose only
> > desire is to promote their own selfish, money-making schemes to the
> > detriment of free and open exchange.
> >
> > I do not believe that the GA serves any useful purpose any more.  The NC
> > should disband it and ICANN should concentrate their efforts on the
> > At-Large Membership in hopes that useful ideas will come from it.
> >
> > /Joe
> > --
> > 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

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 #589
************************