Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #594
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, July 6 2001             Volume 01 : Number 594

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:38:17 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Although many GA denizens seem not to want to recognize this,
the ICANN charter precludes the GA from having any
approval/disapproval role in anything. That is why ICANN
does not have representative government -- even Directors
elected by this or that entity within ICANN are specifically
precluded from following the wishes of their "constituents,"
unless those wishes happen to coincide with "the good of
the corporation" that the Directors are bound to act for.

It is a fundamental flaw in the system -- deliberately put
in (as was the method of avoiding the APA, the setting
of Director terms, and the fact of not having "members"),
all methods that gave to the Board its autocratic authority
to do what it pleases, without regard to anyone else.  It
is the most cynical and self-serving quasi-legal document
that I have ever seen, and the notion that it was intended
to serve the "public good" is a farce, and has been since
day one.

Bill Lovell

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Bret,
>
> Resources allocated for the benefit of the GA is a different issue than the
> GA making decisions as to how resources contributed by others are used.
> Input from the GA should be encouraged in the latter situation, but I'm not
> sure that the GA should be given approval/disapproval rights.
>
> I also think that an individuals constituency might resolve a lot of the
> issues here.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> Worl d
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> > but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all the
> constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to it without
> charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't that hard to
> accept. I hope the current problem of this being a de facto place for
> unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an individual domain name
> owners constituency is finally chartered and operational.
>
>       -- Bret
> --
> 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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:32:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] .kids domain

Hello William,

Thursday, July 05, 2001, 1:55:47 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> In his usual insulting manner, Mr. William X. Walsh entirely misses
> the point.   If  ICANN were forced to create a .kids domain by the
> U. S. Congress, there it would be, on the Internet, and once that
> was done there is nothing any other country could do about it.
> There are no "laws of that country" as to the U. S. that permit
> the Congress to take this action, although it is likely to do so
> anyway unless enough people jump into this fray.

Hogwash, Mr Lovell.

Like the VAST majority of other bills, this one is most likely to die
in committee.

There is little support in Congress for these two congressmen's
anti-ICANN views, and if this bill advances at all, the reasons why
this bill is a bad idea, inappropriate, and not necessary will come
out in committee.

To say the Congress is likely to do this, I must ask, where did you
buy your crystal ball?

- -- 
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:35:32 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "My job was only to express....a mostly nonexistent consensus."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
>
> The NC is elected, it says in the Bylaws, to "MANAGE the consensus
> process".

You might want to hire an expert on "consensus"....???

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=12&DocID=482
Esther Dyson ...
"My job was only to express the board's opinion as a whole. Unfortunately it
had very
few opinions, because it didn't know very much, and its opinions were
supposed to
reflect a mostly nonexistent consensus."
- --------

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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:53:31 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ World Question on NIC.BIZ

Are you saying that ISPs will then direct WWW.NIC.BIZ
to their local registry operations ?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12515.html
RFC-2001-06-27-000 - 0:212 .BIZ IPv8 SLD.TLD Public Domain Names

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ World Question on NIC.BIZ

> I believe NIC.BIZ is reserved separately in .BIZ Appendix K.  See
>
<http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appk-26apr01
> .htm>, section D, first bullet point.
>
>
> Ben Edelman
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]> wrote in message
> news:<[email-masked]>...
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr04jul01-3.htm
> > Announcement  4 July 2001
> > Information About .biz and .info Top-Level Domains Available
> > available at web sites operated by their registry operators
> > <http://www.nic.biz> and <http://www.nic.info>.
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > NIC.BIZ is not listed here...
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appx-11may01.htm
> > ldap.biz
> > multilingual.biz
> > mybiz.biz
> > network.biz
> > <<<<<<<<<???? NIC.BIZ ????
> > nntp.biz
> > ntp.biz
> > order.biz
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ...current whois for NIC.BIZ
> > http://www.pacificroot.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois.cgi
> > Domain Name: nic.biz
> > Registrant:
> >  ARNI
> >  Leah Gallegos
> >  P.O. Box 9305
> >  virginia beach, VA 23450-9305
> >  United States
> >  Telephone: 757-631-9838
> >  Fax: 000-000-0000
> >  Email: [email-masked]
> >
> >       Created: 20001025.2020
> > Last Modified: 20010627.1116
> >
> > DNS Servers:
> >  ns2.beachshore.net
> >  ns1.quasar.net
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > Who owns NIC.BIZ ???
> >
> >
> > 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-BIZ.com
> > 0:212 - BIZ World
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

- --
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 16:56:08 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ World Question on NIC.BIZ

Whereas, on June 10, 2001 the IETF was notified of "Proof of Concept TLD
Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
Whereas, the IPv4 Internet has not crashed.

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

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 0:212 - BIZ World Question on NIC.BIZ

> 
> 
> On 5 Jul 2001, at 16:59, Ben Edelman wrote:
> 
> > I believe NIC.BIZ is reserved separately in .BIZ Appendix K.  See
> > <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appk-2
> > 6apr01 .htm>, section D, first bullet point.
> > 
> 
> And the significance is?  NIC.BIZ has been reserved for the original 
> .biz since it was re-delegated last May (2000).  Nuelevel's 
> duplicate is just that.  For that matter, anything registered under 
> the duplicate TLD is a duplicate.   
> 
> Leah
> 
> > Ben Edelman
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email-masked]>...
> > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr04jul01-3.htm >
> > Announcement  4 July 2001 > Information About .biz and .info Top-Level
> > Domains Available > available at web sites operated by their registry
> > operators > <http://www.nic.biz> and <http://www.nic.info>. >
> > ----------------------------------------------------- > > NIC.BIZ is
> > not listed here... >
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appx-11may01.ht
> > m > ldap.biz > multilingual.biz > mybiz.biz > network.biz >
> > <<<<<<<<<???? NIC.BIZ ???? > nntp.biz > ntp.biz > order.biz >
> > ----------------------------------------------------- > > ...current
> > whois for NIC.BIZ > http://www.pacificroot.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois.cgi
> > > Domain Name: nic.biz > Registrant: >  ARNI >  Leah Gallegos >  P.O.
> > Box 9305 >  virginia beach, VA 23450-9305 >  United States > 
> > Telephone: 757-631-9838 >  Fax: 000-000-0000 >  Email:
> > [email-masked] > >       Created: 20001025.2020 > Last Modified:
> > 20010627.1116 > > DNS Servers: >  ns2.beachshore.net >  ns1.quasar.net
> > > ---------------------------------------- > > Who owns NIC.BIZ ??? >
> > > > 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-BIZ.com > 0:212 - BIZ World > > -- >
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. > Send mail
> > to [email-masked] to unsubscribe > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body
> > of the message). > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:47:00 +1200 
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] language legalities

Paul Svensson did say:

> On the NeuLevel www.nic.biz webpage it's stated:
>> Due to legal restrictions, all legal forms and documents are available in
English only.

> Could someone explain what's the issue here,
> what restrictions are they referring to ?

This is only a guess at the reasons, I have no 'inside' knowledge of
NeuLevel and I am not a lawyer nor play one on TV.

This issue in providing contracts in different languages is they each have
variations that are not always apparent when first written. This then means
as contracts are changed and tweaked the points of difference start to grow
and the contract in, say, Spanish offers different rights than say the one
in Kanji. So to make it easy on NeuLevel they have appeared to say 'ok, lets
just offer it in English'. On a personal side I would expect that if a
contract was in Kanji then the court of the land would be Japan where I
think NeuLevel would not want it to be.

The GA often has trouble agreeing on meaning or understanding of words
(consensus and wanton come to mind) and we are (to the large degree) only
using English to communicate with each other).

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:58:53 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Winning the domain name blame game

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1057C.2720A920
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2780128-54,00.html

Winning the domain name blame game
By Ari Kaplan, eWEEK
July 1, 2001 9:00 PM PT
URL:

Recently, Marilyn Cade, the director of e-commerce and Internet policy for
AT&T, mentioned to me that, with this summer's introduction of new top-level
domains, ICANN's UDRP will soon be the name of the game for all enterprises
registering .biz or .info Web sites.

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1057C.2720A920
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2780128-54,00=
.html">http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2780128-54,00.=
html</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D5>Winning the domain name blame=20
game<BR></FONT></STRONG>By <I>Ari Kaplan</I>, <A=20
href=3D"http://www.zdnet.com/eweek">eWEEK</A><BR>July 1, 2001 9:00 PM =
PT<BR>URL:=20
<A href=3D""></A>
<P>
<P>Recently, Marilyn Cade, the director of e-commerce and Internet =
policy for=20
AT&amp;T, mentioned to me that, with this summer's introduction of new =
top-level=20
domains, ICANN's UDRP will soon be the name of the game for all =
enterprises=20
registering .biz or .info Web sites.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>/Bruce</P>
<P><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</P>
<P><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C1057C.2720A920--

- --
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, 05 Jul 2001 19:11:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .kids domain

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Leah,
>
> L Gallegos wrote on 04.07.01, 23:27:23:
> > I would not hesitate to write to the author of the bill regardless of
> > where you live.  It may serve to put our legislature on notice that
> > they need to pay attention to the global community and not just
> > the US.  This may be an opportune time to make that statement.
>
> thanks for your encouragement, but I remain skeptical
> because I know from people who actually worked for
> Congresspeople that they (have to) ignore e-mail even
> from outside their /Congressional District/. To cope with
> the enormous amount of incoming comments, sorting them
> by location of sender is a simple strategy.

 Indeed this is done by some congressman on a fairly regular basis.
That is why I earlier suggested alternate methods of letting congress
members your concerns.

> For a North
> Californian Representative, Grapevine TX is "not his
> bailiwick", let alone Hamburg, Germany. That's why
> the "Write Your Representative" system has been set up.

  Some but not all Congress folk do take this attitude.  That is
why you can also write your embassy in Washington and request of
them to contact the appropriate or specified congress person to let
you feeling and concerns known.  I receive on a fairly regular basis
very direct communications (e-mail) from a number of
Congressmen and Senators that are not in my state, let alone
district.

>
>
> Nonetheless: To write to Mr Shimkus from outside the U.S.,
> you can go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and select
> "Illinois", for the ZIP code you can enter "62234" and "3019".
> You should provide your real address in your message, since
> any reply will be in written form, not per e-mail.

  It is always good to provide an accurate address, as I do, in your
communications with congressmen and senators.

>
>
> > This proposed legislation does make a point, though, doesn't it?
> > How can ICANN claim to be a multinational organization and the
> > root a global entity when it is owned and controlled by the US
> > government? Isn't it, then, a US root with a huge market share,
> > managed by a private US corporation?
>
> I don't think private US corporations are evil per se, as
> long as their actions and internal workings reflect the global
> nature of the Net, and there definitely is room for improvement...
> If the bill passes (which I think is highly unlikely), the U.S.
> parliament has failed the litmus test for providing an
> environment in which such an experiment as ICANN can take place.

  The US doesn't have a parliamentary form of government and therefore
does not have a parliament.  We have a House of Representatives and a
Senate.

>
>
> > With ICANN not having to
> > answer to anyone but the state AG and DoC and with DoC simply
> > rubber stamping anything that ICANN decides per their stated
> > policy, we seem to have just what was said at the February
> > hearing:
> >
> > ...ICANN answers to no one but maybe God and perhaps not even
> > to Him...
>
> I don't think California's Attorney General or the U.S.
> Department of Commerce /should/ have a decisive say
> in Internet management.

  I agree.

>
>
> > Also from the hearing:
> >
> > ["Mr. Pickering:  This is the dilemma for us and has been for the
> > very beginning.  The reason we have ICANN is to avoid the APA,
> > the Adiminstrative Procedures Act, as much as any reason.  We
> > didn't want the APA to apply to ICANN."]
>
> I remember Congressman Dingell referring to ICANN as
> "the agency which we are constituting to act on behalf of
> the U.S. government" in that hearing. Ouch.
>
> > Open, transparent, bottom-up?
> Way to go!
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>

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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:48:37 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] language legalities

I believe that there is generality of truth to what Mr. Heath writes.
The Individuals unit will need to implement funding and ability and support for
multicultural and multilingual programs and translation or it will not have my
support.  I agree that it may take time but it must be part of an integrated and
*enforceable*  part of it's charter.
Eric

Steven Heath wrote:

> Paul Svensson did say:
>
> > On the NeuLevel www.nic.biz webpage it's stated:
> >> Due to legal restrictions, all legal forms and documents are available in
> English only.
>
> > Could someone explain what's the issue here,
> > what restrictions are they referring to ?
>
> This is only a guess at the reasons, I have no 'inside' knowledge of
> NeuLevel and I am not a lawyer nor play one on TV.
>
> This issue in providing contracts in different languages is they each have
> variations that are not always apparent when first written. This then means
> as contracts are changed and tweaked the points of difference start to grow
> and the contract in, say, Spanish offers different rights than say the one
> in Kanji. So to make it easy on NeuLevel they have appeared to say 'ok, lets
> just offer it in English'. On a personal side I would expect that if a
> contract was in Kanji then the court of the land would be Japan where I
> think NeuLevel would not want it to be.
>
> The GA often has trouble agreeing on meaning or understanding of words
> (consensus and wanton come to mind) and we are (to the large degree) only
> using English to communicate with each other).
>
> Steven Heath
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 21:10:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony

In the DNSO, policy decisions are voted on by the contractors hired by ICANN 
(the registries and registrars) and by the lobbyists for the special-interest 
groups (constituencies) that can afford to pay for the right to vote... if 
they can no longer afford to pay (like the NonCommercial Constituency) they 
are told that they will forfeit their voting rights.

We commoners, the "public" in "public-benefit corporation", have no voting 
rights whatsoever.  

But... we are told that we are not excluded from DNSO decision-making, 
because:

1.  We can communicate our issues directly to the NC intake committee.  On 27 
February a petition was formally made to the intake committee -- 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00215.html  This petition, 
even though formally endorsed by almost two dozen members of the Review 
Working Group, was totally ignored by this Committee.   You may review the 
archives to look for any discussion on this petition, but you will find none; 
our reigning Autocrat did not deign to even pretend that he would listen to 
our concerns.

2.  We may avail ourselves of opportunities for full "public comment" after a 
Task Force has already made their recommendations.  Those of us that 
participated in the Review Working Group are well aware of how our comments 
are incorporated by a Task Force -- they are either buried deep in the 
footnotes, totally ignored, filtered or distorted.  The recommendations that 
emerged in the final Review Task Force Report bore no resemblance to the 
views expressed by the majority of participants in the working group.  

3.  We can now appoint a single representative to a Task Force.  Clearly this 
must be the shining example of the long-awaited "improvement on the present 
structure of DNSO working groups!"  Now instead of 80-120 participants of the 
General Assembly involved in substantive discussions within a working group 
environment, our "full participation" is the commentary of a solitary 
representative.

We are witnessing an attack on the intent of the ByLaws.  It is the "bodies 
of the GA" that are charged with "carrying out the substantive work of the 
DNSO", not Task Forces appointed by the NC.  These "bodies" shall invite 
"each recognized constituency to participate".   The only role set aside for 
the NC is the "management" of these GA "bodies".  

These issues should be brought to the attention of the Board.   I look 
forward to hearing your thoughts as to when should be the best time to 
forward such concerns.
- --
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 19:34:13 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 09:10:38PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

[. polemics deleted .]

> We are witnessing an attack on the intent of the ByLaws.  It is the "bodies 
> of the GA" that are charged with "carrying out the substantive work of the 
> DNSO", not Task Forces appointed by the NC.

The GA is defined as all the participants in the DNSO; therefore TFs 
are "bodies of the GA".

> These "bodies" shall invite 
> "each recognized constituency to participate".  The only role set
> aside for the NC is the "management" of these GA "bodies". 

From my dictionary: "manage: to direct, control, handle; to direct
business affairs". 

In other words, the NC has direct responsibility for making the DNSO
work.  There is no management role assigned to the "chair of the GA" in
the bylaws; there is no decision-making role assigned to the GA in the
bylaws.  The GA is just a collective term for the total membership of 
the DNSO; it is not a separate deliberative body.

> These issues should be brought to the attention of the Board.

Yes, I agree that the Board should take charge.  Self-management of the 
GA has obviously failed.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 23:29:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Time Capsule

One year ago...

excerpted from the DNSO Working Group E report:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-e/Arc00/msg00186.html

1.3.5.1  "The sense based on recent DNSO Names Council actions is that the 
Working Groups may be ignored at whim.  This attitude is not conducive to the 
type of grassroots and international involvement being sought within the 
working group process. "
           
Today...  

excerpted from remarks by Philip Sheppard:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03377.html

"One item of the plan concerning Review, takes its input directly from WG 
E... "   

and that input would be that there is sufficient precedent for the Council to 
ignore Working Groups?       
- --
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 23:41:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] From the Archives

Original post from: Dr. Nii N. Quaynor 
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:27:54 -0000 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc00/msg00087.html

Hi Tony,
 
The concept of control in the referenced context seems inappropriate since it 
suggests capture, one of the very things the bylaws attempt to avoid. There 
seems to be intended a carefully crafted balance between consensus building 
facilitators (names council) and the consensus body (general assembly) in the 
portion of the bylaws you've quoted.
 
To answer you directly, all the work to be done may be done by the GA and 
much of it may be initiated by the GA as well, in the steady state. Here's a 
quote from the dnso link that captures this:
 
"(c) Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider 
domain name policies
or recommendations. If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name 
topic, or if a
Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or 
drafting committees,
or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall 
set a time frame 
for the report of such committee or working group."

So one may conclude that the GA can:

1. Initiate new topics for Working groups to consider; 
 
2. Be members of the Working Groups;

3. Accept updates and reports from current Working Groups

4. Do *anything else it wants to do* not assigned to others in the DNSO 
constituencies, which in their opinion advances the cause of the DNSO. For 
example, the GA may develop a position on the ICANN budget or on the fee 
structure to fund ICANN, etc.

In addition, this section of the ICANN bylaws specifically dealing with the 
GA states:

"Section 4: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

(a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO, 
and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO. 
The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and 
an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary 
responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise 
to the work of the
DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, 
draft document preparation, and participation in research and drafting 
committees and working groups. " 
 
This suggests that the real work gets done in the open forum, where 
participation in the work of the DNSO would occur. So, may be its not so much 
what would the GA do which is not already being done by the NC but more so 
that the NC cannot possibly do all the work in isolation and requires the 
open forum of the GA to do its work.
 
Regards,
Nii
 
- --
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, 05 Jul 2001 23:21:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> but the GA wants to call the shots?

  That's now how I understand it Chuck.  Rather it is that the GA members
want to collect their own budget and manage it, but the NC wants to
decide how it is used....  Kinda a odd idea, IMHO....

  Than the NC wants GA members to participate in a couple of
TF groups for free...  Also a bit odd as well...

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; Names Council; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> World
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:59:27 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:36 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > Finally, the NC has spent considerable time to start a recruitment and
> > fund raising process in order to improve DNSO secretariat support. The
> > GA like the NC will be a beneficiary of this.
>
> Tell me you're kidding.  Do we get to select the service provider?
>
> Independently of Names Council control?
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>

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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:24:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

Bret and all assembly members,

Bret A. Fausett wrote:

> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the services,
> > but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all the
> constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to it without
> charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't that hard to
> accept.

  For the time being that is how I understood it is suppose to work until the
GA can put together it's own funding.

> I hope the current problem of this being a de facto place for
> unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an individual domain name
> owners constituency is finally chartered and operational.

  It won't.  But than again we have been here before, haven't we?  :(

>
>
>       -- Bret
>
> --
> 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 #594
************************