Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #595
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, July 6 2001             Volume 01 : Number 595

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:39:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass  HR 2417 .KIDS

Burce and all assembly members,

  Not to worry.  Some 14k of our members that I am aware of anyway,
have been sending letters, e-mails, and faxes starting July 1.  They
shall
continue...

Bruce James wrote:

>   H. R. 2417
>
>                                                       IN THE HOUSE OF
> REPRESENTATIVES
> To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain
> that
> will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of
>
> children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online
> environment for children, and to help prevent children from being
> exposed to
> harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
>
>
> I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local
> congressperson to
> *Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere.
> Please
> use the link below to find their address.
>
>                             http://www.house.gov/writerep/
>
> This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our
> children! We
> need your *HELP*!
>
>
>

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 21:39:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Mr. Williams et al,

This thread sounds as though veterans of the GA are agreeing that the individuals
constituency really is still not going to happen.  That the task force for whom we
are electing a representative is really just so much more crape.  I am a nominee
for said task force which in large part will decide important matters regarding
the establishment of said constituency.

Is it your combined wisdom that such is worthless.  I especially ask Phillip and
Stuart who are conspicuously agreeing by silent admission.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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-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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:53:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Folks, I have a question about process and topics for a minute.  I was not
> aware that the GA thought that  it's role included endorsing country
> specific legislation and find this of concern.

  As far as I know of have thus fare read, there isn't any GA sponsored
endorsing of any country specific legislation.  There are members suggesting
that H.R. 2417 (.KIDS TLD Bill) should be supported.  Yet there are others
that are suggesting the this bill NOT be supported as well.  I don't see this
as the "GA" "endorsing of any country specific legislation", as you put it
Merilyn....  ?????

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:15 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS
>
>     Roberto:
>
>     The US Congress is not going to let the DoC do anything to the free
> ICANN from the USG control. That is why this bill will pass.
>
>     /Bruce
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:41
> Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS
>
> Bruce James wrote:
>
> >To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain that
> >will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of
> >children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online
> >environment for children, and to help prevent children from being exposed
> >to
> >harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
> >
> >
> >I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local congressperson to
> >*Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere. Please
> >use the link below to find their address.
> >
> >                             http://www.house.gov/writerep/
> >
> >This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our children! We
> >need your *HELP*!
>
> I strongly disagree for the following reasons:
>
> 1. The creation of a specific TLD for kids will not achieve any result,
> except to attract side by side sites really meant for kids with other
> off-topic or even counterproductive material, like kids pornography, unless
> the Registry will not be given the power to police the contents of the Web
> sites worldwide, which is illegal in some countries.
>
> 2. The creation of a TLD by decision of the US Congress is severely
> limitating the power of ICANN and ratifying the subordinate role of ICANN to
> USG. The immediate effect of this decision will be a reaction by non-US
> actors, and the real risk of a split of the Internet. Which is, BTW, why I
> do believe that US Congress will never pass such a bill. Please note that
> the creation of a .kids.us SLD will be perfectly acceptable because it will
> act under US law and not have any international ripercussion.
>
> Anyway, as a supporter of a really international Internet co-ordination body
> (which ICANN is not, BTW), I have to confess that the idea that US Congress
> might make such a stupid mistake like passing the bill and forcing the rest
> of the world to evaluate different alternatives outside the "longa manus" of
> uncle Sam tickles my imagination.
>
> Yeah, who knows, in the future we might remember this early July for another
> "Independence Day", the beginning of a movement of independence of the
> Netizens from US Government. Might not be so bad, after all, to have a tea
> party with 13 brand new root servers! ;>)
>
> 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
> --
> 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: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 00:18:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Williams et al,
>
> This thread sounds as though veterans of the GA are agreeing that the individuals
> constituency really is still not going to happen.  That the task force for whom we
> are electing a representative is really just so much more crape.  I am a nominee
> for said task force which in large part will decide important matters regarding
> the establishment of said constituency.
>
> Is it your combined wisdom that such is worthless.

  No not at all.  The need to move forward regardless of any possible result
is as important if not more so in order for the record to be determined...

> I especially ask Phillip and
> Stuart who are conspicuously agreeing by silent admission.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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-full" 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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:21:56 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
> 
> > 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.
> 

The Board is likely busy planning for their next vacation.
Where is the next one ?
Will you be funded by them and traveling with them ?

As for the expansion of the DNS, things appear to be going very well.
What ever happened to all those TLDs you promised ?

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

People seem anxious to move on to the real services, IPv16, etc.
There is some great content being developed, now that Freedom
is starting to emerge from behind the Iron Curtain of the I* crowd.

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, 05 Jul 2001 22:58:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] From the Archives

Dear Danny,

Please let us in on your plan here.  You are doing one hell of a job fighting
top-down abuse. It is time to let us plebes in on your master plan.  If it is
good we will join ranks.  Right now we know you are up to something but do not
know what.  Help us to help you.

Eric,

[email-masked] wrote:

> 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-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: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:07:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Bruce James wrote:
>
> >To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain that
> >will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of
> >children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online
> >environment for children, and to help prevent children from being exposed
> >to
> >harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
> >
> >
> >I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local congressperson to
> >*Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere. Please
> >use the link below to find their address.
> >
> >                            http://www.house.gov/writerep/
> >
> >This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our children! We
> >need your *HELP*!
>
> I strongly disagree for the following reasons:
>
> 1. The creation of a specific TLD for kids will not achieve any result,
> except to attract side by side sites really meant for kids with other
> off-topic or even counterproductive material, like kids pornography, unless
> the Registry will not be given the power to police the contents of the Web
> sites worldwide, which is illegal in some countries.

  This is not a valid reason for the following reasons:

 1.) The proposal that one of the interested parties proposed, which has
      been discussed in brief lately on the NCDNHC list (Page Howe, myself
      And Vint Cerf: See relevant archives for further details) addresses the
issue
      of questionable content at registration time of any DN within the .KIDS
      name space.  Had you reviewed the proposal, of course, you would know
this.
      It seems that you either have not or did not do so very carefully.  It
also
      seems that the ICANN BoD and staff did not either before and during
      the MDR ICANN Meeting...

2.) Content concerns with respect to pornography can be dealt with if the
registry
     is a US based registry and they are within the GATT trade agreements.

>
>
> 2. The creation of a TLD by decision of the US Congress is severely
> limitating the power of ICANN and ratifying the subordinate role of ICANN to
> USG. The immediate effect of this decision will be a reaction by non-US
> actors, and the real risk of a split of the Internet.

  This is somewhat of a n odd argument.  The Net is already split now with ICANN

introducing duplicate TLD's .BIZ and .INFO.  Hence this argument is moot at best
on
this score.  With respect to limiting the power of ICANN, the USG has always
thus far had that power, and the congress shares to some extent in the ability
to limit any non-profit corporation should the State in which it is corp.
registration
is filed fails to do so.  This seems to be the situation presently, and congress

has taken notice in a more prominent manner.  This trend may continue, it may
not.  None the less ICANN is a US non-profit corp.  As such it is bound by
US law...

> Which is, BTW, why I
> do believe that US Congress will never pass such a bill. Please note that
> the creation of a .kids.us SLD will be perfectly acceptable because it will
> act under US law and not have any international ripercussion.

  It may have international repercussion under GATT and NAFTA...

>
>
> Anyway, as a supporter of a really international Internet co-ordination body
> (which ICANN is not, BTW), I have to confess that the idea that US Congress
> might make such a stupid mistake like passing the bill and forcing the rest
> of the world to evaluate different alternatives outside the "longa manus" of
> uncle Sam tickles my imagination.

  The tickling of anyone imagination is really not all that relevant of an
argument
against such a bill being considered.  I personally thought the cybersquating
Bill was stupid as well and had no chance of passing either.  But it did...  The

US is not forcing the rest of the world into anything with this bill.  Rather it
is
suggesting that the ICANN BoD and staff need to be aware who is in charge...
And that is the stakeholders!  And the ones in the US VOTE!  Congress
folk know this, and should they wish to remain in office, they must listen
to their constituents of bare the consequences of not doing so.

>
>
> Yeah, who knows, in the future we might remember this early July for another
> "Independence Day", the beginning of a movement of independence of the
> Netizens from US Government. Might not be so bad, after all, to have a tea
> party with 13 brand new root servers! ;>)

  Good idea!  I'll support it!  >;)

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 01:15:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> We need to separate this "Individual Domain Name Holders, and other
> persons who are NOT a member of any constituency from those who ARE
> members of a (DNSO) constituency.

  I am not sure that we NEED to do this, but that it is a good idea for
" Individual Domain Name Holders" to have their own Constituency.

>
>
> Within the DNSO, of course the secretariat provides service to the
> entire DNSO.

  Glad you used the work SERVICE here in this statement...  >;)

>
>
> What is at issue, is who can request services from the secretariat, or
> authorize incurring costs.

  I would think any DNSO GA member could, amongst others...

>
>
> Historically, direction to the secretariat to set up lists, incur costs,
> etc, has come from the Names Council, who represents the constituencies.
> After all, the constituencies elected their NC reps.

  Certainly the NC reps should be a vehicle to which services from the
Sec. can be requested.  However individual GA members should also
have this ability.  So should the Chair and Alt-Chair, after all they
are elected by the GA members...

>
>
> Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of who is authorized to
> make these requests, and a procedure for GA chair to generate such
> requests for authorization.

  Perhaps, yes.  ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to
share with all of us?

>
>
> Should the GA chair be able to generate such requests unilaterally?

 Yes, for some specified services....  They need to be outlined...

>
>
> Or
>
> Should such requests be generated after consensus is reached on the
> subject on the GA list or in face to face meetings

  It should be based upon a vote (on line) of the GA members...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bret A.
> Fausett
> 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
> World
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:27:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals

 Changed the header! and the threader!

We are discussing a great deal of matters that will have huge implications for
any Individuals group.

I have come to the conclusion that we need to form a constituency including
Iindividual Domain Name Holders and that from that non-holders may they form
another constituency just called *users* and that this will work providing no
evolutionary interference.

Yes a huge provision.

Eric,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Peter and all assembly members,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > We need to separate this "Individual Domain Name Holders, and other
> > persons who are NOT a member of any constituency from those who ARE
> > members of a (DNSO) constituency.
>
>   I am not sure that we NEED to do this, but that it is a good idea for
> " Individual Domain Name Holders" to have their own Constituency.
>
> >
> >
> > Within the DNSO, of course the secretariat provides service to the
> > entire DNSO.
>
>   Glad you used the work SERVICE here in this statement...  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > What is at issue, is who can request services from the secretariat, or
> > authorize incurring costs.
>
>   I would think any DNSO GA member could, amongst others...
>
> >
> >
> > Historically, direction to the secretariat to set up lists, incur costs,
> > etc, has come from the Names Council, who represents the constituencies.
> > After all, the constituencies elected their NC reps.
>
>   Certainly the NC reps should be a vehicle to which services from the
> Sec. can be requested.  However individual GA members should also
> have this ability.  So should the Chair and Alt-Chair, after all they
> are elected by the GA members...
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of who is authorized to
> > make these requests, and a procedure for GA chair to generate such
> > requests for authorization.
>
>   Perhaps, yes.  ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to
> share with all of us?
>
> >
> >
> > Should the GA chair be able to generate such requests unilaterally?
>
>  Yes, for some specified services....  They need to be outlined...
>
> >
> >
> > Or
> >
> > Should such requests be generated after consensus is reached on the
> > subject on the GA list or in face to face meetings
>
>   It should be based upon a vote (on line) of the GA members...
>
> >
> >
> > Peter de Blanc

- --
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 10:46:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony

President Younger declared:

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

First of all, the GA is certainly NOT the >> "public" in 
"public-benefit corporation" << as you like to put it. Instead, it's 
where the interested part of this public should assemble for 
reasonable and thoughtful debate on all kinds of issues of the DNSO 
- - which obviously doesn't happen.

Anyway - may I suggest an experiment?  Just try to look at the GA's 
exchanges with the eyes of someone who's fairly new to but actually 
interested in ICANN matters, and expects a working GA.  You'd be 
extremely disappointed.

Instead of respectful debate, you'd find idiotic flame wars.

Instead of a reasonable exchange of opinions between constituencies, 
you'd notice that the GA's co-chairs are apparently fighting the 
NC's chair and the NC in general - that is, of course, the council 
of SO representatives.

Instead of an open and intelligent debate on issues, you'd find 
campaigning and procedural concerns.  (Just look at the "discussion" 
on HR 2417.)

Instead of chairs who try to moderate the discussion (this is 
distinct from moderating the list in the technical sense!), you'd 
find chairs who contribute to the noise themselves.

While I concur that the NC doesn't do a good job in helping to 
manage the GA, I have to note that the GA's current chairs are doing 
the worst job ever at this.

- -- 
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: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:46:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass  HR 2417 .KIDS

- --=====================_2733025==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Chair,
I am sorry for once to oppose Bruce, but this is a local politicking issue 
which has no place on an international technical support/advisory forum. I 
ask you to clarify this as soon as possible.
Otherwise it would confirm that we are on an USCANN forum oriented towards 
internal affairs. Upto now I thought we were on an USCANN forum oriented 
towards international concerns on an equal rights basis.
Jefsey

PS. I am certainly in favor of of the concept supported by Bruce, but I do 
not support the ".kids" wording. I do support the ".junior" wording using 
Latin/Esparanto as a worldwide reference.

I note that kids in Latin is "infans" and that a most of the cultures would 
accept a young and dynamic dimminutive to be formed in replacing "ans" by 
"o". This TLD does exist without any other reason than to oblige millions 
of ".com" holder to duplicate their DNs in ".info".  The TLD ".info" for 
infans/enfant/infant- does exist today. It only calls for a phone call 
between Louis Touton and Straton Sclavos to agree about it to be of any use 
to the Global Internet Community. But I suppose that exhausted Louis Touton 
went to sleep this time. Let him rest in peace.

On 19:11 05/07/01, Bruce James said:
>
>H. R. 2417
>
>                                                       IN THE HOUSE OF 
> REPRESENTATIVES
>
>To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain that 
>will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of 
>children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online 
>environment for children, and to help prevent children from being exposed 
>to harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
>
>I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local congressperson 
>to *Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere. 
>Please use the link below to find their address.
>
> 
><http://www.house.gov/writerep/>http://www.house.gov/writerep/
>
>This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our children! We 
>need your *HELP*!
>
>/Bruce James
>
>
>
>

- --=====================_2733025==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Chair,<br>
I am sorry for once to oppose Bruce, but this is a local politicking
issue which has no place on an international technical support/advisory
forum. I ask you to clarify this as soon as possible. <br>
Otherwise it would confirm that we are on an USCANN forum oriented
towards internal affairs. Upto now I thought we were on an USCANN forum
oriented towards international concerns on an equal rights basis.<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
PS. I am certainly in favor of of the concept supported by Bruce, but I
do not support the &quot;.kids&quot; wording. I do support the
&quot;.junior&quot; wording using Latin/Esparanto as a worldwide
reference. <br>
<br>
I note that kids in Latin is &quot;infans&quot; and that a most of the
cultures would accept a young and dynamic dimminutive to be formed in
replacing &quot;ans&quot; by &quot;o&quot;. This TLD does exist without
any other reason than to oblige millions of &quot;.com&quot; holder to
duplicate their DNs in &quot;.info&quot;.&nbsp; The TLD &quot;.info&quot;
for infans/enfant/infant- does exist today. It only calls for a phone
call between Louis Touton and Straton Sclavos to agree about it to be of
any use to the Global Internet Community. But I suppose that exhausted
Louis Touton went to sleep this time. Let him rest in peace.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19:11 05/07/01, Bruce James said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2><b>&nbsp;<br>
<div align="center">
H. R. 2417<br>
&nbsp;<br>
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br>
<br>
To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level Internet domain that
will be a haven for material that will promote positive experiences of
children and families using the Internet, to provide a safe online
environment for children, and to help prevent children from being exposed
to harmful material on the Internet, and for other purposes. <br>
<br>
I urge all of the GA to write, phone and email your local congressperson
to *Co-Sponsor HR 2417*. This bill needs co-sponsors to get anywhere.
Please use the link below to find their address. <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.house.gov/writerep/">http://www.house.gov/writerep/</a>
<br>
<br>
This new gTLD .KIDS is a very good idea for the safety of our children! We need your *HELP*! <br>
<br>
/Bruce James <br>
<br>
&nbsp; <br>
<br>
&nbsp;</font></b></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_2733025==_.ALT--

- --
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 #595
************************