Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #603
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 10 2001            Volume 01 : Number 603

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:51:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

I will block this motion for the reasons that it includes the wording
"However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by consensus, refer issues to the
full GA for a determinative ballot." This statement describes a process by
which an issue is moved to a determinative ballot from the sub-list to the
GA. Of itself, the process by which a determinative ballot is enacted has
not been discussed or agreed and flies in the face of a document (which
Patrick himself has been copied offlist), which sets out Best Practices for
processes.

Now either Patrick is so dumb as to not realize what he is doing, or he
deliberately sabotaging something he purports to support. Either way, this
motion sets about changing rules in the most naive way. Sorry Peter, but you
should take a look at the Best Practices Document before jumping into this
one.

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/9/01 1:51 PM, Peter de Blanc at [email-masked] wrote:

> I second PatricK's motion!
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Corliss
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair
> 
>> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
>> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
>> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> 
>> perhaps more significant business.
>> 
>> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it
> 
>> a responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing
>> thin, and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard
> 
>> as "non-productive" communications.
> 
> Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many
> times, that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by
> discussion of rules and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I
> asked Danny to set up [ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.
> 
> Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to
> comply. My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules,
> lists and powers of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be
> careful saying "officials" or "representatives" as this would
> undoubtedly spark more debate.
> 
> So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue
> further. We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].
> We have discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for
> a vote of the full General Assembly.
> 
> (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to
> DNS
> policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
> etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES
> may, by consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative
> ballot.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of
> (1)
> above.
> 
> I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?
> 
> Best 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
> 

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:38:38 -0400
From: ken stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NCUDRP TF

i did nominate dan steinberg and re-affirm his nomination again

ken stubbs

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> At 09:22 AM 7/9/2001 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > > GA Members,
> > >
> > > The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate
> > > its representative to the Names Council UDRP Task Force
> > > are published in:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-UdrpTF.html
> > > The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA
> > > to the Names Council UDRP Task Force is open now.
> >
> >According to the web page, so far we have:
> >         Williams nominates McElroy
> >         McElroy nominates Williams
> >         Teernstra nominates Froomkin
> >         McElroy accepts nomination
> >I just nominated Lovell. Methinks the rest of you might consider whether
> >others should be nominated.
>
>          FWIW, besides McElroy, "Willliams," Lovell and Froomkin, the other
> people whose names have been put forward on this list        for the job --
> but not yet actually nominated -- are Dan Steinberg and Rod Dixon.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:39:41 -0400
From: ken stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

here ! here!

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> perhaps more significant business.
>
> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it a
> responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing thin,
> and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard as
> "non-productive" communications.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Roessler
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair
>
> On 2001-07-08 22:03:42 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list
> >in the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to
> >the main GA list by 62 individuals.  Six people accounted for half
> >of all the posts.
>
> [...]
>
> >Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
> >individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have
> >received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average
> >of one post per individual about every 3-4 days).
>
> >I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly
> >might best be served by further restricting the number of
> >allowable daily postings in order to cut down on the "noise".
> >Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list would be sensible,
> >if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.
>
> As you demonstrated yourself, it would be entirely sufficient to
> enforce the existing rules - at least in the case of regular
> offenses.  Just imagine what would happen if the list monitors were
> doing their work: The six people you mentioned (with the possible
> exception of Patrick) would be "on holidays", and the list traffic
> would be considerably reduced.
>
> So there is really no actual need to further restrict the number of
> postings per day - IF the current rules are actually applied.
>
> Note, BTW, that those who suggest "fuzzy" posting quotas (it's just
> one over the 5 posts per day) are basically just trying to push the
> posting quota up.
>
> Saying that minor violations (one or two postings ov er the quota)
> don't lead to sanctions is just equivalent to lifting the quota to 6
> or 7 postings per day.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:34:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

On 21:38 09/07/01, Joanna Lane said:
>according to our BEST PRACTICES Draft Document

Could someone tell me where I can find the REAL rules in use?

I only hear from people wanting to enforce their own conceptions.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:46:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" (ICP-3) 

Milton Mueller's first comments on Stuart Lynn's revised draft, and the need 
for a working group:

Fellow Name Council members:

Whatever one's opinion of this document's substance, 
it is a completely illegitimate exercise. The staff has no 
authority to unilaterally declare that something is a policy. 

Policy in this matter is quite explicitly the purview of the 
DNSO, according to corporate articles and bylaws.

I would like to know on what basis ICANN staff decided to
completely bypass its own DNSO in drafting this so-called
policy.

This document was not even voted on by the ICANN Board. 

What makes this all the more egregious is that if ICANN
management had respect for its own processes, it would 
probably get something very like the same policy through
the DNSO. My own dissenting views are (probably) in the 
minority at this point. But apparently staff are so
fearful that its made-up policies cannot stand up to the
light of open discussion in a neutral forum that it has to
bypass any process at all.

Why are you afraid of open debate and discussion of this
issue in a working group? Do you lack confidence in the merit
of your ideas?

Milton Mueller

- -------------------
Perhaps Milton can also elaborate on why the Names Council chose to reverse 
its decision and to declare this topic to be beyond the scope of the DNSO.  
Mr. Lynn's draft may be read at 
http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/lynn-statement-09jul01.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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:40:45 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" (ICP-3)

On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:46:36PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Milton Mueller's first comments on Stuart Lynn's revised draft, and the need 
>for a working group:

You should also note Joe Sims' reply:

    Milton, not only are your views minority, but your characterizations
    and facts are wrong.  As Stuart described in detail in the original
    draft, and at the public forum meeting in Stockholm, this is a
    statement of existing policy, not an attempt to change policy or
    create new policy.  You are free to disagree, but for some reason it
    appears that the only way you know how to disagree is to attack the
    motives of the other side.  This is not an effective technique, and
    may at least partially explain why you are so often in the minority. 
    In addition, the Board in Stockholm authorized Stuart to finalize
    and publish this document as a statement of existing policy; perhaps
    you were out of the room.  If you disagree with the policy, feel
    free to seek to change it; all you have to do is to convince enough
    others so as to generate consensus support for your position.  FWIW,
    I think this would be a challenge on this particular subject, where
    it appears that the vast majority of those in the community who do
    not have adverse economic interests agree with the current policy,
    but you are certainly free to try. 

    Joe Sims
    Jones Day Reavis & Pogue

- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:32:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

Dear Jefsey,

But of course and they really are followed to a large degree;
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html.

It is just that they are so loose any one can interpret them
differently.  I am beginning to see clearly that it is not the rules but
behind the scene games which dictate the efficacy of the lists.  Don't
get me wrong we need strong more tight rules and I just love the new
suggestion for the five posts (although I think it a silly limit).

The rules have some funny quirks like being able to oust a monitor by a
vote - but no mechanism for a vote. One matter of interest is that we
are supposed to be representative of InternetStakeholders and there is
absolutely nothing in our rules to promote that idea.

Good Reading,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 21:38 09/07/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >according to our BEST PRACTICES Draft Document
>
> Could someone tell me where I can find the REAL rules in use?
>
> I only hear from people wanting to enforce their own conceptions.
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:57:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for  the DNS" (ICP-3)

Mr. Crispin,

In reading on this matter I find a curious lack of history.  By this I mean Mr.
Lynn and Mr. Sims jump right to the conclusions of this is what it is.  Generally
we would have located within a position paper the How and the Why. For instance
would it be fair to say;  "Somewhere between the time of 1998 and today's date it
was determined that the At Large would be made ineffectual and that a majority of
the BoD would not be elected. During this same time period it became custom that
Staff determine policy and only let public comment be made upon it.  The result
is the current policy which I have determined is a fact."

Would it also not be fair to say that although bottoms-up consensus is required
on these matters of Policy the BoD and staff have developed these policies in a
very top down non transparent manner?  If the policy cannot be explained in
manner consistent with the MOU, Contract and White Paper then you may say it *is*
the policy but you cannot say it is the *ligitmate* policy.

I am finding it very curious that in order for Nations to join the WTO they must
be very transparent and yet to run the world wide web transparency is not only
lacking but shunned.  How can it be justified to say if you don't like my top
down policy you must change it from the bottom-up.

Oh and by the way- per Mr. Sims' economic allegation, my position is against my
economic interests but in keeping with fairness, I would prefer he not project
his values upon us dot commoners. Here is an area where Mr. Sims' could learn a
great deal from Mr. Younger.

Sincerely,
Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:46:36PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Milton Mueller's first comments on Stuart Lynn's revised draft, and the need
> >for a working group:
>
> You should also note Joe Sims' reply:
>
>     Milton, not only are your views minority, but your characterizations
>     and facts are wrong.  As Stuart described in detail in the original
>     draft, and at the public forum meeting in Stockholm, this is a
>     statement of existing policy, not an attempt to change policy or
>     create new policy.  You are free to disagree, but for some reason it
>     appears that the only way you know how to disagree is to attack the
>     motives of the other side.  This is not an effective technique, and
>     may at least partially explain why you are so often in the minority.
>     In addition, the Board in Stockholm authorized Stuart to finalize
>     and publish this document as a statement of existing policy; perhaps
>     you were out of the room.  If you disagree with the policy, feel
>     free to seek to change it; all you have to do is to convince enough
>     others so as to generate consensus support for your position.  FWIW,
>     I think this would be a challenge on this particular subject, where
>     it appears that the vast majority of those in the community who do
>     not have adverse economic interests agree with the current policy,
>     but you are certainly free to try.
>
>     Joe Sims
>     Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
>
> --
> 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-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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:43:03 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

Very helpful Jefsey. Not only have you completely misunderstood what this is
about (it has nothing to do with rules) also, you are prejudging something
before even seeing it.
.
Regards,
Joanna

on 7/9/01 5:34 PM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:

> On 21:38 09/07/01, Joanna Lane said:
>> according to our BEST PRACTICES Draft Document
> 
> Could someone tell me where I can find the REAL rules in use?
> 
> I only hear from people wanting to enforce their own conceptions.
> Jefsey
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:17:50 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:51:44 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

> I will block this motion for the reasons that it includes the wording
> "However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by consensus, refer issues to the
> full GA for a determinative ballot." This statement describes a process by
> which an issue is moved to a determinative ballot from the sub-list to the
> GA. Of itself, the process by which a determinative ballot is enacted has
> not been discussed or agreed and flies in the face of a document (which
> Patrick himself has been copied offlist), which sets out Best Practices
> for processes.

I support the ideas in the Best Practices Document and can show you the
posts where I initiated many suggestions onlist.  But, as I understand it,
that is still a draft document.  Clearly we need to discuss the Best
Practice proposals in a wholesome environment.  My suggestion was designed
to create the environment for that to occur.

> Now either Patrick is so dumb as to not realize what he is doing, or he
> deliberately sabotaging something he purports to support. Either way, this
> motion sets about changing rules in the most naive way. Sorry Peter, but
> you should take a look at the Best Practices Document before jumping into
> this one.

Rather than call me "dumb" or worse onlist (and risk censure from the list
monitors) why don't you simply suggest an amendment to the wording.  That,
at least, would progress the issue.  One possible wording would be:

<<However, subscribers to GA-RULES may refer issues to the full GA for a
determinative ballot or follow such other prescribed procedures that have
been adopted by the General Assembly.>>

Unless you suggest an alternative, I would seek leave to amend my proposal.

Please, Joanna, help create the right environment otherwise we will never
get anywhere close to Best Practices on the GA list.  The following is a
simple enough question:

= > Do we discuss the Best Practices proposals on [ga] or on [ga-rules] ?

Word it how you like.  What is your view on the substance of the question?

Best 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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 21:22:47 -0400
From: ken stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for  the DNS" (ICP-3)

interesting to note that the ga chairman (mr younger) chooses only to present on
side of this issue.

ken stubbs

[email-masked] wrote:

> Milton Mueller's first comments on Stuart Lynn's revised draft, and the need
> for a working group:
>
> Fellow Name Council members:
>
> Whatever one's opinion of this document's substance,
> it is a completely illegitimate exercise. The staff has no
> authority to unilaterally declare that something is a policy.
>
> Policy in this matter is quite explicitly the purview of the
> DNSO, according to corporate articles and bylaws.
>
> I would like to know on what basis ICANN staff decided to
> completely bypass its own DNSO in drafting this so-called
> policy.
>
> This document was not even voted on by the ICANN Board.
>
> What makes this all the more egregious is that if ICANN
> management had respect for its own processes, it would
> probably get something very like the same policy through
> the DNSO. My own dissenting views are (probably) in the
> minority at this point. But apparently staff are so
> fearful that its made-up policies cannot stand up to the
> light of open discussion in a neutral forum that it has to
> bypass any process at all.
>
> Why are you afraid of open debate and discussion of this
> issue in a working group? Do you lack confidence in the merit
> of your ideas?
>
> Milton Mueller
>
> -------------------
> Perhaps Milton can also elaborate on why the Names Council chose to reverse
> its decision and to declare this topic to be beyond the scope of the DNSO.
> Mr. Lynn's draft may be read at
> http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/lynn-statement-09jul01.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

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 21:43:40 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NCUDRP TF

ken stubbs wrote:
> 
> i did nominate dan steinberg and re-affirm his nomination again
> 
> ken stubbs

Something is odd here. The nominations page:

http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc03/

shows you nominatring Crispin, but not Steinberg.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:35:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] why to look so ignorant

Dear Lynn,
I carefully read your document USG centric document.The USGNet not the 
Internet.
You eventually discovered .biz exist!!! (Poor Vint! he wiil not drink tea 
anymore)

But your quotes about .biz and .web are such Safe Harbor violations to most 
of the world that they alone would unconsider your document if it was not 
genuinely AMERICANN.

But why to look so ignorant about inclusive roots ? Are you so much afraid ?
Or is that a bad turn to Vint: you exactly describe his .biz :-)

Basically the issue as the world could see it :

- - the IANA has been hi-jacked by the USG resulting into the USCANN.
- - the AMERICANN should implement one million TLDs (cf. BoD to the GAC in MdR)
- - but it needed money to pay Staff and Jones Day to support the AMERICANN 
fiction
- - so it approved .biz to get a free lawyer to fight the alt.root and 
bartered .info against .org.
- - the least new TLDs the highest value for .org to pay Staff and Jones Day.

What do you say? First a few things without any interest:

- - you repeat you are Yawhe (only a divine or an empty root can be both 
unique *and* authoritative as it is perfection).

- - you blame awfull things which have nothing to do with inclusive roots 
(and you know it)

- - lacking argument you explain that inclusive root do it for money.. ouaf, 
ouaf, when the whole inclusive industry would make it nicely with half the 
AMERICANN budget ... this year.

Now a few things of interest. Probably why you violated all the rules to 
have them published.

- - "experience is welcome". And you know that what you describe are the 
inclusive root operations. (But probably not New.net. - who is the 
mysterious new commer, NameSlinger?)

- - "anyone can do what he wants but has not to expect the AMERICANN to pay 
attention", ie above a certain level of nuisance you will become 
experimental. VeriSIgn is happy for their multilingual TLDs.:-)

- - "we disagree on this but we may agree on other topics". Good: we already 
all agree there is no other difference between legacy and inclusive TLDs 
than the Staff's application fee.

So what next? Give .web to Tuckows in Montevideo?
Or to work seriously on serious issues. What about UDRPs and inclusive TLDs?

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:45:16 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Fw: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00602.html

Dear Milton,
I sympathize with you. You met the Single Authoritative Root in person. The 
living AMERICANN Master. His name is Joe Sims. Cannot be anyone else: the 
three words together mean "perfect": an authoritative single root of a real 
wolrd databse (any database, including DNS) can onlybe empty or divine.

Jon Postel thought it empty. They decided it divine.

Mind you, Stuart found a very intersting concept. He describes the devil 
and names it "alternative roots". Then he describes the inclusive roots and 
names them "experimental". So VeriSign can go ahead with its multilingual 
DNs, China is just carrying an experience and we could have a drink 
together in Montevideo.

The reason why he did not want you to vote, was just that you could have 
delayed their donation of .web to Tuckows on an experimental basis as a 
proof of concept that a non profit experience could make money.

Cheers.
Jefsey

At 03:52 10/07/01, Jim Fleming wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
>To: "mueller@syr. edu" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
>""Karl Auerbach"" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:53 PM
>Subject: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00602.html
>
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00602.html
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > "Whatever one's opinion of this document's substance,
> > it is a completely illegitimate exercise. The staff has no
> > authority to unilaterally declare that something is a policy."
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Milton,
> >
> > In my opinion, ICANN is one of FOUR major players attempting to
> > shape the future of the Next Generation Internet. They (which includes
>you)
> > are doing it one way, their way. The other 3 groups are each doing it
> > their way. The IPv4 Internet has not crashed. It is all just a
> > proof-of-concept.
> >
> > As the top 2,048 "Best-of-Breed" TLDs emerge from ALL FOUR groups
> > (plus more who may emerge), it seems reasonable to assume that each of
> > the TLDs will have had their own history, legacy, etc. In many respects,
> > that
> > adds to the historic value of the TLDs. Someday history books may document
> > how some TLDs were allowed to slip through the cracks, while others were
> > agressively destroyed. It is all part of the history.
> >
> > The world clearly has to move forward, with or without, what has become
> > known as ICANN. If TLDs go unimplemented, they will likely get picked
> > up and made to work. Making TLDs work has not seemed to be a high priority
> > since ICANN was formed. Many expected it would take them a few months
> > but certainly not years. Fortunately, other groups have made far greater
> > progress in the same time, or less.
> >
> > In summary, why worry about something that has little impact on the
>Internet
> > and DNS at this point in time ? The goal is now to find the 2,048
> > Best-of-Breed
> > TLDs. There are many to choose from.
> >
> > 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:33:55 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Last Day for Voting -- Representative to the Names Council Review Task Force

Vote by the GA for Representative to the Names Council Review Task Force
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-ReviewTF-vote.html

The Names Council in Stockholm asked the General Assembly to designate its
own representative to the Review Task Force which (among other things) will
be dealing with the issue of the Individuals' Constituency.

The voting closes today at 4:00 pm UTC or 6:00 pm CET (Paris time).
The candidates, listed in order of acceptance, are:

David Farrar
Eric Dierker
Joop Teernstra
Kent Crispin
Roberto Gaetano

Those who have not voted should realise there is a limited time.

May the worthiest person win our approval ;-)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Alternate Chair

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last Day for Voting -- Representative to the Names Council Review Task Force

lets see, I'd like to vote but can't find the ballot. I thought I'm in the
registry, verified; i am in the registry.

alas, there is soo much noise on this list my ballot seems hopelessly
lost... and you wonder why folks don't participate.

- -rick

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Alternate Chair wrote:

> Vote by the GA for Representative to the Names Council Review Task Force
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-ReviewTF-vote.html
>
> The Names Council in Stockholm asked the General Assembly to designate its
> own representative to the Review Task Force which (among other things) will
> be dealing with the issue of the Individuals' Constituency.
>
> The voting closes today at 4:00 pm UTC or 6:00 pm CET (Paris time).
> The candidates, listed in order of acceptance, are:
>
> David Farrar
> Eric Dierker
> Joop Teernstra
> Kent Crispin
> Roberto Gaetano
>
> Those who have not voted should realise there is a limited time.
>
> May the worthiest person win our approval ;-)
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> Alternate Chair
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:38:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I agree that the motion that Patrick is proposing and has been seconded
is quite questionable on it's merits, as you correctly point out here.  However
no one has seen publicly your reference to this "Best Practices" document.
I also do not know of a public process from within the DNSO for the
provisioning or building of this eluded to "Best Practices" document
either.  Can you provide any Joanna??

Joanna Lane wrote:

> I will block this motion for the reasons that it includes the wording
> "However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by consensus, refer issues to the
> full GA for a determinative ballot." This statement describes a process by
> which an issue is moved to a determinative ballot from the sub-list to the
> GA. Of itself, the process by which a determinative ballot is enacted has
> not been discussed or agreed and flies in the face of a document (which
> Patrick himself has been copied offlist), which sets out Best Practices for
> processes.
>
> Now either Patrick is so dumb as to not realize what he is doing, or he
> deliberately sabotaging something he purports to support. Either way, this
> motion sets about changing rules in the most naive way. Sorry Peter, but you
> should take a look at the Best Practices Document before jumping into this
> one.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> on 7/9/01 1:51 PM, Peter de Blanc at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > I second PatricK's motion!
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrick
> > Corliss
> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:48 PM
> > To: Peter de Blanc
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair
> >
> >> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> >> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> >> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> >
> >> perhaps more significant business.
> >>
> >> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it
> >
> >> a responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing
> >> thin, and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard
> >
> >> as "non-productive" communications.
> >
> > Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many
> > times, that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by
> > discussion of rules and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I
> > asked Danny to set up [ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.
> >
> > Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to
> > comply. My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules,
> > lists and powers of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be
> > careful saying "officials" or "representatives" as this would
> > undoubtedly spark more debate.
> >
> > So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue
> > further. We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].
> > We have discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for
> > a vote of the full General Assembly.
> >
> > (1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to
> > DNS
> > policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
> > etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES
> > may, by consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative
> > ballot.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of
> > (1)
> > above.
> >
> > I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?
> >
> > Best 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
> >
>
> --
> 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 #603
************************