Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #604
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 10 2001            Volume 01 : Number 604

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 22:14:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last Day for Voting -- Representative to the Names  CouncilReview Task Force

Now don't accuse me of stumping for votes ;>} But I am tickled pink there is a
little more interest than has been shown.  Here is you lost ballot;
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-b06-outline.html
You can do it from that and it registers you by email Id I am led to believe.

Sincerely,
Eric

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 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

- --
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 22:36:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Fw:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00602.html

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In case you have not noticed the $$$$$ behind the Internet which pays for all this
PoC comes from us users. However it gets here or there it is on speculation that
we will use and use and spend.  Convincing each other is an egotistical exercise,
you had better convince me and my mp3 children and microsoft colleagues.  You will
soon find out this is a capitalistic democratic process, now which of you is
willing to publicly market your position?

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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-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 22:52:01 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for  the DNS" (ICP-3)

No Mr. Stubbs,

Right or Wrong, Good of Bad that happens to be my Chair.  We did not pick a
procedural guru to lead us.  We picked a GOOD MAN.  I am sure that he presented the
GA position.  He stood back and weighed  Impact and greed and he put my dotcomoners
above your corporate interests and reported accordingly.  Our frustration in our
procedural matters should not be seen as weakness, but rather strength.  I am sure
that those who battle over procedure would rally over an attack on the BoD position
as supported by Sims.

This is not an issue it is abuse of the users.  If I am not mistaken you and Mr.
Crispin are in favor of letting the Staff write all policy issues.  If I am wrong
please correct me. I look forward to an explanation and thank you for your input.

Sincerely,

ken stubbs wrote:

> 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-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 23:22:12 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] My apologies

That message as I received it did not show the ga-dnso.org in it.  Yes
upon closer inspection and a note from my friend Patrick I noticed the
deception.  I apologize. While I always stand by my words and realize
this now is an over post.  It was necessary and I am sorry. Rather than
let this be thought of as anyones' right to disobey rules I will accept
any suspension with all the gravamen attached. My repeated apologies for
malfeasance through ignorance.

Sincerely,

- --
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 18:33:00 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last Day for Voting -- Representative to the Names Council Review Task Force

At 20:56 9/07/01 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

>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.

It might be a good idea if the secretariat could resend all ballots once 
more, to maximize voter participation.

I lost email ballots too, due to heavy email traffic. Sometimes an email 
ballot gets accidentally deleted along with the spam.
This is why I designed a secure web based Polling system.
It's available.
One word from the Chair to the DNSO secretariat and the GA can use it.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.democracy.org.nz/idno/)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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 02:32:53 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

on 7/9/01 9:17 PM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

I didn't call you dumb. I called you a saboteur, meaning you are
deliberately trying to discredit the GA. Your recent letter to the NC is
just one example. 

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 23:52:16 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Last Day for Voting -- Representative to the Names  Council Review Task Force

Hello Joop,

Monday, July 09, 2001, 11:33:00 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 20:56 9/07/01 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

>>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.

> It might be a good idea if the secretariat could resend all ballots once 
> more, to maximize voter participation.

> I lost email ballots too, due to heavy email traffic. Sometimes an email 
> ballot gets accidentally deleted along with the spam.
> This is why I designed a secure web based Polling system.
> It's available.
> One word from the Chair to the DNSO secretariat and the GA can use it.

"Secure"  ?

I think the existing email system is infinitely more secure than the
polling booth which uses cookies to maintain auth information, and can
be easily deceived.

- -- 
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 02:06:12 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [private]  call to the order

Patrick and Jefsey,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Jefsey
>
> > > That's your personal opinion.
> >
> >   No, I share in his opinion on this issue...
> >
> > >  But it has no legitimacy with the DNSO
> > > Secretariat or within the GA generally.  You can change that by
> generating
> > > support for your ideas.
> >
> >   He has mine on this issue...
>
> You're the one that said it wasn't legitimate, remember?

  I did not say this Patrick.  I said that the current GA list rules
are not legitimate.  I hope you are not straight on this?

>
> Please decide if you want the sublists YES or NO.

  Yes.  I see the sub lists as a good idea with a few caveats.  They
are as follows:

1.) that not sublist currently or in the future is restricted by the
     illegitimate GA list rules.

2.) That ANY subscriber to ANY sublist can carry forward or CC
     to the DNSO GA list relevant posts they feel is or many be of
     specific interests to the remainder of the DNSO GA.

3.) That ANY an ALL Sublists are open to ANY and ALL interested
     parties without exception.

4.) that debate and discussion is open and transparent without
restriction as
     long as it is on topic.

>
>
> Then say so.

  I have several times and just did so again.

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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 02:13:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Statement on Completion of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for  the DNS" (ICP-3)

Eric, Ken and all assembly members,

  I am in agreement with Milton's remarks in general.  Our staff is currently
reviewing the document in question for further consideration and potential
public comment.

  Ken, your and Kent's public attack of Milton here seems to be out of
order and inconsiderate as a matter of proper and NC accepted protocol.
As such I am dismayed and seriously concerned regarding you indirect
motives.  It is widely known that both YOU, Ken Stubbs, and Kent Crispin
have had a long standing vendetta against Milton Mueler.  As such, your
objectivity is seriously questionable.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> No Mr. Stubbs,
>
> Right or Wrong, Good of Bad that happens to be my Chair.  We did not pick a
> procedural guru to lead us.  We picked a GOOD MAN.  I am sure that he presented the
> GA position.  He stood back and weighed  Impact and greed and he put my dotcomoners
> above your corporate interests and reported accordingly.  Our frustration in our
> procedural matters should not be seen as weakness, but rather strength.  I am sure
> that those who battle over procedure would rally over an attack on the BoD position
> as supported by Sims.
>
> This is not an issue it is abuse of the users.  If I am not mistaken you and Mr.
> Crispin are in favor of letting the Staff write all policy issues.  If I am wrong
> please correct me. I look forward to an explanation and thank you for your input.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ken stubbs wrote:
>
> > 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-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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:43:42 -0400
From: ken stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NCUDRP TF

i nominated crispin for the review task force and steinberg for the udrp
task force

ken stubbs

Sandy Harris wrote:

> 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

- --
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 22:45:58 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Clarification - Rule on Multiple cc's

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 23:22:12 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

> That message as I received it did not show the ga-dnso.org in it.  Yes
> upon closer inspection and a note from my friend Patrick I noticed the
> deception.  I apologize. While I always stand by my words and realize
> this now is an over post.  It was necessary and I am sorry. Rather than
> let this be thought of as anyones' right to disobey rules I will accept
> any suspension with all the gravamen attached. My repeated apologies for
> malfeasance through ignorance.

Hi Eric

Thank you for your kind words.  They are appreciated.  I would explain,
however, that the list rules make no mention of the number of cc's that are
included in any one post.  The link does suggest that respect to the
participants is mandatory.  URL is http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html

I have no expectation that the list monitors will interpret the requirement
for "respect" as encompassing a large number of cc's.  Examination of the
headers (see below) show that the post originated with Jim Fleming as a
private message.  One of the recipients was Jefsey Morfin who appears to
have added the [ga] list to his reply.  You then responded to that post.

As you say, you were not aware of this and hit "reply all".  I am sure that
this was a mistake and not intended to be an "over post" to list members.

As with excess posting limits, this level of control is better resolved by
the list software rather than the list rules.

Regards
Alternate Chair

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
To: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>; mueller@syr. edu
<[email-masked]>; <[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]>; <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 22:36:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:
Fw:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00602.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 08:41:15 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Lynn's Response to New.net "Policy Paper" 

http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/response-to-new.net-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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:30:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] why not a consensus about sub-lists? 

Jeff and Patrick,
I respond publicly to this mail received on public list.

I think it quite positive. It shows three different attitudes
which might be aggregated into a consensus over sub-lists.

Could we agree on this and turn it listetiquette?

1.   DNSO/GA list is the only one people should be on.
2.   sub-lists are for collateral work or education
3.   they are subject to their own rules by their moderator:
       they are listed by GA on a page linked to dnso.org
4.   they are GA "a parte".  they can be freely copied to GA
5.   anyone can freely join/remove himself from any sub-list
6.   all the sub-list posts are copied to GA-FULL
7.   to keep threads in sub-lists ReplyTo is set to sub-list
8.   creating and moderating a sub-list needs only 4 seconds
9.   no restriction on the debate as long as on topic,
10. existing sub-lists are used for mutual education.
      No debate allowed. People ask questions to get an
      answer (technical, historical, about someone position,
      etc...) how controversial may be the response it is
      accepted as educational only, no reply permitted.

I note that it only calls for one line to be added by Secretariat
to DNSO.ORG and for someone to maintain an excel table.
I am ready to do it.

Example: ga-rules:

- - every participant may be asked his position. The archive
   makes a good FAQ for reference
- - then several working sub-lists may handle the different
   propositions as Good Practice, Sub-List rules Template,
   Moderators, Posting limits. Once the issue is OK it is
   reported to the GA and the sub-list is closed.
- - if a sub-list becomes sleepy it is up to its Moderator to
   report to the GA and attract comments.
- - if someone wants to be aware of everything on an ML:
   it get to GA-FULL.

May be should we change for better support to a more
easily managed system, or may be WXW would know
how to set-it up. But IMHO knowing what we want would
help us to survive in the meanwhile (sub-lists could be
temporarily replaced by "[theme]title" subjects). The
most urgent would be to have a consensus on mutual
education sub-list sanctuaries.

My 2 cents. I will not come back on that.

Jefsey

>1.) that not sublist currently or in the future is restricted by the
>      illegitimate GA list rules.
>
>2.) That ANY subscriber to ANY sublist can carry forward or CC
>      to the DNSO GA list relevant posts they feel is or many be of
>      specific interests to the remainder of the DNSO GA.
>
>3.) That ANY an ALL Sublists are open to ANY and ALL interested
>      parties without exception.
>
>4.) that debate and discussion is open and transparent without
>restriction as
>      long as it is on topic.

At 11:06 10/07/01, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Patrick and Jefsey,
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Jefsey
> >
> > > > That's your personal opinion.
> > >
> > >   No, I share in his opinion on this issue...
> > >
> > > >  But it has no legitimacy with the DNSO
> > > > Secretariat or within the GA generally.  You can change that by
> > generating
> > > > support for your ideas.
> > >
> > >   He has mine on this issue...
> >
> > You're the one that said it wasn't legitimate, remember?
>
>   I did not say this Patrick.  I said that the current GA list rules
>are not legitimate.  I hope you are not straight on this?
>
> >
> > Please decide if you want the sublists YES or NO.
>
>   Yes.  I see the sub lists as a good idea with a few caveats.  They
>are as follows:
>
>1.) that not sublist currently or in the future is restricted by the
>      illegitimate GA list rules.
>
>2.) That ANY subscriber to ANY sublist can carry forward or CC
>      to the DNSO GA list relevant posts they feel is or many be of
>      specific interests to the remainder of the DNSO GA.
>
>3.) That ANY an ALL Sublists are open to ANY and ALL interested
>      parties without exception.
>
>4.) that debate and discussion is open and transparent without
>restriction as
>      long as it is on topic.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Then say so.
>
>   I have several times and just did so again.
>
>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

- --
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 15:09:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] AMERICANN

Dear Eric and others,
you ask me my long term concept since no one supposes I am "anti-" something.
The concept is simple: let no impeach anyone to better serve us. AMERICANN 
blocks innovation already for 2 years.

Let get real. The world is not perfect, and we have to live with it. The 
ICANN concept is IMHO not only good but necessary. However its AMERICANN 
translation by Joe Sims & Staff is less and less acceptable as time flows 
because of three conflicts.

1) there is a basic misunderstanding between the infrastructure needs it is 
supposed to address and the structure governance level where Joe Sims and 
als. have set it up.

2) it has a conflicting mission: to be International and to be US 
supportive. This was acceptable due to the US tradition of generosity for a 
bootstrap period. This is not anymore, in the best interest of the USA and 
of the other communities.

3) it has fostered three visions of the Internet: the e-legal model by 
Louis Touton (the TLD/ccTLD contracts), the commercial model by VeriSign, 
NeuLevel etc... and the real Internet model written into the source code 
that the users will eventually utilize...

IMHO the solution lies into simple corrections of these drifts.

1) to identify current Staff as the AMERICANN. And ccTLDs to eventually 
understand that they will not survive long in a One Million TLDs universe; 
they have quick to move into a National Internet Center equivalent 
infrastructure for sevice management, to the benefit of their national 
Internet community and of their local TLD and root industry.

2) to re-create the ICANN as an AMERICANN/NICs non-profit association with 
a charter of common technical secretariat. Established in Brussels, Tokyo 
or Tonga Island: in any place where you do not think in term of money 
sponsoring but in term of rendered services. With Internet User and 
Internet Provider stable intenational representations, a $ 250.000 a year 
budget and some imagination. Lean to be efficient.

(Money may flow from foundations, but not in that ICANN buget).

3) to quickly set-up two working conferences: one with inclusive roots to 
agree on Root and TLD Best Practices to stabilize and protect the Name 
Space against TLD squatting; one with every possible stakeholder, from 
industries to governments, from arts to churches, from software developers 
to boy-scouts to define an IPv6 "requirement form". So we may study a 
sensible IP addressing scheme which will not turn into a nightmare some 
years from now.

What are the oppositions to that?

- - confusion of some between network stability and TM protection. These 
people do not see the harm they do to TM owners like me in building 
structural protections which are going to collapse and in not preparing any 
infrastructural long term protection.

- - financial interests: .info has strictly no use: the proof of concept is 
to show AMERICANN may turn nothing into hundreds of millions of dollars. I 
am afraid they will turn into nothing again soon.

- - personal pride: I reread the "Stuart Lynn" bylaw violation: there is 
nothing there which really stands. A part from being an offence to many 
national privacy laws and a disloyal commercial practice about .biz and 
.web, this is pure incantation "X said so, he cannot wrong, he is right, 
amen. Y said so, he cannot be wrong, he is right, amen. Z said so, he 
cannot be wrong, he is right, amen."

This makes it the most difficult barricade to overcome. It is like having 
this list agreeing on something. This will slow down the process since the 
only way around will be the market/users/you and me to win. Stuart knows 
it: he talks about future agreements on other topics (how could we agree on 
details if we disagre on principles, unless their "principles" are just 
smoke screen).

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #604
************************