Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #612
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 612

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:44:22 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP -- View from The Register

Dear Sandy,
the UDRP is flawed by nature because it tries to solve a domain name
problem with a trade mark solution. It just cannot work. t is like fixing
a screw with a hammer.

They use a trick: they do not say what is the user name, so they
do not look ridiculous. But they are never the less.

A domain name is just what it is: a continuation in cyberspace of
geographical or postal names. It names an IP location as a
geographical name names an NW location or a postal address
defines a set of mailboxes.

What may happen to geographical name when they are confusing?
People chose another one... Usually not Judges nor Govs...

The only acceptable solution is: the plaintif proposes a moke-up of
the site he plans, he publicly explains why he thinks people will
prefer his site rather than the existing one at the disputed name.
1000 randomly chosen international users vote. If the plaintif gets
2/3 in his favor, he wins. In every country this is named a jury. It
is considered as more a sophisticated system than a single
arbitrator. In market studies it is also named a poll, and it gives
a better image of what the market thinks than jusking one person.

TM have nothing to do in there.  They are just involved because
when scarcity is organized you need a lottery to decide who will
get it. AmerICANN proposes the WIPO lottery as an interim
solution. It will disapear when there is few hundred TLDs more.
UNless they make Real Name the unique TLD which counts: no
TLD... This is why they do not want many TLD which would
conlict with their interests...

Jefsey.

On 04:07 13/07/01, Sandy Harris said:
>[email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part I
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20304.html
> >
> > Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part II
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20305.html
>
>Thanks a lot for posting this.
>
>I'd say it could serve as an agenda for the UDRP review task
>force. I do not mean a list of points for discussion; I see
>it as a list of broken things to be fixed.
>
>The only thing I can think of offheand that is missing is the
>symmetry problem. UDRP is binding on the domain holder, since
>the registrars will enforce it. Methinks it must also be
>binding on the complainant.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:08:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time table for ICANN Board election this year -- (proposed)

I have nominated Joop Teemstra.
Last year Jamie Love got 60%, Peter de Blanc 30% and Jonathan Cohen 10% 
leading to the election of Jonathan Cohen. For the TM lobby.
I think the NC could not decently oppose Joop and his fight for IDNH should 
we elect him. The recent election shwon Joop has support of nearly 60% of 
the GA.
Jefsey

On 04:56 13/07/01, [email-masked] said:
>Our DNSO Secretariat has posted this reminder to the Council list:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00634.html
>
>Council,
>
>The term of Amadeu Abril i Abril, ICANN Board Director
>elected by the DNSO Names Council in 1999 expires on
>30 September 2001.
>The remaining two DNSO elected Directors are Alejandro Pisanty
>(LatinAC) and Jonathan Cohen (NorthAm).
>
>This year election will be open to candidates from
>3 geographic regions: Europe, AsiaPac and Africa.
>
>According to the procedures for election, the proposed time
>table, validated with Philip Sheppard is:
>
>Nominations = 3 weeks:
>Start: Monday 23 July 2001
>End:   Monday 13 August 2001
>
>Endorsements = 3 weeks:
>Start: Monday 13 August 2001
>End:   Monday 03 September 2001
>
>Break for Montevideo ICANN Meetings
>
>Vote by the NC = 4 days:
>Start: Wednesday 12 September 2001
>End:   Saturday 15 September 2001 - telecon to confirm results
>
>We MUST provide results to ICANN no later than 16 September
>(it was checked with Louis Touton last year for legal reasons).
>
>The ICANN Board election associated web pages are under
>preparation and will be ready next week.
>
>DNSO Secretariat
>--
>
>It wouldn't hurt to begin discussion on whom the GA might favor as a
>candidate...
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:52:59 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain names as observed.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "domain" is defined as:

domain,

noun 1 area ruled over; realm. 2 estate etc. under one's control. 3 sphere of
authority.

One question:

Who "rules", "controls", or otherwise has "authority" over a domain name?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 10:12:04 -0400
From: ken stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

i would support this proposal as well

ken stubbs

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> As an extremely long time member of this list in good standing I am taking
> this opportunity to second this motion.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Bradley.
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (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
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > 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
> >
>
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Chief Technology Officer
> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
> http://www.PacificRoot.com
> http://www.JointTech.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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:16:01 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time table for ICANN Board election this year --(proposed)

Is Amadeu Abril Abril a candidate for re-election?  Jamie 

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> I have nominated Joop Teemstra.
> Last year Jamie Love got 60%, Peter de Blanc 30% and Jonathan Cohen 10%
> leading to the election of Jonathan Cohen. For the TM lobby.
> I think the NC could not decently oppose Joop and his fight for IDNH should
> we elect him. The recent election shwon Joop has support of nearly 60% of
> the GA.
> Jefsey
> 
> On 04:56 13/07/01, [email-masked] said:
> >Our DNSO Secretariat has posted this reminder to the Council list:
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00634.html
> >
> >Council,
> >
> >The term of Amadeu Abril i Abril, ICANN Board Director
> >elected by the DNSO Names Council in 1999 expires on
> >30 September 2001.
> >The remaining two DNSO elected Directors are Alejandro Pisanty
> >(LatinAC) and Jonathan Cohen (NorthAm).
> >
> >This year election will be open to candidates from
> >3 geographic regions: Europe, AsiaPac and Africa.
> >
> >According to the procedures for election, the proposed time
> >table, validated with Philip Sheppard is:
> >
> >Nominations = 3 weeks:
> >Start: Monday 23 July 2001
> >End:   Monday 13 August 2001
> >
> >Endorsements = 3 weeks:
> >Start: Monday 13 August 2001
> >End:   Monday 03 September 2001
> >
> >Break for Montevideo ICANN Meetings
> >
> >Vote by the NC = 4 days:
> >Start: Wednesday 12 September 2001
> >End:   Saturday 15 September 2001 - telecon to confirm results
> >
> >We MUST provide results to ICANN no later than 16 September
> >(it was checked with Louis Touton last year for legal reasons).
> >
> >The ICANN Board election associated web pages are under
> >preparation and will be ready next week.
> >
> >DNSO Secretariat
> >--
> >
> >It wouldn't hurt to begin discussion on whom the GA might favor as a
> >candidate...
> >--
> >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

- -- 
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 mobile 1.202.361.3040
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 07:48:29 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

This has been standard workgroup procedure for the ICANN and I concur that
it should be adopted here. ALL the sub-lists should be considered as GA
working groups and they should only report summary results to this list.
Otherwise, only global issues that do not fit neatly into the workinggroup
lists should be surfaced here ... for guidance resolution only.

Further, members of those lists that cannot follow such courteous behavior
should be excluded from those lists and possibly be suspended from the GA
list. But, that is my personal opinion and not yet a proposal.

Many here haven't learnt the first rule of kindergarten behavior ... to play
well with others.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
> Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> 
> 
> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> 
> (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
> refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or 
> follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> 
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact 
> wording of (1)
> above.
> 
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now 
> ask that it
> be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> 
> Best regards
> 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:50:02 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [private]  MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I support this motion.

Peter de Blanc

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>; DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
>
> (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 refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow 
> such
other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording
of
(1)
> above.
>
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that

> it be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
>
> Best regards
> 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: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:16:34 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:50:02 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I support this motion.
> 
> Peter de Blanc

Thank you, Peter.  The supporters to date are:

* Roeland Meyer
* Peter de Blanc
* Ken Stubbs
* Leah Gallegos
* Bradley Thornton
* myself

Sensible people all !!

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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:40:57 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Agreed. We can only juggle with a limited number of
clubs at a time, so we should focus on substantive
issues on the main GA list -- a little bit less
distraction.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

Patrick Corliss wrote on 13.07.01, 16:18:24:
> The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
>
> (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
> refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
> (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> above.
>
> As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
>
> Best regards
> Alternate Chair

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 10:50:28 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Add Bill Lovell as being in support.

Bill

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:50:02 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > I support this motion.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
>
> Thank you, Peter.  The supporters to date are:
>
> * Roeland Meyer
> * Peter de Blanc
> * Ken Stubbs
> * Leah Gallegos
> * Bradley Thornton
> * myself
>
> Sensible people all !!
>
> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:52:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> This has been standard workgroup procedure for the ICANN and I concur that
> it should be adopted here. ALL the sub-lists should be considered as GA
> working groups and they should only report summary results to this list.
> Otherwise, only global issues that do not fit neatly into the workinggroup
> lists should be surfaced here ... for guidance resolution only.
>
> Further, members of those lists that cannot follow such courteous behavior
> should be excluded from those lists and possibly be suspended from the GA
> list. But, that is my personal opinion and not yet a proposal.
>
> Many here haven't learnt the first rule of kindergarten behavior ... to play
> well with others.
>

And should go read the book, "Everything I Need to Know I Learned
In Kindergarten" -- or words to that effect!  :-)

Bill Lovell

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:18 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
> > Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> >
> >
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (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
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or
> > follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact
> > wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now
> > ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:52:07 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Patrick, thanks for making this motion "happen". It looks very sound to me
as a practical approach to getting work done, and getting processes which
enable work, developed.  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:18 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
> > Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> >
> >
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (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
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or
> > follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact
> > wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now
> > ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 15:40:37 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]  MOTION AMENDMENT

Hang on! I really do have concerns about:-

1.  Members sending a Motion on a new rule to a ballot when there has been
no discussion whatsoever on how the new rule could be implemented. Shouldn't
that be debated before the vote is taken?

2. Members would be adopting a new RULE that mentions a process for moving
an ISSUE from a sub-list to the main list, but in such vague terms as not to
be useful. 
 
3. According to the wording of the last sentence, a member may raise an
issue one day, and move it to the main ga list the next. Is this really the
best wording we can manage?

Let's look at the last sentence: " 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.

What are ISSUES? I know that at least Bill Lovell will agree with me when I
say that an ISSUE is "A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is
believed that some action may be required" (because he drafted it as the
definition being used for BEST PRACTICES). Now, doesn't that make a nonsense
of the last sentence of this Motion?

I therefore PROPOSE an AMENDMENT, and if necessary a POLL on the ga-rules
list to determine which form of the Motion should go forward for a ballot:-

AMENDMENT

(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 until such time as and ISSUE has risen to the
level of requiring a determinative ballot of the General Assembly.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
above.

If you can't agree with the new wording, then at least please indicate your
concurrence that a problem exists with this last sentence, and let's discuss
it futher on ga-rules.

Regards,
Joanna 

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> >
> > (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
> > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or follow such other
> > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> >
> > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
> > above.
> >
> > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now ask that it
> > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> >
> > Best regards
> > 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:00:04 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I support Patricks's motion and I can agree that it is necessary.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Patrick, thanks for making this motion "happen". It looks very sound to me
> as a practical approach to getting work done, and getting processes which
> enable work, developed.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:18 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
> > > Subject: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List
> > >
> > >
> > > The folowing motion has been proposed, seconded and amended.
> > >
> > > (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
> > > refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot or
> > > follow such other
> > > prescribed procedures that have been adopted by the General Assembly.
> > >
> > > (2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact
> > > wording of (1)
> > > above.
> > >
> > > As this motion has generated significant support, I would now
> > > ask that it
> > > be submitted to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > 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
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:30:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Note from the DNSO Secretariat

Dear members, this note has just been sent by our DNSO Secretariat... your 
comments would be appreciated.

GA Chair and Alternate,

I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.

On 25 July ends the election to the Udrp TF. The GA just ended
the election to the Review TF (12 July). Now the highest priority
for the Secretariat is the election of ICANN Board Director
- - it will last more than 6 weeks.

Each vote is several hours of work of preparation, then of supervision
and results calculation, it must be planified in advance and coordinated.
The elections are especially resources consuming.

I perfectly understand that the GA may have its own needs -
the Secretariat would be delighted to provide voting services,
but human resources are limited, alas.

Additionaly we are in the middle of summer vacation now.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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, 13 Jul 2001 19:09:37 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Note from the DNSO Secretariat

Let's be strategic here and realistic as well. I agree that all resources
are finite. So, givens:

* that there is an election to the board.
* we have made other polling/voting requests

We need to prioritize and assess the options. I am not expressing an
opinion, but I noted that the election vote comes in the middle of the ICANN
meeting. Do we 1) consider, with consultation with the Constituencies
whether to explore delaying the nomination/vote process until after
Montevideo? 2) determine that we need to MOVE UP the nomoination/vote cycle
so that a vote can take place BEFORE Montevideo?
3) put all other work on hold until the vote?

I'm a pragmatist on this. Having run a business and now managing a team, I
agree that resources are finite. 

Can we do something informal first, in taking consultation with the
constituencies on what their thinking is about 1) and 2) above.  

This should be an easy request, if it seems reasonable, and since it  isn't
binding, I suggest that if several folks concur, then Danny, with support
from Patrick, should draft an email to the constituencies NC reps, and query
them about the possible strategies. 

BEFORE doing this, we might ask Danny to send an email to Louie Touton,
asking him what the options are, from the bylaws perspective. 

TThis is all fact finding and no binding decisions are being made, and then
the GA can consult with the constituencies, and I suggest that because it
seems to me that in general, general agreement would be useful on such a
topic.

.... it's only an idea: comments?

Oh, yeah, I agree with the comment that it's summer vacation here, and in
Europe, but I take note that it's winter in some other places, and I bet
some folks are on winter holiday. In any case, cheers for diversity of
climate, among other things.

:-)
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Note from the DNSO Secretariat

Dear members, this note has just been sent by our DNSO Secretariat... your 
comments would be appreciated.

GA Chair and Alternate,

I am affraid that the Secretariat will have serious difficulties
to follow the current rythme of votes requested by the GA.

On 25 July ends the election to the Udrp TF. The GA just ended
the election to the Review TF (12 July). Now the highest priority
for the Secretariat is the election of ICANN Board Director
- - it will last more than 6 weeks.

Each vote is several hours of work of preparation, then of supervision
and results calculation, it must be planified in advance and coordinated.
The elections are especially resources consuming.

I perfectly understand that the GA may have its own needs -
the Secretariat would be delighted to provide voting services,
but human resources are limited, alas.

Additionaly we are in the middle of summer vacation now.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #612
************************