Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #616
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, July 16 2001            Volume 01 : Number 616

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:47:13 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 08:35:17AM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>   ... this procedure provides a mechanism
>    for resolving a real problem raised by one member: a single post
>    brings back 5 or 6 responses, to all of which the original poster is then
>    precluded from responding publicly on the same list unless he/she waits 
>    until the next day, and then the next, etc., which on some issues is 
>    like not responding at all.

Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:58:03 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet Communications by the General Assembly

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> <snip>
>
> The General Assembly is to "self-organize," and it
> seems to me that at least an expression of GA
> philosophy, what it deems itself to be and what
> function it thinks it is supposed to be carrying out,
> is critical to establishing as actual fact the idea that
> it is "self-organizing" anything. The GA suffers from
> a lack of credibility, and of the idea that it really
> serves any purpose.  Out of millions of Internet
> denizens, it has been able to garner only about
> 300 registered voters, which to me is a pathetic
> number. The Chair, Alternate Chair and others
> have recently been discussing the matter of
> "outreach," and it seems to me that to have its
> own website with which netizens around the
> world could interact could serve the General
> Assembly well in that regard.
>
> If enough people respond to this, and give me
> a good domain name under which to register
> the site, I will do so, and will then be looking
> for some good content to post on it. That
> content, as noted, would have to be of a kind
> that one can confidently say had behind it the
> backing of a substantial block of GA members,
> and without any highly controversial matters
> that could not honestly be said to have had
> any consensus acceptance.

<snip>

How about....  TheGeneralAssembly.org ?  It's available for registration.

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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:25:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS Outreach [Fwd: Names Council]

Dear All,

Below, I have forwarded the text of a message I sent out this afternoon to a
complete stranger. I found his email address in the WHOIS (which may turn out
to be quite a useful tool after all).
The fellow is the registrant of the domain name "namescouncil.com".  I suspect
that if each of us were to pactice this sort (among other types) of outreach
on our own intiative, we might be able to achieve a groundswell of interest in
what many of us are trying to effect here in the GA, and ICANN as a whole.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos  

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Names Council
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:13:31 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Greg,

I just thought you might be interested in joining the Mailing List for the
General Assembly (GA) of the Internet Corpration for Assigned Names and
Numbers' (ICANN) Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO).  It appears to me
(from your registration of the domain name "namescouncil.com"), that you are
interested in domain name issues.  Currently, more individuals are needed to
speak out in favour of representation for Individual Domain Name Holders.  The
Intellectual Property interests of Big Business have been runing amok and
enough is enough.  Please feel free to peruse the relevant information, see
heading: General Assembly list (http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html) for
subscription rules and procedure.

I hope to hear from you on the GA Mailing List.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
            Individual Domain Name Holder
- --
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, 16 Jul 2001 06:17:30 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Creating the Right Environment

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:35:17 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
Subject: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

Hi William

Your post ranged over a lot of issues unrelated to excess posting limits so
I am retitling the subject acccordingly.  However, I have no intention of
answering all of your points in detail unless over a beer somewhere.  That
is chat room stuff.

Suffice it to say that your discussion invites detailed response.  But any
response on the GA list commits the same sin viz discussing procedure on the
GA list.  Brief comments:

> I thought that that matter had been resolved weeks ago -- the Chair and
> Alternate Chair are not supposed to have limits on official business, and
> if that has not been written into the rules and instructions to monitors
by
> now, it should be.

The fact is that a rule does not become *law* UNLESS and UNTIL it has been
passed by the General Assembly.  That's standard jurisprudence, I would have
thought.

I refuse to keep repeating this mantra.  Everybody else on GA understands
it.

<snip>
> And I say again, why is all this not on ga-rules? The Chair or Alternate
> Chair, it seems to me, have the authority to move it there.

At one time I was a government inspector.  The legislation we were working
under had a section called "Powers of Inspectors".  Please point to the
equivalent section that gives powers to the Chair or Alternate Chair.

> ndeed, at
> one point I was personally asked by the Alternate Chair to move a
> topic out of ga (where it had been started by someone other than me)
> and put it into ga-rules, which I did.  Would the Alternate Chair like
> me to do that again? I would be pleased to oblige.

Sure, I could do that.  You were kind enough to oblige.  Sadly,
unfortunately, whatever you like, many others on the list refused to be so
accommodating.  Some even did the exact opposite just to be contrary.

Hence the need for a rule.  Which has to be passed on the GA list.

Can we save "testing the bounds" until we get the motion passed?

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, 16 Jul 2001 06:38:38 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Dear Danny

The following motion has been fully debated.  From my count there are 13 or
possibly 14 persons in favour.  Two persons have opposed the motion.  One
person objects to the wording.  The final version, after considering all
objections, reads as follows:

(1)    The [ga] mailing list is reserved for substantive issues relating to
DNS policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
etc. is to be conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to
[ga-rules] may, by consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues
to the full General Assembly for a determinative ballot.

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

Note:  For the purposes of this motion, the term "prescribed procedures"
refers to procedures which have been adopted by the General Assembly.

As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
consideration.  As I understand the current procedures, the Chair is
required to accept or reject the motion.

I also understand that the DNSO Secretariat may not have the resources
immediately available to conduct the vote.  Should this be the case, I
would appreciate your personal acceptance of the proposed policy.

Best regards
Patrick

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Just a moment... I am confused.  Patrick, in your other email response to Bll
Lovell you write:

"At one time I was a government inspector.  The legislation we were working
under had a section called "Powers of Inspectors".  Please point to the
equivalent section that gives powers to the Chair or Alternate Chair."

And then, in this latest message cited below, you write:

> Dear Danny
> <snip>
>
> As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
> consideration.  As I understand the current procedures, the Chair is
> required to accept or reject the motion.
>
> I also understand that the DNSO Secretariat may not have the resources
> immediately available to conduct the vote.  Should this be the case, I
> would appreciate your personal acceptance of the proposed policy.

I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to personally accept the
proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?

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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:03:02 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
> mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to personally accept
the
> proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?

Dear Sotiris

I'm sorry that you missed the subtle interplay there.  Danny is the Chair
and I am the Alternate Chair.  I do not have any power at all except calling
myself Alternate Chair.  In particular I don't want to tell Danny, or
anybody else, what to do.  I can suggest, perhaps even urge, but not more
than that.

Since you are asking for my thoughts, they are these:

(1)    The DNSO Secretariat has *spiked* this motion before Danny even got
near to accepting it.  Any discussion about the DNSO Secretariat or voting
procedures would be a diversion.  Even mentioning these issues will lead
somebody to talk about them.  Catch-22.

(2)    Danny has not paid much attention to this motion possibly because he
has a life to lead.  I would appreciate his personal endorsement.  Danny
could also bring pressure to bear on the DNSO Names Council.  With his
support, the motion will at least get past the DNSO Secretariat.

(3)    An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth for
the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures should be
conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should people register to
vote?  We really need to take things a step at a time.

(4)    Once the motion is accepted by Danny, the GA could self-organize
enough to transfer debate to GA-RULES voluntarily.  Some might refuse and we
could discuss what to do about that if it happens.  At least, those who
refuse would be seen as acting contrary to the will of the majority.

(5)    Even without a vote, the current rules allow the list monitors to
adjudicate whether an issue is off-topic.  Should the motion be accepted by
the majority -- and the Chair -- the list monitors might be asked to apply
the rule accordingly.  Again, discussion of this issue is best left to
GA-RULES.

Let me give you an example.  Bill Lovell exceeded his daily limit and
provoked a diversion on that subject.  I said I had exceeded my daily limit.
Immediately several people lodged complaints.  And so it goes.  I have said
before it is a Catch-22.   I can't believe people on this list don't
understand that.

This sort of diversionary tactic is exactly what the motion is designed to
prevent.  Can we not wait until Danny indicates his assent before getting
into details?  The motion is clear enough on its face.

Enough prevarication, Sotiris, do you support the motion YES or NO ?

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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:22:32 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Patrick Corliss writes:
 > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
 > > I might be missing something here, but where are the "current
 > > procedures" mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to
 > > personally accept the proposed policy, would that make it a de
 > > facto GA institution?
 > (3) An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth
 > for the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures
 > should be conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should
 > people register to vote?  We really need to take things a step at a
 > time.

You make a blanket statement that discussion *must* take place on the
illegitimate ga-rules discussion list.  There can be no discussion of
anything involving material changes to the GA on any other mailing list
unless and until there is a formal vote and acceptance of such a motion
by the entire GA.  Your claim that "13 or 14" respondents agree with the
motion is insufficient evidence that it should be approved on sight.
And I certainly do not trust the so-called "polling booth" that Joop
continues to push as being anything other than self-serving
aggrandizement by Joop, as the only evidence that his booth is fair was
the so-called votes of the so-called IDNO, which have been shown time
and again to have been severly tainted by Joop himself.

If you want to debate fundamental changes to the way that the GA
operates, the only viable place for the debate is the GA list.  No other
list is a legitimate forum for such debates.

 > (4) Once the motion is accepted by Danny, the GA could self-organize
 > enough to transfer debate to GA-RULES voluntarily.  Some might refuse
 > and we could discuss what to do about that if it happens.  At least,
 > those who refuse would be seen as acting contrary to the will of the
 > majority.

You cannot act contrary to the will of the majority, when you have
yourself shown that only "13 or 14" respondents showed interest in the
issue.  This does not a majority make.  A formal vote makes a majority,
and only a formal vote.

 > (5) Even without a vote, the current rules allow the list monitors to
 > adjudicate whether an issue is off-topic.  Should the motion be
 > accepted by the majority -- and the Chair -- the list monitors might
 > be asked to apply the rule accordingly.  Again, discussion of this
 > issue is best left to GA-RULES.

No discussion about the rules of the GA can happen legitimately anywhere
else except on the GA list.  Period.

/Joe
- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:39:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Patrick Corliss wrote:
<snip>

> Enough prevarication, Sotiris, do you support the motion YES or NO ?

Patrick, I take issue with being called pretty much a liar for no good reason at
all.  I am not equivocating on this "motion", I am trying to get a better
understanding of its circumstances, scope, and intent.  If it is also against
the rules to ask questions, then what exactly *is* allowed by the "rules"?

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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:08:26 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 08:35:17AM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >   ... this procedure provides a mechanism
> >    for resolving a real problem raised by one member: a single post
> >    brings back 5 or 6 responses, to all of which the original poster is then
> >    precluded from responding publicly on the same list unless he/she waits
> >    until the next day, and then the next, etc., which on some issues is
> >    like not responding at all.
>
> Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
> all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
> handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
> have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.

Case in point: I would almost use up my limit for the day simply if I
responded to Patrick Corliss and no one else. Also, I don't believe
I suggested that software would handle proxies, since obviously it
would not.  Read carefully.

So I gather you can be put down as one who would prefer the post
limit rules to be circumvented by artifice, rather than by the
establishment of some recognized procedure that would allow
a full response by someone being deluged.  So be it.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:06:47 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:39:43 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

> Patrick, I take issue with being called pretty much a liar for no good
> reason at all.  I am not equivocating on this "motion", I am trying to
> get a better understanding of its circumstances, scope, and intent.  If
> it is also against the rules to ask questions, then what exactly *is*
> allowed by the "rules"?

Dear Sotiris

On reflection I may have been more brusque than I meant.  If so I apologise.
It certainly was not my intention to ascribe any motivation (such as lying)
to your comments.

Should any such inference be made, I withdraw it unreservedly.

In fact, I have always respected your good will and, as you made clear
in an earlier email, your intention was, as you say, to probe the underlying
implications.  I respect that and responded amending the wording a little.

My comments were merely meant to say that too much examination of the
*next step* prevents us from taking the *first step*.  The motion is really
quite simple.  It is to prevent continuing disruption of substantive debate
with arguments about procedural issues.  I'd value your support.

The fact is that the General Assembly is totally incapable of getting any
work done or even any motion passed.

I think that is shameful.

There really is significant support for the motion.  Should you agree, I am
sure that Danny would assist by recognising the desirability of separating
substantive and procedural issues.

Otherwise the GA debate will be entirely stifled by continuing diversions.

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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:04:48 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:08:26PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
> > all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
> > handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
> > have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.
> 
> Case in point: I would almost use up my limit for the day simply if I
> responded to Patrick Corliss and no one else.

Why on earth do you think that you would have to respond to every email by 
Patrick Corliss, or anyone else?

> So I gather you can be put down as one who would prefer the post
> limit rules to be circumvented by artifice, rather than by the
> establishment of some recognized procedure that would allow
> a full response by someone being deluged.  So be it.

No.  I would rather that the posting limits not be circumvented.  

- -- 
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 19:26:12 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Is it in order to "call for the question"?
Michael McNulty

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Enough prevarication, Sotiris, do you support the motion YES or NO ?
>
> Patrick, I take issue with being called pretty much a liar for no good reason at
> all.  I am not equivocating on this "motion", I am trying to get a better
> understanding of its circumstances, scope, and intent.  If it is also against
> the rules to ask questions, then what exactly *is* allowed by the "rules"?
>
> 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

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:41:34 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

> 
> The following motion has been fully debated.  From my count there are 13 or
> possibly 14 persons in favour.  Two persons have opposed the motion.  One
> person objects to the wording.  The final version, after considering all
> objections, reads as follows:
> 

I don't understand how 48 hours of discussion on the slowest weekend 
on this list in a long time can be considered "fully debated".

A stacked deck of 13 or 14 supporters hardly represents a majority, 
but would explain your undo haste to get this passed before anyone 
returns to the list who might object. 

If the present ratio is an accurate indication of the desire of the list 
members then further discussion of the motion for the next few days 
will demonstrate that clearly.

Earl

- --
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, 16 Jul 2001 15:39:10 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

At 06:38 16/07/2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
>Dear Danny
>
>The following motion has been fully debated.  From my count there are 13 or
>possibly 14 persons in favour.  Two persons have opposed the motion.  One
>person objects to the wording.  The final version, after considering all
>objections, reads as follows:
>
>(1)    The [ga] mailing list is reserved for substantive issues relating to
>DNS policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
>etc. is to be conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to
>[ga-rules] may, by consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues
>to the full General Assembly for a determinative ballot.
>
>(2)    The list rules are amended to include the exact wording of (1) above.
>
>Note:  For the purposes of this motion, the term "prescribed procedures"
>refers to procedures which have been adopted by the General Assembly.
>
>As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
>consideration.  As I understand the current procedures, the Chair is
>required to accept or reject the motion.

Danny,

It is time for you to speak.
This Assembly has elected you as Chair.
Being elected means you have a certain mandate and duty to keep order in 
this Assembly and that you can count on those who elected you to support 
you in such efforts.

Patrick is growing desperate in trying to get your support for a motion 
that is meant to bring credibility to the GA and allow proposals for 
GA-procedure to be developed on a separate list, where they will not drown 
out the main substantive DNS policy issues.

It is now clear to me that those who insist on conducting such procedural 
debate on the main GA list, do this in order to distract the GA from its 
intended purpose and doom it to ineffectiveness.
Always the same tactics. :-(

Since all GA members will have the right to vote on any proposed procedure 
and all members are free to join ga-rules, I have sufficient confidence in 
the proposed procedure to support it.

The alt-chair has gone as far as he could.
Now it is time for the chair to speak out and for the GA to rally behind 
its own elected Chairs.

With regards to using the Polling Booth while the DNSO secretariat is busy 
or on holiday, I see problems.
Unless the bulk of the GA members signs up as a registered voter there, 
(www.democracy.or.nz/voter_registration.htm)  in the same way as they have 
done with the secretariat, such voting will not have the necessary 
legitimacy and can be only regarded as an informal straw poll.

It would certainly help to give the GA some self-organizing power, if the 
Chair would encourage the additional registration.

- --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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:01:46 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Sotiris
>
> On reflection I may have been more brusque than I meant.  If so I apologise.
> It certainly was not my intention to ascribe any motivation (such as lying)
> to your comments.
>
> Should any such inference be made, I withdraw it unreservedly.

Very well, no problem.  Consider the matter settled, apology accepted.

> In fact, I have always respected your good will and, as you made clear
> in an earlier email, your intention was, as you say, to probe the underlying
> implications.  I respect that and responded amending the wording a little.

The amendment made it a little clearer but I still think the words "prescribed
procedures" should be replaced with the specific prescription in question
(i.e.
the rule currently in place, or a proposal for such a rule).  You see, my
problem is with the overall lack of rules as a whole, which makes this
specific
motion a wee bit premature, in my estimation.

> My comments were merely meant to say that too much examination of the
> *next step* prevents us from taking the *first step*.  The motion is really
> quite simple.  It is to prevent continuing disruption of substantive debate
> with arguments about procedural issues.  I'd value your support.
>
> The fact is that the General Assembly is totally incapable of getting any
> work done or even any motion passed.
>
> I think that is shameful.

Oh, I agree...

> There really is significant support for the motion.  Should you agree, I am
> sure that Danny would assist by recognising the desirability of separating
> substantive and procedural issues.

If by significant support you mean numbers, then I'm not sure that's so... but
I
am mindful of those individuals who publicly stated their support, and I
respect
all of their opinions (even though I may not necessarily agree or disagree
with
them).  Furthermore, I will admit that I am disappointed by the GA's plight,
and
I do recognize that much of the problem stems from the ongoing confusion
between
substantive and procedural concerns.  So, while I am inclined to support the
general spirit of the motion, I am still far from comfortable with the motion
itself and entertain questions with respect to its semiotics.

Best Regards,

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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:05:48 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] correction

sorry,
that is of course www.democracy.org.nz/voter_registration.htm
- --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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:59:35 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I have been given to
understand that proxy posting was accepted as standard policy in
WG-Review, which also had a 5/day rule, in which I am told you
participated.  If that is true, I could only say that your position as
stated here is disingenuous at best.

Those more familiar than me with that operation might fill us all in
here -- if such a "proxy rule" was not used there, then obviously
I withdraw my remarks.

So explain how your stated preference that the posting limits not
be circumvented is consistent with your acceptance of a process
wherein a person gets the post in anyway by having someone
else do the posting?  Does that not circumvent the purpose of
the posting limit?  Does that not elevate form over substance?
Is that an honest way to conduct business?

Bill Lovell

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:08:26PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > > Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
> > > all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
> > > handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
> > > have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.
> >
> > Case in point: I would almost use up my limit for the day simply if I
> > responded to Patrick Corliss and no one else.
>
> Why on earth do you think that you would have to respond to every email by
> Patrick Corliss, or anyone else?
>
> > So I gather you can be put down as one who would prefer the post
> > limit rules to be circumvented by artifice, rather than by the
> > establishment of some recognized procedure that would allow
> > a full response by someone being deluged.  So be it.
>
> No.  I would rather that the posting limits not be circumvented.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:26:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

- --------------53EC11FEDD4E30832C55E50B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Excellent questions, Sotiris.  At present, Part I of the Best Procedures is
scheduled to appear on ga-rules late tomorrow (Monday) morning (EDT),
and a procedure that avoids this kind of confusion can there be read in its
initial, outline form (so far setting out only the Principles and Definitions).
Under the procedure suggested, there would never be a question, at any
time, of the status of any ISSUE that some group of GA members was
publicly considering.  The procedure also drops off from its FLOW
CHART any ISSUE that such members determine deserves such a death,
or it carries such ISSUE inexorably to a conclusion, which is a definitive
VOTE.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Just a moment... I am confused.  Patrick, in your other email response to Bll
> Lovell you write:
>
> "At one time I was a government inspector.  The legislation we were working
> under had a section called "Powers of Inspectors".  Please point to the
> equivalent section that gives powers to the Chair or Alternate Chair."
>
> And then, in this latest message cited below, you write:
>
> > Dear Danny
> > <snip>
> >
> > As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
> > consideration.  As I understand the current procedures, the Chair is
> > required to accept or reject the motion.
> >
> > I also understand that the DNSO Secretariat may not have the resources
> > immediately available to conduct the vote.  Should this be the case, I
> > would appreciate your personal acceptance of the proposed policy.
>
> I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
> mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to personally accept the
> proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?
>
> 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

- --
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

- --------------53EC11FEDD4E30832C55E50B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Excellent questions, Sotiris.&nbsp; At present, Part I of the Best Procedures
is
<br>scheduled to appear on ga-rules late tomorrow (Monday) morning (EDT),
<br>and a procedure that avoids this kind of confusion can there be read
in its
<br>initial, outline form (so far setting out only the Principles and Definitions).
<br>Under the procedure suggested, there would never be a question, at
any
<br>time, of the status of any ISSUE that some group of GA members was
<br>publicly considering.&nbsp; The procedure also drops off from its FLOW
<br>CHART any ISSUE that such members determine deserves such a death,
<br>or it carries such ISSUE <i>inexorably</i> to a conclusion, which is
a definitive
<br>VOTE.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Just a moment... I am confused.&nbsp; Patrick, in
your other email response to Bll
<br>Lovell you write:
<p>"At one time I was a government inspector.&nbsp; The legislation we
were working
<br>under had a section called "Powers of Inspectors".&nbsp; Please point
to the
<br>equivalent section that gives powers to the Chair or Alternate Chair."
<p>And then, in this latest message cited below, you write:
<p>> Dear Danny
<br>> &lt;snip>
<br>>
<br>> As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
<br>> consideration.&nbsp; As I understand the current procedures, the
Chair is
<br>> required to accept or reject the motion.
<br>>
<br>> I also understand that the DNSO Secretariat may not have the resources
<br>> immediately available to conduct the vote.&nbsp; Should this be the
case, I
<br>> would appreciate your personal acceptance of the proposed policy.
<p>I might be missing something here, but where are the "current procedures"
<br>mentioned above codified?&nbsp; Further, if the Chair was to personally
accept the
<br>proposed policy, would that make it a de facto GA institution?
<p>Sincerely,
<p>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
<br>to the reader may possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------53EC11FEDD4E30832C55E50B--

- --
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 #616
************************