Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #617
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 17 2001            Volume 01 : Number 617

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Motion Accepted

Dear Patrick,

I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.  At some 
point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more support the 
activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be able to conclude a 
vote on this motion by early October (according to the most recent timetable 
put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to get a "sense of the GA" on this 
topic through a poll.

To facilitate that effort, and in response to the recommendation put forth by 
Bill Lovell to create our own website, I have begun building such a site 
(with an area devoted to current motions).  You may visit 
http://www.icannworld.org to see the results of my efforts over the course of 
this weekend.  

Clicking on the General Assembly Link will take you to the page that leads 
you to the Straw Poll.

Best regards,
Danny
- --
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 00:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

I disagree with the motion proposed by Patrick
Corliss.  I believe discussion on any GA sublist is
prejudiced for more tenured members of the GA, since
knowledge of the sublists must first be obtained, then
the extra initiative of subscribing to the additional
list(s) must be taken.  This assumes, of course, that
new members generally subscribe first to the main GA
list, then perhaps the sublists.

I do not believe that so-called "noise" on the main
list is a significant impediment to more productive
discussion on any topic.

Conducting straw polls on separate sites is also, in
my opinion, prejudiced against new members of the GA,
and should not be implemented until such a procedure
is proposed and accepted by this body.

As should be obvious, I disagree with Patrick's
argument that "insisting on formal adherence to
the rules and procedure"[s] "undermines the process"
of the GA.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS Outreach [Fwd: Names Council]

Sotiris,

I appreciate the sentiment... but are you suggesting
we spam the WHOIS list?

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> 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).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:41:22 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I welcome any move to facilitate discussion of substantive issues on the GA
list and support the intent behind this motion.

erica
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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, 16 Jul 2001 08:01:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS Outreach [Fwd: Names Council]

technizmo wrote:

> Sotiris,
>
> I appreciate the sentiment... but are you suggesting
> we spam the WHOIS list?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason Graff

Jason,

I am not suggesting we indiscriminately spam the WHOIS list, even though other
less scrupulous elements do so regularly (even selling its contents to
marketers).  All I did was conduct a few searches of domain names that in all
likelihood suggest registrant familiarity/interest in domain name
issues/matters.  The fellow I emailed seemed a likely candidate to approach as
he'd registered the domain "namescouncil.com".  Now, I may be wrong, but I am
not aware of any other "Names Council" in existence.  If we were able to reach
out to 50 such individuals, I'm sure the word would spread even further and we
might see a (to my mind) much anicipated influx of fresh members to the GA.
As far as I'm concerned, the participation rate among the current 300 or so
members is less than inspiring.  Perhaps some new blood is just what we need
to stir the pot around here a little...

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> > 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).
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> --
> 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, 16 Jul 2001 07:56:07 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

Actually, my recollection is not the same as Eric's. I distinctly remember
proxy posting priviliges being accepted without complaint in similar
circumstances, whereby member A advocated on an issue particularly well, and
was given member B's proxy to speak on their behalf, therefore member A
could exceed a 5/day limit that had been imposed temporarily. Consequently,
I thought it *was* accepted practice of the GA, or certainly WG's.

Whether it *should* be treated as BEST PRACTICE or not is another ISSUE, but
it seems to occur so infrequently, it doesn't seem worth a CALL FOR ACTION.

While I did not identify the relevant URLs in the Archives as I had hoped, I
did come across a position paper on procedural issues from Kent, posted only
about six months ago, which may be of interest:-

"It is important, though, that WGs have some procedural freedom -- the
criteria for success of the WG should be the documents produced, not how
slavishly the WG followed procedure.  This procedural freedom is
necessary if the procedures are to evolve and develop over time."  (*)

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01428.html

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/16/01 12:59 AM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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
> 

- --
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 15:19:11 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

On 2001-07-15 20:41:34 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:

>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.

Just in case someone is counting:  I returned from the week-end 
today, and I fully support Patrick's motion.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:53:17 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion Accepted

> From: technizmo [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 12:27 AM
> 
> I disagree with the motion proposed by Patrick
> Corliss.  I believe discussion on any GA sublist is
> prejudiced for more tenured members of the GA, since
> knowledge of the sublists must first be obtained, then
> the extra initiative of subscribing to the additional
> list(s) must be taken.  This assumes, of course, that
> new members generally subscribe first to the main GA
> list, then perhaps the sublists.

Jason, have you been to the web-site lately? In all cases, rookies get the
mailer-list data from that site. Recently, I had to resubscribe and found
the info there. There are accompanying descriptions as well. It's all on the
same web-page. I'm not giving a URL, if you can't find it then I might
concede this point. But, please give it an honest effort.

> I do not believe that so-called "noise" on the main
> list is a significant impediment to more productive
> discussion on any topic.

Many of us have other things to do besides camp out on this list, or any
other list, for the occasional tid-bit of relevence. Having the messages
pre-sorted into convenient bins helps a lot. It also helps focus the
discussion. That is something that the GA sorely needs...a little focus.

> Conducting straw polls on separate sites is also, in
> my opinion, prejudiced against new members of the GA,
> and should not be implemented until such a procedure
> is proposed and accepted by this body.

You expect to prevent this? ... how? If I wanted to set up a separate
opinion poll, on DNSO.NET, I'd dearly like to see anyone, in any official
capacity, try and stop me. You are missing a fundimental point. Almost to
the point of being a troll.

- --
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 11:31:39 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
>        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
>        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
>        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
>        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
>        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
>        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
>        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
>        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
>        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
>        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
>        main GA list:
>        [snip]

         Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to have worked . . . 
I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this motion to a formal 
vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a knock-down, drag-out 
debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should it act like an 
IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it seems to me that 
in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the group has 
reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that we can move 
on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination should be largely 
up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times 
not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a couple of days 
now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough consensus. Once a week 
has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as it's been so far, 
I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the 
proposal is adopted by rough consensus.

Jon

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion Accepted

- --- Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Many of us have other things to do besides camp out
> on this list, or any other list, for the occasional
> tid-bit of relevence. Having the messages pre-sorted
> into convenient bins helps a lot. It also helps
> focus the discussion. That is something that the GA
> sorely needs...a little focus.

Agreed.  That sublists focus the discussion is
inexorably true.  My concern, however, is that the
discussion is focussed and polarized amongst those who
are most interested in one side of an issue or
another.  Sublists hamper the participation of new or
more casually interested members, the people who are
most likely to provide conciliatory or compromising
opinions (the ones that help to foster consensus).

> > Conducting straw polls on separate sites...

> You expect to prevent this? ... how? If I wanted to
> set up a separate opinion poll, on DNSO.NET, I'd 
> dearly like to see anyone, in any official
> capacity, try and stop me.

On the contrary, Roeland.  I applaud any effort made
toward the benefit and furtherance of the GA.  I just
want to make sure that any credence given such a poll
is proportional to the participation of ALL GA
members, including "rookies," who may not yet know the
"lay of the land" of this organization.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:24:32 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] MOTION - Moving Discussion Off the GA List

I support this proposal as a means of moving forward constructively

Best Regards

John Lewis
British Telecommunications plc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 13 July 2001 19:52
To: 'Patrick Corliss'; [email-masked]; [ga]; DNSO Secretariat
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
- --
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 11:40:47 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] to support a motion

Hi to all:

I support this motion.

Best Regards
Vany

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:38:38 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
         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

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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 10:27:55 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BEST PRACTICES

The full text of Part I (Principles and Definitions) of the BEST
PRACTICES
initiative is now posted to the Archives of the General Assembly at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00263.html, and it is
anticipated that a DISCUSSION of this Initiative will take place on
[email-masked].

Copies are also available at the following websites:
http://www.internetstakeholders.com
http://www.icannworld.org/BestPractices.htm

SUMMARY:
An ISSUE is raised, a SUGGESTION is made, a CALL FOR ACTION is heard,
the
whole thing is DISCUSSED, a BASIS in fact for some action is shown and
it
rises to the level of being an actual, concrete PROPOSAL; that PROPOSAL
is
then subject to DEBATE, from which may then emerge a legitimate
and well-founded MOTION, and upon RECOGNITION as such, that MOTION is
then
presented to the full membership of the General Assembly.

Once that last step is taken, once it is RECOGNIZED as a MOTION, that is
the
ONLY time and place at which any issue of "legitimacy" can arise. Then
the
entire GA membership has the opportunity to DEBATE the thing on its
merits,
propose AMENDMENTS, and VOTE.

As the published PRINCIPLES note, these are NOT rules. They simply
suggest
an effective, definitive way of doing things, but it is only by the
application of such orderly, open, fair, and self-authenticating
procedures
that there can be anything that will have earned any legitimacy before
the
GA.

We look forward to seeing BEST PRACTICES being put to practical use
whenever
and wherever the General Assembly is at work.

Regards,

William S. Lovell
Joanna Lane

- --
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 14:58:43 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion Accepted

[email-masked] writes:
 > I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.
 > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once
 > more support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we
 > might be able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October
 > (according to the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime,
 > you may wish to get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.

Here is yet another example of the "chairs" going completely against the
will of the GA and creating something that has never existed and has
absolutely no legitimacy.

 > To facilitate that effort, and in response to the recommendation put
 > forth by Bill Lovell to create our own website, I have begun building
 > such a site (with an area devoted to current motions).  You may visit
 > http://www.icannworld.org to see the results of my efforts over the
 > course of this weekend.

"icannworld" has absolutely no official relation to the DNSO or to
ICANN.  The only official web site is http://www.dnso.org/ and there can
be no other official source for information about the dealings of the
GA.  This is exactly like the previous illegitmate effort to host the
so-called "sub-lists" on mail servers other than the officially
sanctioned GA mail server, maintained by the DNSO Secretariat.

Your efforst to move outside of the official ICANN and NC boundaries is
a complete disservice to the community, just as the community-fracturing
so-called "sub-lists" are another effort to tear the GA into little
pieces that do not communicate with each other.

These so-called "sub-lists" are not official working groups of the NC.
They are merely efforts by the "chairs" to create minority groups of
people in an effort to keep the GA from actually knowing what is
happening.  All this talk of focused discussion on the so-called
"sub-lists" as opposed to the official list serves only to
disenfranchise the GA by creating elite "committees" which the "chairs"
attempt to vest with non-existant powers.

If you are so strongly opposed to the NC and the ICANN, then I suggest
that you create your own body and set it up the way that you want to.
What you are doing here is impeding the progress of the GA by fracturing
it into little pieces so that you can come along later and say, "See,
this doesn't work and never has."

Unless and until you show where you think that you derive these powers
to create this as an official web site, or until you show some
legitimacy of purpose for these so-called "sub-lists", I must remain
firmly opposed and can tell you that firm opposition such as mine
demonstrates a complete lack of consensus by any definition.

/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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:03:51 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BEST PRACTICES

William S. Lovell writes:
 > The full text of Part I (Principles and Definitions) of the BEST
 > PRACTICES
 > initiative is now posted to the Archives of the General Assembly at
 > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00263.html, and it is
 > anticipated that a DISCUSSION of this Initiative will take place on
 > [email-masked].

There can be no discussion of substance regarding changes to the way
that the GA conducts its business in any forum other than the official
GA list, [email-masked].  There is no other ligitimate place to discuss the
business of the GA.  In order to change the discussion to a fractured,
so-called "sub-list", there must be discussion on the GA list about the
legitimacy of the so-called "sub-lists".  So far, all discussion has
revealed that there is no consensus about setting up these so-called
"sub-lists", and so there is no legitimate business that can be carried
out on them.

/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: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:41:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BEST PRACTICES

Mr. Kelsey:

Well, I think the short answer to this bureaucratic approach to life
is that the United States, at least, and indeed the Internet itself, is
a "free country," and people can discuss whatever they please
wherever they please.  Whether such DISCUSSION becomes
effective, well, we shall see.  Legitimacy is established by the
content of what is said, who has said it, and by how many, not
by any grant of right by some entity on high. When the DNSO
procedures call for a RECOGNITION of some subject by
way of a genuine MOTION, well then, and only then, will it
be necessary to acquire that RECOGNITION, which again
occurs within the GA by way of the Chair. And then there is
opportunity for the entirety of the General Assembly -- i.e.,
including those who have not elected to join into the formation
of the matter, to analyze, DEBATE, and generally run the
thing through the wringer in the good old fashioned way. But
the ga list is no place to be cluttered up with procedural
matters when that list is supposed to be devoted to larger
scale, policy-related matters. That is the substance of the
recent MOTION from Patrick Corliss, which is a good
one for which I have expressed my "yeah."  But the idea
that one could not proceed in such manner until there has
been a full DNSO-administered vote (and heaven knows
when that could possibly happen -- by Christmas?) that
grants us free GA citizens any "approval" to proceed in that
manner on our own is utterly absurd.

Your statement that there is no consensus on using
sublists is factually wrong; the long string of approvals
of Patrick's MOTION indicates otherwise.

Bill Lovell

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> William S. Lovell writes:
>  > The full text of Part I (Principles and Definitions) of the BEST
>  > PRACTICES
>  > initiative is now posted to the Archives of the General Assembly at
>  > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00263.html, and it is
>  > anticipated that a DISCUSSION of this Initiative will take place on
>  > [email-masked].
>
> There can be no discussion of substance regarding changes to the way
> that the GA conducts its business in any forum other than the official
> GA list, [email-masked].  There is no other ligitimate place to discuss the
> business of the GA.  In order to change the discussion to a fractured,
> so-called "sub-list", there must be discussion on the GA list about the
> legitimacy of the so-called "sub-lists".  So far, all discussion has
> revealed that there is no consensus about setting up these so-called
> "sub-lists", and so there is no legitimate business that can be carried
> out on them.
>
> /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

- --
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 15:59:02 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "sub-lists"

Mr. Younger and Mr. Corliss have done both a service and a disservice to
the GA community by creating the informal discussions on the so-called
"sub-lists".  The discussions that they have created are informal and
unofficial meeting rooms for GA members to meet in.  These lists are, in
no way, part of the official record of the GA as a whole, but merely
informal meetings in the hallway of the corridors of GA business.

They have done a service to the community by siphoning off illegitimate
discussions, such as the "roots" discussion into a harmless and
unofficial discussion area.  The time wasted by those with vested
interest in trying to make money off their own ideas of what a DNS root
should be can be safely sequestered into this informal discussion group
and no longer trouble the GA as a whole with their wild ideas.

They have done a disservice by creating the "rules" discussion area and
promoting it as somme sort of "legitimate" area for the GA as a whole to
do business in.  This is a real hazard to the progress of the GA as it
has led certain people to think that there is actual legitimate business
going on in this informal discussion area.

Let us be clear about the whole issue of the so-called "sub-lists".
These are completely informal, off-the-record discussion groups that
have no real meaning in the business of the GA.  The full extent of the
bad meaning given this informal area is shown in Mr. Lovell's message
announcing the so-called BEST PRACTICES document:

 > The full text of Part I (Principles and Definitions) of the BEST
 > PRACTICES initiative is now posted to the Archives of the General
 > Assembly at
 > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00263.html,

This announcement shows Mr. Lovell's confusion in believing that the
informal discussion group is somehow part of the official record of the
GA.  The only official record of the GA is the GA list itself,
[email-masked].  No other official record of the business of the GA
exists.  Mr. Lovell is doing a further disservice to the GA community by
perpetuating the notion (first put forward by the "chairs") that the
so-called "sub-lists" are somehow official business of the GA.

As Mr. Lovell himself further pointed out in a subsequent communication,
he himself recognizes that only business conducted on the GA list itself
can be official discussions.

Mr. Lovell, I ask you to reword your announcement above to make it clear
that you do not look at any discussion which may take place on the
so-called "rules" list as having any official part of the record of the
business of the GA.  I suggest that you announce that an informal
discussion of your proposal is taking place there until such time as you
feel the need to bring your proposal to the attention of the GA as a
whole so that official debate can then take place on said proposal.

Thank you.

/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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #617
************************