Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #618
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 17 2001            Volume 01 : Number 618

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:13:49 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to suspend the DOC's .us RFQ posted

- --------------A72D31DC1A120289FE6E68FF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This RFQ may well be a replay of the Teapot Dome
scandal, in which valuable U. S. (people-owned)
resources were given away (with a little cumshaw
passing under the table from the winning contractors)
and should be ended immediately.  I suggest that the
U. S. Dept. of Justice look into the matter.  Is the
identity of the "winning contractor" already known
to the DoC? And more importantly, where is the
statutory and Constitutional authority of the DoC
to give away those rights in the first place? That
needs to be spelled out specifically, with full and
complete legal citations before the DoC can do
anything -- I've not read this RFQ itself, but in
my previous experience those things rarely even
approach establishing their actual bona fides.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/letter2doc.pdf
> --
> 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

- --------------A72D31DC1A120289FE6E68FF
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
This RFQ may well be a replay of the Teapot Dome
<br>scandal, in which valuable U. S. (people-owned)
<br>resources were given away (with a little cumshaw
<br>passing under the table from the winning contractors)
<br>and should be ended immediately.&nbsp; I suggest that the
<br>U. S. Dept. of Justice look into the matter.&nbsp; Is the
<br>identity of the "winning contractor" already known
<br>to the DoC? And more importantly, where is the
<br>statutory and Constitutional authority of the DoC
<br>to give away those rights in the first place? That
<br>needs to be spelled out specifically, with full and
<br>complete legal citations before the DoC can do
<br>anything -- I've not read this RFQ itself, but in
<br>my previous experience those things rarely even
<br>approach establishing their actual <i>bona fides</i>.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/letter2doc.pdf">http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/letter2doc.pdf</a>
<br>--
<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>
</html>

- --------------A72D31DC1A120289FE6E68FF--

- --
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 17:37:36 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How to paralyze the General Assembly

Rather than reply to the latest from Joe Kelsey, I thought I'd
outline what's involved here:

1. Set up a system where ICANN schedules annual elections.
2. Set up a system in which there is a Names Council that is
    charged with assisting the General Assembly in various tasks.
3. Give to the Names Council the responsibility for administering
    the General Assembly mailing lists.
4. Give to the Names Council the responsibility for conducting
    General Assembly votes.
5. Fail to hold annual elections because there is no money for them.
6. Fail to establish mailing lists as requested by the Chair and/or the
    Alternate Chair of the General Assembly.
7. Fail to conduct elections as requested by the General Assembly.
8. Convince enough members of the General Assembly that it
    cannot do anything that has any "official" status without there
    being an "official" mailing list or an "official" election, under
    the control of the Names Council.

The General Assembly thereby becomes paralyzed.

Bill Lovell
- --
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 21:00:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director

It will soon be time for the DNSO to nominate a Board Director.  If we seek 
to have a Director that has an affinity for the General Assembly, it might be 
prudent for us to begin preparing a list of questions to pose to the 
candidates for such office.  If each of you can pose one question, we could 
rapidly compile a list of interrogatives that reflects the concerns of this 
Assembly.   If possible, we might also arrange for a debate between the 
candidates in Montevideo as part of the General Assembly session... Let me 
know your thoughts, better yet, let me know your questions.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:22:20 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director

Question 1.
dear candidate,
  Will you actively support Karl Auerbach's motion on the creation of an 
Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO?
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/june-4-2001.htm#res_2

- -joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:25:19 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:

> 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.

Thank you for your support and your comments.  By my count, there are
18 declared supporters for the present proposal:

*    Peter de Blanc
*    Roeland Meyer
*    Leah Gallegos
*    Jefsey Morfin
*    Ken Stubbs
*    William S. Lovell
*    Marilyn Cade
*    Ross Wm. Rader (for Tucows)
*    Bradley Thornton
*    Alexander Svensson
*    Michael McNulty
*    Joop Teernstra
*    Erica Roberts
*    Marc Schneiders
*    Vany Martinez
*    John C. Lewis
*    Derek Conant (with reservations)
*    Patrick Corliss (myself)

I believe that we have sufficient mandate to request members to use the
[ga-rules] mailing list to debate procedural or other administrative issues
like websites, mailing lists, etc.

> 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.

I would, of course, thank both Bill Lovell and yourself, as well as Joanna
Lane, for your kind efforts.

One wonders why we cannot incorporate these initiatives into the current
DNSO website.  I see this as an issue that needs to be discussed on the
[ga-rules] mailing list.

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

Thank you.  At least we start with the 18 names above (19 if we include
yourself) in favour of discussing non-substantive issues on the [ga-rules]
mailing list.

I see that as sufficient mandate to encourage compliance with this motion.

> Best regards,
> Danny

Best wishes
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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:25:03 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] How to paralyze the General Assembly

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:37:36 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
Subject: [ga] How to paralyze the General Assembly

> Rather than reply to the latest from Joe Kelsey, I thought I'd
> outline what's involved here:
>
> 1. Set up a system where ICANN schedules annual elections.
> 2. Set up a system in which there is a Names Council that is
>     charged with assisting the General Assembly in various tasks.
> 3. Give to the Names Council the responsibility for administering
>     the General Assembly mailing lists.
> 4. Give to the Names Council the responsibility for conducting
>     General Assembly votes.
> 5. Fail to hold annual elections because there is no money for them.
> 6. Fail to establish mailing lists as requested by the Chair and/or the
>     Alternate Chair of the General Assembly.
> 7. Fail to conduct elections as requested by the General Assembly.
> 8. Convince enough members of the General Assembly that it
>     cannot do anything that has any "official" status without there
>     being an "official" mailing list or an "official" election, under
>     the control of the Names Council.
>
> The General Assembly thereby becomes paralyzed.

Hi Bill

Now you're getting the idea !!  Thank you for elucidating my views so
clearly.  You can add:

9. Fail to fund either the Chair or the Alternate Chair to attend ICANN
conferences so they might conduct face-to-face meetings of the General
Assembly.

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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:25:34 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:31:39 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

>          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.

Thanks for you commnts, Jon, but the fact is that there is a continuing
objection that the process does not have *legitimacy*.  It is only to
satisfy these interjections that a formal vote is needed.  Should people
voluntarily comply it would not be woorth doing.

<snip>
> 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

Sure.  But people still need to accept the Chair's determination.

> (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.

Agreed.  So can we continue the debate on the [ga-rules] mailing list?

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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:28:46 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 08:48:34 -0700 (PDT), Jason Graff wrote:

> 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.

Hi Jason

Thank you for your comments.  I quite understand, and share, your concerns
that "rookies" may not understand what is going on.  I'm sure we all agree
with that view.

As you know, there are very many issues of an "administrative" nature.  One
is the welcome provided to new members, another is regular bulletins through
GA-ANNOUNCE, yet another is the layout and content of the DNSO website.  All
are important to get the system functioning properly.

However, many substantive issues have been bypassed because of ongoing
debate about lists, rules, procedures, methodologies and protocols.
Examples are WIPO2 and Stuart Lynn's new policy on "alt" roots.  We cannot
afford to miss such opportunities for input.

It really is not asking too much to refer such issues to one single list viz
[ga-rules].  I am happy to ask the DNSO Secretariat to notify all new
members accordingly and to give this process greater prominence on the DNSO
website.

Joanna Lane and William Lovell have kindly worked together to produce a Best
Practices Guide.  This is being discussed on [ga-rules].  Could I therefore
ask GA members to respect the declared wishes of this forum and conduct any
further debate on the [ga-rules] mailing list.

I appreciate all of your efforts to make this forum work effectively.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

- --- Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]> wrote:
> However, many substantive issues have been bypassed
> because of ongoing debate about lists, rules, 
> procedures, methodologies and protocols.

Patrick,

I don't believe this is true.  As far as I know, there
is no restriction limiting us to discussion of one
issue at a time.

However, even though I am of a dissenting opinion, I
agree with Jonathan Weinberg et al., that your motion
has up to this point built consensus among members who
have posted their preference. (Based on the 2/3
support standard commonly accepted by other
organizations)

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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:15:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Last Post --- Agenda GA-RULES Mailing List

Members of the GA

The following motion has been accepted by the Chair.  From my count
there are 19 or possibly 20 persons in favour.  Two persons have opposed
the motion.  One other 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 this motion has significant support within this Assembly I would ask
members to voluntarily comply.  Those who are not subscribed to the
[ga-rules] list may do so by sending an email to [email-masked]
with the following words in the text part of the message:

subscribe ga-rules

The proposed agenda for discussion on [ga-rules] is as follows:

GA-RULES: To consider, build and enhance the General Assembly's
internal control processes including, but not limited to, its accountability
structures, electoral procedures, debating processes, mailing list rules and
system of management.

(1)    Expenses and Funding.
Attendance at ICANN Conferences.
Revenue - Grants and Other Income.
Disbursements - who to and why?
DNSO Secretarial & Services.
Donations, use of external resources.

(2)    Communication Technology
Mailing lists, IRC & teleconferencing.
Physical and virtual meetings.
Minutes and recording.
Polling booths and voting.

(3)    Rules of Order, Working Groups
Setting up WGs & Terms of Reference.
Level and depth of participation.
Motions and discussion.
Reporting and consensus.
Complaints & lack of confidence.

(4)    List Rules and Protocols:
Appointment, removal of list monitors.
Personal attacks, insults and slander.
Excessive postings (esp. without content).
Main list & relationship to sublists.
Control & consistency of sublists.

(5)    Electoral Procedures.
Nomination & endorsement of candidates.
Selection of electoral watchdog.
Conducting the ballot.  Revotes.
Withdrawal of candidate.
Objections and appeals.
Names Council ratification.

(6)    Conflicts, Ethics & Disclosure.
Definition, applicability and necessity.
Requirement for continuous disclosure.
Accountability to DNSO GA or NC.

Thank you all for your ongoing support for this proposal.

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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:08:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Patrick Corliss posting

Hi! Patrick.
Since my filtering of Patrick Corliss mails does not work properly I was 
able to note that Patrick Corliss sent 6 mails in less than 1:30 hour, 
between 13:50 and 15:15 his local time.

I suggest that once for all we remove that posting limit of 5 posts a day.

1) I do not support Patrick's global view but I am happy that he takes his 
last year discussions away to ga-rules (so every year the newbies could 
repeat it again and again). And his numerous mails are obviously intended 
to best organize that departure.

2) I observe that most of the large posting numbers were responses to 
Patrick's mails. Now his crusade is possibly over we may resume normal 
operations.

A progressive removal could be acceptable: we could keep a reminder by 
moderator or program. The point is not that much the number but the 
limitation. GA-FULL should be copied sub-lists and sublist ReplyTo to be 
set to the originating sub-list. ReplyTo should also be to GA-FULL for 
GA-FULL and GA ReplyTo to stay as per today to the author. I think this 
would make everyone happy.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:58:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director

Question 2.
Dear candidate,
in your view, what are the strong and weak points of
the DNSO structure as it is and how would you set
about improving it?

Question 3.
What is your view on ICANN At Large participation --
do you support an election of the full number of
At Large directors?

/// Alexander

> Question 1.
> dear candidate,
>   Will you actively support Karl Auerbach's motion on the creation of an
> Individuals' Constituency in the DNSO?
> http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/june-4-2001.htm#res_2
> -joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:16:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Patrick Corliss posting

Yes. My point was that obviously - in true common interest - Patrick needs 
more that 5 post a day on GA ( I would be surprised he does/need to send a 
few more today ) and that once his sub-list story is gone traffic will 
decrease. So we might spare the additional traffic commenting on traffic 
limits... :-)
Jefsey

On 10:08 17/07/01, Alexander Svensson said:

>Hello Jefsey,
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote on 17.07.01, 09:08:38:
> > Since my filtering of Patrick Corliss mails does not work properly I was
> > able to note that Patrick Corliss sent 6 mails in less than 1:30 hour,
> > between 13:50 and 15:15 his local time.
>
>I actually count seven (but may be mistaken here).
>But the posting limit is a limit *per list* (and
>per person and per 24 hour time period calculated
>according to the sender's time), so that you can
>discuss both the Best Practices document on
>GA-rules *and* the Board elections on the GA list
>with each up to five posts.
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:25:28 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within the SRS

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm

ICANN Advisory
Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

(16 July 2001) In recent weeks, some registrars have reported
difficulty in accessing the .com/.net/.org Shared Registration
System during the hours in which expiring names are deleted.
Upon investigation, it appears that a significant portion of
the available bandwidth and connections is being consumed during
these hours by a few registrars making very large numbers of
queries for the names expected to expire.

Under VeriSign's Registry Agreements with ICANN, it is obligated
to provide all accredited registrars "with equivalent access
to its Registry Services, including to its shared registration
system." VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure,
it would place a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections
and 256k bandwidth applied to each accredited registrar. ICANN
has advised VeriSign Registry that these limitations appear
consistent with its Registry Agreements. These limits will
apply beginning tomorrow, Tuesday, 17 July 2001. See the message
copied below.

This interim measure will not guarantee all registrars will have
access to the registry in all circumstances. ICANN's Domain Name
Supporting Organization has been advised of the situation so
that it may begin consideration of possible development of policy
for handling expiring names. Members of the community are urged
to participate in these discussions through the DNSO, so that
all viewpoints can be considered in developing a policy for fair
allocation of expiring names.

ICANN is aware that some customers may have been inconvenienced
by this situation and will keep the community apprised of further
progress toward finding a remedy.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: VeriSign Global Registry Services
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: [RegistrarsList] Registry Advisory: Bandwidth and Session
Limits to be Deployed within the SRS

To All Registrars:
VeriSign Global Registry Services is responsible for ensuring equivalent
access to the Shared Registration System (SRS) by all registrars. Recently,
the deletion and subsequent availability of large numbers of domain names
have caused a domain "land rush" during certain hours of the day. During
these daily "land rushes" some registrars acquire unnecessarily large
numbers of RRP sessions, making it difficult for other registrars to
acquire the minimal number needed to conduct normal business. Whether this
is due to inefficient registrar systems, or a conscious desire to block
competition by monopolizing RRP connections, it is a behavior that cannot
be supported or condoned. VeriSign GRS has been working with ICANN to
determine an access policy that will address this abusive behavior while
protecting the equivalent access requirements of the COM, NET and ORG
Registry Agreements. Our goal is to protect the equivalent access of each
registrar without impacting legitimate business operations.

The first step in this process will be to limit the total bandwidth any
single registrar can consume, along with the total number of RRP sessions
any single registrar can simultaneously open. Beginning Tuesday July 17,
each ICANN accredited registrar will be limited to 256K in bandwidth and
250 simultaneous RRP connections.

As always, we recommend each registrar evaluate the efficiency of their
systems. VeriSign GRS will share with each registrar their bandwidth
utilization and RRP connection trends, in addition to efficiency (i.e.,
number of transactions per connection).

RRP bandwidth and connections will always be a finite commodity. The
recent "land rush" events indicate that the informal measures we have
relied on in the past will not ensure that all registrars have fair access
to this commodity. VeriSign GRS recognizes that, although they should be
helpful in the short term, the bandwidth and connection limitations
described above will not ensure access in all load circumstances and are
only a partial solution. We will therefore be working with registrars and
ICANN to develop fair and effective longer-term means of providing every
registrar appropriate access to the SRS.

If you require additional information, please contact VeriSign Global
Registry Services at [email-masked] or +1 703-925-6999.

Best Regards,

Chris Sheridan
Manager, Customer Service
VeriSign Global Registry Services
www.verisign-grs.com
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:32:24 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for Nominations to elect an ICANN Board Director

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked]
[ Please forward this announcement to the Constitiencies mailling lists
[ in order to reach all DNSO General Assembly members.

17 July 2000

Dear DNSO Members,

The Names Council is pleased to announce a call for nomination
to elect an ICANN Board Director by the DNSO.
 
In our effort to reach as many interested parties as possible
we may unavoidably send you more than one copy. Please accept our
apology for this.
 
The process to elect an ICANN Board Director is comprised of two parts:
   1. Nomination and endorsements of candidates to the ICANN Board 
      position by the General Assembly of the DNSO    
   2. Vote by the Names Council to select the ICANN Board Director 
 
The first part lasts 6 weeks: 
   a. 3 weeks for nominations (and acceptances), 
      17 July to 7 August 2001 
   b. 3 weeks for endorsements, 
      7 August to 28 August 2001 
The second part last few days. 
 
Please watch carrefully deadlines, the reference time is given in UTC 
(Universal Coordinated Time), for all other places see 
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Summary:

During the next weeks the DNSO will select its ICANN Board Director
in replacement of Amadeu Abril i Abril, which term expires 30 September 2001.

The new elected Director will serve for 3 years term.

With regard to geographic diversity rules, the candidates for
election in 2001 shall be citizens from any of 3 regions:
Africa, Asia-Pacific or Europe.

The ICANN Board Director election by the DNSO is described in the
attached main document (and its annexes), which are posted on the website:
   1. Main document: Description of the election process in 2001
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
   2. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
      and calendar for 2001:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
   3. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements 
      will be updated daily at:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html 
   4. The NC voting procedure:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html

The Names Council and the Secretariat are grateful to the GA Watchdog
Committee, which in 2001 includes Roberto Gaetano, Harald Alvestrand,
Kent Crispin, Dany Vandromme, Alexander Svensson and Izumi Aizu.
The GA Watchdog Committee will police the nomination and endorsements
processes to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity
in connection with the nomination and endorsement processes.

DNSO Secretariat

- --

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

                 DNSO election of ICANN Board member in 2001

   * ICANN Bylaws

     The Bylaws of ICANN request that once a year the DNSO elects its member
     of the ICANN Board and set forth some additional conditions related to
     eligibility and geographic diversity.

          ARTICLE V, Section 9 (b) and (c)

          (b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year
          2001, each Supporting Organization entitled to select a
          Director (other than an Original Director selected by the
          Supporting Organization under Section 2 of this Article)
          shall (i) make its selection according to the procedures
          specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and
          VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the
          Corporation at least fifteen days written notice of that
          selection. The term of such a Director shall commence on the
          October 1 after the Secretary's receipt of such written
          notice.

          (c) The regular term of office of a Director shall be three
          (3) years, [...]

          ARTICLE VI, Section 4

          No person shall serve simultaneously as (i) a member of any
          Supporting Organization Council or other body that is
          directly responsible for the selection of Directors by that
          Supporting Organization and (ii) a Director or a member of
          any other Supporting Organization Council. If a member of any
          such Supporting Organization Council or such other body
          accepts a nomination to be considered to serve on the Board,
          such member shall not, following such acceptance, participate
          in any discussion of, or vote by, such Supporting
          Organization Council or other body relating to the selection
          of Directors by such Council or other body.

          ARTICLE VI-B, Section 2 (e)

          (e) The NC shall forward to the Board, from among those
          persons nominated by the GA, its selection(s) for the
          Director(s) to fill any open Board position(s) reserved for
          the DNSO. Any such selection(s) must have the affirmative
          votes of at least one-half (1/2) of all the members of the
          NC. At any given time, no two Directors serving on the Board
          selected by the NC shall be citizens of the same country or
          of countries located in the same Geographic Region.

   * Geographic diversity rule applied to year 2001 election

     The current ICANN Board comprises three Directors elected by the DNSO:
       1. Alejandro Pisanty (Mexico; Latin America/Caribbean Islands region)
          (three year term, expires 2002)
       2. Amadeu Abril I Abril (Spain; Europe region) (two year term,
          expires 2001)
       3. Jonathan Cohen (Canada; North America region) (three years term,
          expires 2003)

     The tenure of Amadeu Abril I Abril from Europe region ends on 30
     September 2001. With regard to geographic diversity rules, the
     candidates for election in 2001 shall be citizens from any of 3
     regions:

          - Africa region
          - Asia and Pacific region
          - Europe region

   * Procedures for nomination of candidates to the ICANN Board position by
     the General Assembly of the DNSO and a timetable

     On 2 June 2001 in Stockholm the NC has resolved that the next ICANN
     Board director election will take place in September 2001.

          11. DNSO Board election.

          Amadeu Abril i Abril's tenure ends in September. The NC is urged
          to propose candidates for the election which will take place in
          September with a view to the new member being in place for October.
          The Secretariat will make the formal call.

     The Names Council has resolved to use the same procedures for
     nomination, acceptance of nomination and endorsement as the ones used
     last year.

     The Secretariat has determined the following calendar for nominations:
       1. Candidates for year 2001 election may be nominated between the 17
          July and 7 August 2001 (3 weeks).
       2. Any nominee can express his/her acceptance or declination from the
          time he is nominated, until 3 hours after closing the nomination
          period.
       3. In order to be considered for the ICANN Board selection a nominee
          must have the support of, at least, 10 members of the General
          Assembly of the DNSO. The endorsement will be received between 7
          August and 28 August 2001 (3 weeks).

     The detailed nomination procedures adapted for the ICANN Board election
     in 2001 are in
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html.

     A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements will be
     permanently updated in
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html.

   * Procedures for vote to be used by the Names Council to select the ICANN
     Board Director and a timetable

     The Names Council has resolved to use a Convention-Style voting
     procedure to select the ICANN Board Director.

     The Names Council vote will take time between 29 August and 15
     September 2001, by e-mail and during a serie of NC teleconferences.

     It is expected that the results will be announced no later than 16
     September 2001. The written notification of the selection result will
     be sent to the ICANN Board and published on the DNSO web site at the
     same date.

     The Convention-Stype procedure for the ICANN Board election in 2001 is
     in http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html.

   * Full record of votes

     During the Names Council electronic vote between 29 August and 15
     September 2001 the public archiving of the [email-masked] list will
     be temporarily stoped.

     The full record of votes (who voted for whom) will be discosed at the
     end of selection process, after the acceptance of the results by the
     ICANN Board. The [email-masked] list will be reopen at the same time.

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council
- --
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 #618
************************