Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #622
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 622

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:37:02 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Focus on DNS Policy Issues

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:10:54 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

> A pretty good list of major policy issues that are presently being ignored
was
> posted some time in the last week or so, but I don't recall exactly when,
or by
> whom.

As you were one of those who undertook to post on the [ga-rules] mailing
list, could I ask you to voluntarily comply.  Please note that you have
clearly demonstred why the motion needs to be put to a vote.

Just about every post by the Chair has foccussed on DNS policy issues.
Other members, such have raised issues also.  The more recent examples from
the Chair are:

[ga] Comments from Vint Cerf
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03608.html

[ga] Comments from Karl Auerbach
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03609.html

[ga] Comments from Louis Touton
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03610.html

[ga] Comments from Milton Mueller
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03611.html

[ga] Comments from Danny Younger
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03613.html

[ga] Hearings in Washington
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03662.html

[ga] UDRP -- View from The Register
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03664.html

[ga] Time table for ICANN Board election this year -- (proposed)
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03669.html

[ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html

[ga] Request to suspend the DOC's .us RFQ posted
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03702.html

[ga] Losing the Right to Vote
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03704.html

[ga] Motion Accepted
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03753.html

[ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03772.html

[ga] Re: Observations from the Peanut Gallery
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03821.html

It would be worthwhile if the Chair, and GA members generally, could assist
me in producing a proper list of important policy issues that need to be
debated.  Perhaps we can then move away from these diversionary tactics.

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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:52:42 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire

on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:

> [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html

Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
answering questions posed in their discussion paper.

It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
(which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we now seem
to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain statements of
fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon wording of
a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What (if any)
specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).

I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we should be
tackling this. Suggestions?

Regards,
Joanna

ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and activity
in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what
are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?

GA POLL:

1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? Options:
more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
week, infrequently, never.
 
ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?

GA POLL:

2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
2.2. If so, which? Comment box
2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
2.4 If so, which? Comment box

Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for discussion
than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?

3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for consideration
by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?

4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the existing
Supporting Organizations?

5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to input
provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus is/is not
possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
reached?

*    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating participation
and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
*    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable to)?
What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
priorities? 
*    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what other
resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
*    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
political parties, etc.
*    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
direct involvement?
*    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
*    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
recommended?
*    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a majority or
minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? Should
the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
from At-Large) be kept?
*    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a combination)?
How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be used?
Who should have the ability to vote?
*    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
*    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for participation
in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
money)?
*    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can candidates
for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
"At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net access
(use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.

Regards,
Joanna 

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: tc lewis <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

is there any reason why jeff williams' emails never have a "Sender:
[email-masked]" line in the header like all the other [email-masked]
mails?  or any other distinguishing characteristics?  most everyone else's
mails have header lines like:

Return-Path: <[email-masked]>

and:

Received: from dnso.dnso.org (192.134.4.239)
  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0000
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
        by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA22728;
        Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:58:50 +0200 (MET DST)

and:

Sender: [email-masked]

the lack of relevant mailing-list headers makes these mails difficult to
properly sort.

- -tcl.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
To: ga ml <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Although a poll on certain issues might be helpful, I believe that such a poll

would require or should require the approval of the Assembly members
by vote before moving forward.  It would also likely better serve if such
a poll would be conducted by professional pollsters, such a vote.com
for instance.  As far as I know there are no professional pollsters
in our membership.  If there are please speak up!

  In that professional pollsters cost money it would seem that the first
order of business would be for the DNSO GA membership start
getting it's financial house in order.

  On the other hand, simple polls on specific questions could be conducted
without the need of professional pollsters assistance.  However I don't
believe that is what you are considering in this instance.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
>
> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.
>
> It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
> (which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we now seem
> to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain statements of
> fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
> others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon wording of
> a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What (if any)
> specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).
>
> I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we should be
> tackling this. Suggestions?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and activity
> in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what
> are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
> demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
>
> GA POLL:
>
> 1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
> 1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
> 1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
> 1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? Options:
> more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
> week, infrequently, never.
>
> ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
>
> GA POLL:
>
> 2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
> 2.2. If so, which? Comment box
> 2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
> 2.4 If so, which? Comment box
>
> Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for discussion
> than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?
>
> 3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
> face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for consideration
> by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?
>
> 4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the existing
> Supporting Organizations?
>
> 5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to input
> provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
> Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus is/is not
> possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
> summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
> reached?
>
> *    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
> participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
> staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating participation
> and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
> *    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable to)?
> What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
> Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
> priorities?
> *    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what other
> resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
> more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
> *    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
> political parties, etc.
> *    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
> direct involvement?
> *    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
> *    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
> recommended?
> *    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a majority or
> minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? Should
> the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
> from At-Large) be kept?
> *    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a combination)?
> How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be used?
> Who should have the ability to vote?
> *    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
> particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
> issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
> *    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for participation
> in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
> money)?
> *    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can candidates
> for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
> "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net access
> (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:15:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

That's easy.  Jeff didn't send the message you quoted to the list, 
but addressed it directly to you.  It's called Bcc. ;-)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

On 2001-07-19 08:13:09 -0400, tc lewis wrote:
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
>From: tc lewis <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] jeff williams / this list.
>
>
>is there any reason why jeff williams' emails never have a "Sender:
>[email-masked]" line in the header like all the other [email-masked]
>mails?  or any other distinguishing characteristics?  most everyone else's
>mails have header lines like:
>
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>
>and:
>
>Received: from dnso.dnso.org (192.134.4.239)
>  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0000
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>        by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA22728;
>        Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:58:50 +0200 (MET DST)
>
>and:
>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>the lack of relevant mailing-list headers makes these mails difficult to
>properly sort.
>
>-tcl.
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>Delivered-To: [email-masked]
>Received: (qmail 9935 invoked by uid 531); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Delivered-To: pmail-m/bunzy+net/[email-masked]
>Received: (qmail 9930 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.177)
>  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
>Received: from ix.netcom.com ([207.93.225.128])
>	by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17702;
>	Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:57:53 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:04 -0700
>From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
>Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: ga ml <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire
>References: <[email-masked]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Joanna and all assembly members,
>
>  Although a poll on certain issues might be helpful, I believe that such a poll
>
>would require or should require the approval of the Assembly members
>by vote before moving forward.  It would also likely better serve if such
>a poll would be conducted by professional pollsters, such a vote.com
>for instance.  As far as I know there are no professional pollsters
>in our membership.  If there are please speak up!
>
>  In that professional pollsters cost money it would seem that the first
>order of business would be for the DNSO GA membership start
>getting it's financial house in order.
>
>  On the other hand, simple polls on specific questions could be conducted
>without the need of professional pollsters assistance.  However I don't
>believe that is what you are considering in this instance.
>
>
>
>Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
>>
>> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
>> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
>>
>> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
>> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
>> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
>> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.
>>
>> It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
>> (which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we now seem
>> to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain statements of
>> fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
>> others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon wording of
>> a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What (if any)
>> specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).
>>
>> I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we should be
>> tackling this. Suggestions?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>>
>> ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and activity
>> in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what
>> are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
>> demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
>>
>> GA POLL:
>>
>> 1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
>> 1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
>> 1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
>> 1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? Options:
>> more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
>> week, infrequently, never.
>>
>> ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
>> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
>>
>> GA POLL:
>>
>> 2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
>> 2.2. If so, which? Comment box
>> 2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
>> 2.4 If so, which? Comment box
>>
>> Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for discussion
>> than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?
>>
>> 3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
>> face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for consideration
>> by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?
>>
>> 4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the existing
>> Supporting Organizations?
>>
>> 5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to input
>> provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
>> Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus is/is not
>> possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
>> summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
>> reached?
>>
>> *    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
>> participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
>> staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating participation
>> and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
>> *    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable to)?
>> What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
>> Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
>> priorities?
>> *    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what other
>> resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
>> more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
>> *    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
>> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
>> political parties, etc.
>> *    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
>> direct involvement?
>> *    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
>> *    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
>> recommended?
>> *    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a majority or
>> minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? Should
>> the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
>> from At-Large) be kept?
>> *    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a combination)?
>> How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be used?
>> Who should have the ability to vote?
>> *    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
>> particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
>> issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
>> *    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for participation
>> in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
>> money)?
>> *    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can candidates
>> for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
>> "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net access
>> (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:23:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: tc lewis <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

well, i'm aware of the options of how it's technically possible.  my
question is more of: why is he doing it that way, instead of sending it to
the list like everyone else does?  like i said, sorting is much easier
with the proper headers (not that this list has "mailing-list:" anyway,
but hey, at least "sender:" is something).

it's definitely not just this message, but rather almost all (if not all)
that i see from him.  and it surely wasn't sent to me in particular -- i
would assume he sent it to everyone on the list, just not through the
actual list.  i'm curious as to the motivation behind such an activity.

- -tcl.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>
> That's easy.  Jeff didn't send the message you quoted to the list,
> but addressed it directly to you.  It's called Bcc. ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>
>
> On 2001-07-19 08:13:09 -0400, tc lewis wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: tc lewis <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: [ga] jeff williams / this list.
> >
> >
> >is there any reason why jeff williams' emails never have a "Sender:
> >[email-masked]" line in the header like all the other [email-masked]
> >mails?  or any other distinguishing characteristics?  most everyone else's
> >mails have header lines like:
> >
> >Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> >
> >and:
> >
> >Received: from dnso.dnso.org (192.134.4.239)
> >  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0000
> >Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> >        by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA22728;
> >        Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:58:50 +0200 (MET DST)
> >
> >and:
> >
> >Sender: [email-masked]
> >
> >the lack of relevant mailing-list headers makes these mails difficult to
> >properly sort.
> >
> >-tcl.
> >
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> >Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> >Received: (qmail 9935 invoked by uid 531); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> >Delivered-To: pmail-m/bunzy+net/[email-masked]
> >Received: (qmail 9930 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> >Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.177)
> >  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> >Received: from ix.netcom.com ([207.93.225.128])
> >	by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17702;
> >	Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:57:53 -0400 (EDT)
> >Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:04 -0700
> >From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> >Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >To: ga ml <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire
> >References: <[email-masked]>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >Joanna and all assembly members,
> >
> >  Although a poll on certain issues might be helpful, I believe that such a poll
> >
> >would require or should require the approval of the Assembly members
> >by vote before moving forward.  It would also likely better serve if such
> >a poll would be conducted by professional pollsters, such a vote.com
> >for instance.  As far as I know there are no professional pollsters
> >in our membership.  If there are please speak up!
> >
> >  In that professional pollsters cost money it would seem that the first
> >order of business would be for the DNSO GA membership start
> >getting it's financial house in order.
> >
> >  On the other hand, simple polls on specific questions could be conducted
> >without the need of professional pollsters assistance.  However I don't
> >believe that is what you are considering in this instance.
> >
> >
> >
> >Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> >> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
> >>
> >> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> >> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
> >>
> >> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and representative of
> >> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
> >> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
> >> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.
> >>
> >> It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
> >> (which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we now seem
> >> to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain statements of
> >> fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
> >> others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon wording of
> >> a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What (if any)
> >> specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).
> >>
> >> I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we should be
> >> tackling this. Suggestions?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Joanna
> >>
> >> ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and activity
> >> in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what
> >> are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
> >> demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
> >>
> >> GA POLL:
> >>
> >> 1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
> >> 1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
> >> 1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
> >> 1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? Options:
> >> more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
> >> week, infrequently, never.
> >>
> >> ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
> >> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
> >>
> >> GA POLL:
> >>
> >> 2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
> >> 2.2. If so, which? Comment box
> >> 2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
> >> 2.4 If so, which? Comment box
> >>
> >> Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for discussion
> >> than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?
> >>
> >> 3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
> >> face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for consideration
> >> by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?
> >>
> >> 4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the existing
> >> Supporting Organizations?
> >>
> >> 5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to input
> >> provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
> >> Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus is/is not
> >> possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
> >> summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
> >> reached?
> >>
> >> *    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
> >> participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
> >> staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating participation
> >> and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
> >> *    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable to)?
> >> What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
> >> Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
> >> priorities?
> >> *    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what other
> >> resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
> >> more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
> >> *    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
> >> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
> >> political parties, etc.
> >> *    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
> >> direct involvement?
> >> *    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
> >> *    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
> >> recommended?
> >> *    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a majority or
> >> minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? Should
> >> the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
> >> from At-Large) be kept?
> >> *    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a combination)?
> >> How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be used?
> >> Who should have the ability to vote?
> >> *    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
> >> particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
> >> issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
> >> *    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for participation
> >> in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
> >> money)?
> >> *    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can candidates
> >> for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
> >> "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net access
> >> (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Joanna
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail [email-masked]
> >Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:33:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] jeff williams / this list.

Seems rather obvious to me: his mails are not in the daily count.
This is a trick Patrick and als. did not think of. I hope none would
think of it: now we are going to get hundreds mails a day from
ga-rulers...
Jefsey

PS. There are obvsiouly other tricks around...
Please do not ask too much about who does what. Or do you
have a good firewll and an anti trojan-horse.

At 15:23 19/07/01, tc lewis wrote:

>well, i'm aware of the options of how it's technically possible.  my
>question is more of: why is he doing it that way, instead of sending it to
>the list like everyone else does?  like i said, sorting is much easier
>with the proper headers (not that this list has "mailing-list:" anyway,
>but hey, at least "sender:" is something).
>
>it's definitely not just this message, but rather almost all (if not all)
>that i see from him.  and it surely wasn't sent to me in particular -- i
>would assume he sent it to everyone on the list, just not through the
>actual list.  i'm curious as to the motivation behind such an activity.
>
>-tcl.
>
>
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >
> > That's easy.  Jeff didn't send the message you quoted to the list,
> > but addressed it directly to you.  It's called Bcc. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2001-07-19 08:13:09 -0400, tc lewis wrote:
> > >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
> > >From: tc lewis <[email-masked]>
> > >To: <[email-masked]>
> > >Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > >Subject: [ga] jeff williams / this list.
> > >
> > >
> > >is there any reason why jeff williams' emails never have a "Sender:
> > >[email-masked]" line in the header like all the other [email-masked]
> > >mails?  or any other distinguishing characteristics?  most everyone else's
> > >mails have header lines like:
> > >
> > >Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> > >
> > >and:
> > >
> > >Received: from dnso.dnso.org (192.134.4.239)
> > >  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0000
> > >Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> > >        by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA22728;
> > >        Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:58:50 +0200 (MET DST)
> > >
> > >and:
> > >
> > >Sender: [email-masked]
> > >
> > >the lack of relevant mailing-list headers makes these mails difficult to
> > >properly sort.
> > >
> > >-tcl.
> > >
> > >
> > >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> > >Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> > >Received: (qmail 9935 invoked by uid 531); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> > >Delivered-To: pmail-m/bunzy+net/[email-masked]
> > >Received: (qmail 9930 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> > >Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.177)
> > >  by magician.bunzy.net with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 09:02:29 -0000
> > >Received: from ix.netcom.com ([207.93.225.128])
> > >     by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17702;
> > >     Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:57:53 -0400 (EDT)
> > >Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:06:04 -0700
> > >From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> > >Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
> > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
> > >MIME-Version: 1.0
> > >To: ga ml <[email-masked]>
> > >Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Action - ALSC Questionnaire
> > >References: <[email-masked]>
> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > >Joanna and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >  Although a poll on certain issues might be helpful, I believe that 
> such a poll
> > >
> > >would require or should require the approval of the Assembly members
> > >by vote before moving forward.  It would also likely better serve if such
> > >a poll would be conducted by professional pollsters, such a vote.com
> > >for instance.  As far as I know there are no professional pollsters
> > >in our membership.  If there are please speak up!
> > >
> > >  In that professional pollsters cost money it would seem that the first
> > >order of business would be for the DNSO GA membership start
> > >getting it's financial house in order.
> > >
> > >  On the other hand, simple polls on specific questions could be conducted
> > >without the need of professional pollsters assistance.  However I don't
> > >believe that is what you are considering in this instance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > >> on 7/19/01 2:37 AM, Patrick Corliss at [email-masked] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > [ga] ALSC Discussion Paper #1
> > >> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg03670.html
> > >>
> > >> Given that the GA is the only body that is both active and 
> representative of
> > >> the interests of individuals within the ICANN structure at this time, it
> > >> seems that we have a particular responsibility to assist the ALSC by
> > >> answering questions posed in their discussion paper.
> > >>
> > >> It seems also that some of these questions could be answered by a POLL,
> > >> (which should be simple enough to run on one of several websites we 
> now seem
> > >> to have at our disposal), and that others only require plain 
> statements of
> > >> fact (such as confirming that the GA doesn't have teleconferences) but
> > >> others would require detailed discussion to arrive at agreed-upon 
> wording of
> > >> a GA community statement, or even individual responses ( e.g. What 
> (if any)
> > >> specific consensus development processes should be recommended?).
> > >>
> > >> I've made a start on poll questions below, but am not sure how we 
> should be
> > >> tackling this. Suggestions?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Joanna
> > >>
> > >> ALSC QUESTION 1. In order to gauge the level of participation and 
> activity
> > >> in ICANN's existing communities, as represented by their mailing 
> lists, what
> > >> are the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
> > >> demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
> > >>
> > >> GA POLL:
> > >>
> > >> 1a. Do you participate on the ga mailing lists?  Options: yes/no
> > >> 1b. What is your citizenship? Comment box:
> > >> 1c. What is your country of residence? Comment box
> > >> 1d. How often do you post to the ga lists (including sub-lists)? 
> Options:
> > >> more than 5 per day, less than 5 per day, about 1 per day, about one per
> > >> week, infrequently, never.
> > >>
> > >> ALSC QUESTION 2. Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
> > >> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
> > >>
> > >> GA POLL:
> > >>
> > >> 2.1 Have you attended any face to face GA meetings? Options: yes/no
> > >> 2.2. If so, which? Comment box
> > >> 2.3 Have you attended any GA teleconferences? Options: yes/no
> > >> 2.4 If so, which? Comment box
> > >>
> > >> Here are the rest of the questions. Some are more suitable for 
> discussion
> > >> than POLL. Suggestions for a Timeline to tackle this?
> > >>
> > >> 3: How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
> > >> face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for 
> consideration
> > >> by other ICANN participants? What working languages are used?
> > >>
> > >> 4. What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the 
> existing
> > >> Supporting Organizations?
> > >>
> > >> 5. What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to 
> input
> > >> provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
> > >> Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If consensus 
> is/is not
> > >> possible, are the points of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
> > >> summarized and documented? What/who determines if consensus has been
> > >> reached?
> > >>
> > >> *    How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary ICANN
> > >> participation? What might the role of a professional secretariat/support
> > >> staff for the Supporting Organizations play in facilitating 
> participation
> > >> and deliberation? How might such staff be funded?
> > >> *    Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be 
> accountable to)?
> > >> What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and the 
> existing
> > >> Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their interactions and
> > >> priorities?
> > >> *    Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what 
> other
> > >> resources exist that make understanding the issues being discussed 
> in ICANN
> > >> more accessible? In which languages are such materials produced?
> > >> *    How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
> > >> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
> > >> political parties, etc.
> > >> *    How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
> > >> direct involvement?
> > >> *    What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
> > >> *    What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
> > >> recommended?
> > >> *    Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a 
> majority or
> > >> minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be allocated? 
> Should
> > >> the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the SOs and 9
> > >> from At-Large) be kept?
> > >> *    Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a 
> combination)?
> > >> How should candidates be nominated? What voting procedures should be 
> used?
> > >> Who should have the ability to vote?
> > >> *    If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
> > >> particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic or
> > >> issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
> > >> *    Should some demonstration of commitment be required for 
> participation
> > >> in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge, participation, or
> > >> money)?
> > >> *    How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can 
> candidates
> > >> for election and interest groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
> > >> "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy, language, Net 
> access
> > >> (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Joanna
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >--
> > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > >E-Mail [email-masked]
> > >Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 #622
************************