Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #646
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, August 4 2001           Volume 01 : Number 646

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 22:58:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

On 17:08 2/08/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin said:
>I nominate Marc Sheneider of his interest in .org support for a while and 
>all twhat he already did. I also fully trust his judgement.

I second the nomination of Marc Schneiders.

- --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: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:14:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

At 09:18 2/08/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear members,
>
>The Chair of the new .org Task Force, Milton Mueller, has asked that the GA
>nominate a representative to this Task Force.   Please advise if you have an
>interest in this matter by sending me a candidate's statement.  As we
>currently do not have a voting mechanism at our disposal, I will ask Joop for
>the temporary use of his polling booth.   Additional details will be posted
>as we work out the selection process.

Danny and GA members,

For secure voting in the Booth it  needs to be fed the registered voters' 
email list.
If the secretariat is not in a position to give you the list, then we can 
only run a semi-secure vote, without email reminders.
This will mean a low voter turnout and a possibly contested result, unless 
we obtain a rough consensus to proceed under these restraints.

The alternative is that voters express their preference on the list with a 
reserved [.org Task force election] subject marker  and that a volunteer 
does a manual count.
This will mean a loss of anonymity, but possible a higher voter turnout and 
an uncontestable result.

- --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: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:16:25 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The clock is ticking...

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C11C16.1DBD0670
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Danny,
 
I am curious as to what your motivation would be in distributing these
partial comments without any context of the discussion in which they
occurred or the Budget Committee's action that resulted.
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The clock is ticking...

Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list: 

Excerpt:  "If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these
procedures 
for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three 
Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120 daysafter

the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them):  the Business, the ccTLD, 
and the ISP Constituencies.  [ ICANN management did not invoice the 
Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have
invoiced 
them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency would

seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the 
others.] 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html 

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C11C16.1DBD0670
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=2><SPAN 
class=666132512-03082001>Danny,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=2><SPAN 
class=666132512-03082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=2><SPAN class=666132512-03082001>I am curious as 
to what your motivation would be in distributing these partial comments without 
any context of the discussion in which they occurred or the Budget Committee's 
action that resulted.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=2><SPAN 
class=666132512-03082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=2><SPAN 
class=666132512-03082001>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked] 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:40 
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] The clock is 
  ticking...<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT size=3>Roger 
  Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list: 
  <BR><BR>Excerpt: &nbsp;"If we conclude that the Council intended to apply 
  these procedures <BR>for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my 
  calculation is that three <BR>Constituencies will lose their voting privileges 
  on August 18 (120 daysafter <BR>the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to 
  them): &nbsp;the Business, the ccTLD, <BR>and the ISP Constituencies. &nbsp;[ 
  ICANN management did not invoice the <BR>Non-Commercial Constituency on April 
  19th, and does not seem to have invoiced <BR>them until July of 2001, in which 
  case the clock for that Constituency would <BR>seem to have not started 
  ticking until about three months later then the <BR>others.] 
  <BR>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html 
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C11C16.1DBD0670--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:25:49 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NSI Supports Forcing All Domain Disputes to Virginia

At 13:24 2/08/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount_v_Technodome.com 
>

It will be a black day for the US Constitution if the Supreme Court would 
countenance such a subversion of defendant's rights to due process.
Why on earth does Verisign want to get involved when they are not party to 
the dispute??

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:37:53 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On 12:19 2/08/2001 -0700, William S. Lovell said:
>I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
>policy formulation bodies and functions."
>
>Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
>
>Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
>is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
>Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
>
>But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
>now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
>establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
>competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
>both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
>pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.

Not to worry. The CA-IDNO has a democratic mechanism for its members to 
decide if they agree to change the name of the constituency they have 
originally proposed.
The mission statement that Sotiris proposed is close enough to what the CA 
(Cyberspace Association) already has (see www.idno.org/organiz.htm) not to 
cause any confusion.

What the CA now needs to do urgently is to nominate and elect its officers.
Whoever is interested to participate in this process is most welcome to 
subscribe to the newly revived idno-discuss list.
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>

- --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: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:06:33 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Review Task Force Update requested

Danny,
I have just been added to the mailing list and given a password for the 
online forum.
I am on the road until next Friday (10 August), but I hope to have 
connectivity, so I will be able to contribute.
I will report the discussion on the Registrant Constituency.
In the meantime, I hope that the GA will come up also with other proposals.
Regards
Roberto

>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Review Task Force Update requested
>Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:59:15 EDT
>
>Dear Roberto,
>
>The minutes from the last NC teleconference report that Philip Sheppard
>informed the Council that the Review Task Force activity has started with 6
>constituencies' represented out of 7 (a ccTLD representative has not been
>nominated), and that the TF will do its work via a web-based forum known to
>Peter de Blanc in order to evaluate such a forum for wider use.
>
>Can you advise if there is a publicly archived mailing list for this Task
>Force?   Perhaps you might know if this web-based forum has been created, 
>or
>where we might find the Terms of Reference for this Task Force?  Can you 
>let
>us know if you have been in contact with the other constituency
>representatives, and what progress has been made so far?
>
>The last time that I checked the members of the Task Force were:
>
>Philip Sheppard (Chair)
>Axel Aus der Muhlen
>Erica Roberts
>Tony Holmes
>Milton Mueller
>
>Has the gTLD constituency nominated a representative?  Has there been
>movement on the issue of the Individuals' Constituency in discussions so 
>far?
>   How can we in the Assembly assist your efforts?
>
>Looking forward to your preliminary report,
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:08:16 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The clock is ticking...

Interesting.
The next vote due is the election of the ICANN Director ;>)
RG

>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] The clock is ticking...
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:40:17 EDT
>
>Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list:
>
>Excerpt:  "If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these 
>procedures
>for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three
>Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120 
>daysafter
>the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them):  the Business, the ccTLD,
>and the ISP Constituencies.  [ ICANN management did not invoice the
>Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have 
>invoiced
>them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency 
>would
>seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the
>others.]
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 08:08:36 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] The clock is ticking...

Yes, it raises questions, like:  why wasn't everyone invoiced at once?

~k

At 08:16 AM 8/3/2001 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Danny,
>
>I am curious as to what your motivation would be in distributing these 
>partial comments without any context of the discussion in which they 
>occurred or the Budget Committee's action that resulted.
>
>Chuck
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:40 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] The clock is ticking...
>
>Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list:
>
>Excerpt:  "If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these procedures
>for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three
>Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120 daysafter
>the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them):  the Business, the ccTLD,
>and the ISP Constituencies.  [ ICANN management did not invoice the
>Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have invoiced
>them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency would
>seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the
>others.]
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:10:59 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

Joanna,

> >
> > I would not be so sure.
> > Would you find acceptable to buy from some registrar "string.foo", and 
>to
> > find out that it is an "unregistered domain name"?
>
>Hello Roberto,
>ICANN doesn't have the TM for "domain name", and therefore cannot apply any
>sort of regulatory power over its use. It could however coin a new term for
>an "authoratitive domain name", to distinguish between those purchased
>inside and outside the ICANN root and accredited registrar system, if you
>think that would be helpful.

For the record, I was not making a question at all about ICANN and non-ICANN 
roots, just the existence of the domain name on any domain name server.
If the string does not exist on any DNS, I maintain it cannot be called a 
domain name, but just ... a string.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:13:24 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

If Bret cannot do it, can any of the NC participants tape-record the meeting 
and make it available?
RG

>From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda
>Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:30:51 -0700
>
>Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> > In my personal concept, the DNSO shouldn't increase the expenses.  A
> > webcasting (only audio) have high cost because it would imply to hire 
>the
> > Berkman Center (they don't do this for free) and it would imply some
> > thousands dollars for sure.
>
>The audio from virtually every Names Council meeting over the last year has
>been available in a downloadable mp3 file from my web site. I've always
>posted a link to the General Assembly list within a few hours after the 
>call
>has concluded. They've been of varying quality, but they are usually
>sufficient for following the issues and staying up to date. The mp3 
>webcasts
>are not available in real time, but the meetings aren't participatory for
>non-NC members either, so a delay of a few hours should be acceptable.
>
>I usually keep the most current meeting linked from the main page of my web
>site (http://www.lextext.com), and I think links to many of the recent 
>calls
>are now available off the main DNSO page (http://www.dnso.org). Because of
>space considerations on my server, I'll be taking some of the older ones
>off-line over the next couple of weeks (but anyone who wants an archived
>copy for research can ask and I'll e-mail you a copy).
>
>I started doing this as, to borrow a phrase, "proof of concept" that
>"webcasts" for listen-only, non-participatory meetings need not be
>expensive. The costs involved are simply an external microphone, software
>that records audio into mp3 format (or will convert into mp3 format), and a
>web server. I think the proof of concept has been a success, and it's my
>understanding that some of the bidders to take over the DNSO Secretariat
>function offered to perform this service directly (which I welcome!).
>
>        -- Bret
>
>(By the way, I don't believe that I will be able to provide this service 
>for
>the 16 August 2001 conference call. I'll post something here in the next
>couple of days though, so GA members can make alternative arrangements if
>necessary.)
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:53:35 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The clock is ticking...

Administrative processes aren't always perfect. They involve humans.
:-)Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 11:09 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] The clock is ticking...

Yes, it raises questions, like:  why wasn't everyone invoiced at once?

~k

At 08:16 AM 8/3/2001 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Danny,
>
>I am curious as to what your motivation would be in distributing these 
>partial comments without any context of the discussion in which they 
>occurred or the Budget Committee's action that resulted.
>
>Chuck
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:40 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] The clock is ticking...
>
>Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list:
>
>Excerpt:  "If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these
procedures
>for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three
>Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120
daysafter
>the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them):  the Business, the ccTLD,
>and the ISP Constituencies.  [ ICANN management did not invoice the
>Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have
invoiced
>them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency
would
>seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the
>others.]
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:47:10 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NSI Supports Forcing All Domain Disputes to Virginia

At 11:25 PM +1200 3/8/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 13:24 2/08/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>>http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount_v_Technodome.com
>>
>>
>
>It will be a black day for the US Constitution if the Supreme Court would
>countenance such a subversion of defendant's rights to due process.
>Why on earth does Verisign want to get involved when they are not party to
>the dispute??

Maybe it was filed because their buddies that control ICANN asked them to?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:56:01 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NSI Supports Forcing All Domain Disputes to Virginia

> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 4:26 AM
> 
> At 13:24 2/08/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount
> _v_Technodome.com 
> >
> 
> It will be a black day for the US Constitution if the Supreme 
> Court would 
> countenance such a subversion of defendant's rights to due process.
> Why on earth does Verisign want to get involved when they are 
> not party to 
> the dispute??

Think of how much easier Phil's job would be <g>.
BTW, I've said it before, there are only two jurisdictions that matter, that
of the defendent and that of the registry. With the UDRP, you possibly add
the jurisdiction of the UDRP arbitrator, post facto.

- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:31:31 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

on 8/3/01 9:10 AM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna,
> 
>>> 
>>> I would not be so sure.
>>> Would you find acceptable to buy from some registrar "string.foo", and
>> to
>>> find out that it is an "unregistered domain name"?
>> 
>> Hello Roberto,
>> ICANN doesn't have the TM for "domain name", and therefore cannot apply any
>> sort of regulatory power over its use. It could however coin a new term for
>> an "authoratitive domain name", to distinguish between those purchased
>> inside and outside the ICANN root and accredited registrar system, if you
>> think that would be helpful.
> 
> For the record, I was not making a question at all about ICANN and non-ICANN
> roots, just the existence of the domain name on any domain name server.
> If the string does not exist on any DNS, I maintain it cannot be called a
> domain name, but just ... a string.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto

For the record, I do not disagree with you at all, but is an expired domain
name on any domain name server? At what point does an expired domain name
stop being a domain name and revert to being a string?

My point is argued far more eloquently by David Post, who says essentially
that you cannot legislate for language in common use, particularly new
language. At the end of the day, one person may call the thing a string
while another person may call it an unregistered domain name, and we muddle
through because we each know it means the same thing. My observation is that
"domain name" itself can be shortened to just "name" and that's ok too..:-)

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: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:17:17 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:14:15 +1200, Joop Teernstra
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The alternative is that voters express their preference on the list with a 
>reserved [.org Task force election] subject marker  and that a volunteer 
>does a manual count.
>This will mean a loss of anonymity, but possible a higher voter turnout and 
>an uncontestable result.

Or we set up an e-mail address which goes to three scrutineers.  The
three scrutineers all do independent counts and if they agree declare
a result.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Agreed.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

- --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> > >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives
> of the Individual Registrants
> > >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> > >
> > >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition,
> representation, and input of
> > >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona
> fide stakeholders in the Domain
> > >Name System (DNS), through an established and
> direct voice in all ICANN policy
> > >formulation bodies and functions."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.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: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:06:43 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:14:15 +1200, Joop Teernstra
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >The alternative is that voters express their preference on the list with a
> >reserved [.org Task force election] subject marker  and that a volunteer
> >does a manual count.
> >This will mean a loss of anonymity, but possible a higher voter turnout and
> >an uncontestable result.
>
> Or we set up an e-mail address which goes to three scrutineers.  The
> three scrutineers all do independent counts and if they agree declare
> a result.

I agree with David's proposal.  In fact, I'd like to propose that David is de
facto one of the 3 scrutineers.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 00:20:40 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

on 8/3/01 8:17 PM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:14:15 +1200, Joop Teernstra
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> The alternative is that voters express their preference on the list with a
>> reserved [.org Task force election] subject marker  and that a volunteer
>> does a manual count.
>> This will mean a loss of anonymity, but possible a higher voter turnout and
>> an uncontestable result.
> 
> Or we set up an e-mail address which goes to three scrutineers.  The
> three scrutineers all do independent counts and if they agree declare
> a result.

Excellent suggestion, but instead of being an either or situation, can it be
set up so that the watchdogs obtain copies of polls run at the booth?

More importantly, since the Secretariat is the only body that can verify GA
membership, it would be helpful if at least the email addresses from any
poll could be verified by that office as being from a registered voter.

Regards,
Joanna 
> 
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:22:15 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:21 PM

> More importantly, since the Secretariat is the only body that 
> can verify GA
> membership, it would be helpful if at least the email 

At one time, there was a complete list of GA members on the web site.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:13:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA Task Force member selection process

- --part1_a2.17d3ba5d.289d6b11_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Philip,

Elisabeth has graciously written to the Assembly in response to an invitation 
put forth by the Chair of the .org Task Force to invite a member of the GA to 
participate in its efforts.  

Elisabeth writes:  "I am just thinking that if we had have the global 
perspective on all GA participants to all various TF, we could have it done 
in one vote (I am not sure my conditional English is correct, hope you will 
adjust - I want to say that instead of heavy process 3 or more times it could 
have be only one for N candidates).   Anyway, I may try to manage to put it 
on nomnation-vote in August (when I have nobody to help me ... vacations), 
with an absolute MUST END no later than 25 August.  Do you think that dot ORG 
is the LAST nomination, or do you think have more, and then you could 
agglomerate together?"

We appreciate the consideration demonstrated by our Secretariat to assist in 
our time of need, and we must therefore ask if it will be possible to submit 
a candidate for participation in the IDN Task Force as well (to my knowledge, 
this TF does not yet have a Chair to whom we could direct our inquiry).   If 
you could write to us at your earliest convenience, we may thereby proceed 
with the selection process.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --part1_a2.17d3ba5d.289d6b11_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear Philip,
<BR>
<BR>Elisabeth has graciously written to the Assembly in response to an invitation 
<BR>put forth by the Chair of the .org Task Force to invite a member of the GA to 
<BR>participate in its efforts. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Elisabeth writes: &nbsp;"I am just thinking that if we had have the global 
<BR>perspective on all GA participants to all various TF, we could have it done 
<BR>in one vote (I am not sure my conditional English is correct, hope you will 
<BR>adjust - I want to say that instead of heavy process 3 or more times it could 
<BR>have be only one for N candidates). &nbsp;&nbsp;Anyway, I may try to manage to put it 
<BR>on nomnation-vote in August (when I have nobody to help me ... vacations), 
<BR>with an absolute MUST END no later than 25 August. &nbsp;Do you think that dot ORG 
<BR>is the LAST nomination, or do you think have more, and then you could 
<BR>agglomerate together?"
<BR>
<BR>We appreciate the consideration demonstrated by our Secretariat to assist in 
<BR>our time of need, and we must therefore ask if it will be possible to submit 
<BR>a candidate for participation in the IDN Task Force as well (to my knowledge, 
<BR>this TF does not yet have a Chair to whom we could direct our inquiry). &nbsp;&nbsp;If 
<BR>you could write to us at your earliest convenience, we may thereby proceed 
<BR>with the selection process.
<BR>
<BR>Best regards,
<BR>Danny Younger
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_a2.17d3ba5d.289d6b11_boundary--
- --
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 #646
************************