Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #655
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, August 9 2001           Volume 01 : Number 655

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

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 23:10:21 +0200
From: Pascal Fortin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [none]

unsubscribe ga

- --
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: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:47:17 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C12032.2A7244F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Re: ReconsiderationYou are wasting time.  Why don't you spend your time
answering the issues:

1.  Require the UDRP providers to publish a list of what transfer decisions
are overturned within the 10 day period along with the decision

2.  Require minimum standards for arbiters.

While you are at it you can identify the entity that DOES handle individual
complaints against registrars since the individual domain holders are the
reason ICANN exists at all.

Russ Smith

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of M. Stuart
Lynn
  Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:16 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

  Dear Danny:

  Since sending the note below, there have been several postings suggesting
that I need to look further into this matter. Mr. Smith -- in the direct
style he normally uses when writing to ICANN staff -- helpfully provided a
previously missing detail by forwarding a copy of the reconsideration
request he submitted by email on May 20, 2000.

  With this specific information, I have looked further into the matter, and
indeed have unearthed a copy of Mr. Smith's email in someone's mailbox,, but
not filed where reconsideration requests are normally filed. To follow up
further, I need to speak with a staff member who is on vacation and out of
e-range, and will not be back for another 10 days. Until then, there is
nothing I can do. Without his input,  I cannot determine the ultimate
disposition of this particular request and whether the  email was somehow
lost in the process.

  However, as mentioned in my earlier note, one of the two known (to us)
reconsideration requests from Mr. Smith was certainly processed, as well as
a request from Mr. Smith to reconsider that denied reconsideration request.
This was also denied. A further reconsideration request to reconsider the
denied reconsideration of the denied reconsideration was not pursued since
the Reconsideration Committee had already expressed its recommendation and
the Board made a decision.

  I will get back to you and the list as soon a I can follow up with the
vacationing staff member.

  Stuart

  Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, and his
complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration Committee and the
ICANN Board.  The committee's recommendation can be viewed at
<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm>.  I think a
review of that document.  A response to Mr. Smith's attempt to reargue the
matter appears at
<http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.
htm>.  A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is
not supported by the facts.

  Stuart

  At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:
    Dear Mr. Lynn,

    A serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list
(reproduced
    below) which should not go unanswered:
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html

    Please investigate this complaint.  We need to be able to have faith in
the
    reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks to achieve
may
    readily be lost.   We appreciate the attention that you will devote to
this
    matter.

    Thank you,
    Danny Younger
    Chair, GA

    >May I remind you that you have 30 days to make a reconsideration
request>
    after you experimented the problem. You will find the necessary
information>
    at the following page:>http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm

    I have filed these in the past.  In some cases the answers were not
    responsive to the complaints.  In other cases ICANN refused to answer or
post
    the submission.  I resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or
answer
    the submission.  The reconsideration system is a complete sham.

    Russ Smith
  --

  __________________
  Stuart Lynn
  President and CEO
  ICANN
  4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
  Marina del Rey, CA 90292
  Tel: 310-823-9358
  Fax: 310-823-8649
  Email: [email-masked]

- ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C12032.2A7244F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Reconsideration</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE type=3Dtext/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
	MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
	MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
	MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
	MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
	MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D869354021-08082001>You=20
are wasting time.&nbsp; Why don't you spend your time answering the=20
issues:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001>1.&nbsp; Require the UDRP providers to =
publish a list=20
of what transfer decisions are overturned within the 10 day period along =
with=20
the decision</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001>2.&nbsp; Require minimum standards for=20
arbiters.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D869354021-08082001>While=20
you are at it you can identify the entity that DOES handle individual =
complaints=20
against registrars since the individual domain holders are the reason =
ICANN=20
exists at all.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D869354021-08082001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D869354021-08082001>Russ=20
Smith</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked]=20
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<B>On Behalf Of</B> M. Stuart =
Lynn<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:16 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [email-masked]<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] =
Re:=20
  Reconsideration<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV>Dear Danny:</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>Since sending the note below, there have been several postings =
suggesting=20
  that I need to look further into this matter. Mr. Smith -- in the =
direct style=20
  he normally uses when writing to ICANN staff -- helpfully provided a=20
  previously missing detail by forwarding a copy of the reconsideration =
request=20
  he submitted by email on May 20, 2000.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>With this specific information, I have looked further into the =
matter,=20
  and indeed have unearthed a copy of Mr. Smith's email in someone's =
mailbox,,=20
  but not filed where reconsideration requests are normally filed. To =
follow up=20
  further, I need to speak with a staff member who is on vacation and =
out of=20
  e-range, and will not be back for another 10 days. Until then, there =
is=20
  nothing I can do. Without his input,&nbsp; I cannot determine the =
ultimate=20
  disposition of this particular request and whether the&nbsp; email was =
somehow=20
  lost in the process.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>However, as mentioned in my earlier note, one of the two known =
(to us)=20
  reconsideration requests from Mr. Smith was certainly processed, as =
well as a=20
  request from Mr. Smith to reconsider that denied reconsideration =
request. This=20
  was also denied. A further reconsideration request to reconsider the =
denied=20
  reconsideration of the denied reconsideration was not pursued since =
the=20
  Reconsideration Committee had already expressed its recommendation and =
the=20
  Board made a decision.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>I will get back to you and the list as soon a I can follow up =
with the=20
  vacationing staff member.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>Stuart</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, =
and his=20
  complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration Committee =
and the=20
  ICANN Board.&nbsp; The committee's recommendation can be viewed at =
&lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm">http:=
//www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm</A>&gt;.&nbsp;=20
  I think a review of that document.&nbsp; A response to Mr. Smith's =
attempt to=20
  reargue the matter appears at &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-respons=
e-24apr00.htm"><SPAN></SPAN>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsiderati=
on/committee-response-2<SPAN></SPAN>4apr00.htm</A>&gt;.&nbsp;=20
  A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is =
not=20
  supported by the facts.</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>Stuart</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>At 7:36 PM -0400 8/7/01, [email-masked] wrote:</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>Dear Mr. =
Lynn,<BR><BR>A=20
    serious charge has been posted to the General Assembly list=20
    (reproduced<BR>below) which should not go=20
    =
unanswered:<BR>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00308.html<BR><=
BR>Please=20
    investigate this complaint. &nbsp;We need to be able to have faith =
in=20
    the<BR>reconsideration system, or the credibility that ICANN seeks =
to=20
    achieve may<BR>readily be lost. &nbsp;&nbsp;We appreciate the =
attention that=20
    you will devote to this<BR>matter.<BR><BR>Thank you,<BR>Danny=20
    Younger<BR>Chair, GA<BR><BR><BR>&gt;May I remind you that you have =
30 days=20
    to make a reconsideration request&gt;<BR>after you experimented the =
problem.=20
    You will find the necessary information&gt;<BR>at the following=20
    page:&gt;</FONT><A=20
    href=3D"http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm"><FONT=20
    =
face=3DArial>http://www.icann.org/general/reconsideration.htm</FONT></A><=
/BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT =
face=3DArial><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>I have filed these =
in the=20
    past. &nbsp;In some cases the answers were not</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>responsive to the =
complaints.=20
    &nbsp;In other cases ICANN refused to answer or =
post</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>the submission. =
&nbsp;I=20
    resubmitted some but they refuse to acknowledge or =
answer</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>the submission. =
&nbsp;The=20
    reconsideration system is a complete sham. =
&nbsp;</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT =
face=3DArial><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <BLOCKQUOTE cite type=3D"cite"><FONT face=3DArial>Russ =
Smith</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV>-- <BR><BR>__________________<BR>Stuart Lynn<BR>President and=20
  CEO<BR>ICANN<BR>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<BR>Marina del Rey, CA=20
  90292<BR>Tel: 310-823-9358<BR>Fax: 310-823-8649<BR>Email:=20
[email-masked]</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C12032.2A7244F0--

- --
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: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:46:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Budget Committee Report

- --part1_45.a5439f5.28a32973_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The report of the NC Budget Committee has finally been released and addresses 
the new schedule under which financially deliquent constituencies will lose 
their right to vote: 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00741.html  

With regard to the DNSO Voluntary fund, the Committee writes:  
"Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July."  

As I personally sent in a $100 check on the same day that this fund was 
announced, I have to wonder what happened... I will certainly check with my 
bank in the morning.

- --part1_45.a5439f5.28a32973_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>The report of the NC Budget Committee has finally been released and addresses 
<BR>the new schedule under which financially deliquent constituencies will lose 
<BR>their right to vote: 
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00741.html &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>With regard to the DNSO Voluntary fund, the Committee writes: &nbsp;
<BR>"Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July." &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>As I personally sent in a $100 check on the same day that this fund was 
<BR>announced, I have to wonder what happened... I will certainly check with my 
<BR>bank in the morning.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>
<BR></B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_45.a5439f5.28a32973_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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:10:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Reconsideration

- --part1_109.3d5c218.28a32ee4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Mr. Lynn,

Allow me to express my appreciation for your efforts to attend to the 
complaint put forward by Mr. Smith.   I am sure that you can well appreciate 
the frustration of those who feel that their petitions have been ignored, and 
I am sure that under your stewardship we can look forward to an improved 
state of affairs.  If I may just once more beg your indulgence on a related 
matter...

As you aware, the General Assembly has on several occasions resolved to show 
its support for the establishment of an Individuals' Constituency.  This 
initiative has been supported by a parallel resolution voted upon by the 
Non-Commercial Constituency, and by the consensus declaration of the members 
of the Review Working Group.  

In our discussions it has oftentimes been noted that a petition to ICANN was 
formally submitted on 23 April, 1999 and again on August 11, 1999 seeking the 
establishment of The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency.
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/petition.htm  (reproduced below)

I regret that my search of the archives has not revealed any formal ICANN 
Board response to this petition.  As we do not wish any organization that has 
responsibly endeavored to abide by the ICANN Bylaws to conclude that they 
have been ignored or slighted, could you please advise regarding the status 
of this petition (you will note that one of your Directors is a signatory to 
this document). 

Again, thank you for assistance,
Danny Younger

The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency
August 11, 1999

To the members of the Board of Directors of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 
USA.

L.S.,

This letter constitutes a reiteration of our public petition of 23 April, 
1999 under Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the ICANN bylaws for recognition of 
the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency (the IDNO) as a Constituency 
of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO.)

The IDNO was formed in April 1999. It is a self-organized, primarily member 
funded, highly international constituency, springing from no pre-existing 
organizations or structures. Yet its membership is already larger than of any 
of the existing DNSO Constituencies. And we expect that the IDNO's membership 
will grow rapidly once the IDNO is a recognized constituency.

IDNO members are active participants in ICANN, having attended several of 
ICANN's meetings.

Our members come from many parts of the world.

IDNO members are active participants in the DNSO's General Assembly and in 
the DNSO's various working groups.

The IDNO maintains a site on the World Wide Web at 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno// containing a members' list, charter, 
archive of on-line discussions, voting system, and other materials and 
resources.

The IDNO has a public, archived e-mail discussion list.

The IDNO is the only constituency with a fully operational electronic voting 
system that has been repeatedly and successfully used to guide the IDNO as it 
evolves.

The purpose the IDNO is to give a voice to those individuals who own domain 
names.

The IDNO's focus is on individuals, not on corporations or organizations. The 
IDNO does not care whether a member is a businessperson, a teacher, an 
artist, or a person using the Internet to express his or her opinions.

Because essentially all of the existing DNSO constituencies are open only to 
corporations and organizations, these individuals have no way but the IDNO to 
fully participate within the DNSO.

We must mention that membership in the DNSO General Assembly, although 
nominally open to individuals, is no substitute for having a Constituency to 
defend Individuals' domain name interests. It is only through the IDNO as a 
recognized Constituency that individual domain name owners can participate 
with a full and peer voice on the DNSO's names council.

Why should the Individuals be represented in the DNSO?

Registrations of domain names by individuals represent a large number of all 
domain name registrations. A study conducted by Network Solutions estimates 
that within the United States alone, 10% of the domain names registered in 
the .com, .net, and .org domains are registered to individuals. Further, 
there is evidence to indicate that the percentage may be increasing. This 
leads to an estimated 300,000 individual domain names owners in .com, .net, 
and .org within the United States alone. The number worldwide, especially 
when in all top level domains are considered, could be substantially higher.

Every one of these hundreds of thousands of people have a significant and 
well defined interest in the operation and development of the domain name 
system and the Internet. Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of people 
are eligible to be admitted to any of the other constituencies.

Domains owned by individuals are often used for both commercial and 
non-commercial purposes. Individuals can not be adequately represented in 
either "business" or "non-commercial" constituencies. It is our feeling that 
as the net grows it will become quite common for personal hobbies to evolve 
into significant business entities. 

The IDNO is the only constituency that would provide a voice for these 
people. 
Interests and concerns of Individual Domain name Owners typically do not 
coincide with the Interests and concerns of the other constituencies 
represented in the DNSO. Indeed, in many cases their interests are in 
conflict. Thus it is necessary for there to be a constituency with a clear 
focus on the needs of individual domain name owners.

Without a clear and fully empowered place for individual domain name owners, 
the DNSO will be a weak and limited body, speaking for only part of the 
Internet community. 

The IDNO has adopted an inclusive approach to its membership. Unlike other 
Constituencies which require that a candidate for membership be a corporation 
or an organization, or be engaged in a particular type of business, the IDNO 
simply looks at whether a candidate owns a domain name.

The IDNO measures ownership not by legal formalisms, but rather by a 
pragmatic evaluation whether the candidate has sufficient elements of control 
over a domain name that it amounts to what reasonable people would consider 
to be ownership. Our membership rules permit membership even when the domain 
name owner owns the name through a intermediary, such as a corporation or 
trust, that is fully under the control of the candidate.

The IDNO has evolved beyond a gathering of people. The IDNO has both an 
elected Steering Committee and a Membership Committee. The IDNO is an early, 
and perhaps the first successful experiment in broadly based democratic 
participation within ICANN.

The IDNO brings to ICANN the concerns of the individual domain name owner, 
concerns that have so far lacked an advocate.

We have attached two Appendices to this petition:

Appendix A is simply an excerpt from the ICANN By-Laws of the sections 
governing the recognition of Constituencies. 

Appendix B is the IDNO's charter. This charter is still evolving and parts 
are still awaiting ratification (using our electronic voting system) from our 
growing membership. 

Sincerely,

Joop Teernstra (Constituency bootstrap) , New Zealand

the IDNO Steering Committee:

Karl Auerbach [email-masked], United States 

Dan Steinberg [email-masked] ,Canada

William X. Walsh [email-masked] ,United States 

Mikki Barry [email-masked] ,United States 

Kevin Kelly [email-masked] ,United States 

Srikanth Narra [email-masked] ,India 

Roeland Meyer [email-masked] ,United States 

Bradley Thornton [email-masked] ,United States 

Dietmar Stefitz [email-masked] ,Spain 

Arnold Gehring [email-masked] ,United States 

Andy Gardner [email-masked] ,New Zealand 

Rachel Luxemburg [email-masked] ,United States 

Karl Peters [email-masked] ,United States 

Joe Abley [email-masked] ,New Zealand 

Mark Langston [email-masked] ,United States 

Dennis Schaefer [email-masked] ,United States 

David Zanetti [email-masked] ,New Zealand 

Rod Dixon [email-masked] ,United States 

Mark Measday [email-masked] ,Switzerland 

Joan Faber [email-masked] ,United States 

Allan Speedy [email-masked] ,New Zealand

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

- --

Appendix A  Relevant sections of the ICANN By-Laws

ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION

Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES

(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own 
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be 
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of participation 
in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to the maximum 
extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with 
procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall recognize a 
Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) below) by 
a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to exist for 
purposes of these Bylaws.

(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for 
recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be 
posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may 
create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own 
motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the 
Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion 
it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or 
desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final 
decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all 
comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for 
a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names council and 
will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.

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

- --

Appendix B  IDNO Charter

Note: This charter is still evolving and parts are still awaiting 
ratification (using our electronic voting system) from our growing 
membership. Those parts that have been ratified are in bold.

1. Constituency purpose and mission.

1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the DNSO for all Domain Name 
Owners, who do not wish to be classified as non-commercial, nor wish to be 
represented by the Business constituency. We will represent the concerns of 
individuals rather than organizations.

1.2 Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners, as stakeholders in 
the DNS, will have a strong say in all new ICANN rulemaking that will affect 
their financial interest, on-line freedom or security of existence.

2. Constituency Name and definition

2.1 The Name the Cyberspace Association will be subjected to a vote by the 
members as soon as the membership has passed 100 members.

2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN 
board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the US 
government';s White Paper and allow it to contribute 3 elected 
representatives from among its members to the Names Council of the DNSO.

3. Constituency principles: democracy, transparency, accountability in all 
the Constituency's activities and representations. Philosophy: freedom of 
enterprise in the TLD and SLD space.

4. Eligibility and membership.

4.1. IDNO constituency membership is open to any individual person who can 
demonstrate colour of title to a Domain name.

4.2. No individual may have more than a single membership in the IDNO.

4.3. Colour of title means enough control over a domain name that a 
reasonable person could conclude that such control constitutes ownership. 
Examples of elements to be considered may include, and are not limited to, 
the following:

4.3.1. Whether the candidate is named in domain contact information.

4.3.2. Whether the candidate's own funds were used to pay any registration 
fees. - Whether the candidate may cause the domain name to be relinquished.

4.3.3. Whether the candidate may be considered the intended beneficial owner 
of a domain name that is registered or operated by some intermediary.

4.3.4. In the cases of direct control of domain name by a corporation or 
other entity, whether that entity's control of the domain name is effectively 
directed by the candidate and subject to his/her discretion.

4.4. In cases where control of a domain is diffused among multiple 
individuals that domain may not be used as a basis of membership.

4.5. No single domain name may be used to support membership of more than one 
individual.

4.6. The domain name used as a basis of membership must be a Domain Name that 
is not a top level domain name, nor a reserved second level Domain name in 
registries where this level is not open for individual registration.

4.7. Administrative staff may determine whether a candidate has presented 
adequate prima facie evidence of colour of title to a domain name.

4.8. Disputes about entitlement to membership or entitlement to candidacy to 
the Names Council shall be resolved by an elected membership committee of the 
IDNO. Such committee shall examine the totality of the facts and make such 
decisions as appropriate. The decisions of such committee are final with 
regards to basic membership. With regards to candidature to the Names Council 
they are open to appeal to the entire membership, which will decide by 
majority vote.

4.8.1. The membership committee shall have a minimum of three members and a 
maximum of nine.

4.9. Non-Exclusivity - Members associated with other DNSO constituencies may 
be members of the IDNO constituency as long as they meet the eligibility 
criteria.

4.10. Non-Duplication - Members are subject to the following voting 
restrictions:

4.10.1. Any member who is either a voting member, representative of a voting 
member, or who effectively controls a voting member in one or more other 
constituencies of the DNSO may not vote or stand for election in the IDNO 
unless the member, for a period of at least nine months, waives and does not 
exercise such voting rights in those other constituencies.

4.10.2. Any member who has been elected to the Names Council by another DNSO 
constituency may not vote or stand for election in the IDNO during his or her 
term.

4.11. Loss of membership. Rules with regards to loss of membership will be 
drawn up by an elected membership committee for approval by the general 
membership. Such rules will assure a Fair Hearing of all parties. Sole 
criterion for loss of membership should be direct action against the best 
interests of the IDNO or blatant conflict of interest with the mission and 
purpose of the IDNO.

5. Nominations. ** to be discussed and approved

5.1. Any member can nominate any other member as a candidate for a seat on 
the Names Council.

5.2. The candidate should approve of the nomination within a reasonable 
period.

5.3. Self - nomination is not possible.

5.4. In order to be placed on the candidates&#8217; list, a nominee must 
secure one vote seconding the nomination.

6. Voting for representatives.

6.1. All Individual members will vote as individuals.

6.2. Owning more than one Domain Name will not give rights to multiple votes 
per individual.

6.3. Detailed procedures for voting will be established. It is envisaged that 
the system of voting for candidates will take full advantage of the potential 
inherent in on-line voting, i.e. each voter can express a preference-vote for 
each candidate on a list of candidates.

6.4. A steering committee will be established of no less than 5 members and 
no more than 21, that will be tasked with drafting the charter of the 
constituency in more detail and nominating candidates for committees. The 
initial steering committee will stand for re-election after three months. 
After the initial term, the term of office will be six months.

6.5. Spokespeople will be those who gain the highest approval ratings in 
elections. The total number of spokespeople will be determined by vote of the 
steering committee.

7. Elections committee.

7.1. As soon as this is feasible, the membership will establish an election 
committee of at least 3 members, who will be tasked with overseeing all 
procedures regarding the nomination of candidates and their election as 
representatives for the constituency on the Names Council.

7.2. In the interim, the membership may choose to elect one election officer, 
tasked with overseeing the election of the initial representative(s) to the 
meeting in Berlin.

8. Using the Internet for procedures. Mailing list.

8.1. Candidates are nominated and accept their nominations via email to a 
mailing list to which all members are subscribed.

8.2. Voting will take place on-line, unless 60% of the membership is 
physically present in a meeting.

8.3. Verification of on-line votes. The election committee will have full 
access to all logs and records generated by the on-line voting system.

9. On-line decision making. Discussion list , free speech and moderation.

9.1 All members can participate in policy making discussions via the 
all-member mailing list.

9.2 Clearly frivolous postings can be moderated and postings aimed at 
disruption of proceedings can be disallowed.

9.3 The will of the majority will find expression in the decisions of a 
moderation committee that will be tasked with drafting and implementing fair 
rules aimed at maintaining civil discourse and discouraging abuse of the 
freedom of speech.

9.4 In principle the members of the moderation committee can be the members 
elected to represent the constituency on the Names Council, but they may 
stand aside for other elected moderators.

9.5 Members of the election committee will be ineligible for moderator.

9.6 In these rules the principle of free exchange of ideas and opinions will 
be paramount and procedures for Fair Hearings and Due Process will form part 
of any such rules.

9.7 Meeting list. For the purpose of holding formal meetings, a second list 
is envisaged. Rules for procedures on this list, archiving and public record 
will be drafted in further detail.

10. Funding. Minimal membership fees will be set to defray the expenses of 
representation, website- and mailing list hosting and other expenses related 
to the necessary functions of the constituency. The constituency will seek 
donations from members and other sources to defray initial expenses.

(end of Petition)

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

- --

Our Charter has since been refined to the document you find here, and 
ratified by a membership of 191 members on 17 September , 2000.

- --part1_109.3d5c218.28a32ee4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear Mr. Lynn,
<BR>
<BR>Allow me to express my appreciation for your efforts to attend to the 
<BR>complaint put forward by Mr. Smith. &nbsp;&nbsp;I am sure that you can well appreciate 
<BR>the frustration of those who feel that their petitions have been ignored, and 
<BR>I am sure that under your stewardship we can look forward to an improved 
<BR>state of affairs. &nbsp;If I may just once more beg your indulgence on a related 
<BR>matter...
<BR>
<BR>As you aware, the General Assembly has on several occasions resolved to show 
<BR>its support for the establishment of an Individuals' Constituency. &nbsp;This 
<BR>initiative has been supported by a parallel resolution voted upon by the 
<BR>Non-Commercial Constituency, and by the consensus declaration of the members 
<BR>of the Review Working Group. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>In our discussions it has oftentimes been noted that a petition to ICANN was 
<BR>formally submitted on 23 April, 1999 and again on August 11, 1999 seeking the 
<BR>establishment of The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency.
<BR>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/petition.htm &nbsp;(reproduced below)
<BR>
<BR>I regret that my search of the archives has not revealed any formal ICANN 
<BR>Board response to this petition. &nbsp;As we do not wish any organization that has 
<BR>responsibly endeavored to abide by the ICANN Bylaws to conclude that they 
<BR>have been ignored or slighted, could you please advise regarding the status 
<BR>of this petition (you will note that one of your Directors is a signatory to 
<BR>this document). 
<BR>
<BR>Again, thank you for assistance,
<BR>Danny Younger
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency
<BR>August 11, 1999
<BR>
<BR>To the members of the Board of Directors of the
<BR>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
<BR>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 
<BR>Marina del Rey, CA 90292 
<BR>USA.
<BR>
<BR>L.S.,
<BR>
<BR>This letter constitutes a reiteration of our public petition of 23 April, 
<BR>1999 under Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the ICANN bylaws for recognition of 
<BR>the Individual Domain Name Owner's constituency (the IDNO) as a Constituency 
<BR>of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO.)
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO was formed in April 1999. It is a self-organized, primarily member 
<BR>funded, highly international constituency, springing from no pre-existing 
<BR>organizations or structures. Yet its membership is already larger than of any 
<BR>of the existing DNSO Constituencies. And we expect that the IDNO's membership 
<BR>will grow rapidly once the IDNO is a recognized constituency.
<BR>
<BR>IDNO members are active participants in ICANN, having attended several of 
<BR>ICANN's meetings.
<BR>
<BR>Our members come from many parts of the world.
<BR>
<BR>IDNO members are active participants in the DNSO's General Assembly and in 
<BR>the DNSO's various working groups.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO maintains a site on the World Wide Web at 
<BR>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno// containing a members' list, charter, 
<BR>archive of on-line discussions, voting system, and other materials and 
<BR>resources.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO has a public, archived e-mail discussion list.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO is the only constituency with a fully operational electronic voting 
<BR>system that has been repeatedly and successfully used to guide the IDNO as it 
<BR>evolves.
<BR>
<BR>The purpose the IDNO is to give a voice to those individuals who own domain 
<BR>names.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO's focus is on individuals, not on corporations or organizations. The 
<BR>IDNO does not care whether a member is a businessperson, a teacher, an 
<BR>artist, or a person using the Internet to express his or her opinions.
<BR>
<BR>Because essentially all of the existing DNSO constituencies are open only to 
<BR>corporations and organizations, these individuals have no way but the IDNO to 
<BR>fully participate within the DNSO.
<BR>
<BR>We must mention that membership in the DNSO General Assembly, although 
<BR>nominally open to individuals, is no substitute for having a Constituency to 
<BR>defend Individuals' domain name interests. It is only through the IDNO as a 
<BR>recognized Constituency that individual domain name owners can participate 
<BR>with a full and peer voice on the DNSO's names council.
<BR>
<BR>Why should the Individuals be represented in the DNSO?
<BR>
<BR>Registrations of domain names by individuals represent a large number of all 
<BR>domain name registrations. A study conducted by Network Solutions estimates 
<BR>that within the United States alone, 10% of the domain names registered in 
<BR>the .com, .net, and .org domains are registered to individuals. Further, 
<BR>there is evidence to indicate that the percentage may be increasing. This 
<BR>leads to an estimated 300,000 individual domain names owners in .com, .net, 
<BR>and .org within the United States alone. The number worldwide, especially 
<BR>when in all top level domains are considered, could be substantially higher.
<BR>
<BR>Every one of these hundreds of thousands of people have a significant and 
<BR>well defined interest in the operation and development of the domain name 
<BR>system and the Internet. Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of people 
<BR>are eligible to be admitted to any of the other constituencies.
<BR>
<BR>Domains owned by individuals are often used for both commercial and 
<BR>non-commercial purposes. Individuals can not be adequately represented in 
<BR>either "business" or "non-commercial" constituencies. It is our feeling that 
<BR>as the net grows it will become quite common for personal hobbies to evolve 
<BR>into significant business entities. 
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO is the only constituency that would provide a voice for these 
<BR>people. 
<BR>Interests and concerns of Individual Domain name Owners typically do not 
<BR>coincide with the Interests and concerns of the other constituencies 
<BR>represented in the DNSO. Indeed, in many cases their interests are in 
<BR>conflict. Thus it is necessary for there to be a constituency with a clear 
<BR>focus on the needs of individual domain name owners.
<BR>
<BR>Without a clear and fully empowered place for individual domain name owners, 
<BR>the DNSO will be a weak and limited body, speaking for only part of the 
<BR>Internet community. 
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO has adopted an inclusive approach to its membership. Unlike other 
<BR>Constituencies which require that a candidate for membership be a corporation 
<BR>or an organization, or be engaged in a particular type of business, the IDNO 
<BR>simply looks at whether a candidate owns a domain name.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO measures ownership not by legal formalisms, but rather by a 
<BR>pragmatic evaluation whether the candidate has sufficient elements of control 
<BR>over a domain name that it amounts to what reasonable people would consider 
<BR>to be ownership. Our membership rules permit membership even when the domain 
<BR>name owner owns the name through a intermediary, such as a corporation or 
<BR>trust, that is fully under the control of the candidate.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO has evolved beyond a gathering of people. The IDNO has both an 
<BR>elected Steering Committee and a Membership Committee. The IDNO is an early, 
<BR>and perhaps the first successful experiment in broadly based democratic 
<BR>participation within ICANN.
<BR>
<BR>The IDNO brings to ICANN the concerns of the individual domain name owner, 
<BR>concerns that have so far lacked an advocate.
<BR>
<BR>We have attached two Appendices to this petition:
<BR>
<BR>Appendix A is simply an excerpt from the ICANN By-Laws of the sections 
<BR>governing the recognition of Constituencies. 
<BR>
<BR>Appendix B is the IDNO's charter. This charter is still evolving and parts 
<BR>are still awaiting ratification (using our electronic voting system) from our 
<BR>growing membership. 
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Sincerely,
<BR>
<BR>Joop Teernstra (Constituency bootstrap) , New Zealand
<BR>
<BR>the IDNO Steering Committee:
<BR>
<BR>Karl Auerbach [email-masked], United States 
<BR>
<BR>Dan Steinberg [email-masked] ,Canada
<BR>
<BR>William X. Walsh [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Mikki Barry [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Kevin Kelly [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Srikanth Narra [email-masked] ,India 
<BR>
<BR>Roeland Meyer [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Bradley Thornton [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Dietmar Stefitz [email-masked] ,Spain 
<BR>
<BR>Arnold Gehring [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Andy Gardner [email-masked] ,New Zealand 
<BR>
<BR>Rachel Luxemburg [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Karl Peters [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Joe Abley [email-masked] ,New Zealand 
<BR>
<BR>Mark Langston [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Dennis Schaefer [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>David Zanetti [email-masked] ,New Zealand 
<BR>
<BR>Rod Dixon [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Mark Measday [email-masked] ,Switzerland 
<BR>
<BR>Joan Faber [email-masked] ,United States 
<BR>
<BR>Allan Speedy [email-masked] ,New Zealand
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Appendix A &nbsp;Relevant sections of the ICANN By-Laws
<BR>
<BR>ARTICLE VI-B: THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
<BR>
<BR>Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
<BR>
<BR>(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own 
<BR>criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be 
<BR>excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of participation 
<BR>in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to the maximum 
<BR>extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with 
<BR>procedures designed to ensure fairness. The Board shall recognize a 
<BR>Constituency (including the initial Constituencies described in (b) below) by 
<BR>a majority vote, whereby the Constituency shall be deemed to exist for 
<BR>purposes of these Bylaws.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for 
<BR>recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be 
<BR>posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may 
<BR>create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own 
<BR>motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the 
<BR>Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion 
<BR>it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or 
<BR>desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final 
<BR>decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all 
<BR>comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for 
<BR>a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names council and 
<BR>will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Appendix B &nbsp;IDNO Charter
<BR>
<BR>Note: This charter is still evolving and parts are still awaiting 
<BR>ratification (using our electronic voting system) from our growing 
<BR>membership. Those parts that have been ratified are in bold.
<BR>
<BR>1. Constituency purpose and mission.
<BR>
<BR>1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the DNSO for all Domain Name 
<BR>Owners, who do not wish to be classified as non-commercial, nor wish to be 
<BR>represented by the Business constituency. We will represent the concerns of 
<BR>individuals rather than organizations.
<BR>
<BR>1.2 Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners, as stakeholders in 
<BR>the DNS, will have a strong say in all new ICANN rulemaking that will affect 
<BR>their financial interest, on-line freedom or security of existence.
<BR>
<BR>2. Constituency Name and definition
<BR>
<BR>2.1 The Name the Cyberspace Association will be subjected to a vote by the 
<BR>members as soon as the membership has passed 100 members.
<BR>
<BR>2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN 
<BR>board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the US 
<BR>government';s White Paper and allow it to contribute 3 elected 
<BR>representatives from among its members to the Names Council of the DNSO.
<BR>
<BR>3. Constituency principles: democracy, transparency, accountability in all 
<BR>the Constituency's activities and representations. Philosophy: freedom of 
<BR>enterprise in the TLD and SLD space.
<BR>
<BR>4. Eligibility and membership.
<BR>
<BR>4.1. IDNO constituency membership is open to any individual person who can 
<BR>demonstrate colour of title to a Domain name.
<BR>
<BR>4.2. No individual may have more than a single membership in the IDNO.
<BR>
<BR>4.3. Colour of title means enough control over a domain name that a 
<BR>reasonable person could conclude that such control constitutes ownership. 
<BR>Examples of elements to be considered may include, and are not limited to, 
<BR>the following:
<BR>
<BR>4.3.1. Whether the candidate is named in domain contact information.
<BR>
<BR>4.3.2. Whether the candidate's own funds were used to pay any registration 
<BR>fees. - Whether the candidate may cause the domain name to be relinquished.
<BR>
<BR>4.3.3. Whether the candidate may be considered the intended beneficial owner 
<BR>of a domain name that is registered or operated by some intermediary.
<BR>
<BR>4.3.4. In the cases of direct control of domain name by a corporation or 
<BR>other entity, whether that entity's control of the domain name is effectively 
<BR>directed by the candidate and subject to his/her discretion.
<BR>
<BR>4.4. In cases where control of a domain is diffused among multiple 
<BR>individuals that domain may not be used as a basis of membership.
<BR>
<BR>4.5. No single domain name may be used to support membership of more than one 
<BR>individual.
<BR>
<BR>4.6. The domain name used as a basis of membership must be a Domain Name that 
<BR>is not a top level domain name, nor a reserved second level Domain name in 
<BR>registries where this level is not open for individual registration.
<BR>
<BR>4.7. Administrative staff may determine whether a candidate has presented 
<BR>adequate prima facie evidence of colour of title to a domain name.
<BR>
<BR>4.8. Disputes about entitlement to membership or entitlement to candidacy to 
<BR>the Names Council shall be resolved by an elected membership committee of the 
<BR>IDNO. Such committee shall examine the totality of the facts and make such 
<BR>decisions as appropriate. The decisions of such committee are final with 
<BR>regards to basic membership. With regards to candidature to the Names Council 
<BR>they are open to appeal to the entire membership, which will decide by 
<BR>majority vote.
<BR>
<BR>4.8.1. The membership committee shall have a minimum of three members and a 
<BR>maximum of nine.
<BR>
<BR>4.9. Non-Exclusivity - Members associated with other DNSO constituencies may 
<BR>be members of the IDNO constituency as long as they meet the eligibility 
<BR>criteria.
<BR>
<BR>4.10. Non-Duplication - Members are subject to the following voting 
<BR>restrictions:
<BR>
<BR>4.10.1. Any member who is either a voting member, representative of a voting 
<BR>member, or who effectively controls a voting member in one or more other 
<BR>constituencies of the DNSO may not vote or stand for election in the IDNO 
<BR>unless the member, for a period of at least nine months, waives and does not 
<BR>exercise such voting rights in those other constituencies.
<BR>
<BR>4.10.2. Any member who has been elected to the Names Council by another DNSO 
<BR>constituency may not vote or stand for election in the IDNO during his or her 
<BR>term.
<BR>
<BR>4.11. Loss of membership. Rules with regards to loss of membership will be 
<BR>drawn up by an elected membership committee for approval by the general 
<BR>membership. Such rules will assure a Fair Hearing of all parties. Sole 
<BR>criterion for loss of membership should be direct action against the best 
<BR>interests of the IDNO or blatant conflict of interest with the mission and 
<BR>purpose of the IDNO.
<BR>
<BR>5. Nominations. ** to be discussed and approved
<BR>
<BR>5.1. Any member can nominate any other member as a candidate for a seat on 
<BR>the Names Council.
<BR>
<BR>5.2. The candidate should approve of the nomination within a reasonable 
<BR>period.
<BR>
<BR>5.3. Self - nomination is not possible.
<BR>
<BR>5.4. In order to be placed on the candidates&amp;#8217; list, a nominee must 
<BR>secure one vote seconding the nomination.
<BR>
<BR>6. Voting for representatives.
<BR>
<BR>6.1. All Individual members will vote as individuals.
<BR>
<BR>6.2. Owning more than one Domain Name will not give rights to multiple votes 
<BR>per individual.
<BR>
<BR>6.3. Detailed procedures for voting will be established. It is envisaged that 
<BR>the system of voting for candidates will take full advantage of the potential 
<BR>inherent in on-line voting, i.e. each voter can express a preference-vote for 
<BR>each candidate on a list of candidates.
<BR>
<BR>6.4. A steering committee will be established of no less than 5 members and 
<BR>no more than 21, that will be tasked with drafting the charter of the 
<BR>constituency in more detail and nominating candidates for committees. The 
<BR>initial steering committee will stand for re-election after three months. 
<BR>After the initial term, the term of office will be six months.
<BR>
<BR>6.5. Spokespeople will be those who gain the highest approval ratings in 
<BR>elections. The total number of spokespeople will be determined by vote of the 
<BR>steering committee.
<BR>
<BR>7. Elections committee.
<BR>
<BR>7.1. As soon as this is feasible, the membership will establish an election 
<BR>committee of at least 3 members, who will be tasked with overseeing all 
<BR>procedures regarding the nomination of candidates and their election as 
<BR>representatives for the constituency on the Names Council.
<BR>
<BR>7.2. In the interim, the membership may choose to elect one election officer, 
<BR>tasked with overseeing the election of the initial representative(s) to the 
<BR>meeting in Berlin.
<BR>
<BR>8. Using the Internet for procedures. Mailing list.
<BR>
<BR>8.1. Candidates are nominated and accept their nominations via email to a 
<BR>mailing list to which all members are subscribed.
<BR>
<BR>8.2. Voting will take place on-line, unless 60% of the membership is 
<BR>physically present in a meeting.
<BR>
<BR>8.3. Verification of on-line votes. The election committee will have full 
<BR>access to all logs and records generated by the on-line voting system.
<BR>
<BR>9. On-line decision making. Discussion list , free speech and moderation.
<BR>
<BR>9.1 All members can participate in policy making discussions via the 
<BR>all-member mailing list.
<BR>
<BR>9.2 Clearly frivolous postings can be moderated and postings aimed at 
<BR>disruption of proceedings can be disallowed.
<BR>
<BR>9.3 The will of the majority will find expression in the decisions of a 
<BR>moderation committee that will be tasked with drafting and implementing fair 
<BR>rules aimed at maintaining civil discourse and discouraging abuse of the 
<BR>freedom of speech.
<BR>
<BR>9.4 In principle the members of the moderation committee can be the members 
<BR>elected to represent the constituency on the Names Council, but they may 
<BR>stand aside for other elected moderators.
<BR>
<BR>9.5 Members of the election committee will be ineligible for moderator.
<BR>
<BR>9.6 In these rules the principle of free exchange of ideas and opinions will 
<BR>be paramount and procedures for Fair Hearings and Due Process will form part 
<BR>of any such rules.
<BR>
<BR>9.7 Meeting list. For the purpose of holding formal meetings, a second list 
<BR>is envisaged. Rules for procedures on this list, archiving and public record 
<BR>will be drafted in further detail.
<BR>
<BR>10. Funding. Minimal membership fees will be set to defray the expenses of 
<BR>representation, website- and mailing list hosting and other expenses related 
<BR>to the necessary functions of the constituency. The constituency will seek 
<BR>donations from members and other sources to defray initial expenses.
<BR>
<BR>(end of Petition)
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>
<BR>Our Charter has since been refined to the document you find here, and 
<BR>ratified by a membership of 191 members on 17 September , 2000.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_109.3d5c218.28a32ee4_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 #655
************************